196
9.3.1.8 Mediation Analyses
Mediators were explored in 3 studies (Carrus et al. 2015; Foo 2016; Marselle et al.
2016). Investigated mediators fell within two of the three domains mentioned by
Markevych et al. (2017): ‘restoring capacities’ (perceived restorativeness (Carrus
et al. 2015; Foo 2016; Marselle et al. 2016)) and ‘building capacities’ (physical
activity and social interaction (Foo 2016)). ‘Reducing harm’ mediators were not
investigated in these studies. Perceived restorativeness was found to mediate the
relationship between biodiversity of green space and general well-being (Carrus
et al. 2015), and between perceived bird species richness and positive affect, happiness and negative affect (Marselle et al. 2016). Perceived bird species richness also
had an indirect effect on positive affect and happiness via the restorative components of being away, fascination and compatibility, and an indirect effect on negative affect via compatibility (Marselle et al. 2016). Foo (2016) conducted path
analyses to determine how spending time in forest environments with different levels of biodiversity influenced mental health and general well-being. Multiple mediating pathways were found; time spent in a forest environment with intermediate or
high biodiversity engendered a sense of being away, which was positively associated with a change in mood, which then was related to mental health. In only the
high biodiverse forest was mental health related to general well-being. In the intermediate biodiverse forest, physical activity mediated the relationships between
being away and mental health and general well-being. Social interaction did not
mediate the effect of a forest environment on either outcome.
9.3.2 Synthesis of the Results from the Combined Published
Literature on Biodiversity and Mental Health and Wellbeing Relationships
A combined set of 24 studies were included in the synthesis of results pertaining to
the influence of biodiversity and mental health and well-being: 15 of the 16 recently
published studies identified through our search process and nine of the 16 studies
identified in Lovell et al. (2014). Fourteen of these 24 studies reported one or more
positive associations between biodiversity and mental health or well-being outcomes
(Carrus et al. 2015; Cox et al. 2017; Cracknell et al. 2017; Dallimer et al. 2012; Foo
2016; Fuller et al. 2007; Huby et al. 2006; Johansson et al. 2014; Jones 2017; Luck
et al. 2011; Marselle et al. 2016; Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler et al. 2015; White
et al. 2017; Wolf et al. 2017) (see Table 9.4). Seventeen of the 24 studies reported one
or more results with no significant relationship (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al.
2015; Annerstedt et al. 2012; Björk et al. 2008; Cox et al. 2017; Cracknell et al. 2016,
2017; Dallimer et al. 2012; de Jong et al. 2012; Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Fuller et al.
2007; Grahn and Stigsdotter 2010; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Marselle et al. 2015, 2016;
Rantakokko et al. 2018; Saw et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2017). Two studies reported one
or more negative associations between biodiversity and mental health or well-being
outcomes (Dallimer et al. 2012; Marselle et al. 2015) (Table 9.4).
M. R. Marselle et al.
9.3.1.8 Mediation Analyses
Mediators were explored in 3 studies (Carrus et al. 2015; Foo 2016; Marselle et al.
2016). Investigated mediators fell within two of the three domains mentioned by
Markevych et al. (2017): ‘restoring capacities’ (perceived restorativeness (Carrus
et al. 2015; Foo 2016; Marselle et al. 2016)) and ‘building capacities’ (physical
activity and social interaction (Foo 2016)). ‘Reducing harm’ mediators were not
investigated in these studies. Perceived restorativeness was found to mediate the
relationship between biodiversity of green space and general well-being (Carrus
et al. 2015), and between perceived bird species richness and positive affect, happiness and negative affect (Marselle et al. 2016). Perceived bird species richness also
had an indirect effect on positive affect and happiness via the restorative components of being away, fascination and compatibility, and an indirect effect on negative affect via compatibility (Marselle et al. 2016). Foo (2016) conducted path
analyses to determine how spending time in forest environments with different levels of biodiversity influenced mental health and general well-being. Multiple mediating pathways were found; time spent in a forest environment with intermediate or
high biodiversity engendered a sense of being away, which was positively associated with a change in mood, which then was related to mental health. In only the
high biodiverse forest was mental health related to general well-being. In the intermediate biodiverse forest, physical activity mediated the relationships between
being away and mental health and general well-being. Social interaction did not
mediate the effect of a forest environment on either outcome.
9.3.2 Synthesis of the Results from the Combined Published
Literature on Biodiversity and Mental Health and Wellbeing Relationships
A combined set of 24 studies were included in the synthesis of results pertaining to
the influence of biodiversity and mental health and well-being: 15 of the 16 recently
published studies identified through our search process and nine of the 16 studies
identified in Lovell et al. (2014). Fourteen of these 24 studies reported one or more
positive associations between biodiversity and mental health or well-being outcomes
(Carrus et al. 2015; Cox et al. 2017; Cracknell et al. 2017; Dallimer et al. 2012; Foo
2016; Fuller et al. 2007; Huby et al. 2006; Johansson et al. 2014; Jones 2017; Luck
et al. 2011; Marselle et al. 2016; Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler et al. 2015; White
et al. 2017; Wolf et al. 2017) (see Table 9.4). Seventeen of the 24 studies reported one
or more results with no significant relationship (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al.
2015; Annerstedt et al. 2012; Björk et al. 2008; Cox et al. 2017; Cracknell et al. 2016,
2017; Dallimer et al. 2012; de Jong et al. 2012; Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Fuller et al.
2007; Grahn and Stigsdotter 2010; Jorgensen et al. 2010; Marselle et al. 2015, 2016;
Rantakokko et al. 2018; Saw et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2017). Two studies reported one
or more negative associations between biodiversity and mental health or well-being
outcomes (Dallimer et al. 2012; Marselle et al. 2015) (Table 9.4).
M. R. Marselle et al.