Association of Urban Green Space With Mental Health and General Health Among Adults in Australia | Anxiety Disorders | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.129.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
World Health Organization.  Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013.
2.
Mair  C, Diez Roux  AV, Galea  S.  Are neighbourhood characteristics associated with depressive symptoms? a review of evidence.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(11):940-946, 8, 946.PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
World Health Organization.  Urban Green Spaces and Health: A Review of Evidence. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2016.
4.
South  EC, Hohl  BC, Kondo  MC, MacDonald  JM, Branas  CC.  Effect of greening vacant land on mental health of community-dwelling adults: a cluster randomized trial.  JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180298. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0298PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Markevych  I, Schoierer  J, Hartig  T,  et al.  Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance.  Environ Res. 2017;158:301-317. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Hartig  T, Mitchell  R, de Vries  S, Frumkin  H.  Nature and health.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:207-228. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Bratman  GN, Hamilton  JP, Daily  GC.  The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1249(1):118-136. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Dzhambov  AM, Markevych  I, Hartig  T,  et al.  Multiple pathways link urban green- and bluespace to mental health in young adults.  Environ Res. 2018;166:223-233. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Astell-Burt  T, Mitchell  R, Hartig  T.  The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse: a longitudinal study.  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(6):578-583. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203767PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Alcock  I, White  MP, Wheeler  BW, Fleming  LE, Depledge  MH.  Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas.  Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(2):1247-1255. doi:10.1021/es403688wPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
van der Wal  AJ, Schade  HM, Krabbendam  L, van Vugt  M. Do natural landscapes reduce future discounting in humans? Proc R Soc London B. 2013;280(1773):20132295.
12.
Cervinka  R, Röderer  K, Hefler  E.  Are nature lovers happy? on various indicators of well-being and connectedness with nature.  J Health Psychol. 2012;17(3):379-388. doi:10.1177/1359105311416873PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Mitchell  R.  Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments?  Soc Sci Med. 2013;91:130-134. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Astell-Burt  T, Feng  X, Kolt  GS.  Mental health benefits of neighbourhood green space are stronger among physically active adults in middle-to-older age: evidence from 260,061 Australians.  Prev Med. 2013;57(5):601-606. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.08.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Annerstedt  M, Östergren  P-O, Björk  J, Grahn  P, Skärbäck  E, Währborg  P.  Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health: results from a longitudinal cohort study in southern Sweden.  BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):337. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-337PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Fuller  RA, Irvine  KN, Devine-Wright  P, Warren  PH, Gaston  KJ.  Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity.  Biol Lett. 2007;3(4):390-394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Dzhambov  AM, Dimitrova  DD.  Green spaces and environmental noise perception.  Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14(4):1000-1008. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.006Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Mitchell  RJ, Richardson  EA, Shortt  NK, Pearce  JR.  Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being.  Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):80-84. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Harris  V, Kendal  D, Hahs  AK, Threlfall  CG.  Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens.  Landsc Res. 2018;43(1):150-162. doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1302571Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Nordh  H, Hartig  T, Hagerhall  C, Fry  G.  Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration.  Urban For Urban Green. 2009;8(4):225-235. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Giles-Corti  B, Broomhall  MH, Knuiman  M,  et al.  Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?  Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2)(suppl 2):169-176. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Holtan  MT, Dieterlen  SL, Sullivan  WC.  Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore, Maryland.  Environ Behav. 2015;47(5):502-525. doi:10.1177/0013916513518064Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Berry  HL, Bowen  K, Kjellstrom  T.  Climate change and mental health: a causal pathways framework.  Int J Public Health. 2010;55(2):123-132. doi:10.1007/s00038-009-0112-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Ng  E, Chen  L, Wang  Y, Yuan  C.  A study on the cooling effects of greening in a high-density city: an experience from Hong Kong.  Build Environ. 2012;47:256-271. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.014Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Gascon  M, Triguero-Mas  M, Martínez  D,  et al.  Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(4):4354-4379. doi:10.3390/ijerph120404354PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Astell-Burt  T, Feng  X, Kolt  GS, Jalaludin  B.  Does rising crime lead to increasing distress? longitudinal analysis of a natural experiment with dynamic objective neighbourhood measures.  Soc Sci Med. 2015;138(Aug):68-73. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Wheeler  BW, Lovell  R, Higgins  SL,  et al.  Beyond greenspace: an ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality.  Int J Health Geogr. 2015;14(1):17. doi:10.1186/s12942-015-0009-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Akpinar  A, Barbosa-Leiker  C, Brooks  KR.  Does green space matter? exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators.  Urban For Urban Green. 2016;20:407-418. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.013Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Banks  E, Redman  S, Jorm  L,  et al; 45 and Up Study Collaborators.  Cohort profile: the 45 and up study.  Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):941-947. doi:10.1093/ije/dym184PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Furukawa  TA, Kessler  RC, Slade  T, Andrews  G.  The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being.  Psychol Med. 2003;33(2):357-362. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006700PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Rasbash  J, Browne  W, Goldstein  H,  et al.  A User’s Guide to MLwiN. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modeling, University of Bristol; 2000.
32.
Gascon  M, Zijlema  W, Vert  C, White  MP, Nieuwenhuijsen  MJ.  Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: a systematic review of quantitative studies.  Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017;220(8):1207-1221. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Banay  RF, James  P, Hart  JE,  et al.  Greenness and depression incidence among older women.  Environ Health Perspect. 2019;127(2):27001. doi:10.1289/EHP1229PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Park  J, Kim  J-H, Lee  DK, Park  CY, Jeong  SG.  The influence of small green space type and structure at the street level on urban heat island mitigation.  Urban For Urban Green. 2017;21:203-212. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.005Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Abhijith  K, Kumar  P, Gallagher  J,  et al.  Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environment: a review.  Atmos Environ. 2017;162:71-86. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.014Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Prevedello  JA, Almeida-Gomes  M, Lindenmayer  DB.  The importance of scattered trees for biodiversity conservation: a global meta-analysis.  J Appl Ecol. 2018;55(1):205-214. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12943Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Wood  E, Harsant  A, Dallimer  M, Cronin de Chavez  A, McEachan  RRC, Hassall  C.  Not all green space is created equal: biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits from urban green space.  Front Psychol. 2018;9:2320. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Hartig  T, Böök  A, Garvill  J, Olsson  T, Gärling  T.  Environmental influences on psychological restoration.  Scand J Psychol. 1996;37(4):378-393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1996.tb00670.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Berto  R, Baroni  MR, Zainaghi  A, Bettella  S.  An exploratory study of the effect of high and low fascination environments on attentional fatigue.  J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(4):494-500. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.002Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Richardson  EA, Mitchell  R, Hartig  T, de Vries  S, Astell-Burt  T, Frumkin  H.  Green cities and health: a question of scale?  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(2):160-165. doi:10.1136/jech.2011.137240PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Stafford  M, Chandola  T, Marmot  M.  Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning.  Am J Public Health. 2007;97(11):2076-2081. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.097154PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Hatzenbuehler  ML, Phelan  JC, Link  BG.  Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities.  Am J Public Health. 2013;103(5):813-821. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Komiti  A, Judd  F, Jackson  H.  The influence of stigma and attitudes on seeking help from a GP for mental health problems: a rural context.  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41(9):738-745. doi:10.1007/s00127-006-0089-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    RE: Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia
    Tomoyuki Kawada, MD | Nippon Medical School
    Astell-Burt and Feng conducted a prospective study to investigate the association between total green space or specific types of green space and mental health [1]. Psychological distress was measured by 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of exposures of 30% or more total green space and tree canopy for incidence of psychological distress were 0.46 (0.29-0.69) and 0.69 (0.54-0.88), respectively. In addition, OR (95% CI) of exposure to tree canopy of 30% or more for incidence of fair to poor general health was 0.67 (0.57-0.80). Furthermore, ORs (95% CIs) of exposure to grass of 30% or more for incident fair to poor general health and for prevalent psychological distress were 1.47 (1.12-1.91) and 1.71 (1.25-2.28), respectively. The authors recommended that urban tree canopy may keep general health and prevent psychological distress. I have a query about their study.

    Perrino et al. examined the relationship between neighbourhood greenness and depression among older adults [2]. OR (95% CI) of the highest tertile and the middle tertile of greenness against the lowest tertile for depression were 0.84 (0.79-0.88) and 0.92 (0.88-0.96), respectively. Sarkar et al. also investigated the association between residential green exposure and prevalence of major depressive disorders [3]. OR (95% CI) per interquartile increment in Normalised Difference Vegetation Index greenness for major depressive disorder was 0.960 (0.93-0.99). Furthermore, Pun et al. examined the association between greenness and mental health [4]. They found a significant association of greenness with lower self-perceived stress among older adult. In contrast, greenness was not significantly associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms. Although there is a positive association between greenness and good mental health in general, depressive and anxiety symptoms may not be recovered by greenness.


    References

    1. Astell-Burt T, Feng X. Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e198209. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8209

    2. Perrino T, Lombard J, Rundek T, et al. Neighbourhood greenness and depression among older adults. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(2):476-480. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.129

    3. Sarkar C, Webster C, Gallacher J. Residential greenness and prevalence of major depressive disorders: a cross-sectional, observational, associational study of 94 879 adult UK Biobank participants. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(4):e162-e173. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30051-2

    4. Pun VC, Manjourides J, Suh HH. Association of neighborhood greenness with self-perceived stress, depression and anxiety symptoms in older U.S adults. Environ Health. 2018;17(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s12940-018-0381-2
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    Public Health
    July 26, 2019

    Association of Urban Green Space With Mental Health and General Health Among Adults in Australia

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab (PowerLab), School of Health and Society, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e198209. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8209
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  What type of green space is associated with better mental health?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 46 786 adults older than 45 years, exposure to 30% or more tree canopy compared with 0% to 9% tree canopy was associated with 31% lower odds of incident psychological distress, whereas exposure to 30% or more grass was associated with 71% higher odds of prevalent psychological distress after adjusting for age, sex, income, economic status, couple status, and educational level. Similar results were found for self-rated fair to poor general health but not physician-diagnosed depression or anxiety.

    Meaning  Investments specifically in tree canopy may provide more support for mental health.

    Abstract

    Importance  Recent studies indicate that living near more green space may support mental and general health and may also prevent depression. However, most studies are cross-sectional, and few have considered whether some types of green space matter more for mental health.

    Objective  To assess whether total green space or specific types of green space are associated with better mental health.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study included a residentially stable, city-dwelling sample of 46 786 participants from Sydney, Wollongong, and Newcastle, Australia, in the baseline of the Sax Institute’s 45 and Up Study (data collected from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2009). Follow-up was conducted from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. Analyses were conducted in January 2019.

    Exposures  Percentage of total green space, tree canopy, grass, and other low-lying vegetation measured within 1.6-km (1-mile) road network distance buffers around residential addresses at baseline.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Three outcome variables were examined at baseline (prevalence) and follow-up (incidence without baseline affirmatives): (1) risk of psychological distress (10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), (2) self-reported physician-diagnosed depression or anxiety, and (3) fair to poor self-rated general health.

    Results  This study included 46 786 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [10.2] years; 25 171 [53.8%] female). At baseline, 5.1% of 37 775 reported a high risk of psychological distress, 16.0% of 46 786 reported depression or anxiety, and 9.0% of 45 577 reported fair to poor self-rated health. An additional 3.3% of 32 991 experienced psychological distress incidence, 7.5% of 39 277 experienced depression or anxiety incidence, and 7.3% of 40 741 experienced fair to poor self-rated health incidence by follow-up (mean [SD] of 6.2 [1.62] years later). Odds ratios (ORs) adjusted for age, sex, income, economic status, couple status, and educational level indicated that exposures of 30% or more total green space (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.69) and tree canopy specifically (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88) were associated with lower incidence of psychological distress. Exposure to tree canopy of 30% or more, compared with 0% to 9%, was also associated with lower incidence of fair to poor general health (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80). Exposure to grass of 30% or more, compared with 0% to 4%, was associated with higher odds of incident fair to poor general health (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.12-1.91) and prevalent psychological distress (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.28). Exposure to low-lying vegetation was not consistently associated with any outcome. No green space indicator was associated with prevalent or incident depression or anxiety.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Protection and restoration of urban tree canopy specifically, rather than any urban greening, may be a good option for promotion of community mental health.

    ×