Natural Space and Mental Health: Who Benefits?

• Autores: Everly Jazi
• Directores de la Tesis: Margarita Triguero Mas (codir. tes.), Keunhyun Park (codir. tes.), Michael Leitner (codir. tes.), Matilda van den Bosch (codir. tes.)
• Lectura: En la University of British Columbia ( Canadá ) en 2025
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This dissertation investigates the role of natural space in supporting psychological wellbeing, with particular attention to its potential in reducing health disparities between marginalized and advantaged populations, as guided by the equigenic hypothesis (Mitchell & Popham, 2008).

    Using three study designs, we examined whether marginalized versus advantaged groups experience different psychological benefits from natural spaces, and contributing factors.

    The first study examined whether walking in more natural spaces (versus built) led to immediate psychological wellbeing improvements compared to, especially among marginalized individuals.

    A quasi-experimental design with two self-directed walks differing in naturalness was used with a diverse college student sample (n=475). Using Bayesian counterfactual simulations, we found overall wellbeing improvements after more natural walks, with some evidence of the equigenic effect for low-income individuals. However, benefits were not consistent across all marginalized groups.

    The second study utilized focus groups and semi-structured interviews to explore marginalized participants’ perceptions of natural space’s role in wellbeing, as well as perceived differences with advantaged peers. Participants (n=21), grouped by either race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (SES), shared how marginalization shaped their relationships with natural space and associated psychological benefits. Discussions centered on access, use, and variables related to their sociodemographic identities including cultural background, early life exposure, and safety concerns. These themes revealed a complex narrative, as some participants described natural spaces as allowing equal opportunities or countering effects of inequities, while others described them as perpetuating disparities.

    The third study used survey data (n=976) to examine whether race, ethnicity, and SES moderate the association between natural space and wellbeing. Findings revealed that greater access to nature significantly predicted better wellbeing but effects varied. The access-wellbeing slope was steeper for Black versus non-Black participants and high versus low classes, but reversed for Chinese versus non-Chinese participants. These mixed interactions highlight complexity in nature’s benefits across groups.

    Collectively, these findings demonstrate that natural spaces can improve psychological wellbeing. However, we found mixed evidence for potential of natural spaces to support health equity, instead finding nuances by sociocultural, experiential, and identity-based factors and the importance of designing interventions that are responsive to individual needs and contexts.