163
Yet another definitional issue is where to draw the line between a risk factor and
mental health itself. Risk factors may act as mediators, with a high risk of increasing
the likelihood of poor mental health or a specific mental disorder. However, if something is not to be considered a risk factor, but a specific form of poor mental health,
then it becomes questionable to use it as a mediator at the same time.
1
A case in
point is chronic stress. Whereas some authors suggest that chronic stress may cause
poor mental (and physical) health (e.g. Marin et al. 2011), others see it as an expression of poor mental health in itself (e.g. Aszatalos et al. 2009).
2
8.1.3 Linking Biodiversity to Mental Health: Research
Questions and Conceptual Model
Methodological choices in doing research depend not only on the definition of the
key concepts, but also on the question that the research is intended to answer. In the
section on biodiversity, it was stated that biodiversity is predominantly an ecological concept, not evolved from theoretical notions on how contact with nature is
thought to positively impact mental health. The section ended suggesting that a
relevant first research question might be whether or not nature with a high level of
biodiversity can go together with high mental health benefits resulting from contact
with that same nature. This issue of compatibility does not yet look into possible
causal relationships, whether the one leads to the other or not. However, the question, under which conditions a high level of biodiversity may go together with high
mental health benefits, already necessitates insight into which characteristics of
nature are important with regard to mental health. Of course, the level of biodiversity present within a certain amount of nature might still be one of those
characteristics.
With regard to the level of biodiversity of a natural area actually being an instrumental factor in mental health promotion, it may be that the sheer (sustained) existence of a certain (highly biodiverse) natural area engenders mental health benefits,
even though one never visits or otherwise comes in direct contact with it (van den
Born et al. 2018). However, most theories focus on pathways requiring some sort of
sensory contact with that nature for it to exert its positive influence on mental health
(Markevych et al. 2017). Furthermore, more contact is usually assumed to lead to
greater benefits, at least up to a certain point (Shanahan et al. 2016). This is likely to
have consequences for what one may want to measure. In the remainder of this
chapter, we limit ourselves to the latter type of pathways, requiring direct contact.
1 It still can be used as a predictor of overall mental health, but such an analysis may also be interpreted as showing how important a component it is of overall mental health, more than as a causal
factor.
2 A similar argument can be made with regard to being seriously overweight and having bad physical health.
8 Biodiversity in the Context of ‘Biodiversity – Mental Health’ Research
Yet another definitional issue is where to draw the line between a risk factor and
mental health itself. Risk factors may act as mediators, with a high risk of increasing
the likelihood of poor mental health or a specific mental disorder. However, if something is not to be considered a risk factor, but a specific form of poor mental health,
then it becomes questionable to use it as a mediator at the same time.
1
A case in
point is chronic stress. Whereas some authors suggest that chronic stress may cause
poor mental (and physical) health (e.g. Marin et al. 2011), others see it as an expression of poor mental health in itself (e.g. Aszatalos et al. 2009).
2
8.1.3 Linking Biodiversity to Mental Health: Research
Questions and Conceptual Model
Methodological choices in doing research depend not only on the definition of the
key concepts, but also on the question that the research is intended to answer. In the
section on biodiversity, it was stated that biodiversity is predominantly an ecological concept, not evolved from theoretical notions on how contact with nature is
thought to positively impact mental health. The section ended suggesting that a
relevant first research question might be whether or not nature with a high level of
biodiversity can go together with high mental health benefits resulting from contact
with that same nature. This issue of compatibility does not yet look into possible
causal relationships, whether the one leads to the other or not. However, the question, under which conditions a high level of biodiversity may go together with high
mental health benefits, already necessitates insight into which characteristics of
nature are important with regard to mental health. Of course, the level of biodiversity present within a certain amount of nature might still be one of those
characteristics.
With regard to the level of biodiversity of a natural area actually being an instrumental factor in mental health promotion, it may be that the sheer (sustained) existence of a certain (highly biodiverse) natural area engenders mental health benefits,
even though one never visits or otherwise comes in direct contact with it (van den
Born et al. 2018). However, most theories focus on pathways requiring some sort of
sensory contact with that nature for it to exert its positive influence on mental health
(Markevych et al. 2017). Furthermore, more contact is usually assumed to lead to
greater benefits, at least up to a certain point (Shanahan et al. 2016). This is likely to
have consequences for what one may want to measure. In the remainder of this
chapter, we limit ourselves to the latter type of pathways, requiring direct contact.
1 It still can be used as a predictor of overall mental health, but such an analysis may also be interpreted as showing how important a component it is of overall mental health, more than as a causal
factor.
2 A similar argument can be made with regard to being seriously overweight and having bad physical health.
8 Biodiversity in the Context of ‘Biodiversity – Mental Health’ Research