188
Contact with the biodiverse environment was coded as either indirect or direct
following Keniger et al. (2013). Indirect contact “does not require a person to be
physically present in nature” (Keniger et al. 2013, p. 916) and can include viewing
nature through a window, and looking at photographs, paintings or motion pictures
of nature. Direct contact with nature stipulates that nature, or natural elements, are
physically present in the same space as the individual (Keniger et al. 2013).
1
Examples of direct contact include indoor plants, using urban green spaces for education purposes, reading or having a picnic in the park, doing sports or exercise in a
natural setting, gardening and camping.
Moderating variables were categorised as either personal (e.g. age, gender, socioeconomic status) or contextual (e.g. urbanicity, safety) (Hartig et al. 2014; Markevych
et al. 2017). Mediators were classified as ‘reducing harm’, ‘restoring capacities’ or
‘building capacities’ according to Markevych et al. (2017). ‘Reducing harm’ considers the role of the natural environment to reduce exposure to environmental stressors
like heat or noise pollution. ‘Restoring capacities’ mediators support renewal of
adapted resources that have become depleted through everyday demands, such as
attention restoration and stress recovery. ‘Building capacities’ mediators highlight
the role of green spaces in strengthening an individual’s capacity to acquire new
adaptive resources like fostering physical activity and social cohesion.
9.2.3 Synthesis of Results
To provide a synthesis of results assessing the influence of biodiversity on mental
health and well-being, a combined set of 24 studies, drawn from Lovell et al. (2014)
and from our updated review, was utilised. Nine quantitative studies identified in
Lovell et al. (2014) that assessed biodiversity and mental health and well-being
relationships were included (Table 9.1). Consequently, 4 studies from Lovell et al.
(2014) with physical health as the outcome were excluded (Huynen et al. 2004;
Poudyal et al. 2009; Sieswerda et al. 2001; Tilt et al. 2007). Also excluded were 4
studies that, according to Lovell et al. (2014), did not directly assess biodiversity but
were included in their analysis nevertheless (Barton et al. 2009; Curtin 2009;
Lemieux et al. 2012; Pereira et al. 2005). In this sense our synthesis of results is
more critical than Lovell et al.’s (2014) by including only those studies that consider
the biodiversity of the environment in some way. Fifteen of the 16 articles identified
in our updated search were included in the synthesis of results. Foo (2016) was
excluded from the synthesis of results because it analysed the associations between
use of the environment, individual differences in environmental experience, and
perceived physical activity, well-being and mental health given a certain level of
actual biodiversity instead of an investigation of the influence of biodiversity levels
on mental health and well-being.
1 This is a combination of Keniger et al. (2013) ‘incidental’ and ‘intentional’ interaction types as
both describe being in the presence of nature.
M. R. Marselle et al.
Contact with the biodiverse environment was coded as either indirect or direct
following Keniger et al. (2013). Indirect contact “does not require a person to be
physically present in nature” (Keniger et al. 2013, p. 916) and can include viewing
nature through a window, and looking at photographs, paintings or motion pictures
of nature. Direct contact with nature stipulates that nature, or natural elements, are
physically present in the same space as the individual (Keniger et al. 2013).
1
Examples of direct contact include indoor plants, using urban green spaces for education purposes, reading or having a picnic in the park, doing sports or exercise in a
natural setting, gardening and camping.
Moderating variables were categorised as either personal (e.g. age, gender, socioeconomic status) or contextual (e.g. urbanicity, safety) (Hartig et al. 2014; Markevych
et al. 2017). Mediators were classified as ‘reducing harm’, ‘restoring capacities’ or
‘building capacities’ according to Markevych et al. (2017). ‘Reducing harm’ considers the role of the natural environment to reduce exposure to environmental stressors
like heat or noise pollution. ‘Restoring capacities’ mediators support renewal of
adapted resources that have become depleted through everyday demands, such as
attention restoration and stress recovery. ‘Building capacities’ mediators highlight
the role of green spaces in strengthening an individual’s capacity to acquire new
adaptive resources like fostering physical activity and social cohesion.
9.2.3 Synthesis of Results
To provide a synthesis of results assessing the influence of biodiversity on mental
health and well-being, a combined set of 24 studies, drawn from Lovell et al. (2014)
and from our updated review, was utilised. Nine quantitative studies identified in
Lovell et al. (2014) that assessed biodiversity and mental health and well-being
relationships were included (Table 9.1). Consequently, 4 studies from Lovell et al.
(2014) with physical health as the outcome were excluded (Huynen et al. 2004;
Poudyal et al. 2009; Sieswerda et al. 2001; Tilt et al. 2007). Also excluded were 4
studies that, according to Lovell et al. (2014), did not directly assess biodiversity but
were included in their analysis nevertheless (Barton et al. 2009; Curtin 2009;
Lemieux et al. 2012; Pereira et al. 2005). In this sense our synthesis of results is
more critical than Lovell et al.’s (2014) by including only those studies that consider
the biodiversity of the environment in some way. Fifteen of the 16 articles identified
in our updated search were included in the synthesis of results. Foo (2016) was
excluded from the synthesis of results because it analysed the associations between
use of the environment, individual differences in environmental experience, and
perceived physical activity, well-being and mental health given a certain level of
actual biodiversity instead of an investigation of the influence of biodiversity levels
on mental health and well-being.
1 This is a combination of Keniger et al. (2013) ‘incidental’ and ‘intentional’ interaction types as
both describe being in the presence of nature.
M. R. Marselle et al.