Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What types of green space disrupt a lonelygenic environment? A cohort study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Associations between green space type and social loneliness (a scarcity of people one feels they can depend on) were investigated in city-living participants in the Sax Institute’s 45 and Up Study.

Methods

Availability of green space, tree canopy and open grass were measured as a percentage of land-use within 1.6 km road−network distance buffers using high-resolution data. Multilevel logistic regressions adjusted for confounding tested associations between each green space indicator with the odds of social loneliness at baseline (prevalence) and follow-up (incidence), adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic confounders.

Results

The prevalence of social loneliness at baseline was 5.3% (n = 5627 /105,498). Incidence of social loneliness at follow-up was 3.4% (n = 1772/51,365). Adjusted regressions indicated reduced odds of prevalent (OR = 0.95, 95%CI = 0.92–0.98) and incident social loneliness with 10% more green space (OR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.90– 0.96). Similar associations were found with a 10% increase in tree canopy for both prevalent (OR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.88–0.95) and incident social loneliness (OR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.88–0.97). Two-way interaction terms indicated effect modification by sex but not couple status. Among women, a 10% increase in total green space was associated with lower odds of prevalent (OR = 0.95, 0.91–0.95) and incident (OR = 0.89, 0.85–0.95) social loneliness. A 10% increase in tree canopy among women was associated with lower odds of prevalent (OR = 0.89, 085–0.92) and incident (OR = 0.85, 0.80–0.92) social loneliness. Meanwhile, a 10% increase in open grass among women was associated with higher odds of prevalent (OR = 1.08, 1.01–1.15) and incident (OR = 1.19, 1.03–1.35) social loneliness. Associations for men were statistically significant for a 10% increase in total green space (OR = 0.96, 0.92–0.99) and tree canopy (OR = 0.93, 0.90–0.97) for prevalent social loneliness only.

Conclusion

Urban greening and tree canopy restoration may reduce risks of social loneliness, perhaps especially in women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Erzen E, Çikrikci Ö (2018) The effect of loneliness on depression: a meta-analysis. Int J Soc Psychiatry 64(5):427–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gvion Y, Levi-Belz Y (2018) Serious suicide attempts: systematic review of psychological risk factors. Front Psych 9:56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B (2016) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 102(13):1009–1016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lara E, Martín-María N, De la Torre-Luque A, Koyanagi A, Vancampfort D, Izquierdo A, Miret M (2019) Does loneliness contribute to mild cognitive impairment and dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Ageing Res Rev 52:7–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D (2015) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci 10(2):227–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klinenberg E (2016) Social isolation, loneliness, and living alone: identifying the risks for public health. Am J Public Health 106(5):786

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Masi CM, Chen H-Y, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT (2011) A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 15(3):219–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eccles AM, Qualter P (2021) Alleviating loneliness in young people–a meta-analysis of interventions. Child Adolesc Mental Health 26(1):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shvedko A, Whittaker AC, Thompson JL, Greig CA (2018) Physical activity interventions for treatment of social isolation, loneliness or low social support in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Psychol Sport Exerc 34:128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frumkin H (2002) Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep 117:217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Douglas MJ, Watkins SJ, Gorman DR, Higgins M (2011) Are cars the new tobacco? J Public Health 33(2):160–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunawardena KR, Wells MJ, Kershaw T (2017) Utilising green and bluespace to mitigate urban heat island intensity. Sci Total Environ 584:1040–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kesebir S, Kesebir P (2017) A growing disconnection from nature is evident in cultural products. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(2):258–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Larson LR, Szczytko R, Bowers EP, Stephens LE, Stevenson KT, Floyd MF (2019) Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature: troubling trends among rural youth? Environ Behav 51(8):966–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parigi P, Henson W (2014) Social isolation in America. Annu Rev Sociol 40:153–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Turkle S. 2017 Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other: Hachette UK.

  17. HM Government: A connected society. A strategy for tackling loneliness—laying the foundations for change. In. London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. 2018.

  18. Astell-Burt T, Hartig T, Eckermann S, Nieuwenhuijsen M, McMunn A, Frumkin H, Feng X (2022) More green, less lonely? A longitudinal cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 51:99–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammoud R, Tognin S, Bakolis I, Ivanova D, Fitzpatrick N, Burgess L, Smythe M, Gibbons J, Davidson N, Mechelli A (2021) Lonely in a crowd: investigating the association between overcrowding and loneliness using smartphone technologies. Sci Rep 11(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Astell-Burt T, Hartig T, Putra IGNE, Walsan R, Dendup T, Feng X. 2022 Green space and loneliness: a systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. Sci Total Environ. Accepted 17/07/2022.

  21. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health 35:207–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, Chudnovsky A, de Vries S, Triguero-Mas M, Brauer M, Dzhambov A, Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ et al (2017) Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res 158:301–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neal S, Bennett K, Jones H, Cochrane A, Mohan G (2015) Multiculture and public parks: researching super-diversity and attachment in public green space. Popul Space Place 21(5):463–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Francis J, Giles-Corti B, Wood L, Knuiman M (2012) Creating sense of community: the role of public space. J Environ Psychol 32(4):401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Birch J, Rishbeth C, Payne SR (2020) Nature doesn’t judge you–how urban nature supports young people’s mental health and wellbeing in a diverse UK city. Health Place 62:102296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bell SL, Westley M, Lovell R, Wheeler BW (2018) Everyday green space and experienced well-being: the significance of wildlife encounters. Landsc Res 43(1):8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hartig T. 2021 Restoration in nature: Beyond the conventional narrative. In: Nature and psychology: Biological, cognitive, developmental, and social pathways to well-being (Proceedings of the 67th Annual Nebraska Symposium on Motivation). Edited by Schutte AR, Torquati J, Stevens JR. Cham, Switzerland (ed). Springer Nature.

  28. Remme RP, Frumkin H, Guerry AD, King AC, Mandle L, Sarabu C, Bratman GN, Giles-Corti B, Hamel P, Han B (2021) An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health. Proceed Nat Acad Sci. 118(22):e2018472118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lim MH, Rodebaugh TL, Zyphur MJ, Gleeson JF (2016) Loneliness over time: the crucial role of social anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 125(5):620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hartig T, Marcus CC (2006) Essay: healing gardens—places for nature in health care. Lancet 368:S36–S37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bell SL, Foley R, Houghton F, Maddrell A, Williams AM (2018) From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: a scoping review. Soc Sci Med 196:123–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Maas J, Van Dillen SME, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP (2009) Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place 15(2):586–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van den Berg P, Kemperman A, de Kleijn B, Borgers A (2016) Ageing and loneliness: the role of mobility and the built environment. Travel Behav Soc 5:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weiss RS (1973) Loneliness: the experience of emotional and social isolation. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gierveld JDJ, Tilburg TV (2006) A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: confirmatory tests on survey data. Res Aging 28(5):582–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Hanratty B (2016) Loneliness, social isolation and social relationships: what are we measuring? A novel framework for classifying and comparing tools. BMJ Open 6(4):e010799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiltshire G, Stevinson C (2018) Exploring the role of social capital in community-based physical activity: qualitative insights from parkrun. Qualit Res Sport Exerc Health 10(1):47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morris P, Scott H (2019) Not just a run in the park: a qualitative exploration of parkrun and mental health. Adv Ment Health 17(2):110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hindley D (2020) “More than just a run in the park”: an exploration of parkrun as a shared leisure space. Leis Sci 42(1):85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Holtan MT, Dieterlen SL, Sullivan WC (2014) Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore Maryland. Environ Behav 47(5):502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD (2012) Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv Lett 5(2):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ratcliffe E, Gatersleben B, Sowden PT (2013) Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. J Environ Psychol 36:221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3(4):390–394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. de Kleyn L, Mumaw L, Corney H (2020) From green spaces to vital places: connection and expression in urban greening. Aust Geogr 51(2):205–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gulsrud NM, Hertzog K, Shears I (2018) Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environ Res 161:158–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Richardson EA, Mitchell R (2010) Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Soc Sci Med 71(3):568–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Astell-Burt T, Mitchell R, Hartig T (2014) The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. J Epi Comm Health. 68:578–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sang ÅO, Knez I, Gunnarsson B, Hedblom M (2016) The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban Forest Urban Green 18:268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Banks E, Redman S, Jorm L, Armstrong B, Bauman A et al (2008) Cohort profile: the 45 and up study. Int J Epidemiol 37(5):941–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Johar M, Jones G, Savage E (2012) Healthcare expenditure profile of older Australians. Econ Pap 31(4):451–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Goodger B, Byles J, Higganbotham N, Mishra G (1999) Assessment of a short scale to measure social support among older people. Aust N Z J Public Health 23(3):260–265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ekkel ED, de Vries S (2017) Nearby green space and human health: evaluating accessibility metrics. Landsc Urban Plan 157:214–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. National Prevention Council (2014) Annual status report. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  54. Western Australian Planning Commission: Liveable neighbourhoods: A western Australian government sustainable cities initiative. In. Perth WA. 2009.

  55. Astell-Burt T, Feng X (2019) Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Netw Open 2(7):e198209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Astell-Burt T, Feng X (2020) Greener neighbourhoods, better memory? A longitudinal study. Health Place 65:102393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Turning grey to green in Sydney’s urban jungle [https://www.medianet.com.au/releases/198075/]

  58. The ACT Government (2019) Canberra’s living infrastructure plan: cooling the City. The ACT Government, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  59. Trees for Life: Master Plan for Barcelona’s Trees 2017–2037 [https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Trees-for-Life-Master-Plan-for-Barcelona-s-Trees-2017-2037?language=en_US]

  60. Trees For Seattle [https://www.seattle.gov/trees/management/canopy-cover]

  61. Park Board achieves target to plant 150,000 trees by 2020 [https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/park-board-achieves-target-to-plant-150000-trees-by-2020.aspx]

  62. Harris V, Kendal D, Hahs AK, Threlfall CG (2018) Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landsc Res 43(1):150–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Feng X, Astell-Burt T (2022) Perceived qualities, visitation and felt benefits of preferred nature spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: a nationally-representative cross-sectional study of 2940 adults. Land 11(6):904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Astell-Burt T, Navakatikyan M, Feng X (2020) Urban green space, tree canopy and 11 year risk of dementia in a cohort of 109,688 Australians. Environ Int 145:106102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jiang X, Larsen L, Sullivan W (2020) Connections-between daily greenness exposure and health outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(11):3965

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Kardan O, Gozdyra P, Misic B, Moola F, Palmer LJ, Paus T, Berman MG (2015) Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Sci Rep 5:11610

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Astell-Burt T, Feng X. 2021 Paths through the woods. Int J Epidemiol. Accepted 17 September 2021.

  68. Albrecht G, Sartore G-M, Connor L, Higginbotham N, Freeman S, Kelly B, Stain H, Tonna A, Pollard G (2007) Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change. Australas Psychiatry 15(sup1):S95–S98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Richardson EA, Mitchell R, Hartig T, De Vries S, Astell-Burt T, Frumkin H (2012) Green cities and health: a question of scale? J Epidemiol Community Health 66(2):160–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Addressing urban heat [https://www.greater.sydney/performance-indicator-addressing-urban-heat]

  71. Ma S, Pitman A, Yang J, Carouge C, Evans JP, Hart M, Green D (2018) Evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation options on heat stress for Sydney, Australia. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 57(2):209–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. White MP, Elliott LR, Wheeler BW, Fleming LE (2018) Neighbourhood greenspace is related to physical activity in England, but only for dog owners. Landsc Urban Plan 174:18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Graham TM, Glover TD (2014) On the fence: dog parks in the (un) leashing of community and social capital. Leis Sci 36(3):217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kingsley J, Foenander E, Bailey A (2019) “You feel like you’re part of something bigger”: exploring motivations for community garden participation in Melbourne Australia. BMC Public Health 19(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kingsley J, Foenander E, Bailey A (2020) “It’s about community”: exploring social capital in community gardens across Melbourne Australia. Urban Forest Urban Green 49:126640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Buecker S, Maes M, Denissen JJ, Luhmann M (2019) Loneliness and the big five personality traits: a meta-analysis. Europ J Personal. 34(1):8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Feng X, Astell-Burt T, Standl M, Flexeder C, Heinrich J, Markevych I (2022) Green space quality and adolescent mental health: do personality traits matter? Environ Res 206:112591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ambrey CL, Cartlidge N (2017) Do the psychological benefits of greenspace depend on one’s personality? Pers Individ Dif 116:233–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Lim MH, Gleeson JF, Alvarez-Jimenez M, Penn DL (2018) Loneliness in psychosis: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 53(3):221–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Rothman KJ, Gallacher JE, Hatch EE (2013) Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol 42(4):1012–1014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Mealing NM, Banks E, Jorm LR, Steel DG, Clements MS, Rogers KD (2010) Investigation of relative risk estimates from studies of the same population with contrasting response rates and designs. BMC Med Res Methodol 10(1):26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Victor CR, Burholt V, Martin W (2012) Loneliness and ethnic minority elders in Great Britain: an exploratory study. J Cross Cult Gerontol 27(1):65–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Jamieson HA, Gibson HM, Abey-Nesbit R, Ahuriri-Driscoll A, Keeling S, Schluter PJ (2018) Profile of ethnicity, living arrangements and loneliness amongst older adults in Aotearoa New Zealand: a national cross-sectional study. Australas J Ageing 37(1):68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Feng X, Astell-Burt T (2022) Lonelygenic environments: a call for research on multilevel determinants of loneliness. The Lancet Planetary Health 6(12) e933-e934 S2542519622003060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00306-0

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Thomas Astell-Burt, Ramya Walsan, Walt Davis & Xiaoqi Feng

  2. School of Health and Society, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Thomas Astell-Burt, Ramya Walsan & Xiaoqi Feng

  3. School of Population Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia

    Thomas Astell-Burt, Ramya Walsan & Xiaoqi Feng

Authors
  1. Thomas Astell-Burt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramya Walsan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walt Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoqi Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Astell-Burt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 71 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Astell-Burt, T., Walsan, R., Davis, W. et al. What types of green space disrupt a lonelygenic environment? A cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 58, 745–755 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-022-02381-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-022-02381-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation