189
Due to the heterogeneity of the selected articles in terms of research design,
measures and participants, data were analysed using narrative synthesis (Popay
et al. 2006). The purpose of narrative synthesis is to identify the factors that explain
the differences in results in the body of literature (Popay et al. 2006). Patterns of
results across all 24 studies were identified according to study design, measures of
biodiversity and mental health or well-being. Vote counting (Popay et al. 2006) was
used to describe the frequency of significant and non-significant results across the
24 quantitative studies. This analytical approach has been used previously (Lovell
et al. 2014). While we acknowledge that vote counting has known deficiencies (e.g.
giving equal weight to studies with different research designs, samples and effect
sizes), it is a useful as a preliminary interpretation of results across studies (Popay
et al. 2006). Our findings should thus be interpreted with caution.
9.3 Results
9.3.1 Characteristics of the Recent Literature, Published
Since Lovell et al.’s (2014) Review, Relating Biodiversity
to Mental Health and Well-being
The following describes the recent literature (n = 16), published since 2012, on
biodiversity and mental health and well-being. See Lovell et al. (2014) for description of the body of evidence up to 2012.
All 16 studies examined, wholly or in part, the relationships between biodiversity and one or more mental health or well-being outcomes (see Table 9.1). Eleven
studies were based in Western Europe, three in North America and two in Asia. Two
studies were from emerging economies of Malaysia and Mexico. Six different study
designs were used to examine the relationship between biodiversity and mental
health and well-being (Fig. 9.2).
9.3.1.1 Spatial Scale
The spatial scale at which the relationships were examined ranged from the national
(Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Wheeler et al. 2015) to the local (Carrus et al. 2015; Foo
2016; Marselle et al. 2015, 2016). Specifically, scales considered whole countries
(England (Wheeler et al. 2015) and Mexico (Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015)), geographical regions within countries (England (Cox et al. 2017), Finland (Rantakokko et al.
2018), Sweden (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al. 2015), the USA (Jones 2017)) and
specific places such as forests in the Klang Valley region of Malaysia (Foo 2016),
protected nature reserves in Singapore (Saw et al. 2015) and green spaces in Italy
(Carrus et al. 2015).
9 Review of the Mental Health and Well-being Benefits of Biodiversity
Due to the heterogeneity of the selected articles in terms of research design,
measures and participants, data were analysed using narrative synthesis (Popay
et al. 2006). The purpose of narrative synthesis is to identify the factors that explain
the differences in results in the body of literature (Popay et al. 2006). Patterns of
results across all 24 studies were identified according to study design, measures of
biodiversity and mental health or well-being. Vote counting (Popay et al. 2006) was
used to describe the frequency of significant and non-significant results across the
24 quantitative studies. This analytical approach has been used previously (Lovell
et al. 2014). While we acknowledge that vote counting has known deficiencies (e.g.
giving equal weight to studies with different research designs, samples and effect
sizes), it is a useful as a preliminary interpretation of results across studies (Popay
et al. 2006). Our findings should thus be interpreted with caution.
9.3 Results
9.3.1 Characteristics of the Recent Literature, Published
Since Lovell et al.’s (2014) Review, Relating Biodiversity
to Mental Health and Well-being
The following describes the recent literature (n = 16), published since 2012, on
biodiversity and mental health and well-being. See Lovell et al. (2014) for description of the body of evidence up to 2012.
All 16 studies examined, wholly or in part, the relationships between biodiversity and one or more mental health or well-being outcomes (see Table 9.1). Eleven
studies were based in Western Europe, three in North America and two in Asia. Two
studies were from emerging economies of Malaysia and Mexico. Six different study
designs were used to examine the relationship between biodiversity and mental
health and well-being (Fig. 9.2).
9.3.1.1 Spatial Scale
The spatial scale at which the relationships were examined ranged from the national
(Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Wheeler et al. 2015) to the local (Carrus et al. 2015; Foo
2016; Marselle et al. 2015, 2016). Specifically, scales considered whole countries
(England (Wheeler et al. 2015) and Mexico (Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015)), geographical regions within countries (England (Cox et al. 2017), Finland (Rantakokko et al.
2018), Sweden (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al. 2015), the USA (Jones 2017)) and
specific places such as forests in the Klang Valley region of Malaysia (Foo 2016),
protected nature reserves in Singapore (Saw et al. 2015) and green spaces in Italy
(Carrus et al. 2015).
9 Review of the Mental Health and Well-being Benefits of Biodiversity