Town along the Ohio River (Photo by Carl Schlabach)
In A Nutshell
- Living near the ocean is linked to longer life expectancy in both urban and rural areas.
- People near large inland water bodies tend to have shorter lifespans—but only in cities.
- Environmental factors like heat, air quality, elevation, and income help explain the difference.
- Rural communities near lakes and rivers may still benefit from their local blue spaces.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A new study calls into question the general assumptions about waterfront living, showing that Americans living close to the coast tend to live longer lives, while those near inland waters like lakes and rivers actually have shorter life expectancies.
Yes, it’s long been thought that living near waterways brings benefits for everyone. But it turns out that the location of your blue space matters far more than simply living near any water at all.
Researchers Analyze 66,000+ Communities Nationwide
Researchers from Ohio State University analyzed data from 66,263 census tracts across the continental United States, creating one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind. They compared life expectancy data from 2010–2015 with proximity to both coastal waters and inland water bodies, while accounting for dozens of other factors that influence longevity.
Americans living within 31 miles of the coast showed consistently higher life expectancy rates compared to areas near large inland water bodies. The average American in the study lived 78.3 years, but that number varied based on their relationship with water.
How Climate, Air Quality, and Income Differ Near Coasts vs Inland Waters
The differences between coastal and inland water environments are stark. Areas near inland waters averaged 21 scorching days per year with temperatures above 95°F, while coastal areas saw just 2.2 such days. Coastal residents also breathe cleaner air, with lower levels of air pollution and wildfire smoke.
Money plays a major role too. Mean household income near coastal waters reached $91,075 compared to just $67,774 near inland water bodies — a gap of more than $23,000 per year. Higher incomes often translate into better healthcare access, nutrition, and overall quality of life.
Coastal geography may also provide logistical and health advantages. These areas tend to feature flatter terrain and better transportation access, while inland water regions are more mountainous and harder to navigate, affecting everything from emergency response times to daily stress.
The ocean acts as a natural climate moderator, helping purify air and regulate temperature. Coastal areas experience less extreme weather overall, with fewer dangerously cold days and more stable seasonal patterns. Recreational access to beaches and opportunities for outdoor activity, such as swimming or walking along the shore, may also offer added health benefits not always matched by inland water features.
Why Inland Water Impacts Life Expectancy Differently in Cities and Rural Areas
Here’s where the research gets particularly interesting: the negative effects of inland waters primarily impact urban areas, while rural communities near inland waters actually see modest life expectancy benefits.
In cities, proximity to large inland water bodies correlates with shorter lifespans. But in rural areas, the relationship flips. Urban inland waters face greater pollution, flood risks, and air quality challenges, while rural inland waters can offer recreational and aesthetic benefits without the same environmental hazards.
This urban-rural split reveals that context matters enormously when evaluating how water proximity affects health outcomes.
What the Findings Mean for Public Health
These results, published in Environmental Research, carry serious consequences for the millions of Americans living near inland waters. The Great Lakes region, mountain lake communities, and riverside cities may need to address environmental factors that could be undermining residents’ health and longevity.
The research team acknowledged limitations in their work, including the inability to measure actual water quality or track how individuals personally interact with nearby water bodies. They also couldn’t include behavioral factors like smoking, diet, and exercise in their analysis.
However, the massive scale of the study — covering virtually every American community — provides robust evidence for the patterns they identified. The consistency of results across multiple statistical approaches strengthens confidence in their conclusions.
Rather than assuming all waterfront living offers the same benefits, Americans might want to consider whether their blue space comes with an ocean breeze or sits inland. The difference, the authors suggest, may be associated with meaningful differences in health and longevity.
Paper Summary
Methodology
Researchers from Ohio State University analyzed life expectancy data from 66,263 census tracts across the continental United States from 2010–2015. They measured proximity to coastal waters using distance thresholds of 0, 20, and 50 kilometers, while proximity to inland water bodies was determined by whether census tracts contained water bodies larger than 10 or 20 square kilometers. The team used multiple regression models including linear regression, multi-level regression, and spatial regression to examine relationships while controlling for environmental factors (climate, air quality, elevation, land cover), socioeconomic variables (income, poverty rates, demographics), and geographic characteristics. They also conducted sensitivity analyses and used mutual information modeling to identify key differentiating factors between coastal and inland water environments.
Results
The study found that proximity to coastal waters within 50 kilometers was positively associated with life expectancy, while proximity to inland water bodies larger than 20 square kilometers was negatively associated with life expectancy. Census tracts near coastal waters showed consistently higher life expectancy compared to those near inland waters. Key environmental differences included: coastal areas experienced fewer hot days (2.2 vs 21.0 days above 35°C), lower maximum temperatures (34.3°C vs 37.7°C), better air quality with less PM2.5 pollution (0.52 vs 0.78 μg/m³), and higher household incomes ($91,075 vs $67,774). Urban-rural analysis revealed that inland waters negatively affected life expectancy in urban areas but positively affected it in rural areas, while coastal proximity remained beneficial in both settings.
Limitations
The study acknowledged several limitations including the use of cross-sectional ecological data that limits causal inference, the inability to measure actual water quality or recreational use patterns, and lack of data on individual behavioral factors like smoking, diet, and physical activity. The proximity-based exposure measurements may not fully capture individuals’ actual interactions with blue spaces. There were also potential temporal mismatches between exposure timing and life expectancy estimates, and the possibility of residual confounding from unmeasured healthcare access and quality factors.
Funding and Disclosures
Jianyong Wu was supported by startup funding from the College of Public Health at The Ohio State University. The authors declared no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in the paper.
Publication Information
This research was published in Environmental Research, Volume 281 (September 15, 2025), Article 121981. The study was conducted by Yanni Cao, Ria Martins, and Jianyong Wu from the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.