Impact of Changed Use of Greenspace during COVID-19 Pandemic on Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating consequences for health, social, and economic domains, but what has received far less focus is the effect on people’s relationship to vital ecological supports, including access to greenspace. We assessed patterns of greenspace use in relation to individual and environmental factors and their relationship with experiencing psychological symptoms under the pandemic. We conducted an online survey recruiting participants from social media for adults in Korea for September–December 2020. The survey collected data on demographics, patterns of using greenspace during the pandemic, and major depression (MD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD-2) were applied to identify probable cases of MD and GAD. A logistic regression model assessed the association decreased visits to greenspace after the outbreak compared to 2019 and probable MD and GAD. Among the 322 survey participants, prevalence of probable MD and GAD were 19.3% and 14.9%, respectively. High rates of probable MD (23.3%) and GAD (19.4%) were found among persons currently having job-related and financial issues. Of the total participants, 64.9% reported decreased visits to greenspace after the COVID-19 outbreak. Persons with decreased visits to greenspace had 2.06 higher odds (95% CI: 0.91, 4.67, significant at p < 0.10) of probable MD at the time of the survey than persons whose visits to greenspace increased or did not change. Decreased visits to greenspace were not significantly associated with GAD (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63, 3.34). Findings suggest that barriers to greenspace use could deprive people of mental health benefits and affect mental health during pandemic; an alternative explanation is that those experiencing poor mental health may be less likely to visit greenspaces during pandemic. This implies the need of adequate interventions on greenspace uses under an outbreak especially focusing on how low-income populations may be more adversely affected by a pandemic and its policy responses.

Perceptions of green space usage, abundance, and quality of green space were associated with better mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic among residents of Denver

“…Indeed, more and more literature documents how people’s interactions with green space changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some studies report decreased levels of green space exposure during the pandemic [ 14 – 16 ], whereas others report that the duration and frequency of green space visits increased during the pandemic [ 17 – 20 ]. Evidence indicates that interactions with green spaces might vary based on the stringency of lockdown policies, socioeconomic status, and work flexibility [ 16 , 17 ] how far away the green space is [ 21 , 22 ], or potentially due to differences in lockdown policies in different places [ 19 , 23 ].…”

Nature’s contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: A narrative review of evidence during COVID-19

“…Nature contact estimates from "big data" datasets (e.g., Google mobility, Strava, Geotagged Instagram images) did not provide precise definitions of 'natural environments', may have counted multiple visits by the same individuals and might not be representative of the larger population due to inability to obtain data from individuals who are not either using the apps or sharing their location information. All the big data studies identified in this review revealed considerable increases in nature contact (Lu et al, 2021b;Rice and Pan, 2021;Venter et al, 2020), whereas smaller datasets (e.g., survey data) utilized by studies in this review reported mixed findings regarding nature contact during the lockdown (Grima et al, 2020;Heo et al, 2021;Ugolini et al, 2021). Rice and Pan (2021) emphasized the need to validate big data inferred changes in nature visitation.…”

“…Most of these studies identified that during the lockdown period, the frequency of visiting nature and spending time outdoors increased compared to before lockdown. However, one-in-three studies found that nature contact decreased during the lockdown (Ugolini et al, 2021;Burnett et al, 2021;Heo et al, 2021). There may be several reasons for the contrasting findings regarding nature contact during the COVID-19 lockdown.…”

“…During the lockdown, both the opportunity and capability of nature contact have been modified; however, the actual contact with nature may have been greatly influenced by personal motivations. The common positive, motivating factors for modified nature contact in terms of outdoor nature visits during lockdown included physically exercising, relaxing in nature, taking children outdoors, walking the dog, and meeting friends and family (Ugolini et al, 2020;Heo et al, 2021;Dushkova et al, 2021;Xie et al, 2020). In contrast, demotivating factors included over-crowding/distance concerns, lack of facilities (e.g., toilets in parks), not being able to meet with people outdoors, and difficulty accessing safe, publicly open green spaces in addition to the governmental rules to movement restrictions (O'Brien and Forster, 2021;Shoari et al, 2020).…”

The Nexus between Cultural Heritage Management and the Mental Health of Urban Communities

“…During the lockdown period many people experienced a higher level of psychological stressors, both in frequency and intensity, leading to potentially harmful interpersonal and environmental stimuli, including domestic violence and abuse, as well as deteriorating family relationships [89,90]. Sections of the community, such as older people, people with poor mental health, people with disability, people with non-communicable diseases, people who were homeless, people living on their own, and people with reduced communication and limited social networks beyond their work settings, were disproportionately at risk [90,91], with the pandemic both exacerbating existing mental health conditions [91][92][93][94] and creating and intensifying inequalities [89,[94][95][96][97].…”