Evidence and theory for lower rates of depression in larger US urban areas

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that cities are detrimental to mental health. However, the evidence remains inconsistent and at most, makes the case for differences between rural and urban environments as a whole. Here, we propose a model of depression driven by an individual’s accumulated experience mediated by social networks. The connection between observed systematic variations in socioeconomic networks and built environments with city size provides a link between urbanization and mental health. Surprisingly, this model predicts lower depression rates in larger cities. We confirm this prediction for US cities using four independent datasets. These results are consistent with other behaviors associated with denser socioeconomic networks and suggest that larger cities provide a buffer against depression. This approach introduces a systematic framework for conceptualizing and modeling mental health in complex physical and social networks, producing testable predictions for environmental and social determinants of mental health also applicable to other psychopathologies.

No robust relation between larger cities and depression

“…1 . When including individuals living in an area with a radius larger than 78 km, we find a scaling coefficient below 1, replicating Stier et al’s result that bigger cities are protective against depression ( 1 ). However, when using city boundaries with a smaller area, we find the opposite result: a scaling coefficient above 1.…”

“…Specifically for scaling studies it has been shown that their results depend heavily on minimum city size inclusion criteria and the spatial extent of cities ( 6 ). Stier et al ( 1 ) address the former question using Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data; here, their conclusion does not hold. When the minimum city size is lower than 600,000 inhabitants the sublinear scaling disappears.…”

“…“Larger citiesprovide a buffer against depression”—this astounding statement is from a PNAS article by Stier et al ( 1 ) on how depression rates scale with the population of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). It is astounding as it runs contrary to a wealth of psychological and epidemiological research showing the complex nature of depression and the detrimental influence of cities ( 2 – 4 ).…”

The impact of gardening on mental resilience in times of stress: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore

“…This study is significant in providing the evidence that gardening may increase mental resilience through the pathways of fostering “emotional regulation”, “relationship”, “confidence”, “positive thinking” and “spirituality”, with an efficacious weekly dose of between 1-4 hours. The findings may be potentially applicable to other tropical cities, as urbanites worldwide continue to find ways to cope mentally with the stressors of city living and the current Covid-19 pandemic, notwithstanding ( Stier et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Therefore, these “confining measures” have altered the societal norm and conditions of Singaporeans’ daily lives considerably. Lower number of social interactions reduces stimulations and choices along the dimensions of life, which may have a detrimental effect on mental health ( Stier et al, 2021 ). As a result, the feeling of loneliness may be elevated, which researchers regarded as a critical public mental health concern in the era of COVID-19 ( Killgore et al, 2020 ).…”