Urban Greenspace Benefits Mental Health and Social Cohesion:
A Literature Review
GEOG 380
5-3-2021
1.Introduction:
Evolution never stops, neither does the process of urbanization. It is well-known that
the major driving force that triggered the acceleration of modern urbanization which
started from the late 18th century was the onset of the British agricultural and industrial
revolution (Spencer, 2014). The term urbanization can be defined as the increase of city
or urban population, but this complex and ongoing process eventually encompasses a
demographic movement with changes in different social perspectives, such as
socioeconomic, cultural, and psychological changes (Strivastava, 2009). The United
Nations (2019) estimated that by 2050, roughly two thirds of the world’s population will
be living in urban areas. At the same time, urban dwellers account for the bulk of future
population growth. Living in urban areas is generally more convenient for humans, yet
such lifestyle change could be a double-edged sword. It is believed that demographic
change or transition is the cause of disadvantage of urban life (McKenzie 2008,
Struvastava 2009). The definition of urbanization suggests that demographic change is
the intrinsic characteristics. However, in terms of socio-cultural factor, demographic
change could be harmful for local cultural environment. For example, immigrants with
different cultural background may break the local bonds of ingoing region’s cultural
tradition (McKenzie, 2008). On the other hand, concerning the socioeconomic aspect,
relocation of immigrants requires the destination city infrastructures and facilities to be
made available (Srivastava, 2009). Failing to meet such requirement would hinder the
city from healthy development and eventually drag the deprived social group into the
quagmire of, such as polluted environment, social isolation, reduced social support, city
crimes and stressful life. Therefore, urbanization is a suitable yet risky answer for the
contemporary needs, but humans need to act cautiously to maintain personal healthy
life and well-being.
Nowadays, a growing body of research with the considerable interest in stress control
and enhanced social cohesion suggests the trend of finding positive associations
between urban greenspaces and human well-being. In other words, people have
already realized the importance of having natural elements penetrated their daily life.
First of all, what kind of sparkle do you expect from combining the concept of urban
greenspace and human mental health? In general, urban greenspace includes facilities
that we are more familiar, such as public parks and roadside plants. In terms of human
mental health, it is the component of psychological well-being such as emotional desires
or sense of belonging. But why do we care about mental health, after all? According to
the report from the World Health Organization (WHO), worldwide, deteriorating mental
health cases are increasing as more and more people are suffering from symptoms like
depression, mental disorders, schizophrenia, and suicide (WHO, 2020a). The causes for
these symptoms are varied, but the factor that keeps showing up is inordinate stress.
Yet, stress itself is not a disease; in fact, humans need it. Trace back to our ancestors
who required a certain level of stress to ignite their will to live, it was indispensable for
them to stress themselves out when facing threats like chasing by a predator. However,
more and more people are now living in urban areas with a safer environment, humans
have gradually lost their reason to fight or flight. Consequently, even though people in
modern society still need certain amount of stress to handle with difficulties or
dilemmas, feeling stressful is not as indispensable as human needs it in the past.
Since more and more people are now living in urbanized areas, human has become
social animal. At the same time, living in the “jungle of concrete”, human requires
certain capitals to satisfy their needs. Capital can be defined as any substance that
confers certain value to its owner, and social capital, as described by McKenzie and
Harpham (2006), includes the criteria of civic participation, social networks and trust.
That said, social capital is something indispensable for modern urban dwellers to retain.
Losing social capital is adding risk of suffering from social isolation, the loss of sense of
belonging, or the indifferent atmosphere in a community, etc. Studies (Jennings and
Bamkole 2019, McKenzie 2008, Ward Thompson et al. 2016) have also found that
people living in socio-economic deprived areas tended to have lower level of social
capital and poorer mental health due to the above-mentioned negative factors and the
failure of a neighborhood meeting the needs of demographic changes.
However, is it possible to change the physical environment in order to enhance people’s
mental health and social capital? Due to the intrinsic difficulty of figuring out causal
association between human and nature, it is similarly difficult to uncover the behindthe-scenes mechanism that contribute urban greenspace’s benefits to human health.
Yet, increasing researchers are trying to unveil the reason why people crave the greens
or the nature, and what people have done to interact with the nature and what are the
potential benefits of doing so. This literature review attempts to explore the different
benefits that urban greenspace can potentially provide for humans by reviewing several
academic articles. We therefore hypothesize that the present of suitable amount of
well-managed urban green space may build up human’s well-being by improving mental
health and social cohesion.
2. Nature and Human health
Biophilia, as proposed by Roger Ulrich in 1993 and reviewed in later study (Grinde and
Patil, 2009), is a term used to describe human’s inherent inclination to affiliate with
nature. For example, from a financial standpoint, shouldn’t a mega city like New York to
have the Central Park removed and replace it by more skyscrapers? On the contrary,
people want more greens to be added to their urbanized environment. For another
example, in terms of practical matter, think about why apartments with balcony ask for
more, or why some people would like to plant plants in their room. Isn’t it sound like
loving the greens or the nature is something penetrated in our genes?
Roger Ulrich proposed the psycho-evolutionary theory in 1993, suggesting that humans
potentially adapted to nature in their journey of evolution over a long period;
consequently, without being culturalized, humans have the predisposition of craving the
characteristics of nature, such as vegetation and waterbody (Ulrich, 1993). In other
words, the yearning of nature is the product of humans’ evolution accompanied by the
interaction with the natural environment. Nevertheless, how does such theory relate to
human mental health? In 1986, Orians suggested that specific vegetation or landscape
has a higher aesthetic attraction to our pre-modern ancestors (as cited in Orians, 1986).
That is to say, humans in the past would find it relaxing when they came across a
plenteous and peaceful environment since they do not need to worry about the supply
of food and being chased by a lion for at least a period of time.
Grinde and Patil (2009) used the concept of zoological gardens to analogize the
discords showed by unhappy animals in zoo with unsuitable living condition to human
residing in urban areas. It is believed that these once wild animals need certain facilities
and consequently an appropriate living environment in the zoo to keep themselves from
discords (Grind and Patil, 2009). That said, human once lived in wild environment, but
now living in urban areas, would experience the similar discords from the mismatch of
what the environment is provided and what their “inner voice” is asking for. Basing on
their reviewed on other empirical studies, Grind and Patil (2009) also suggested that
adding the element of nature or greens or merely an indoor small potted plant would
have beneficial consequent to those who suffering from stress or mental condition.
The above-mentioned studies are based on observation and literature review. Yet, van
den Berg et al. (2002) had done sufficient job in a successful experiment and had found
out the restorative potential of natural environments in mental health. In a nutshell, van
den Berg et al. (2002) asked participants to firstly watch an abridged frightening movie
in order to initially create a stressful mood or emotion, and then participants were
provided with another video showing either a natural or a built environment. Following,
participants were asked to rate the level of beauty shown in the environmental video
and were tested with a concentration activity. The results showed that, first, the
participants perceived the natural environments as more beautiful than the built urban,
and second, the concentration test also showed higher score from those who had
viewed the video with natural environment (van den Berg et al., 2002). To sum up
briefly, urban greenspaces may benefit mental health by providing elements that
resemble natural environment.
3. Social Cohesion and Human Health
Mechanisms decoding the relationship between social cohesion and mental health can
likewise help hypothesizing the use of urban greenspaces potentially improve personal
well-being. Regarding the functional outcomes of urban greenspaces, Kim and Kaplan
(2004) suggested that natural features provided in a community design might have
enhanced sense of place belonging (or sense of community) via community identity,
connection between people through social interaction, and the practice of
pedestrianism. Similarly, in Jennings and Bamkole (2019) and McKenzie (2006) studies,
they too proposed that features like feelings of trust, community network, civic
engagement, etc., to be the main components of social capital. Particularly, Jennings
and Bamkole (2019) proposed the term of “social cohesion” as it dominates the term
social capital and furtherly defined it as the plausible product of owing and
administrating the social capitals in a healthy way that could benefit both the individual
and the community. It seems like the term of social capital and social cohesion can be
interchangeably used in evaluating the connections between social affairs and mental
health, yet for this literature review, these two concepts will be articulated.
Nevertheless, how are social cohesion and mental health intertwined together? What
are the possible mechanisms? Several 2000s studies focusing on finding evidence of
how people engaged physically in social, or community events will be provided in the
following section.
4. Evidence of How Urban Greenspaces Benefit Human’s Well-being
4.1 The Use of Survey Studies
The majority of studies used in this literature review was conducted by survey or
questionnaire. Again, it is difficult to record human’s psychological changes without
using certain instruments to tract the physiological variables in laboratory.
Consequently, many of the studies investigating human’s mental health impacted by
urban greenspaces were making analyses to the self-report data collected from either
mailed or online questionnaires. Yet, with the helps from previous contents which
reviewed the achievements from solid experimental studies, we now have a clear
picture of how these theorical concepts would explain certain feedbacks collected from
the survey study. The following portion of this article will therefore review study and
research done in different part of the world with different targeted social group,
different time, various methodological criteria for analysis, and divergent discussion yet
similar conclusions.
4.2 The Present of Urban Greenspaces, Physical activity, Mental health
In their studies, Sugiyama et al. (2008) drew 2,194 eligible study samples from 32
neighborhoods in urban Adelaide, Australia. In a questionnaire, participants were asked
to rate their physical and mental health; besides, to identify the perceived greenness of
a neighborhood and to assess the social cohesion, participants were asked to rate the
accessibility of the urban greenspaces like parks or nature reserve and respond to
questions regarding social capitals. With the result suggesting positive and functional
mediating role of recreational walking, this study added to the evidence that
neighborhood urban greenspaces are more associated with mental health and physical
health under the impact of physical activity. That said, “walkable” green environment
accounts for the increased chance of physical activities that associate with social
interaction and indicates its beneficial role for offering restorative effects (Sugiyama et
al., 2008).
de Vries et al. (2013) extended the work of Sugiyama et al. (2008) and hypothesized
the positive relationship among quality of urban greenspaces, social cohesion, and time
spent on physical activity. Similarly, de Vries et al. (2013) randomly selected residents
for an analogous questionnaire survey; however, unlike what was done in Sugiyama et
al. (2008) study, de Vries et al. decided to omit the portion of urban greenspaces
assessment. Instead, this assessment was done by another group of trained observers
to objectively evaluate the level of greenness among the targeted neighborhoods.
Results showed that 1,641 responders live in neighborhood with higher quantity and
quality of greenspaces have a better mental health, accompanying with similar results
regarding social cohesion perspective (de Vries et al., 2013). Nevertheless, results
showed relatively weak relationship between physical activity and mental health. de
Vries et al. (2013) furtherly explained that the energy expenditure consumed by
physical activity might not generate health benefits directly, instead, the greenish
environments and/or the social cohesion that is facilitated might be the true healers. In
other words, de Vries et al. (2013) concluded that the quality of the urban greenspaces
and the process of engaging with the community and gaining social support are the
major contributors to better mental health, deviating from the conclusion that walkable
physical activity is the most important contributor from Sugiyama et al. (2008)
4.3 The Present of Urban Greenspaces, Social Cohesion, Mental health
As discussed above, urban greenspaces help improving social cohesion, and
consequently strengthen people’s sense of community or place belonging. Besides, from
previous studies, Jennings and Bamkole (2019) and McKenzie (2006) and Kim and
Kaplan (2004), indicate that the assurance of full charge of individual’s social capital is
the safe net for one’s well-being. Speaking of personal sense of safety, it is necessary
to make reference from Maslow’s Hierarchy. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a
psychological idea proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943 (McLeod, 2020). To represent
human’s need in a hierarchical manner, Maslow suggested that people are motivated to
achieve certain needs, and he ranked these needs in a pyramid with the more basic
needs at the bottom, like the physiological needs. These physiological needs contain
basic biological requirements for human survival, such as air, food, drinks, etc. A higher
level is called the safety needs, and once an individual’s physiological needs are met,
the needs for this level—safety needs become salient. In other words, insuring one’s
social capital, such as improving one’s sense of belonging, can accordingly enhance
his/her sense of safety.
In a literature review, Kazmierczak and James (2007) proposed four potential
mechanisms that account for how urban greenspaces benefit social cohesion: 1.
Greenspaces are free and accessible to the public, 2. Greenspaces are social arenas, 3.
Greenspaces ease stress and mental fatigue, and 4. Greenspaces provide chances for
volunteer activities. In general, urban greenspaces offer location and opportunity for
people to gather together in almost no cost. Such social gathering practice may help
the members from a same community to know each other better. Think about
international students or foreign immigrants going back to their hometown, it is easy to
predict that they will regain the sense of belonging since they know who these local
people are in their hometown, and they know what these local people are doing, and
these local people will know who they are. Without being troubled with anomie, as a
person loses the knowledge or feeling of what is happening in a place and consequently
suffers from alienation, having sense of place belonging will fasten and anchor that
person to a particular place-- a place he or she has a connection with. For our purpose,
urban greenspaces will likewise provide physical or material condition to satisfy human’s
needs of social engagement.
4.4 Assessing the Urban Greenspaces
The present of urban greenspace can be a double-edged sword. It can be amenity as it
provides benefits like easing stressful emotion and promoting social interaction, but it
can also be troublesome. As increasing number of countries and cities are taking
measures to increase urban greenspaces, Bertram and Rehdanz (2015) suggested in
their study that wisely planning for suitable amount of urban greenspace is more
important. Online survey targeting the study area of Berlin, Germany was given to 485
participants to record data regarding their usage and perception of urban greenspaces;
in addition, participants were also asked to provided residential address if possible so
that ArcGIS could be used to map out the spatial relations between physical urban
greenspace and participants’ adjacency (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015). Consequently,
an inverted U-shaped relationship between urban greenspaces and well-being was
found. That is to say, people enjoy seeing certain amount of greenspaces available as
such method indeed increases their well-being. Yet, overdose of greenspace may
crumble the amenity. Another U-shaped relationship between distance of urban
greenspaces and well-being was also found. In other words, people would like to have
greenspaces available for them within a certain distance of their residency (Bertram and
Rehdanz, 2015). The study furtherly suggests an implicit MRS of Eur 26.82 per person
per hectare per month (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015). As MRS stands for “Marginal Rate
of Substitution”, it means the rate at which a person can give up certain amount of one
good in exchange for another good while enjoying the same level of utility. In this
situation, the author suggests that people would like to pay 26.82 euro each month to
continuously maintain their access to urban greens. This study also shows that the area
of the green space that led to the largest positive effect on life satisfaction is 35 ha, yet
¾ of the respondents have less than this area of urban greenspaces available (Bertram
and Rehdanz, 2015). Therefore, having a “just right” supply of urban greenspace is
essential to maximize the benefit.
4.5 Urban Greenspaces in Deprived Areas
Urbanization brings opportunity and prosperity, but it could also degrade into a hotbed
for urban diseases. At the same time, residents from socioeconomic deprived areas
tend to suffer more from mental condition, majorly due to the poorer physical
environment, social isolation due to the absent of sense of safety, and less community
stability (McKenzie, 2006). In the studies of Ward Thompson et al. (2016), researchers
conducted a face-to-face survey with the focus on stress level, mental health and
general health among around 400 participants from four of the most socioeconomic
deprived areas (communities) in Scotland; besides, participants were also asked to
share their level of physical activity and social well-being. The results showed that
factors contributed to stress level, mental and general health are different among the
four communities; nevertheless, several factors remained common in all studied areas.
Ward Thompson et al. (2016) found that the present of urban greenspaces generally
associates with lower stress level and better mental and general health for all
communities; especially for the most deprived communities in the study, having a
private garden or an allotment improves residents’ mental condition greatly. Allotment
is the practice of renting a plot of land from the city so that people can plan vegetables
and fruits on it as a community garden; such activity is popular in European countries.
Next, for the most deprived community, the present of views of greenness helps the
residents the greatest comparing to the other three communities (Ward Thompson et
al., 2016). The authors furtherly explained that people from more deprived region
tended to initially suffer more from social isolation, the loss of sense of belonging and
social trust; consequently, they are in urge needs of “salvation” from urban
greenspaces. This explanation was furtherly justified by another factor—level of
physical activity, as the result also showed that physical activity contributes little to
stress mitigation, yet social isolation and place belonging related to stress level tightly
(Ward Thompson et al., 2016). The authors indicated that the process of having
physical activities in urban greenspaces was the ultimate contributor to stress mitigation
as people could interact with each other to enhance the sense of belonging and
neighborhood trust; besides, there was no doubt for the positive relation between
physical activity and general physiological health (Ward Thompson et al., 2016). Such
conclusion is once again, deviating from the suggestion from Sugiyama et al. (2008).
4.6 Longitudinal Effect of Urban Greenspaces in Mental Health
Many of the studies investigating the urban greenspaces and mental health used the
method of cross-sectional survey, yet a longitudinal examination is necessary. Alcock et
al. (2014) proposed three possible hypothetical patterns to predict how movers’ mental
health would improve or decrease previous, during and after their move from greener
(less green) places to less green (greener) places. First, the adaption hypothesis
suggests that movers may experience improvement in mental health after moving to
greener environment, following by a decrease as they adapt to the newer greener
surroundings (Alcock, et al., 2014). Secondary, the sensitization hypothesis suggests
that movers to greener environment may initially show few or even no improvement on
their mental health, following by gradual improvement after they know where the local
greens are and begin to use them (Alcock, et al., 2014). Finally, movers may experience
better mental health after their move and maintain such consequent, thereafter,
suggesting a shifting baseline hypothesis (Alcock, et al., 2014, pp. 1248). Samples were
drawing from five consecutive annual survey waves of the British Household Panel
Survey (BHPS) to identify movers within study areas of the U.K. A General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ) was then given to the movers and data was recorded accordingly
to assess participants’ mental health. Movers who moved to greener area from less
green area have lower initial scores of mental health than those who moved from
greener to less green (Alcock, et al., 2014, pp. 1253). Next, movers who moved to
greener area from less green area would improve their mental health score gradually to
the same level of the movers who moved to the less green area from the greener area.
Movers who moved to greener areas experienced significant improvement in mental
health after three years of relocation; however, the improvement in mental health
stabilized quickly post move for the following three years (Alcock, et al., 2014). Thus,
the data best support the shifting baseline hypothesis even though the first wave of
improvement may fit the sensitization hypothesis. While movers who moved to less
green areas showed a significant decrease in mental health, yet adaptation was
observed for the three years post move (Alcock, et al., 2014).
Generally, mental health is better in greener urban area, yet the work done by the
urban greenspace could be time-limited, as the adaptation hypothesis suggests. At the
same time, the work done by the greens might take time to reflect to mental health as
implied by the sensitization hypothesis. In other words, mental health improved from
urban greening might be maximized when developments are accompanied by
information campaigns and healthy lifestyle promotion works. Consequently, movers
who moved to the greener areas, the shifting baseline hypothesis best fit the data,
because they are now having a better mental condition than before, yet the rate of
improvement will slow down gradually and maintain a same level thereafter. For movers
who moved to the less green areas, the adaptation hypothesis best fit the data as their
mental health would decrease initially but receive no significant changes after three
years of the relocation as movers will adapt to the physical environment in the new
location (Alcock, et al., 2014). Therefore, effects on mental health generated by urban
greenspaces may be short-lived; yet mental health is better in greener areas without
doubts.
5. Urban Greenspaces, COVID-19, Mental Health
5.1 An Unusual Time
So far, both the theorical mechanisms and evidence from studies regarding urban
greenspaces and human’s well-being have been discussed. Put together, urban
greenspace plays its critical part on benefiting mental health and social cohesion by
providing physical and natural environment that cater human’s mental demands and
offering opportunities for social interaction among various social groups. However, due
to the outbreak and its rapid spread over the whole world of COVID-19, governments
around the world have been requiring their people to practice social distancing and
restrict unnecessary outdoor activities. One of the major pathways of how urban
greenspaces benefit well-being, as suggested in (Sugiyama et al., 2008) and
(Kazmierczak and James 2007), is the physical visit of greenspace accompanying with
the process of social engagement. Due to the practice of social distancing, for example,
it is unwise for people to gather together in a park or other outdoor greenspaces for
certain social events. Consequently, the lost of regularly contract with urban greenspace
due to the pandemic might interrupt the wellness brought by social cohesion. At the
same time, WHO also released the study regarding the impact of COVID-19 on mental,
neurological and substance use services (MNS) (WHO, 2020b) and found that people
around the world generally suffered from symptoms like delirium, agitation, insomnia
and depression associated with the pandemic, and the demand for MNS services
increased sharply. Researchers around the world are likewise working hardly to study
this new relation between urban greenspaces and restricted accessibility; accordingly,
newer finding and evidence of urban greenspace are rising in response to the proper
time and conditions.
5.2 Urban Greenspaces benefit Mental Health through “Less Immediate” Experience
Do people have to physically visit the urban greenspaces to nourish their mind and
body? During the pandemic, when people are becoming less likely to physically visit any
public greenspaces, greens around their residence may become more important; as a
result, Soga et al. (2020) conducted an online questionnaire research to testify this
opinion. This online survey aimed at assessing participants’ mental health condition,
frequency of urban greenspace visiting by physical pathway and availability of viewing
greens from their residence, and their sociodemographic information; in addition,
participants were asked to provide postcode if applicable so that the level of greenness
around the residences could be analyzed (Soga et al., 2020). The study results
suggested that both greenspaces use and green view were significantly positively
associated with mental health and personal well-being; while the factor of
neighborhood greenness that assessing the availability of greenspaces within 250 meter
buffer of residence contributed few to mental health. What’s more, better mental health
and well-being were found associating with frequency of greenspace use around the
residence and green views availability (Soga et al., 2020). But one particular finding
from this study was that the use of green view is more efficient than greenspace use.
Soga et al. (2020) furtherly explained that because of the practice of social distancing,
people would tend to stay at their home. In other words, less immediate nature
experience like seeing greens through window has comparable effect as more
immediate experience like physically visiting the park. During the pandemic, when a
large amount of people was isolating themselves in home, having views of the natural
landscapes benefited their mental health and eased their tensive emotion. Thus, urban
greening policies must go well beyond merely increasing the number of public
greenness, and they should make better arrangement of these green components and
maximize people’s personalized levels of nature (Soga, et al., 2020).
5.3 Urban Greenspaces Uses as Resilient Infrastructure under the Pandemic
From the previous discussed studies, the majority of methodological pathway in analysis
focused on the use of self-report subjective feedbacks regarding mental or physical
health. In Venter et al. (2020)’s study, the subtle method of tracking Oslo, Norway,
citizens’ spatio-temporal mobility through the user data from STRAVA, an internet
service for tracking human exercise, was used to investigate people’s behavior changes
for recreational activity during the pandemic (Venter et al., 2020). Research found that
outdoor recreational activity by walking or cycling increased by 291% during the 2020
lockdown comparing to the previous three years in a row; in terms of spatial pattern,
these changes were intensified in the urban periphery, adjacent to urban greenspaces
with lower population density (Venter et al., 2020). Two detailed findings from the
analysis include: 1. Daily cycling temporal rhythm changed from concentrated on
morning rush hours to evenly distributed in daytime, 2. Spatially, cyclists preferred trails
with less green, while pedestrians preferred trails with higher tree canopy cover (Venter
et al., 2020). The authors decoded these phenomena as that: 1. Major cyclists previous
to the pandemic could be those who commutes to work daily during the rush hours but
increasing number of new cyclists were added to the city for recreational purpose
during daytime; 2. Cyclists tended to focus on riding instead of enjoying the greenish
nature while pedestrians were not restricted by this reason, so these two groups had
different preferences (Venter et al., 2020). What’s more, the authors also suggested
that people tended to choose urban greenspaces relatively far from the densely
populated city center for their recreational purposes was the evidence of following the
practice of social distancing; at the same time, the authors hence implied that
accessible yet unattended greenspaces in the urban periphery could have added
additional resilience to the city’s public health during the pandemic (Venter et al.,
2020). Even though this study did not conduct further investigations, for example,
giving out survey to the STRAVA used for a self-report data collection and analysis just
like most of the above-discussed studies did, people’s urge and craving for the greens
are self-evident.
6. Conclusion
Shakespeare describe those who charges with great achievement and responsibility
bear a heavy burden as “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Since humans have
chosen to follow the way of urbanization, they must therefore learn to embrace both
the cheerful convenience brought by the process and the side effect of social
degradation. When the God was creating the world, he assigned the most rigid concept
for human—time. Every single person on Earth shares the same length of the day;
however, the modern urban lifestyle seems to be trying to steal minutes and hours from
us—multitasking and its consequence--stress. Yet, such urban lifestyle should not be
the only sinner to be blamed for, humans themselves are the “accomplice”. There is no
shortage of examples from our daily life regarding humans’ love and yearning for
various forms of nature to be available in their living environment. Nevertheless, the
esoteric mechanisms of how urban greenspace impacts humans’ well-being in terms of
mental health and social cohesion were not appreciated generally and consciously.
To make remedy in some degree, this literature review was trying to articulate the
“characters” and scenarios that participated in the journey of searching for redemption
of reuniting human and nature. Generally, reviewed studies regarding urban greens and
human mental health were done by conducting cross-sectional research like finding
associations by analyzing data collected from questionnaires. There is no lack of
experimental means like the study done by van den Berg et al. (2002), and the
longitudinal analysis done by Alcock et al, (2014), and the resident mobility analysis
done by Venter et al. (2020). In addition, interestingly, study results may suggest
conclusions that are not acknowledged by people as common sense. For example, as
discussed above, physical activity or exercise done in urban greenspace may not
account for the improvement on mental health as suggested by Sugiyama et al. (2008);
instead, the process of engaging with local community might be the point taker.
In a nutshell, through the above studies, it is obvious that the presence of urban
greenspaces benefits people’s mental health and well-being by easing their stress or
improving social cohesion and belonging. Stress, once again, is not a disease. Modern
people can even benefit from a moderate level of stress and consequently increase their
working efficiency. However, there is no reason to choose to be stressful. However,
whenever the situation becomes unmanageable and suffering from stress becomes
inevitable, it is important to remember that, deep in our mind as a mechanism which
has casted in our genes for generations, taking a breath by embracing the nature is
helpful. Especially during the pandemic, when the pathway of improving mental health
through social connection is prohibited, a less “immediate” method of enjoying greens
from windows can likewise benefit mental health.
Last but not least, to prevent being devoured completely by the enormous waves
of this epoch, this so-called Anthropocene, and to prevent being enslaved by the guilty
cage in this so-called “screen age”, and to prevent being overthrew someday by the
invasive and seemed-unstoppable advance of urbanization and its encroachment of the
nature, and finally, to prevent the most beautiful flower on the earth—human’s mind
from being destroyed, it is necessary for humans to take steps to defend the oases in
the “forest of concrete”.
Work Cited:
Alcock, I., White M.P., Wheeler, B.W., Fleming, L.E., and Depledge, M.H. (2014).
Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green
Urban Areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (2), 1247-1255.
Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). The role of urban green space for human wellbeing. Ecological Economics, Vol, 120. pp. 139-152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013
Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on
health and well-being? International journal of environmental research and public
health, 6(9), 2332–2343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6092332
Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The Relationship between Social Cohesion and
Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452
Kim, J., Kaplan, R. (2004). PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN SENSE OF
COMMUNITY: New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village.
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 36 No. 3, May 2004 313-340 DOI:
10.1177/0013916503260236
Mckenzie, K. (2008). Urbanization, Social Capital and Mental Health. Global Social
Policy, 8(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018108095633
McKenzie, K., & Harpham, T. (Eds.). (2006). Social capital and mental health. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
McLeod, S. A. (2020, March 20). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Nutsford D., Pearson A.L., Kingham S., (2013). An ecological study investigating the
association between access to urban green space and mental health, Public
Health, Volume 127, Issue 11, Pages 1005-1011,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.08.016.
Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics.
In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal Eds., Meanings and Values in
Landscape. London: Allen & Unwin, pp 3-25.
Soga, M., Evans, M. J., Tsuchiya, K., & Fukano, Y. (n.d.). A room with a green view: the
importance of nearby nature for mental health during the COVID-19
pandemic. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2248
Spencer, J. H. (2014). Globalization and urbanization : The global urban ecosystem.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Srivastava K. (2009). Urbanization and mental health. Industrial psychiatry
journal, 18(2), 75–76. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.64028
Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, et al. (2008). Associations of neighborhood
greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and
local social interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health. 62(5):e9. http:// 10.1136/jech.2007.064287
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The biophilia
hypothesis, 7, 73-137.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019)
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. New York: United Nations.
van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental
preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23, 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
Venter Z. S., Barton D. N., Gundersen V., Figari H., Nowell M. (2020). Urban nature in a
time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19
outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15, Number 10.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396
Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., Roe, J., Robertson, L., & Miller, D. (2016). Mitigating
Stress and Supporting Health in Deprived Urban Communities: The Importance
of Green Space and the Social Environment. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), 440.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040440
World Health Organiztion. (2020a). Mental Health. Geneva.
World Health Organization. (2020b). The impact of COVID-19 on mental, neurological
and substance use services: results of a rapid assessment. Geneva.