Green space and mental health for vulnerable populations: A conceptual review of the evidence

Abstract

Introduction: Mental health is an essential component of overall health that is affected by various environmental factors. Research suggests the inclusion of green space and nature settings in built environments is beneficial for mental health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as military Veterans. Inequities exist for certain populations in relation to accessing a high quality and quantity of green space. Methods: This conceptual review offers a broad assessment of peer-reviewed literature examining links between green space and mental health. Results: Many studies have highlighted associations between exposure to green space and the mental health of vulnerable populations, such as Veterans and individuals of relatively low socio-economic status (SES). Evidence points to the importance of contextual features of green space, such as quality and quantity of green space, in relation to mental health benefits. Engagement in nature-based outdoor activities in green space, or other nature settings, appears to offer restorative effects linked to cognitive function and mental health benefits. Discussion: There is an emerging body of evidence on the relationship between mental well-being and accessibility to green space and nature settings, particularly for vulnerable populations. More research should focus on accessibility to green space and nature settings for the Veteran population.

Career aspirations and trajectories of geographies of health and health care graduates: A cross‐sectional study

“…Themes within health geography are apparent in multiple areas of public and population health research that focus on reducing risk associated with physical, mental, societal, environmental, and behavioural determinants (Luginaah 2009). Core themes include health inequalities (Crighton et al 2007; Schuurman et al 2007), the health effects of globalization and urbanization (Barakat‐Haddad and Zhang 2015; Labonté et al 2015), climate change and health (Cardwell and Elliott 2013), disease surveillance (Crighton et al 2001; Cinnamon and Schuurman 2010; Barakat‐Haddad 2013), modelling and mapping (Driedger et al 2007; Castleden et al 2010; Crighton et al 2015), therapeutic and healthy landscapes (Barakat and Yousufzai 2020), health service use (Barakat‐Haddad and Siddiqua 2015; Sun et al 2019), and disease etiology and social determinants of health (Dummer 2008; Barakat‐Haddad et al 2015; Krewski et al 2017; Paulo et al 2018; Siddiqua et al 2018). The application of quantitative approaches has largely focused on examining geographical determinants and patterns of disease and health, and patterns and outcomes of health care use (Andrews and Moon 2005; Barakat‐Haddad et al 2012; Giesbrecht et al 2013).…”

Green spaces for mental disorders

“…Many studies are also cross-sectional or observational, making it difficult to identify cause and effect [29]. The quality and quantity of green space is also likely to be key, as poor-quality environments with poor accessibility are unlikely to positively impact mental health [35,39]. As highlighted by some of the literature, the use of and interaction with green space may also be more important for mental health and mental illness than the ability to access green space [32 ▪▪ ].…”