1

Usage of Urban Neighborhood Parks and Mental Health Benefits

Hunter Terry

Roanoke College

Abstract

This study hopes to examine associations between urban parks and mental health. Theories have
been developed on the associations between physical activity and mental health, but this study
will remove the variable of physical activity and look into the variety of different uses at the
parks. Urban parks in Hampton Roads, Virginia are analyzed on the variables of nature,
availability, and size of facilities. Data is taken from five different samples of parks, with a
control group of non-users from the same area code as the parks analyzed. This cross-sectional
study will total 650 participants to get an overview of the different aspects of the parks and how
they relate to mental health. Findings from this study will go to an evaluation of mental health in
urban areas and provide possible funding for disparities interventions.

Introduction

Urban areas lack the availability to nature that other areas can enjoy. Urban areas

commonly find this access to nature in the form of neighborhood parks. Parks have associations

with increased physical activity. The presence of nature has shown links to mental health

benefits, working on the theory that nature in the forms of neighborhood parks can do the same.

The Nature Conservancy and the Bureau of Health Professions have asked for an evaluation of

the urban parks and if there are connections between positive mental health. Usage of the parks

may vary, but a general availability to a safe and clean natural environment would be promising

into policy making and disparity research.

Review of the Literature

Nature is an aspect of life that everyone is entitled to experience. In urban areas, this is

often compromised by a variety of factors out of the control of the residents (Aguilar-Gaxiola,

Castro-Schilio, and Meyer 2014; Alaimo, Allen, and Reischl 2010). Neighborhood parks are one
 2

way that people in urban areas can connect to nature. Many studies have shown that having this

relationship to nature, greenness, and parks can have numerous health benefits (Francis, Giles-

Corti, Middleton et al. 2010; Glicksman and Wang 2013; Myers and Reese 2012; Oftendal; Rose

2014 and Schneider 2013). While there have been previous studies to show these relationships,

there is a gap in disparities research analyzing the availability to parks and mental health.

Significant associations between other beneficial health variables have shown this expansion to

mental health to be promising (Francis et al. 2010; Buttorff, Chan, Gaskin et al. 2014).

Socioeconomic status has a large impact on behavior, but through this research interventions can

be made to expand equality.

Nature in urban communities differs from that in other areas in the fact that safety,

pollution, access, and facilities come into play (Aguilar-Gaxiola et al. 2014; Buttorff et al. 2014;

Francis et al. 2012; and Oftedal and Schneider 2013). Parks are an available source of nature for

urban areas. Nature is related to the residence in three ways that will benefit health. These

relations are an access to nature, environmental identity, and transcendence (Myers and Reese

2012). While parks have been modernized over the years, these changes have not compromised

the benefits. Combinations of ornamental horticulture, playgrounds, and athletic facilities all

show benefits to the community (Young 1995). These urban areas with parks are, said by Young

(1995:537), to foster four virtues in relation to expanding capital, such as public health,

prosperity, social coherence, and democratic equality.

Parks may seem readily available for the use of the community, but there are many

restrictions in place to prevent use, especially in urban areas. Safety is a main cause as to why

people feel they cannot go to neighborhood parks (Aguilar-Gaxiola et al. 2014). Attractiveness

such as, layout and cleanliness, is also an issue that has a positive association with the least
 3

attractive parks and decreased use (Francis et al. 2012). Even if the park draws attention to users,

benefits can only be claimed if the area is not contaminated. Often, urban areas are plagued with

litter and air pollution that are causing harm beyond what benefits the parks may give (Buttorff et

al. 2014). While popular opinion may suggest that people are spending less time outdoors than in

the past, Cordell, Green and Larson (2011) claim that this is not true, but that the time is being

spent outdoors is not in physically active activities. The National Kids Survey found that

children’s time outdoors is directly associated with the time that their parents spend outdoors and

that less than five percent of children said that they spent no time outdoors (Cordell et al.

2011:6). This influence of parents and contributing environmental factors of the park leave

influences on the upcoming generation and their uses of neighborhood parks.

Nature, in many different aspects, has shown benefits to physical health. Oftedal and

Schneider (2013) show that parks are the most statistically significant areas of recreation

connected to nature that promotes physical activity. Disparities research from Aguilar-Gaxiola et

al. (2014) showed that the less safety fears in a neighborhood, the more physically activity

members a community would have. This shows that in neighborhoods with more accessible

parks people feel better about going out to use the facilities. It has also been shown that

neighborhoods with more green area show higher physical activity related to recreational

walking (Giles-Corti et al. 2007). The relation of green area has also been linked to lower rates

of diseases, with the highest significance in urban areas (Groenewegen, et al. 2009). Children

who spend more time outdoors “have lower rates of asthma, allergies, and obesity” (Rose

2014:61). While there have been connections between a positive physical health and positive

emotional health, studies have also suggested that the mere presence of nature can effect mental

stability, leaving out the variable of physical health to a necessity of mental health.
 4

Nature is associated with physical health, as well as a “connection to the natural world

supports mental health” (Rose 2014:59). Rose (2014) explains how nature is especially helpful in

the growth of children as it stimulates curiosity, promotes hands-on learning, imaginative play,

and gives a peaceful time to unwind. Rose (2014) also examines how being in nature teaches

cause and effect and mindfulness to move at one’s own pace. These experiences can be more

helpful to children in low socioeconomic status that deal with stressors, as they unwind through

calming walks in nature (Rose 2014). A study on senior citizens of low socioeconomic standing

showed that experience with nature, as found through gardening, resulted in positive outcomes.

Glicksman and Wang (2013) concluded through focus groups that the participants rated mental

health benefits as the top aspect of the gardening experience. Neighborhood green projects, such

as gardening in a common space, was shown to raise social capital for the whole community

involved and is especially valuable for “distressed urban neighborhoods”(Alaimo et al.

2010:510). Participation in nature based activities has shown help with mental stability when

added to counseling, even with programs as simple as walking outdoors or sitting on a park

bench (Myers and Reese 2012). While the lack of availability targets low socioeconomic status,

self-rated mental health and safety fears do not different between race and gender, assuming that

interventions would be helpful for everyone involved (Aguilar-Gaxiola et al. 2014). Nature has a

sense of unity and “despite differences in language, culture, age, or gender, every child and every

adult belongs to nature” (Rose 2014:60).

As the above studies have shown, there are multiple associations between availability to

nature based facilities and physical health, associations between physical health and mental

health, and associations with a connection to nature and mental health. No research has been

done into direct connections between the usage of parks and mental health. There are many
 5

different ways to use the park facilities, such as relaxation, recreational walking or jogging,

athletics, plant and animal identification, or family bonding. Even if the park is not used for

physical activity, mental benefits could come from the participation in the facilities. Further

research could bring about an intervention to benefit mental health for people in an economic

status where other methods of mental health help may not be available.

Many larger organizations are taking interests into these disparities as a way to improve

funding for future projects and integrate new methods of stability to needed areas (Alaimo et al.

2010; Cordell et al. 2011; Delespaul et al. 2012; Francis et al. 2010; Glicksman et al. 2013;

Myers and Reese 2012; Young 1995) If connections are found between park usage and better

mental health, then the availability of the parks and their benefits would become equal to

everyone. People in urban areas have many reasons as to why, or why not, they use

neighborhood parks. This research would influence policy making for equality to resources in

these low socioeconomic areas. Implications of further research would better the community

environments and lead to more future research on bettering mental health in ways available to

everyone.

Focus

Because of the variety of uses of neighborhood parks, research needs to develop further

into the ways that residents can receive benefits. Beyond the connection of park recreational

facilities and physical health, and connecting physical health to mental health, there are other

options for people to become involved in these benefits. There are many options on how to use

the park facilities that could contribute to a healthy mind. Does the availability of neighborhood

parks have an effect on a positive mental health? Does simply having the option of a safe and
 6

clean place for residents to enjoy nature create a better environment for positive mental state?

This research will move beyond connections to only privileged groups who have the park

facilities to safely use, and discover if there is a way to make these benefits available to

everyone.

Purpose

This study is contracted by The Nature Conservancy as an evaluation of urban areas and

their neighborhood parks. The Nature Conservancy wants to invest resources into helping urban

areas make the most of their available nature by increasing accessibility to the surrounding

community. The Nature Conservancy has teamed up with the Bureau of Health Professions, who

has promised a large grant to help finance the renovations and additions to the parks if this study

proves significant. This explanatory research study will help to show a possible connection

between access to parks and healthy mental state. If there is a positive relation to nature and a

healthy mental state, then this will lead way to future research on how to improve mental health

as a whole as well as making parks in urban areas available without the current restrictions. Both

The Nature Conservancy and the Bureau of Health Professions have invested into the disparities

research to further equal policy making in urban areas.

Methodology

The study contracted by The Nature Conservancy seeks to discover associations between

neighborhood parks and mental health. The study will take place over the course of three weeks

in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. Five separate parks, with a variety of different aspects, will

be evaluated to see if different variables associated with nature will have a connection with

positive mental states. Surveys will be conducted to analyze the attitudes, behaviors, and social
 7

circumstances surrounding these urban neighborhood parks to get a general idea of the

availability and feelings involved with the parks. This study aims its findings at the very basic

level of mental health for the purpose of this evaluation, but opens the field to more opportunities

in the research of mental health and disparities.

Variables

This study focuses on nature as it relates to parks. Urban neighborhoods have a limited

availability to nature, and these public parks provide a space for this outdoor recreation. Nature

is conceptualized as a green area with elements of plants and animals, which is free of litter and

pollution. Nature does not have to be all original, as in the idea of a forest, but vegetation and the

presence of natural plants and animals plays a key role in this organic connection. For the

evaluation purpose, nature of the parks will ranked on a scale of one to ten, where level one

parks are full of litter and uninviting and level ten parks are clean with plentiful aspects of

nature. Parks are defined as an area free to the public with specific facilities for outdoor

activities. These facilities may include benches, playgrounds, open fields, walking trails,

basketball courts, or any designed space with the purpose of outdoor activities. The parks will be

measured in a variety of ways, such as the area size of the park and the number of facilities

available. A separate availability scale will be rated by survey respondents, from a calculation of

a scale rating of safety, proximity, and if the park is perceived as inviting. The variable of mental

health only captures a few general aspects of wellbeing, without assessment of disease and

serious long-term depression and other problems. Mental health will be evaluated as the overall

emotions of one’s daily life and how it influences activities. The 14 point Warwick-Edinburgh

Mental Well-being Scale will be used to assess the mental health of respondents.
 8

Sampling

The unit of observation for this study will be surveys analyzing the mental health of

respondents in categorized areas associated with the selected parks. Five different samples of

parks suspected of different availability to the residents will serve to compare the different

variables. Each park will be sampled over a two day period, once during a week day and once on

a weekend to get a variety of different park users. Each day, fifty people will be targeted to fill

out the survey. For each park zip code, a control sample of fifty people will be targeted at a local

super market to get a view of the park and mental health from non-users. This non-probability

quota sample will require every respondent to live in the zip code of one of the five parks to

make sure that the ideas of the park being represented are from people who are most accessible

to it. Though the study is a cross-sectional view of the attitudes and behaviors associated with the

parks, the large sample of 650 participants will get a representative view of the parks.

Question and Hypothesis

Does the availability of neighborhood parks have an effect on a positive mental health?

Does simply having the option of a safe and clean place for residents to enjoy nature create a

better environment for positive mental state? The Nature Conservancy has suspected this to be

so, leading to this evaluation and the potential grants to further funding for equality to the

facilities. After a review of the literature and analyzing previous similar theories, hypothesizes

have been made for the explanatory research of parks and mental health. Parks that are more

available to the residents will have a direct association with better mental health. Greener parks

that are free of litter will also have a direct association with better mental health. Also, parks

with a higher variety of facilities will have a direct association with better mental health.
 9

Evaluation

This evaluation will only take three weeks in the easily accessed area of Hampton Roads,

Virginia. There are no finances needed for the public areas where the samples are collected or

lodging during the stay. The cross-sectional study will allow quick turnover of results in the

evaluation. The variable of mental health can be analyzed in many different concepts, but the

reliable Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale gives a sense of the generable wellbeing

of the respondents in the area. Nature and parks are analyzed by a variety of measures in this

study to allow for a full concept of the area. The pilot test of the survey has shown equivalence

reliability between respondents. This evaluation can be generalized to other urban parks with

similar variable ratings. Variable ratings may differ from environments that are far away from

the Hampton Roads area.

Future Research

Future research should look into other possible benefits of neighborhood parks to

increase funding and accessibility to the population. The free nature of the facilities is an easy

way to immerse benefits to the population when accessibility becomes equal to the urban

neighborhoods. Other focuses should be on ways to include more aspects of nature in these urban

areas. If there are positive associations between accessibility to parks and mental health, then this

would open the field to alternate or additions to counseling and mental health treatments. Though

this study only breaks the surface of mental health associations, there is much more to be done in

the area of just how far these benefits are seen in the field of psychology and mental health. This

could possibly reduce the cost of treatment and make care easier for the people who are in need.
 10

This study includes the fields of psychology, sociology, environmental studies and policy

making, which could use these results as steps to further their disparities research and programs.
 11

References

Aguilar-Gaxiola, Sergio, Laura Castro-Schilo, and Oanh L. Meyer. 2014. “Determinants of

Mental Health and Self-Rated Health: A Model of Socioeconomic Status, Neighborhood
Safety, and Physical Activity.” American Journal of Public Health. 104(9):1734-1741.

Alaimo, Katherine, Julie O. Allen, and Thomas M. Reischl. 2010. “Community gardening,
neighborhood meetings, and social capital.” Journal of Community Psychology.
38(4):497-514.

Buttorff, Christine, Kitty S. Chan, Darrell J. Gaskin, Rachael McCleary, and Eric Roberts. 2014.
“Community Characteristics and Mortality: The Relative Strength of Association of
Different Community Characteristics.” American Journal of Public Health. 104(9):1751-
1758.

Cordell, H. K., Gary T. Green, and Lincon R. Larson. 2011. “Children’s Time Outdoors: Results
and Implications of the National Kids Survey.” Journal of Parks & Recreation
Administration. 29(2):1-20.

Delespaul, Philippe, Catherine Derom, Nele Jacobs, Jim van Os, Frenk Peeters, Bart P. F.
Rutten, Evert Thiery, and Marieke Wichers. 2012. “A Time-Lagged Momentary
Assessment Study on Daily Life Physical Activity and Affect.” Health Psychology.
31(2):135-144.
Francis, Jacinta, Billie Giles-Corti, Nicholas J. Middleton, Neville Owen, and Takemi Sugiyama.
2010. “Associations between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and
Proximity of Neighborhood Open Spaces.” American Journal of Public Health.
100(9):1752-1757.

Giles-Corti, B., E. Leslie, N. Owen, and T. Sugiyama. 2007. “Associations of neighbourhood

greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social
interaction explain the relationships?” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
62(5)

Glicksman, Allen, and Donna Wang. 2013. “Being Grounded: Benefits of Gardening for Older
Adults in Low-Income Housing.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly. 27(2):89-104.

Groenewegen, P. P., J. Maas, F. G. Schellevis, P. Spreeuwenberg, R. A. Verheij, and S. de Vries.

2009. “Morbidity is related to a green living environment.” Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health. 63(12):967-973

Myers, Jane E. and Ryan F. Reese. 2012. “EcoWellness: The Missing Factor in Holistic
Wellness Models.” Journal of Counseling and Development. 90(4):400-406.

Oftedal, Andrew, and Ingrid Schneider. 2013. “Outdoor Recreation Availability, Physical
Ability, and Health Outcomes: County-Level Analysis in Minnesota.” Journal of Park &
Recreation Administration. 31(1):34-56.
Rose, Bobbie. 2014. “Children, Nature, and Mental Health.” Exchange. (219):59-62.
 12

Young, Terence. 1995. “Modern urban parks.” Geographical Review. 85(4):535-551