Urban wellbeing: not all kinds of nature have the same effect

Though the series of heatwaves, pollution peaks and lockdowns have contributed to making us all more aware of the importance of nature – particularly plants – for the wellbeing of city residents, the question of the “types” of nature found in cities and their effects has only been seldom explored.

Does growing tomato plants on your balcony provide the same benefits for your wellbeing as taking a walk in a public park? And does a stroll in the park have similar effects to wandering through a forest?

Wellbeing and nature in cities

In September 2020, we performed a survey via questionnaire to a representative sample – in terms of age, gender, income and place of residence – of 2,500 people over 15 living in France in high- to medium-density urban areas.

One of the survey objectives was to test modelling of the influence of having nature in some form close to city residents’ homes for their wellbeing. In line with the World Health Organization, we used a holistic definition of wellbeing as quality of life and used the questionnaire to measure it.

From this perspective, wellbeing is defined using a collection of criteria, including someone’s emotional and cognitive symptoms as well as physical – not feeling pain, feeling full of energy for example – and social, in addition to their evaluation of the quality of their living environment and level of resources – financial, time, and information in particular – to which they have access.

With 88 questions, the questionnaire successively asks the respondent about their wellbeing throughout the past week, the quality and “type” of nature nearest to their place of residence – whether a balcony with flower pots, a vegetable garden, or a forest –, how often they are exposed to different kinds of nature – from seeing natural things to watching a movie that features such elements – and how often they practice activities of varying intensity – from napping to jogging – in nature, with all questions referring to the past week.

What kind of nature can be found just outside your home?

Even when taking the influence of respondents’ income, age and health status – factors that are known to have a determining influence on wellbeing –. structural equation modelling shows an association between perceived natural characteristics near place of residence and the wellbeing of city residents. As long as it is considered to be safe, attractive, well-maintained, clean and equipped with appropriate facilities, the natural environment (whether a planted promenade, public park or wood) contributes to a positive perception of the environment around people’s place of residence, as well as the physical health and “resources” that we have.

Seemingly obvious but worth remembering

These results, published in Health & Placeand confirming a 2016 WHO report on the health of city residents, may seem obvious: yes, a well-maintained, safe, attractive park is far better for people’s wellbeing than an empty, abandoned lot filled with weeds and rubbish.

However, if you move from one city to another, you will notice that such a reminder is probably worth raising, given that such maintenance does cost money and therefore may be relegated behind other, more urgent priorities.

This first result, regarding the importance of having nature near your place of residence, leads us to another, less expected result: no, not all types of nature have the same impact.

Urban forest or tomato plants on the balcony?

Principal component and confirmatory factor analyses conducted on the different scales inviting participants to detail the “kind” of nature found near their place of residence pointed to three kinds of environment: “local” nature, i.e. a terrace or balcony with flower pots or vegetable plants, or a rooftop garden; “domesticated” nature, i.e. urban parks, public gardens, or playgrounds; and nature that is less “domesticated”, i.e. forests, woods, prairies or greenery on the side of the road.

While all three environments encourage people to spend time in nature, which is a factor for wellbeing, the contribution of parks and gardens appears to be far smaller than that of local or less domesticated natural spaces. Forests, woods and prairies encourage peaceful, contemplative activities in or with this nature, as do balconies or terraces with plants, thereby contributing to psychological wellbeing.

This phenomenon is not observed to the same extent for parks, gardens and playgrounds in cities. Though that is not to say that they have no restorative effect, but it is probably lessened by the large number of people who use them.

While this limitation is also related to the sample itself – if you are under 15, access to urban parks and gardens no doubt greatly contributes to your wellbeing –, these conclusions add support to projects for urban forests… and similar spaces, as well as encouraging individuals to grow tomatoes on the balcony, if you are lucky enough to have one.