Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Campos-Uscanga, Y.;
Reyes-Rincón, H.; Pineda, E.;
Gibert-Isern, S.; Ramirez-Colina, S.;
Argüelles-Nava, V. Running in
Natural Spaces: Gender Analysis of
Its Relationship with Emotional
Intelligence, Psychological
Well-Being, and Physical Activity. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19,
6019. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph19106019
Academic Editors: Kristy Howells
and Tara Coppinger
Received: 8 April 2022
Accepted: 13 May 2022
Published: 15 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Running in Natural Spaces: Gender Analysis of Its
Relationship with Emotional Intelligence, Psychological
Well-Being, and Physical Activity
Yolanda Campos-Uscanga 1, Hannia Reyes-Rincón1, Eduardo Pineda 2, Santiago Gibert-Isern 3,
SaraíRamirez-Colina 4and Vianey Argüelles-Nava 1,*
1Instituto de Salud Pública, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91190, Mexico; ycampos@uv.mx (Y.C.-U.);
han_nia29@hotmail.com (H.R.-R.)
2Red de Biología y Conservación de Vertebrados, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa 91070, Mexico;
eduardo.pineda@inecol.mx
3Dimensión Natural S.C., Coatepec 91608, Mexico; santiagogibert75@gmail.com
4
Sistema de Atención Integral a la Salud, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91020, Mexico; sarramirez@uv.mx
*Correspondence: varguelles@uv.mx; Tel.: +52-22-8841-8934
Abstract:
Running is a complete and accessible physical exercise for the population, but little research
has been done on the psychological and environmental variables related to its practice. The objective
of this research was to determine how emotional intelligence, psychological well-being, and body
dissatisfaction are related to running in natural spaces for men and women. A cross-sectional study
was conducted on 331 runners from 20 states of the Mexican Republic (55.3% women), between 18
and 80 years old (m = 37.4; SD = 11.5), with an average of 7 years running experience (
SD = 9.3
). The
Brief Emotional Intelligence Inventory, the Psychological Well-Being Scale, and the Body Shape Ques-
tionnaire were used. The results show that men who run in natural spaces have greater psychological
well-being and emotional intelligence (stress management) and less body dissatisfaction, and they
run more days per week than those who run in built spaces. Predictors of running in natural spaces
were greater psychological well-being and emotional intelligence (stress management). On the other
hand, women who run in natural spaces show lower emotional intelligence (stress management)
and run for more minutes per day. The predictors for running in natural spaces were identified as
lower emotional intelligence (stress management), running for more minutes per day, and practicing
another physical exercise. In conclusion, in this heterogeneous sample, natural environments are
likely to be related to better performance and certain psychological indicators for runners. However,
these relationships differ between men and women, so further studies with larger sample sizes are
needed to confirm our findings.
Keywords:
health-promoting environments; green exercise; running; emotional intelligence;
psychological well-being; body dissatisfaction
1. Introduction
One of the main priorities in public health today is finding strategies to promote
physical activity, especially because of the evidence that its practice improves people’s
health. Physical exercise contributes to better health, disease prevention, and control of
chronic non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and
obesity [
1
]. At the same time, it contributes to mental health by reducing anxiety, depression,
and stress and improving cognitive attributes, such as social skills, psychological well-
being, self-concept, self-esteem, and the ability to overcome traumatic circumstances [
2
].
Therefore, scientific evidence is needed to understand how physical exercise can help in
achieving better population health outcomes.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106019 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 2 of 10
Living on a street with vegetation is associated with a higher likelihood of using
active transportation (e.g., cycling) and walking; distance from green spaces is inversely
associated with the likelihood of physical activity [
3
]. Additionally, those who perform
physical activity in natural spaces report greater enjoyment [
4
], so one can assume that
the environment is an extrinsic motivator for physical activity, being key both to starting
and continuing with its practice [
5
]. Similarly, exposure to urban green spaces has been
found to have a negative association with mortality, heart rate, and violence, and a positive
association with physical activity, attention, and mood [6].
The evidence available today shows that the benefits of physical activity are not
limited to humans, as green exercise can also lead to the protection and sustainability of
natural environments and promote planetary health. Green exercise makes it possible to
increase the population’s physical activity, while also reducing the environmental impact of
human activities [
7
]. Increased physical activity in natural spaces, together with educational
processes leading to respect and care for the environment, result in a rise in the value that
people assign to these spaces and, consequently, in an increase in the care for the species
that inhabit such spaces. Additionally, they encourage active mobility and reduce the
number of motor vehicles used for transportation, thus reducing environmental pollution
and traffic accidents, as well as improving efforts to mitigate climate change [8].
When physical activity involves exposure to natural environments, it provides special
contributions for improving mental health [
9
]. Interaction with nature has also been shown
to be related to greater psychological well-being [
10
], especially when mediated by physical
activity [
11
]; however, although it is known that greater psychological well-being is related
to greater athletic performance [
12
], the influence of the environment in this regard has not
been investigated. There is evidence, however, that the influence of natural spaces is not
generalizable to all types of physical activity. For example, a study comparing golfers and
walkers in natural environments found that for walkers, the natural environment stimulates
practice and generates positive feelings, while golfers, on the other hand, perceive natural
elements as obstacles to better performance [
13
]. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the
influence of the environment for each type of physical activity.
It has also been found that for adults raised in areas of lower economic incomes, emo-
tional intelligence is positively related to the greenness of the areas of residence. However,
this relationship is negative in adults raised in areas of higher economic incomes [
14
]. On
the other hand, it has been found that people with higher emotional intelligence have
greater psychological well-being [
15
] and engage in more leisure-time physical activi-
ties [
16
]. Available evidence shows that emotional intelligence may play an important role
in individuals’ physical activity patterns [17] and even in improving sports skills [18].
However, the aforementioned relationships may have differences when analyzed by
sex. Given that, in terms of body composition, there are differences in the proportion of fat
mass and muscle mass between the sexes [
19
], it is expected that there will be differences
in exercise performance, which may be accentuated by gender aspects and traditional roles.
It has been observed that more men engage in physical exercise than women, and men
also dedicate more time to the practice than women [
20
]. Women present greater body
dissatisfaction [
21
] and report lower scores of psychological well-being in the dimensions of
self-acceptance and autonomy; however, in positive relationships with others and personal
growth, they score higher than men [
22
], while men obtain higher scores in emotional
intelligence [16,23].
Furthermore, women make more frequent use of parks and natural areas [
24
]. The
green space health associations were stronger for women than for men in Europe and
North America, but not in other continents [
25
]. Therefore, it is necessary to further study
the relationship between green spaces and health outcomes in populations, such as in the
Mexican population.
Considering that physical exercise may require implements, equipment, or spaces
specially designed for its realization, some practices are of limited access to certain popula-
tion groups. Running is a type of physical exercise that is complete and accessible to the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 3 of 10
general population, since it requires fewer implements than others and many spaces are
available for its realization. Despite this, physical inactivity rates in Mexico are highest in
the population aged 18 years and older: 66.7% of women and 53.3% of men reported not
engaging in any sport or physical exercise [
26
]. Therefore, some questions arise about the
characteristics of athletes and the environments in which they exercise.
Research indicates that the main motivations that runners identify for running are
social and psychological interactions, in addition to improving their health and physical
conditions [
27
]. In turn, psychological well-being is positively related to satisfaction with
body image [
28
]. The above allows hypothesizing about the potential of running in natural
spaces to contribute to improved psychological well-being and body image satisfaction.
In the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, research on nighttime runners in Poland
found that 31.5% reported that running reduces their stress levels, but only 10.5% prefer to
run in natural spaces [
29
]. This may be explained by the time of day during which they run,
as darkness may increase the risks involved in running in natural areas. A study of Mexican
runners revealed that men showed better running performance than women. In addition,
those who ran frequently in natural spaces showed less body dissatisfaction and greater
psychological well-being than those who ran infrequently in such spaces. A negative
association was also found between psychological well-being and body dissatisfaction [
30
].
Although this study may provide some clues about what happens with runners, the
associations were not made with distinctions according to sex and the space in which
they exercised.
A deeper understanding of the emotional and cognitive mechanisms underlying
running is required, with separate analyses by sex. Therefore, the present study aimed
to determine how emotional intelligence, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with
body image in men and women are related to running in natural spaces. The hypothesis
was that, in both men and women, runners who run in natural spaces present greater
emotional intelligence, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with body image than
those who run in built spaces. The secondary hypothesis was that emotional intelligence,
psychological well-being, and satisfaction with body image are predictors for running in
natural spaces.
2. Materials and Methods
A quantitative, cross-sectional study was carried out.
2.1. Participants
The sample size was estimated using a 95% confidence, statistical power of 80%,
and a correlation coefficient of 0.21. The sample size included 139 male participants and
139 female participants. Excluded were underage runners, those who were not currently
running, and those who ran at a similar frequency in natural and constructed areas. A
non-probabilistic sample of 331 runners from 20 Mexican states (55.3% women), between
18 and 80 years old (m = 37.4; SD = 11.5), was included. Participants had a mean of 7 years’
running experience (SD = 9.3) and ran for a mean of 3.4 days per week (SD = 1.5). Of the
selected participants, 50.8% were couples, 68.9% had paid jobs, 15.7% were students, 6.6%
were housewives, 2.7% were unemployed, 2.7% were pensioners or retired, and 3.3% did
not respond.
2.2. Instruments
General data and characteristics of the practice of physical activity were collected
using a form designed for this purpose, and open-ended questions were offered. Natural
spaces were considered to be those with a predominance of vegetation and minimal or no
presence of human constructions, while built spaces were considered to be those with a
predominance of asphalt and a minimal presence of vegetation. Runners were asked about
the type of space in which they most frequently ran, without differentiating natural areas
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 4 of 10
from urban natural areas, although they might have occasionally run in another type of
space in the past month.
The Brief Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i-M20) was applied, containing
20 items
on a Likert-type scale with five factors: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management,
adaptability, and general mood. Each item had four response options: never happens to
me, sometimes happens to me, almost always happens to me, and always happens to me.
In the stress management subscale, a higher score meant lower intelligence; in the rest of
the subscales, the scores were straightforward. This structure showed acceptable reliability
coefficients for all of the dimensions (ω> 0.700) [31].
The Body Shape Questionnaire (BSQ), validated in the Mexican population, was
used to measure unidimensional dissatisfaction with body image. It consists of 18 items
on a 6-point Likert-type scale, in which higher scores reflect greater dissatisfaction with
body image. The unidimensional structure had high reliability coefficients (
ω
= 0.947;
α= 0.957) [32].
The Ryff Psychological Well-Being Scale, unidimensional version, validated in Mexican
university students, was used. It includes 19 items in Likert-type response format, with
scores ranging from 1 to 6; higher scores reflect greater psychological well-being. It had
high reliability coefficients (ω= 0.937; α= 0.909) [33].
2.3. Procedure
A call was made through Facebook groups of Mexican runners, from 1–30 April
2021 (spring). Of those persons called, 98.2% agreed to participate. Participants initially
provided the requested informed consent and subsequently answered the questionnaire,
using Google Forms.
2.4. Data Analysis
Considering sex differences in sports performance, contact with natural spaces, body
image dissatisfaction, psychological well-being, and emotional intelligence, all analyses
were done independently for men and women. The normality of the data, within groups,
was checked by means of skewness and kurtosis, and the multicollinearity was estimated
through variance inflation factor (VIF) values. Comparisons between those who ran
in natural spaces and those who ran in built spaces were made using student’s t-test
and chi-square, while the effect size was estimated in both cases (phi and Cohen’s d,
respectively). Pearson correlation coefficients were also estimated to identify associations.
Finally, multivariate logistic regression models were developed to detect predictors of
running in natural spaces, including the variables that had shown significant differences in
the comparisons by type of running space.
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
Men reported a higher frequency of running in natural spaces (66.2%) than women
did (55.2%) (p= 0.027). In the group of men, no differences in running performance were
found. In women, those who run in natural spaces were found to have greater participation
in running and other sports compared to those who run in built spaces (Table 1).
Table 1. Sample characteristics according to running space.
Natural Spaces Built Spaces
n%n%pES (ϕ)
Living in a couple
Men 44 44.9 27 54.0 0.303 −0.086
Women 54 54.4 43 52.4 0.999 0.010
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 5 of 10
Table 1. Cont.
Natural Spaces Built Spaces
n%n%pES (ϕ)
Participation in competitions
Men 58 59.2 27 54.0 0.600 0.050
Women 70 69.3 43 52.4 0.022 0.173
Running for health reasons
Men 80 81.6 41 82.0 0.999 −0.004
Women 85 84.2 65 79.3 0.442 0.063
Running for aesthetic reasons
Men 15 15.3 12 30.0 0.260 −0.106
Women 16 15.8 15 18.3 0.695 −0.032
Runs for competitive reasons
Men 16 16.3 7 14.0 0.813 0.030
Women 15 14.9 6 7.3 0.161 0.118
Running for recreation
Men 54 55.1 24 48.0 0.487 0.067
Women 55 54.4 43 52.4 0.882 0.020
Other physical exercise
Men 66 67.3 31 62.0 0.584 0.053
Women 80 79.2 49 59.8 0.005 0.212
ES = Effect size.
3.2. Comparisons According to Exercise Space
Men who run in natural spaces have greater psychological well-being, satisfaction
with body image, and emotional intelligence (intrapersonal and stress management) and
run more days and kilometers per week than those who run in built spaces. Women who
run in natural spaces have lower emotional intelligence (stress management) and run more
minutes per occasion (Table 2).
Table 2.
Comparison of well-being, satisfaction, emotional intelligence, and sports practice by sex,
according to running space.
Variables Men (n= 148)
Natural Spaces
(n= 98)
Built Spaces
(n= 50)
Mean SD Mean SD pES (d)
Psychological well-being 104.2 12.3 95.3 17.8 0.000 0.582
Body dissatisfaction 32.7 15.5 42.9 20.0 0.001 −0.570
EI Intrapersonal 11.1 3.1 9.8 3.1 0.018 0.419
EI Interpersonal 11.1 2.8 11.4 2.1 0.441 −0.121
EI Stress management 7.3 2.3 8.5 2.7 0.005 0.478
EI Adaptability 11.9 2.9 11.7 2.4 0.693 0.075
IE General mood 13.2 3.0 12.7 2.4 0.385 0.184
Age 39.8 12.9 35.6 14.4 0.073 0.307
Years running 10.9 12.3 7.2 9.9 0.067 0.331
Days per week 4.1 1.4 3.3 1.5 0.002 0.551
Minutes per day 67.6 24.0 61.1 27.9 0.154 0.250
Minimum weekly kms 24.5 17.5 18.2 16.0 0.037 0.376
Variables Women (n= 183)
(n= 101) (n= 82)
Psychological well-being 100.6 11.5 98.7 13.2 0.300 0.153
Body dissatisfaction 46.5 19.9 44.6 19.4 0.527 0.097
EI Intrapersonal 11.2 2.7 11.0 2.7 0.620 0.074
EI Interpersonal 11.9 2.2 11.9 2.3 0.920 0.000
EI Stress management 8.8 2.5 8.0 2.4 0.029 0.326
EI Adaptability 11.4 2.4 11.7 2.4 0.443 −0.125
IE General mood 12.9 2.6 12.6 2.7 0.434 0.113
Age 36.2 9.9 36.5 9.6 0.877 −0.030
Years running 5.7 6.2 4.6 6.2 0.199 0.177
Days per week 4.0 1.4 3.9 1.5 0.762 0.069
Minutes per day 66.6 23.5 57.4 21.6 0.008 0.408
Minimum weekly kms 17.1 14.9 16.0 13.9 0.599 0.076
EI: Emotional intelligence; ES = Effect size.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 6 of 10
3.3. Associations between Study Variables
In men who run in natural areas, a medium correlation was found between psycho-
logical well-being and body dissatisfaction and the number of days they run per week.
Likewise, there were small correlations of emotional intelligence with psychological well-
being, satisfaction with body image, and some running characteristics (Table 3). In women
who run in natural spaces, strong and medium magnitude correlations were found between
psychological well-being, emotional intelligence (adaptability, general mood, and stress
management), and body dissatisfaction; additionally, medium magnitude correlations were
found between body dissatisfaction and adaptability. Likewise, age showed a positive rela-
tionship of medium magnitude with emotional intelligence. There were small correlations
with some characteristics of running, body dissatisfaction, and adaptability (Table 3).
Table 3.
Association between psychological well-being, body dissatisfaction, emotional intelligence,
and characteristics of running in natural areas.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Psychological well-being
2. Body dissatisfaction
Men 0.456 **
Women −0.431 **
3. EI Intrapersonal
Men 0.090 0.118
Women 0.280 ** −0.042
4. EI Interpersonal
Men 0.014 0.221 * 0.460 **
Women 0.292 ** 0.022 0.411 **
5. EI Stress management
Men −0.204 * 0.206 * −0.050 −0.018
Women −0.325 ** 0.263 ** −0.287 ** 0.054
6. EI Adaptability
Men 0.163 0.151 0.597 ** 0.703 ** 0.006
Women 0.502** −0.309 ** 0.602 ** 0.462 ** -
7. EI General mood
Men 0.132 −0.016 0.595 ** 0.599 ** 0.047 0.812 **
Women 0.607 ** −0.284 ** 0.498 ** 0.357 ** −0.345 ** 0.660 **
8. Age
Men −0.019 −0.197 −0.066 −0.170 −0.163 −0.231 * −0.199 *
Women 0.151 −0.033 0.375 ** 0.168 −0.390 ** 0.310 ** 0.302 **
9. Years running
Men 0.102 −0.188 −0.050 0.019 −0.137 −0.024 −0.027 0.607 **
Women 0.192 −0.114 0.214 * 0.084 −0.270 ** 0.146 0.145 0.215 *
10. Days per week
Men 0.350 ** −0.230 * 0.107 −0.014 −0.195 0.121 0.085 0.160 0.227 *
Women 0.118 0.075 0.178 0.129 −0.079 0.269 ** 0.173 0.235 * 0.257 **
11. Minutes per day
Men 0.213 * −0.066 −0.109 −0.066 −0.110 −0.126 −0.072 0.033 0.092 0.106
Women 0.017 0.178 −0.034 0.063 −0.111 −0.132 −0.031 0.167 0.068 −0.073
12. Minimum weekly kms
Men 0.234 * −0.074 0.028 0.041 −0.137 0.047 0.076 0.083 0.211 0.602 ** 0.706 **
Women 0.090 0.202 * 0.090 0.168 −0.105 0.152 0.061 0.290 ** 0.191 0.599 ** 0.609 **
EI: Emotional intelligence. * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01.
Using a multivariate model, greater psychological well-being and emotional intelli-
gence (stress management) were identified as predictors of running in natural spaces in
men. In women, lower emotional intelligence (stress management), running more minutes
per occasion, and practicing other physical exercise were identified as predictors (Table 4).
Table 4.
Multivariate model for the detection of predictor variables for running in natural areas,
by gender.
Variables Crude Model Adjusted Model
OR CI 95% pOR CI 95% p
Men
Psychological well-being 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 0.253 1.04 (1.01–1.07) 0.008
Body dissatisfaction 0.98 (0.96–1.01) 0.123 0.100
EI Intrapersonal 1.09 (0.96–1.25) 0.186 0.161
EI Stress management 0.88 (0.76–1.03) 0.103 0.86 (0.74–0.99) 0.038
Days per week 1.23 (0.89–1.69) 0.205 0.072
Minimum weekly kms 1.00 (0.97–1.03) 0.957 0.293
R2= 0.207
Women
EI Stress management 1.17 (1.02–1.35) 0.030 1.16 (1.01–1.34) 0.036
Minutes per day 1.02 (1.00–1.03) 0.027 1.02 (1.01–1.04) 0.014
Participation in competitions 1.92 (0.98–3.75) 0.058
Other physical exercise 2.93 (1.43–6.01) 0.003 3.04 (1.49–6.22) 0.02
R2= 0.189
EI: Emotional intelligence; OR: Odss ratio; CI = Confidence interval.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 7 of 10
4. Discussion
Among all the sports practices, running is one of the most accessible to the population
because it is low-cost, requires little equipment, and can be performed in multiple envi-
ronments such as sidewalks, stadiums, tracks, and natural spaces. Our results show that
men run more frequently in natural areas compared to women, which could initially be
attributed to a predilection for nature; however, in other contexts, it has been observed
that women make more frequent use of parks and natural areas [
24
]. The difference found
may be due to the public insecurity that leads women to avoid these spaces to avoid being
victims of violence [
34
]. However, some gaps remain, since this study did not inquire about
the reasons why participants preferred one type of space or another, or about whether they
usually run alone or accompanied (which could be a mitigating factor for insecurity), or
about the distance of their residence from natural areas, which may be relevant for their
use [3].
The first hypothesis sought to determine whether runners in natural environments
have characteristics that differ from runners in built environments, focusing separately on
men and women. In men, it was found that those who run in natural spaces present greater
psychological well-being, less body dissatisfaction, and greater emotional intelligence
(intrapersonal and stress management), and they run more days and kilometers per week.
These findings on psychological well-being and body dissatisfaction are similar to those
from a previous study of Mexican male and female runners [
30
]. Although the relationship
between emotional intelligence and physical activity was already known [
18
], this is the
first study that shows a difference in emotional intelligence according to the type of space
in which runners exercise.
On the other hand, women who run in natural spaces participate more in competitions,
practice other physical exercise more frequently, and run more minutes per occasion; how-
ever, they also present lower emotional intelligence in the stress management dimension.
These findings differ from those observed for male participants in a previous study on
Mexican male and female runners [
30
], in which differences for well-being and body dissat-
isfaction were also expected to be found. It is especially interesting to observe the lower
emotional intelligence in the stress management dimension in female outdoor runners,
considering that physical activity is associated with higher emotional intelligence [
17
].
However, differential impacts of stress on physical exercise have been observed. While ha-
bitually active individuals exercise more in the face of stress, those who are in the initiation
stages of sport exercise less [
35
]. Additionally, this study reviewed emotional intelligence
for stress management and not the presence of stress as in other studies [2].
To our knowledge, this is the first research that reports a relationship between running
in natural spaces and lower emotional intelligence in women. This leads us to hypothesize
that stress management in women could not only mediate the consolidation of the practice,
but also the inclination to exercise in natural spaces as a compensatory measure.
On the other hand, it is interesting to compare the correlation found between age
and years of running, since in the men’s group, the correlation is strong (r = 0.607), and
in the women’s group, it is weak (r = 0.215). This suggests that men start running at an
earlier age and therefore obtain greater cumulative benefits than women. In addition to
starting to run at an older age, women may also be intermittent in the practice. This is
complemented by the mean number of years running for men (10.9 years), compared to that
found in women (5.7 years). These findings are in line with a previous study on adolescents
that reported that males engage in more physical activity for longer periods of time than
females [
20
]. Further studies with limited age groups are suggested to thoroughly explore
these relationships and detect variations between young adults, middle-aged, and older
adult runners.
The secondary hypothesis was that emotional intelligence, psychological well-being,
and body dissatisfaction are predictors of running in natural spaces. Regarding males,
there were correlations between psychological well-being, body image satisfaction, days
running per week, emotional intelligence, and some characteristics of running. These
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 8 of 10
findings add to the available evidence on the relationships between physical activity and
mental health [
9
–
12
] and provide new information on running in natural environments.
Psychological well-being and emotional intelligence in the stress management dimension
are predictors of running in natural spaces for men.
Regarding females, the predictors of running in natural areas were identified as lower
emotional intelligence in the stress management dimension, running more minutes per
day, and practicing other physical exercise. These two characteristics of running point to
consolidated practice; it seems that as women progress in physical exercise, they have a
greater predilection for natural spaces. However, this group needs further studies to clarify
the controversial relationships between emotional intelligence in the dimension of stress
management and adhesion to running. One of the possible hypotheses is based on the
evidence for adults raised in areas with higher economic incomes, greater greenness is
negatively related to emotional intelligence [
14
]. This is not possible to verify, since our
study did not investigate the area of residence or economic incomes. If there is a causal link
between nature of exposure and emotional intelligence [
14
], then green exercise might help
women to enhance their ability to use and manage emotions.
Considering the differences found between men and women, it is necessary to deepen
the understanding of the relationships found here through longitudinal studies that allow
the establishment of causal relationships. In addition, the study was carried out in a short
timeframe over the spring of 2021, and it is possible that the associations found here will be
significantly modified in other environmental conditions less favorable for running. Finally,
further studies should consider some sociodemographic variables as potential confounding
factors with a larger sample size to be incorporated in multivariate models.
5. Conclusions
In this heterogeneous sample, men who run in natural areas have greater well-being,
less body dissatisfaction, more emotional intelligence (intrapersonal and stress manage-
ment), and run more days and kilometers per week. Women who run in natural areas have
lower emotional intelligence (stress management), run more minutes per occasion, and
more frequently practice other sports and participate in competitions. These differences
also occur in the associations; while for men running in natural areas is related to greater
emotional intelligence, for women the association is negative. Natural environments seem
to be related to better performance and some psychological indicators of runners, but these
relationships differ between men and women, so further studies are required to deepen the
study, especially in regard to emotional intelligence.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, Y.C.-U. and V.A.-N.; methodology, Y.C.-U.; validation,
S.G.-I., E.P. and S.R.-C.; formal analysis, Y.C.-U.; investigation, H.R.-R., S.G.-I., S.R.-C. and E.P.;
data curation, H.R.-R.; writing— original draft preparation, Y.C.-U.; writing—review and editing,
V.A.-N.; visualization, Y.C.-U. and V.A.-N.; supervision, Y.C.-U.; project administration, Y.C.-U.;
funding acquisition, Y.C.-U. and V.A.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Instituto de Salud Pública,
Universidad Veracruzana (protocol code CONBIOÉTICA-30-CI-001-20190122 and date of approval
26 March 2021).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The database is available in base abierta.sav.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 9 of 10
References
1.
Capodaglio, E.M. Physical activity, tool for the prevention and management of chronic diseases. G. Ital. Di Med. Del Lav. Ed Ergon.
2018,40, 106–119. [PubMed]
2.
Granados, S.H.; Cuéllar, Á.M. Influencia del deporte y la actividad física en el estado de salud físico y mental: Una revisión
bibliográfica. Rev. Katharsis 2018,25, 141–159.
3.
Shen, J.; Cui, J.; Li, M.; Clarke, C.V.; Gao, Y.; An, R. Green Space and Physical Activity in China: A Systematic Review. Sustainability
2021,13, 13368. [CrossRef]
4.
Lahart, I.; Darcy, P.; Gidlow, C.; Calogiuri, G. The Effects of Green Exercise on Physical and Mental Wellbeing: A Systematic
Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 1352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Fraser, M.; Munoz, S.A.; MacRury, S. What Motivates Participants to Adhere to Green Exercise? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2019,16, 1832. [CrossRef]
6.
Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2018,15, 445. [CrossRef]
7.
Loureiro, N.; Calmeiro, L.; Marques, A.; Gomez-Baya, D.; Gaspar de Matos, M. The Role of Blue and Green Exercise in Planetary
Health and Well-Being. Sustainability 2021,13, 10829. [CrossRef]
8.
Salvo, D.; Garcia, L.; Reis, R.S.; Stankov, I.; Goel, R.; Schipperijn, J.; Hallal, P.C.; Ding, D.; Pratt, M. Physical Activity Promotion
and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Building Synergies to Maximize Impact. J. Phys. Act. Health
2021
,18,
1163–1180. [CrossRef]
9.
Taniguchi, K.; Takano, M.; Tobari, Y.; Hayano, M.; Nakajima, S.; Mimura, M.; Tsubota, K.; Noda, Y. Influence of External Natural
Environment Including Sunshine Exposure on Public Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Psychiatry Int.
2022
,3, 91–113.
[CrossRef]
10.
Lawton, E.; Brymer, E.; Clough, P.; Denovan, A. The Relationship between the Physical Activity Environment, Nature Relatedness,
Anxiety, and the Psychological Well-being Benefits of Regular Exercisers. Front. Psychol. 2017,8, 1058. [CrossRef]
11.
Harada, K.; Lee, S.; Lee, S.; Bae, S.; Harada, K.; Suzuki, T.; Shimada, H. Objectively-measured outdoor time and physical and
psychological function among older adults. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017,17, 1455–1462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Xiu-Ming, C. Excellence of Trainer and Psychological Wellbeing Lead to the Higher Performance: Evidence from Chinese
Basketball Players. Rev. Psicol. Deporte J. Sport Psychol. 2021,29, 1–12.
13.
Fraser, M.; Munoz, S.A.; MacRury, S. Does the Mode of Exercise Influence the Benefits Obtained by Green Exercise? Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2019,16, 3004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Browning, M.; Li, D.; White, M.P.; Bratman, G.N.; Becker, D.; Benfield, J.A. Association between residential greenness during
childhood and trait emotional intelligence during young adulthood: A retrospective life course analysis in the United States.
Health Place 2022,74, 102755. [CrossRef]
15.
Sánchez-Álvarez, N.; Extremera, N.; Fernández-Berrocal, P. The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being:
A meta-analytic investigation. J. Posit. Psychol. 2016,11, 276–285. [CrossRef]
16.
Acebes-Sanchez, J.; Diez-Vega, I.; Esteban-Gonzalo, S.; Rodriguez-Romo, G. Physical activity and emotional intelligence among
undergraduate students: A correlational study. BMC Public Health 2019,19, 1241. [CrossRef]
17. Zysberg, L.; Hemmel, R. Emotional Intelligence and Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2018,15, 53–56. [CrossRef]
18.
Ubago-Jimenez, J.L.; Gonzalez-Valero, G.; Puertas-Molero, P.; Garcia-Martinez, I. Development of Emotional Intelligence through
Physical Activity and Sport Practice. A Systematic Review. Behav. Sci. 2019,9, 44. [CrossRef]
19.
Rodriguez-Carmona, Y.; Meijer, J.L.; Zhou, Y.; Jansen, E.C.; Perng, W.; Banker, M.; Song, P.X.K.; Tellez-Rojo, M.M.; Cantoral, A.;
Peterson, K.E. Metabolomics reveals sex-specific pathways associated with changes in adiposity and muscle mass in a cohort of
Mexican adolescents. Pediatr. Obes. 2022,17, e12887. [CrossRef]
20.
Oliveira-Gonçalves, V.; Parra-Martínez, J. Género y práctica de ejercicio físico de adolescentes y universitarios. Cad. Pesqui.
2018
,
48, 1114–1128. [CrossRef]
21.
Jones, L.; Ness, A.; Emmett, P. Misreporting of Energy Intake From Food Records Completed by Adolescents: Associations with
Sex, Body Image, Nutrient, and Food Group Intake. Front. Nutr. 2021,8, 749007. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Mayordomo, T.; Sales, A.; Satorres, E.; Meléndez, J. Bienestar psicológico en función de la etapa de vida, el sexo y su interacción.
Pensam. Psicol. 2016,14, 101–112. [CrossRef]
23.
Wang, K.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, T.; Ouyang, Y.; Liu, B.; Luo, J. The Relationship between Physical Activity and Emotional Intelligence
in College Students: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Liu, Q.; Ullah, H.; Wan, W.; Peng, Z.; Hou, L.; Qu, T.; Ali Haidery, S. Analysis of Green Spaces by Utilizing Big Data to Support
Smart Cities and Environment: A Case Study about the City Center of Shanghai. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020,9, 360. [CrossRef]
25.
Sillman, D.; Rigolon, A.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Yoon, H.; McAnirlin, O. Do sex and gender modify the association between green
space and physical health? A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2022,209, 112869. [CrossRef]
26.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Módulo de Práctica Deportiva y Ejercicio Físico 2021; Instituto Nacional de Estadística
y Geografía: Colima, Mexico, 2022.
27.
Malchrowicz-Mo´sko, E.; Poczta, J. Running as a Form of Therapy Socio-Psychological Functions of Mass Running Events for Men
and Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 2262. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 6019 10 of 10
28.
Fahami, F.; Amini-Abchuyeh, M.; Aghaei, A. The Relationship between Psychological Wellbeing and Body Image in Pregnant
Women. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2018,23, 167–171. [CrossRef]
29.
Rozmiarek, M.; León-Guereño, P.; Tapia-Serrano, M.Á.; Thuany, M.; Gomes, T.N.; Płoszaj, K.; Firek, W.; Malchrowicz-Mo´sko, E.
Motivation and Eco-Attitudes among Night Runners during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022,14, 1512. [CrossRef]
30.
Reyes-Rincón, H.; Gibert-Isern, S.; Ramírez-Colina, S.; Pineda-Arredondo, E.; Argüelles-Nava, V.G.; Campos-Uscanga, Y. Espacios
naturales, bienestar psicológico y satisfacción con la imagen corporal en corredores. Rev. Psicol. Apl. Al Deporte Y El Ejerc. Físico
2021,6, e15. [CrossRef]
31.
Dominguez-Lara, S.; Campos-Uscanga, Y. Estructura interna de una medida breve de inteligencia emocional en estudiantes
mexicanos de ciencias de la salud. Educ. Méd. 2021,22, 262–266. [CrossRef]
32.
Dominguez-Lara, S.; Aguirre-Pérez, S.; Romo-González, T.; Herrera-Meza, S.; Campos-Uscanga, Y. Análisis psicométrico del
Body Shape Questionnaire en universitarios mexicanos. Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2020,49, 154–161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33.
Dominguez-Lara, S.; Romo-González, T.; Palmeros-Exsome, C.; Barranca-Enríquez, A.; del Moral-Trinidad, E.; Campos-Uscanga,
Y. Análisis estructural de la Escala de Bienestar Psicológico de Ryff en universitarios mexicanos. Liberabit
2019
,25, 267–285.
[CrossRef]
34.
Mayen Huerta, C.; Cafagna, G. Snapshot of the Use of Urban Green Spaces in Mexico City during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A
Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 4304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35.
Stults-Kolehmainen, M.A.; Sinha, R. The effects of stress on physical activity and exercise. Sports Med.
2014
,44, 81–121. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
