Regular time spent in nature is more beneficial to the mental well-being of poorer people than richer people

© Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes | LinkTr.ee

Nature may help alleviate income-related health disparities, according to a new study out of the University of Vienna and the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna. The research found a strong correlation between weekly contact with nature and improved mental and physical well-being in people with lower incomes than in those with higher incomes. This benefit was seen only in people who actively visited or engaged with nature, not amongst those merely lived in or near greenspaces. Thus, this study revealed that actually doing something — birding, gardening, photography, hiking, playing frisbee, biking or another activity — was more important than where a person lived.

This makes sense, if you think about it. People who try to live on low incomes are under a lot of stress, which means they are at high risk for developing or suffering from mental health issues such as depression or anxiety. But, as this study finds, one way to improve mental health is through escaping from one’s worries by being in nature. Such ‘ecotherapy’ is associated with lower stress levels, better immune function, improved cognitive performance, better sleep, higher self-esteem and greater life satisfaction.

We’ve long known about the benefits being in nature on physical health, but the benefits to mental health in relation to lower socioeconomic status have been mixed: for instance, one study demonstrated that potential access to, and use of, public parks and private gardens are differentially associated with mental health outcomes across different groups (e.g., separating by age and gender) so this, it was speculated, is associated with the different types of activities associated with different local settings (ref).

Interestingly, another study found that measures of greenspace quantity did not change the effect of socioeconomic variables on depression and anxiety scores, but measures of greenspace quality did (ref). What defines a green or bluespace’s quality? In short, it must be attractive. Growing evidence suggests that attractiveness increases recreational contact with nature and this may be more important for mental health and well-being than neighborhood greenness/blueness per se (ref). And further, the sorts of natural spaces that appeal to different people can vary too, as I shared with you a few months ago (more here).

To conduct this study, the researchers surveyed 2,300 individuals across Austria who were representative for age, gender and region. The team’s findings suggest that while people with higher incomes generally reported higher well-being regardless of how often they visited nature, mental well-being among the poorest in society was much improved amongst those who visited nature often. In fact, poorer individuals who visited urban parks or other natural environments several times a week had well-being levels nearly as high as the richest respondents. This pattern was clearly shown both for Austria as a whole and for individuals living in urban Vienna.

“What the results show is that the well-being benefits from visiting nature at least once a week across the whole year are similar to those from an increase in 1,000 Euros of income per year,” said lead author, Leonie Fian, a doctoral student studying pro-environmental behaviors and effects of nature exposure as part of the Environmental Psychology Research Group at the University of Vienna.

‘Nature’ in this study included a variety greenspaces such as parks, woodlands or forests and bluespaces such as rivers, wetlands, beaches or canals. This is especially important for urban dwellers because it means the mental health benefits of nature can be made available to nearly all of us, regardless of where we live or how much we earn.

“Especially for people on lower incomes, information about attractive natural recreation areas nearby and their accessibility by public transport plays an important role,” observed co-author Arne Arnberger, Associate Professor at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna. Professor Arnberger’s research specialty focuses on the recreational use of urban woodlands.

Interestingly, nature-based mental health improvements were not seen in people with higher incomes.

Unfortunately, unequal access to nature by those in lower socioeconomic groups can exacerbate health inequalities. For this reason, support should be provided so everyone, especially those who live in urban areas, can access greenspaces and bluespaces.

“They should therefore also be easily accessible by public transport at weekends,” Professor Arnberger suggested.

This discovery has profound implications for public health strategies, especially in addressing the socioeconomic mental health gap in large urban areas. From a public health perspective, it is therefore important to create greener neighborhoods as well as natural recreation areas, but also to ensure that these spaces are accessible so they can be used, especially by socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

Source:

Leonie Fian, Mathew P. White, Arne Arnberger, Thomas Thaler, Anja Heske and Sabine Pahl (2024). Nature visits, but not residential greenness, are associated with reduced income-related inequalities in subjective well-being, Health & Place 85:103175 | doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103175

Socials: Bluesky | CounterSocial | Gab | LinkedIn | Mastodon Science | Post.News | Spoutible | SubStack | Threads | Tribel | Tumblr | Twitter