fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 1
published: 24 May 2022
Jennifer NW Lim,
University of Wolverhampton,
University of Strathclyde,
NeuroLandscape Foundation, Poland
This article was submitted to
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Received: 30 January 2022
Accepted: 25 April 2022
Published: 24 May 2022
Hedin M, Hahs AK, Mata L and
Lee K (2022) Connecting Biodiversity
With Mental Health and Wellbeing —
A Review of Methods and Disciplinary
Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:865727.
Connecting Biodiversity With Mental
Health and Wellbeing — A Review of
Methods and Disciplinary
Madeleine Hedin*, Amy K. Hahs, Luis Mata and Kate Lee
School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, VIC, Australia
Biodiversity conservation and mental health and wellbeing are of increasing global
concern, with growing relevance to planning and policy. A growing body of literature
exploring the relationships between biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing—
based on early research conducted largely from social science perspectives—suggests
that particular qualities within natural environments confer particular beneﬁts. Results
so far have been inconclusive and inconsistent, contributing to an incohesive body
of evidence. While past reviews have focused on reporting variations in results, the
present study builds on early reviews by exploring variations from the perspective
of author disciplines and the use of different guiding theories, and variables used to
measure biodiversity, mental health and wellbeing. This aims to address a research gap
in understanding whether research in this topic has become more interdisciplinary or
has employed more consistent study designs, which were highlighted as priorities in
past reviews, but the progress of which has not yet been explored in depth. We found
that research connecting biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing has become only
marginally more interdisciplinary in recent years, and there is still a large inconsistency
in the use of guiding theories, variables and overall study designs. The variation in
disciplinary perspectives and methods reﬂects a growing interest in this ﬁeld and the
variety of ways researchers are trying to understand and test the complex relationships
between biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing. Our study shows that there are
unique perspectives that different disciplines can contribute to this body of research and
continuing to increase collaboration between disciplines with the use of consistent mixed
methods approaches in future may contribute to a more cohesive body of evidence. We
provide a framework to conceptualize recommendations for future research, highlighting
the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration at multiple scales, and importantly
focusing on more speciﬁc, mechanistic studies to inform decision-making that provides
co-beneﬁts for biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing.
Keywords: subjective wellbeing, green prescription, research methods, systematic literature search, species
richness, urban greenspace, interdisciplinary science
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 1May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 2
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
Increasing global urbanization presents signiﬁcant challenges
for both human mental health and biodiversity (Marselle
et al., 2020). In recent decades, there has been immense
research interest in demonstrating the importance of natural
environments to human health and wellbeing (Beute et al.,
2020;Felappi et al., 2020;Kosanic and Petzold, 2020), which
has produced strong evidence that nature promotes various
dimensions of human health and wellbeing. An initial search
on the Web of Science for research connecting nature
and health and wellbeing (for the years 2006–2021) returns
approximately 800 results. In early research, measures of
greenspace as they relate to health and wellbeing considered
greenspace as a relatively homogenous “green” treatment, such
as assessing the amount of greenness, or merely presence or
absence. The relationships were predominantly explored in the
context of aesthetic preference (Gobster et al., 2007), drawing
upon psychoevolutionary theories such as savannah theory,
which describe our natural aﬃnity for relatively homogenous
greenspaces (Hartig et al., 2011). Attention Restoration Theory
(ART) is another theory that guided early work in this space,
and which has continued to feature strongly in subsequent
research. This theory is based on the ability of a landscape to
renew personal adaptive resources and cognitive abilities to meet
the demands of everyday life (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). As
such, early work in this ﬁeld has been driven from a social
More recently, researchers have been interested in
understanding the mechanisms by which correlations between
health and wellbeing, and diﬀerent greenspace characteristics
arise. Studies that connect nature and health have highlighted
that particular qualities within a natural space might provide
particular beneﬁts (Thompson Coon et al., 2011;Van den Berg
et al., 2015;Reining et al., 2020). Thus, while earlier work
looked at the quantity of green within an environment, more
recent work seeks to explore more speciﬁc qualities of those
environments. From this, a body of research has emerged
which examines health and wellbeing beneﬁts in the context
of the ecological characteristics of particular spaces, such
as naturalness or ecological integrity (Reining et al., 2020).
Measures of biodiversity within a space, such as species richness,
can provide an indication of the ecological functioning of
that space. Additionally, more recent studies have begun to
distinguish diﬀerent aspects of human health and wellbeing, such
as understanding whether landscapes with ecological beneﬁt can
also provide mental health and wellbeing beneﬁts. This moves
beyond the measures of greenness to uncover complexities
and inform ways to approach the development of synergistic
scenarios for biodiversity conservation and human health
and wellbeing (Giusti and Samuelsson, 2020). The relevant
deﬁnitions of biodiversity, mental health and psychological
wellbeing for this research are as follows:
Biodiversity: the variability among all living organisms from all
sources and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this
includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems
(United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006).
Mental health: a state of wellbeing in which an individual realizes
their own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and is able to make a contribution to their community
(World Health Organisation, 2018).
Psychological wellbeing: a combination of positive aﬀective states
such as happiness (the hedonic perspective) and functioning with
optimal eﬀectiveness in individual and social life (the eudaimonic
perspective) (Wineﬁeld et al., 2012).
More in depth studies of the biological quality of greenspace
are essential for conservation purposes, and beneﬁts to
human mental health and psychological wellbeing are key
for understanding how to best design, manage and conserve
landscapes for both objectives. Understanding synergies between
biodiversity and human wellbeing is particularly important
within urban landscapes, because planners and policy makers
around the globe are seeking to incorporate ecological restoration
or design within the fabric urban environments (Fisher
et al., 2021). Simultaneously, those involved in decision
making are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of
understanding landscapes in the context of social values, and
the health and wellbeing beneﬁts that natural spaces can provide
(Jorgensen and Gobster, 2010).
Given the importance of mental health and psychological
wellbeing to people, there is a growing interest in their
presence as a societal aspiration with increasing relevance to
decision making. There is therefore a need to understand which
social, environmental and economic conditions can provide
optimal population level wellbeing (Balvanera et al., 2016;
Mavoa et al., 2019). However, signiﬁcant challenges still exist
in connecting research ﬁelds of biodiversity and health and
wellbeing, particularly with regard to the lack of consistent
metrics and outcomes explored (Jorgensen and Gobster, 2010).
Numerous studies have demonstrated that biodiversity can
enrich the appreciation of natural spaces (Collar, 2003). Measures
of biodiversity such as species richness or abundance have
been shown to contribute to wellbeing; however, trends are
inconsistent and inconclusive, and complicated largely by the
use of diﬀerent wellbeing and biodiversity variables (Dallimer
et al., 2012;Fisher et al., 2021). While it has been shown that
people generally perceived natural settings with high levels of
complexity to be favorable (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989;Southon
et al., 2017), diﬀerent people have vastly diﬀerent preferences
for landscapes and there are many environmental, social and
personal factors that inﬂuence the beneﬁts obtained from natural
spaces. While some studies have found that objectively measured
biodiversity is positively associated with wellbeing, others have
found either weak positive, no correlation or inverse eﬀects. For
example, while Fuller et al. (2007) and Wolf et al. (2017) found
that higher plant and bird diversity correlated positively with
psychological wellbeing, Dallimer et al. (2012) and Methorst et al.
(2020) found that psychological wellbeing decreased with higher
plant diversity, while no correlations were found for measures
such as butterﬂy diversity.
In Figure 1 we show the growth in research connecting
biodiversity to health and wellbeing, since 2006. An early work
of this topic by Lovell et al. (2014) reviewed just eight studies,
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 2May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 3
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
FIGURE 1 | Growth in research connecting biodiversity to mental health, between the years 2006–2021. Captions across the top with arrows indicate the years that
have been included in the reviews conducted by Lovell et al. (2014) and Marselle et al. (2019) upon which this current study builds.
which explicitly explored links between biodiversity indicators
and mental health. A more recent review conducted by Marselle
et al. (2019) explored a further 16 studies. In the present
study, we build upon this body of literature, and focus on the
epistemological framing, disciplinary approaches and speciﬁc
methodologies used to date. Earlier research connecting health
and biodiversity called for interdisciplinary approaches that
integrate multiple perspectives to guide planning and design
(Chiang et al., 2017). Furthermore, previous reviews (Aerts
et al., 2018;Collins et al., 2020;Methorst et al., 2020) have
focused largely on reporting the variability in results. Reviews
such as Marselle et al. (2019) highlight the need for more
interdisciplinary work and robust experimental designs with
consistent use of metrics, to provide for a more replicable
and cohesive body of evidence of biodiversity-mental health
relationships (Lovell et al., 2014;Chiang et al., 2017;Giusti and
Samuelsson, 2020). There has, however, been little exploration
of how diﬀerent academic disciplines have contributed to the
body of work so far, and how the use of diﬀerent metrics
has been evolving.
In order to understand whether there has been progress in
terms of interdisciplinary work or consistent use of metrics,
we aim to compare the 24 earlier studies reported by
Marselle et al. (2019) with more recent works that have been
published since 2018, which explicitly examine relationships
between biodiversity and mental health and/or psychological
wellbeing. In doing so, we seek to address a research gap in
our understanding of how diﬀerent disciplines have contributed
to this body of research, and how diﬀerent variables have been
incorporated into study designs and may be contributing to
inconsistencies in results. In order to address this research gap,
we investigate the following research questions:
(1) which academic disciplines have contributed to research
connecting biodiversity and mental health and psychological
wellbeing, and have recent studies become more interdisciplinary
than earlier studies? And (2) are the guiding theories and
methods used in recent studies connecting biodiversity and
mental health and psychological wellbeing similar or diﬀerent
from earlier studies?
By answering these questions, we seek to contribute to the
current state of research linking biodiversity with health and
wellbeing and how it is evolving based on early recommendations
for interdisciplinary work and consistent use of methods. This
may shed light on the understanding of how diﬀerent academic
disciplines have contributed to the body of research and highlight
any robust elements of study designs to inform future research.
Systematic Search Process
The systematic search conducted by Marselle et al. (2019) and
previously by Lovell et al. (2014) was replicated for this study
using the Web of Science, to capture more recent studies
conducted following the Marselle et al. (2019) review. From this,
it was determined that 28 recent studies met the inclusion
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 3May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 4
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
criteria for full-text review. Data extraction methods used by
Marselle et al. (2019) have been replicated and built upon. In
doing this, together with determining the author disciplines as
with earlier studies, changes in disciplinarity and use of variables
in recent works could be compared.
Using the Web of Science, journal articles which had published
original work between the years 2017–2021 were searched
for. The search terms used and process of identifying papers
appropriate for full-text review are summarized in Table 1
and Figure 2. Although the year 2017 was included in the
review by Marselle et al. (2019), this year was included in the
present study in order to capture any potential studies that
were missed in that review. The search terms (Table 1) and
inclusion and exclusion criteria were adapted from Marselle
et al. (2019), with the aim of being able to build upon
and draw comparisons with the evidence base they obtained
in their review.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The following inclusion criteria were used during the systematic
TABLE 1 | Search terms used in the systematic search of the Web of Science.
Search terms Number of studies
Biodiversity and “mental health” 86
Biodiversity and “mental wellbeing” 5
Biodiversity and “mental well-being” 7
Biodiversity and “psychological wellbeing” 5
Biodiversity and “subjective wellbeing” 1
Species diversity and “mental health” 16
Species richness and “mental health 8
Biodiversity and “psychological restoration” 13
Biodiversity and “perceived restorativeness” 12
Species richness and “psychological restoration” 2
Biodiversity and “attention restoration” 10
Total number of studies 165
With each search, only original, peer reviewed journal articles were searched for,
between the years 2017–2021.
FIGURE 2 | Flow chart representing the systematic search and subsequent
processes resulting in the inclusion of 28 additional papers, added to the body
of 24 papers previously reviewed by Marselle et al. (2019).
1. Any peer reviewed study published between
01/01/2017 and 05/04/2021.
2. Any recognized and reliable study design with
any population group, from any country—
English language only.
3. An explicit exploration of one or more biodiversity
variables such as species richness, or a setting protected for
4. An explicit exploration of one or more mental
health/wellbeing related outcome, including both objective
and subjective measure of mental health or wellbeing.
Studies were excluded if they did not directly assess (i)
biodiversity and (ii) mental health or mental wellbeing related
outcome measures. Studies assessing preference, or the amount
of greenspace without speciﬁcally measuring its biodiversity were
excluded. Studies not reporting primary research such as review
papers, were also excluded. In contrast to Marselle et al. (2019),
studies assessing physiological stress measures were included in
this search. It is acknowledged that including studies written only
in English may have reduced the full scope of research that has
been conducted on this topic.
This study builds upon the work of Marselle et al. (2019). Using
the 24 studies they reviewed and the additional 28 recent studies
found, the authorship of each of these studies has been reviewed.
A novel approach was adopted to determine author disciplines
for this research. To do this, Google Scholar author searches were
used to determine author aﬃliations, “key words” and the topics
on which they had previously written. Author “key words” were
determined to be reﬂective of the focus discipline of researchers,
as the particular school or organization that they belonged to did
not always reﬂect their speciﬁc research interests or expertise. The
discipline of the author was deﬁned as the research specialization
as self-described by the author on their Google Scholar proﬁle.
Where this information was not available, the school and home
institution to which the author belonged was recorded from the
relevant journal article webpage. This enabled the disciplinary
framing of each study to be determined (acknowledging that this
is a novel and rudimentary approach). For each of the 52 studies
included in this review, each author was recorded and included
in the analysis.
Key Elements of Study Design
Based on potential sources of inconsistency as described in
previous works, key elements of study designs that may be
contributing to inconsistent ﬁndings were extracted from each
•Guiding psychological theory.
•Mental health and wellbeing variables.
•Type of study: correlational or mechanistic.
As seen in Marselle et al. (2019), biodiversity variables
were assigned to one of three levels: (i) ecosystem/habitat,
which includes variables such as landscape heterogeneity and
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 4May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 5
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
structural diversity, (ii) species communities, which includes
variables such as species richness, perceived species richness
and the abundance of a speciﬁc taxonomic group, and (iii)
single species level. Mental health and wellbeing variables
were recorded as described in each study. Mental wellbeing
variables were separated out and included attention restoration,
recovery from stress, emotion/mood, and quality of life/life
satisfaction, while “mental health” as a variable was recorded
individually. In this study, a correlational type of study refers
to an observational study that explores relationships between
two or more variables, and may have obtained data using cross-
sectional, longitudinal, cohort or retrospective record methods
MacDonald et al. (2015). A mechanistic study refers to a study
that directly explores the mechanisms of action of a particular
A standardized spreadsheet was used to record all data, and a
process of narrative synthesis, as developed by Popay et al. (2006),
was used to interpret and compare the data from the two time
periods. This type of synthesis has been used in previous reviews,
including Marselle et al. (2019), and is a form of vote-counting
synthesis that is useful when dealing with variables and data
that are heterogenous, and where other forms of quantitative or
statistical analyses are not suitable. This involves extracting key
themes from the literature in order to compare and highlight
points of diﬀerence.
Similar results emerge for disciplinarity from the two time
periods, with environmental psychology continuing to be the
most prominent author discipline. There has been a slight
increase in interdisciplinary work in recent years, shown
by a greater number of studies including three disciplinary
perspectives (Table 2). The majority of studies, however, continue
to include collaboration from just two disciplines. This is
not necessarily surprising considering the two ﬁelds that this
research combines. Again, unsurprisingly, the most prominent
collaboration occurs between the disciplines of environmental
psychology, and ecology or biological sciences. These results
do, however, show that there is quite a diversity of disciplines
that have contributed to the research so far. In recent works
there has also been a greater contribution from the perspectives
TABLE 2 | Summary of results for author disciplines, comparing level of interdisciplinarity between early studies (2006–2017) and recent studies (2018–2021).
Number of disciplines 1 2 3 4
Study (2006–2017) Johansson et al. (2014)
Jones (2017) (EE)
Duarte-Tagles et al.
Saw et al. (2015) (BC)
Annerstedt et al. (2012) (EP, PH)
van den Bosch et al. (2015) (EP, PH)
Chiang et al. (2017) (EP, LA)
Cracknell et al. (2016) (EP, MB)
Marselle et al. (2015) (EP, PH)
Marselle et al. (2016) (EP, PH)
Carrus et al. (2015) (EP, EAS)
Cox et al. (2017) (E, BC)
de Jong et al. (2012) (EP, EOM)
Fuller et al. (2007) (EP, BC)
Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) (EP, LA)
Hoyle et al. (2017) (H, E)
Luck et al. (2011) (EP, E)
King et al. (2017) (BC, E, EAS)
Chang et al. (2016) (LA, H, E)
Dallimer et al. (2012) (EP, BC, E)
Huby et al. (2006) (M, E, BC)
Wolf et al. (2017) (EP, EE, BC)
Björk et al. (2008)
(EP, EOM, EAS, G)
Wheeler et al.
(2015) (EP, PH, E,
Total number of studies 4 14 4 2
Study (2018–2021) Coldwell and Evans
et al. (2020) (E)
Simkin et al. (2021) (EP)
Reining et al. (2020) (G)
Rantakokko et al.
De Bell et al. (2020) (G, HS)
Fisher et al. (2021) (EP, BC)
Harvey et al. (2020) (EP, BC)
Giusti and Samuelsson (2020)
Kortmann et al. (2021) (E, BC)
Nghiem et al. (2021) (EP, BC)
Young et al. (2020) (E, EP)
Southon et al. (2018) (BC, H)
Hussain et al. (2019) (BC, PH)
Raymond et al. (2019) (EE, EAS)
Methorst et al. (2021) (E, EE)
Skevington et al. (2019) (EP, BC)
Lindemann-Matthies and Matthies (2018) (E, BC)
Cameron et al. (2020) (EP, LA, M)
Schebella et al. (2019) (EP, PH, M)
Schebella et al. (2020) (EP, M, PH)
Marselle et al. (2020) (EP, E, M)
Mavoa et al. (2019) (E, G, M)
Methorst et al. (2021) (EP, EE, EAS)
Wyles et al. (2019) (EP, EE, MB)
Mears et al. (2019)
(LA, M, E, PH)
Wood et al. (2018)
(EP, E, BC, PH)
Total number of studies 5 13 7 2
The disciplines contributing to each study are abbreviated in brackets beside each citation, with the key to disciplines below the table.
Key: EP, environmental psychology/psychology; EE, environmental economics; BC, biological and conservation sciences; M, mapping/mathematics and statistics; E,
ecology; MB, marine biodiversity; PH, public health; HS, health sciences; EAS, environmental and agricultural sciences/engineering; G, geography; LA, landscape
architecture; H, horticulture.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 5May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 6
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
of landscape architecture, horticulture, health sciences and
environmental economics. This may have implications for
subsequent study designs and the application of ﬁndings.
Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Stress Recovery Theory
(SRT) are the most prominent guiding theories for studies from
both time periods (Figure 3). These theories are similarly based
on the notion that natural elements within landscapes provide the
opportunity for mental relief from the many things that demand
attention in everyday life and enable recovery from stress or
the use of active attention through passive engagement with the
environment (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).
The use of these theories reﬂects the short-term nature of
most of the studies, which examine what may be referred to as
“momentary wellbeing” (Fisher et al., 2021). Another theory that
has been used in both early and recent works is the Biophilia
Hypothesis (Figure 3), which suggests that humans have an
innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms
of life (Kellert, 1995). In recent work, new theories have been used
such as Cultural Ecosystem Services, which describes the non-
material beneﬁts oﬀered by natural environments, and which has
importance for environmental economics and decision making
(Milcu et al., 2013).
The most surprising ﬁnding here is that the majority
of studies in both earlier and recent years do not refer
to a guiding theory at all (Figure 3). This is reﬂected in
the type of correlational study design used in most of the
research as opposed to experimental, mechanistic studies.
This may also have ﬂow on eﬀects in subsequent aspects
of study designs and interpretation of ﬁndings. There is no
notable correlation between author disciplines and the use of
guiding theoretical frameworks. There are many studies with
the perspective of environmental psychology without being
guided by ART or other theory (e.g., Wheeler et al., 2015;
Schebella et al., 2019), and conversely, there are numerous
studies without this psychological perspective but which utilize
a guiding psychological theory (e.g., Hoyle et al., 2017;
Meyer-Grandbastien et al., 2020).
Biodiversity and Mental Health and
Psychological Wellbeing Variables
There is a signiﬁcant variation in the biodiversity and health
and wellbeing variables used across the 52 studies reviewed
(Figures 4,5). So far, there are no two studies which used the
same study design or variables. Furthermore, it is important
to note that many studies utilize multiple variables of both
biodiversity and mental health.
The relative frequency with which particular metrics of
biodiversity have been utilized are summarized in Figure 4.
Comparing the two sets of studies [Early (E) and Recent (R)],
it can be seen that species richness, measuring biodiversity at a
species communities’ level, is the most prominent metric used to
evaluate biodiversity in the studies in both time periods, however,
the variables and instruments used across studies are highly
heterogeneous. The ecosystem/habitat level of biodiversity is also
studied frequently across both time periods. In recent works,
there is a greater representation of perceived species richness
FIGURE 3 | Summary of the guiding theories used in studies from 2006–2017, compared to those between 2018–2021. The number of studies may exceed the
total number of studies reviewed (52) as some studies utilized more than one guiding theory.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 6May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 7
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
FIGURE 4 | Visual summary of results for biodiversity variables used in early
studies (E) compared to recent studies (R). The three biodiversity levels
represented are ecosystem/habitat, species communities (which includes
species richness, perceived species richness, abundance of speciﬁc
taxonomic group) and single species. The size of each variable represents the
relative frequency with which it occurred in the body of literature, noting that
some studies included more than one biodiversity variable (produced with
worditout.com). A numerical representation of this data may be found in
Supplementary Appendix 1.
as a biodiversity variable. As reﬂected in the results for guiding
theory (Figure 3), attention restoration continues to be the most
prominent variable by which mental health is measured. This
is followed by the use of the broader “mental health” variable,
for both time periods. As with the biodiversity variables, many
studies measured multiple diﬀerent outcomes of mental health
There is such a diversity of both mental health and biodiversity
indicators utilized across studies that it remains diﬃcult to
compare or draw any correlation between discipline and use
of variables. In recent work we do see a move to diversify the
range of biodiversity variables tested, moving beyond just simply
vegetation indices to include other taxa such as birds and insects
(Wood et al., 2018;Cameron et al., 2020). We also see a large
number of studies that include perceived biodiversity metrics,
which have been shown to be of great importance to obtaining
mental health and wellbeing beneﬁts from nature (White et al.,
2017;Nghiem et al., 2021).
Throughout the two time periods, correlational study designs
continue to pervade, as reﬂected by the frequent use of
ecosystem/habitat level of biodiversity, and broader “mental
health” as a variable (Figures 4,5). There have yet only
been ﬁve experimental studies conducted within the recent
body of literature, and only one experimental study conducted
in early literature. Within recent literature, newly emerging
experimental study designs include those with the planting of
speciﬁc experimental plots (Lindemann-Matthies and Matthies,
2018;Southon et al., 2018), which have been conducted
from horticultural and/or landscape architectural perspective.
Other emerging methodologies include measuring physiological
stress responses in a quasi-experimental environment in situ
(Lindemann-Matthies and Matthies, 2018;Hussain et al., 2019)
or in response to the presentation of photographs or short videos
(Schebella et al., 2020).
FIGURE 5 | Visual summary of results for the mental health variables used in
early studies (E) compared to recent studies (R). The size of each variable
represents the relative frequency with which it occurred in the body of
literature, noting that some studies included more than one mental health
and/or wellbeing variable (produced with worditout.com). a numerical
representation of this data may be found in Supplementary Appendix 1.
The diversity of methodologies, guiding frameworks and
ﬁndings we found in our review are reﬂective of how
interdisciplinary this topic area is and that researchers are only
just beginning to develop ways to explore and understand the
relationships between biodiversity and human mental health
and psychological wellbeing. It is clear from the literature
that exploring biodiversity-mental health relationships remains
complex due to an underdeveloped yet growing understanding
of the underlying mechanisms, and the large number of potential
variables to be tested. More recent studies in particular (e.g.,
Southon et al., 2018;Schebella et al., 2020;Nghiem et al.,
2021) highlight the importance of perceived biodiversity for
psychological beneﬁts and combining these with technology that
measures physiological responses to biodiversity could continue
to contribute to an understanding of the mechanisms underlying
It is not surprising given the two disciplinary ﬁelds this
research combines, that contribution from two disciplinary
perspectives continues to be most prevalent in recent works.
However, there are a number of unique contributions that can
be made from additional disciplines outside of environmental
psychology and ecology/biology. Increased representation
of disciplines such as urban ecology, horticulture and
landscape architecture in more recent studies (Table 1)
indicates growing interest in using ﬁndings from this
research to guide the design of urban landscapes, for
which biodiversity conservation/restoration is becoming an
increasingly prevalent objective.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 7May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 8
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
The type of passive engagement with nature as described
by the Attention Restoration Theory and the Stress Recovery
Theory has been demonstrated by research to be the main way
that we obtain psychological beneﬁts from natural environments
(Berto, 2014), so it is not surprising that these theories continue
to feature heavily within the literature. However, given the
psychological underpinnings of this research, a surprisingly
low proportion of studies from both time blocks utilize
guiding theoretical frameworks. This may have thus ﬂow on
eﬀects within subsequent study designs, contributing to the
inconsistency in methodologies and results. The prominent
use of Attention Restoration Theory as a guiding framework
reﬂects the short-term nature of many of these studies and the
uncertainty still surrounding the mechanisms of biodiversity-
mental health relationships.
A large proportion of studies explore relationships at the
ecosystem/habitat level, as metrics such as habitat structural
heterogeneity have been suggested to be the lens through which
we perceive biodiversity within a landscape (Fuller et al., 2007;
Beninde et al., 2015;Mears et al., 2019). The metrics of mental
health, as compared to metrics of “momentary wellbeing” such as
attention restoration or aﬀect (Fisher et al., 2021) that consider
the mechanisms by which health beneﬁts arise, tend to show
weak associations (Mears et al., 2019). Using these broader scale
variables of health may therefore be contributing to inconsistent
results. Additionally, there are a range of potential moderators
and mediators that may be contributing to variations in the
relationships between biodiversity and mental health, such as
biodiversity knowledge and connection to nature (Van den Berg
et al., 2015;Coldwell and Evans, 2018). Only two studies have
investigated the role of a speciﬁc species on mental health
and wellbeing and it will be important for future research to
consider this scale to understand the role of speciﬁc species in
contributing to mental wellbeing, and to understand whether
particular species or combinations of species are more important
than others, which could also be important in the context of
particular endangered species or communities (Aerts et al., 2018;
Mavoa et al., 2019).
The move toward the use of perceived biodiversity in
recent literature is important as people’s perception of a
given environment, which can diﬀer greatly from the actual
environment, can have a strong impact on the wellbeing beneﬁts
derived (Coldwell and Evans, 2018;Nghiem et al., 2021).
Perceived metrics such as species richness may have even greater
inﬂuence than objectively measured biodiversity. Reining et al.
(2020) highlight the fact that these studies have been conducted
in distinctly diﬀerent environments such as meadows and coastal
areas, making it even more diﬃcult to replicate or apply ﬁndings.
Few studies focus on the diverse environments that might exist
within one protected area, for example. Studying particular
protected areas or particular species or communities therein
may be of great importance in the context of particular locally
endangered species or communities.
Findings from the present study are consistent with the
mixed and inconclusive evidence reported in previous reviews
(Aerts et al., 2018;Marselle et al., 2019), which describe the
limited and conﬂicting evidence base for relationships between
biodiversity and mental health. Inconsistencies in methods and
results also highlights diﬃculties in studying these relationships
within existing paradigmatic frameworks (Aerts et al., 2018;
Giusti and Samuelsson, 2020). One way of addressing this
in future could be to consider how these ﬁndings ﬁt within
alternative frameworks such as sustainable social-ecological
systems, and the way interactions between mental health and
biodiversity may help to understand and promote the restoration
of the relationships between human and ecological functioning
(Giusti and Samuelsson, 2020).
Recommendations for Future Research
It is clear that researchers are only just beginning to understand
the nuances of relationships between biodiversity and mental
health and psychological wellbeing, and the variation in
methodologies and results reﬂects the growing interest in this
area, and the many perspectives from which people are trying
to understand and test these relationships. Although there is yet
little consistency in terms of disciplinarity and methodologies,
there are some key elements of study designs that can be
informed by the unique perspective of particular disciplines. For
example, the use of physiological measurements as informed by
health sciences indicates a growing interest in understanding
the underlying mechanisms at play, and the use of experimental
planting plots from the perspective of landscape architecture
or horticulture indicates an interest in using these ﬁndings
to apply to landscape design. The importance of contribution
from perspectives of psychology and ecology is clear for
this type of research, however, the contribution of additional
disciplines would be of great beneﬁt for both understanding the
underlying mechanisms of these relationships and applying them
to decision-making or design.
To assist with bringing in a wider range of perspectives, we
have created a visualization of how diﬀerent disciplines might
contribute to the body of research at various scales (Figure 6).
At the top of this inverted triangle there are correlational studies,
which so far have tended to work at large geographic scales,
obtaining for example, census data for mental health variables
and satellite derived biodiversity data. These operate at the
larger ecosystem/habitat scales of biodiversity. As we move to
the bottom of the triangle, there are the more experimental,
mechanistic studies, which study biodiversity at the community
or single species level, and which measure mental health at
physiological or attention restoration level. These tend to be
on much smaller geographic scales, in for example a speciﬁc
greenspace or planting plot, with an accordingly small sample
size. These are the ﬁndings that would be more speciﬁc than
those at the top of the triangle, as indicated by the arrows on the
Beside the triangle on the left-hand side, some of the key
research disciplines which may make the greatest impact at
various scales are displayed. Environmental psychology and
ecology are displayed across the whole length of the triangle
as these will be of greatest importance at every level of
this research. Collaboration between psychology and ecology
could greatly beneﬁt from additional perspectives, for diﬀerent
outcomes and applications of ﬁndings and to develop a more
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 8May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 9
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
FIGURE 6 | Visual conceptualization of recommendations for future research exploring relationships between biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing.
mechanistic understanding of these relationships. In addition
to the importance of foundations in psychology and ecology,
perspectives such as public health and environmental economics
could assist in framing the research from the perspective of
decision making. For example, it could be important from the
perspective of environmental economics and decision making to
consider the concept of Cultural Ecosystem Services (including
psychological restoration, improved physiological health, better
social relations and spiritual development) (Kosanic and Petzold,
2020). A challenge exists in ascertaining whether cultural
ecosystem beneﬁts are sensitive to variations in biodiversity
(King et al., 2017). Cultural Ecosystem Services could be
an important concept for guiding decision making based on
ﬁndings from research in this topic and warrants further
investigation, as so far only one study has framed their
research and ﬁndings in the context of this concept. Toward
the mechanistic end of the research, perspectives of landscape
architecture, horticulture, medical and health sciences may
contribute important elements for experimental study designs,
such as the use of physiological measurements in response
to biodiversity, or the establishment of speciﬁc planting plots
in which the ecology is well-documented. From a medical
perspective for example, demonstrating stronger mechanistic
links between biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing
variables could provide important evidence to support healthcare
approaches that formalize the role of nature, through concepts
such as “green prescription” (Ulmer et al., 2016).
It is important to note that the categories shown in
Figure 6 are not clear-cut, and that important interactions
would occur between various aspects of studies at diﬀerent
scales. However, overall, it will be more consistent work in
these lower, more mechanistic areas of the inverted triangle,
that will help to understand the underlying mechanisms and
relationships on local scales that can account for variables such as
sociodemographic factors and the importance of place-based data
(Harvey et al., 2020). Mixed methods approaches that combine
perspectives from multiple disciplines, with clear theoretical
foundations and use of robust experimental study designs would
enable a clearer progression of ﬁndings in this ﬁeld. It is clear
that a longer period of time, including the use of longitudinal
research may be needed for these relationships to be understood,
particularly in how biodiverse environments might contribute
to mental health over time, for example beginning in childhood
(Harvey et al., 2020). There is also a need to understand
the full range of potential mediators and moderators of these
relationships, such as biodiversity knowledge, connectedness to
nature and socioeconomic factors, as these have been shown
to inﬂuence the way beneﬁts are obtained from biodiverse
environments (Schebella et al., 2020). For example, psychological
beneﬁts have been reported as being greatest for those with
lower socio-economic status, lower education level or low
biodiversity knowledge in multiple studies (Hoyle et al., 2017;
Coldwell and Evans, 2018;Marselle et al., 2020). Further
investigation of the relative beneﬁts of biodiversity for a greater
diversity of populations and socioeconomic factors could be
of great importance in the context of environmental equity.
Similarly, it would be valuable to see a greater representation
of non-western populations such as those represented in Fisher
et al. (2021),Chiang et al. (2017),Chang et al. (2016), and
Nghiem et al. (2021). We acknowledge, however, that the
inclusion of English language only studies in our review may
have precluded representation of such populations within the
body of literature.
In order to progress toward transdisciplinary research within
this ﬁeld, there are several theoretical frameworks that future
researchers might consider as a means of framing studies in a
more holistic manner. The Actor Network Theory for example,
provides a means by which researchers may frame relationships
between biodiversity and health in the context of social-
ecological system resilience (Horgan and Dimitrijevi´
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 9May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 10
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
which may be of great importance for applying ﬁndings to urban
planning. Given the importance of perceived biodiversity as a
metric conferring health and wellbeing beneﬁts, we believe that
tools such as the “Place Standard,” which invite community
participation in assessing greenspace qualities, may provide
important information for decision-makers in understanding
how communities relate to biodiversity through concepts such
as place attachment and sense of place (Hasler, 2018;Colley
and Craig, 2019). These concepts, which describe cognitive-
emotional connections between people and their valued places
have been demonstrated to mediate the wellbeing beneﬁts
obtained from greenspace (Scannell and Giﬀord, 2017;Basu
et al., 2020;Han et al., 2021) and could therefore be important
for future research to consider. However, by drawing upon a
common set of metrics used to represent biodiversity, it will
become easier to identify consistent pathways through which
biodiversity contributes to human mental health, regardless of
the frameworks being used. The metrics identiﬁed by this study
make an excellent starting point for future studies looking to
quantify biodiversity, particularly when they are combined with
the conceptual framework we present in Figure 6.
One limitation of our study is the novel approach used to
determine authorship, which may not have captured the true
research specialization or interests of each author. However,
our method does provide a useful indication of the disciplinary
framing of the paper, and this brings a unique perspective
that hasn’t previously been examined. The 3 years gap between
the two time periods studied is also a potential limitation, as
a longer period of time may be required in order to draw
meaningful conclusions as to whether research in this ﬁeld
is progressing toward a cohesive body of evidence. This may
have also largely contributed to the lack of diﬀerences found
between time periods for the variables examined. Furthermore,
we acknowledge that the wide variation in terminology used
by diﬀerent disciplines contributing to this body of research
may have precluded several studies from being included in
our analysis. For example, a mechanistic study of frontal alpha
asymmetry as a direct neurological response to urban green
spaces was not included in our study as they used a contemplative
landscape model to represent variation between greenspaces,
rather than a direct measure of real or perceived biodiversity
(e.g., Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2020). Bringing together these
diverse ﬁelds and framings is one of the key challenges that
need to be addressed. The simplest solution is to ensure
that biodiversity is explicitly included in the title, abstract
or keywords of studies that include it as a consideration;
and that a simpliﬁed search term such as “human health”
or “wellbeing” is included in the keywords for studies with
more speciﬁc measures, as demonstrated by Olszewska-Guizzo
et al. (2020). This will be particularly important for studies
that employ additional frameworks and tools such as the Actor
Network Theory or Place Standard mentioned above, as these
approaches do not always explicitly consider biodiversity, and
therefore could potentially be overlooked in the absence of an
The range of contributing disciplines and use of variables to
the body of research reviewed in this study reﬂects a growing
interest in this topic, and the complexity of relationships between
biodiversity and mental health and wellbeing. The variation
in uses of guiding theory and variables also reﬂects the many
diﬀerent ways by which researchers are trying to understand and
test these relationships. The use of mixed methods approaches
within recent works demonstrates a growing interest in
understanding the underlying mechanisms (physiology) and how
these relationships can inform greenspace design (experimental
planting plots). This study has shown that while there is still
great inconsistency and lack of coherence in study designs
even in recent works, it is clear that diﬀerent disciplines have
unique perspectives to oﬀer, and that continued interdisciplinary
collaboration within mechanistic studies could contribute to a
cohesive body of evidence, to inform strategies or policies that
aim for win-win scenarios for both biodiversity conservation and
mental health and wellbeing.
MH, AH, LM, and KL: conceptualization, development of
methodology, and reviewing and editing draft manuscript. MH:
investigation, compiling and curating data, analysis, and writing
initial draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
The contents of this manuscript were originally produced as a
thesis in partial completion of the Master of Urban Horticulture
at the University of Melbourne (Hedin, 2021). We would like
to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land and
waterways on which this research took place, the Wurundjeri
Woi-Wurrung people of the Kulin Nation. We would like to pay
respects to their Elders, past, present and emerging.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.
Aerts, R., Honnay, O., and Van Nieuwenhuyse, A. (2018). Biodiversity and human
health: mechanisms and evidence of the positive health eﬀects of diversity
in nature and green spaces. Br. Med. Bull. 127, 5–22. doi: 10.1093/bmb/
Annerstedt, M., Östergren, P., Björk, J., Grahn, P., Skärbäck, E., and Währborg, P.
(2012). Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health – results from
a longitudinal cohort study in Southern Sweden. BMC Public Health 12:337.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458- 12-337
Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Martín-López, B., Barrios, E., Dee, L., Isbell, F., et al.
(2016). “The links between biodiversity and ecosystem Services,” in Routledge
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 10 May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 11
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
Handbook of Ecosystem Services, eds M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish,
and R. K. Turner (Abingdon: Routledge), 45–61.
Basu, M., Hashimoto, S., and Dasgupta, R. (2020). The mediating role of
place attachment between nature connectedness and human well-being:
perspectives from Japan. Sustain. Sci. 15, 849–862. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-
Beninde, J., Veith, M., and Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space:
a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol.
Lett. 18, 581–592. doi: 10.1111/ele.12427
Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: a
literature review on restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 4, 394–409.
Beute, F., Andreucci, M. B., Lammel, A., Davies, Z. G., Glanville, J., Keune, H., et al.
(2020). Types and Characteristics of Urban and Peri-urban Green Spaces Having
an Impact on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing: A Systematic Review.
Technical Report. EKLIPSE Expert Working Group. Wallingfod: UK Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology.
Björk, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardö, J., Wadbro, J., et al. (2008).
Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood
satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. J. Epidemiol. Commun.
Health 62:e2. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.062414
Cameron, R. W., Brindley, P., Mears, M., McEwan, K., Ferguson, F., Sheﬃeld, D.,
et al. (2020). Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater
avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosyst.
23, 301–317. doi: 10.1007/s11252-020- 00929-z
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F.,
et al. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive eﬀects of biodiversity on the
well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc.
Urban Plan 134, 221–228. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Chang, K. G., Sullivan, W. C., Lin, Y. H., Su, W., and Chang, C. Y. (2016). The eﬀect
of biodiversity on green space users’ wellbeing—An empirical investigation
using physiological evidence. Sustainability 8:1049. doi: 10.3390/su8101049
Chiang, Y. C., Li, D., and Jane, H. A. (2017). Wild or tended nature? The eﬀects of
landscape location and vegetation density on physiological and psychological
responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 167, 72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.
Coldwell, D. F., and Evans, K. L. (2018). Visits to urban green-space and the
countryside associate with diﬀerent components of mental well-being and are
better predictors than perceived or actual local urbanisation intensity. Landsc.
Urban plann. 175, 114–122. doi: 10.4102/jamba.v13i1.1062
Collar, N. J. (2003). Beyond value: biodiversity and the freedom of the mind. Global
Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 265–269. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00034.x
Colley, K., and Craig, T. (2019). Natural places: perceptions of wildness and
attachment to local greenspace. J. Environ. Psychol. 61, 71–78. doi: 10.1016/j.
Collins, R. M., Spake, R., Brown, K. A., Ogutu, B. O., Smith, D., and Eigenbrod,
F. (2020). A systematic map of research exploring the eﬀect of greenspace on
mental health. Landsc. Urban Plann. 201:103823. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.
Cox, D. T. C., Shanahan, D. F., Hudson, H. L., Plummer, K. E., Sirwardena, G. M.,
Fuller, R. A., et al. (2017). Doses of neighborhood nature: the beneﬁts for
mental health of living with nature. Bioscience 67, 147–155. doi: 10.1093/biosci/
Cracknell, D., White, M. P., Pahl, S., Nichols, W. J., and Depledge, M. H. (2016).
Marine biota and psychological well-being: a preliminary examination of dose–
response eﬀects in an aquarium setting. Environ. Behav. 48, 1242–1269. doi:
Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Skinner, A. M. J., Davies, Z., Rouquette, J., Maltby,
L., et al. (2012). Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understand associations
between self-reports human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62,
47–55. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9
De Bell, S., Graham, H., and White, P. C. (2020). Evaluating dual ecological and
well-being beneﬁts from an urban restoration project. Sustainability 12:695.
de Jong, K., Albin, M., Starback, E., Grahn, P., and Björk, J. (2012). Perceived green
qualities were associated with neighborhood satisfaction, physical activity,
and general health: results from a cross-sectional study in suburban and
rural Scania, southern Sweden. Health Place 18, 1374–1380. doi: 10.1016/j.
Duarte-Tagles, H., Salinas-Rodriguez, A., Idrovo, A. J., Búrquez, A., and Corral-
Verdugo, V. (2015). Biodiversity and depressive symptoms in Mexican adults:
exploration of beneﬁcial environmental eﬀects. Biomedica 35, 46–57. doi: 10.
Felappi, J. F., Sommer, J. H., Falkenberg, T., Terlau, W., and Kötter, T. (2020).
Green infrastructure through the lens of “One Health”: a systematic review
and integrative framework uncovering synergies and trade-oﬀs between mental
health and wildlife support in cities. Sci. Total Environ. 748:141589. doi: 10.
Fisher, J. C., Irvine, K. N., Bicknell, J. E., Hayes, W. M., Fernandes, D., Mistry,
J., et al. (2021). Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance
the restorative quality and wellbeing beneﬁts of green and blue space in a
neotropical city. Sci. Total Environ. 755:143095. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., and Gaston, K. J.
(2007). Psychological beneﬁts of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol.
Lett. 3, 390–394. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Giusti, M., and Samuelsson, K. (2020). The regenerative compatibility:
a synergy between healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and
restorative experiences. PLoS One 15:e0227311. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.022
Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., and Fry, G. (2007). The shared
landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 22,
Grahn, P., and Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory
dimensions or urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan.
94, 264–275. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012
Han, B., Li, D., and Chang, P. J. (2021). The eﬀect of place attachment and greenway
attributes on well-being among older adults in Taiwan.Urban For. Urban Green.
65:127306. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127306
Hartig, T., van den Berg, A. E., Hagerhall, C. M., Tomalak, M., Bauer,
N., Hansmann, R., et al. (2011). “Health beneﬁts of nature experience:
psychological, social and cultural processes,” in Forests, Trees and Human
Health, eds K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. D. V. Klaus seeland,
and J. Schipperijn (Dordrecht: Springer), 127–168. doi: 10.1007/978-90- 481-
Harvey, D. J., Montgomery, L. N., Harvey, H., Hall, F., Gange, A. C., and Watling,
D. (2020). Psychological beneﬁts of a biodiversity-focussed outdoor learning
program for primary school children. J. Environ. Psychol. 67:101381. doi: 10.
Hasler, K. (2018). Place standard: a practical tool to support the creation of
healthier places. Eur. J. Public Health 28:cky213–cky222.
Hedin, M. (2021). Relationships Between Biodiversity and Mental health and
Wellbeing – A Review of Methods and Disciplinary Perspectives. Master of Urban
Horticulture. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Horgan, D., and Dimitrijevi´
c, B. (2018). Social innovation systems for building
resilient communities. Urban Sci. 2:13. doi: 10.3390/urbansci2010013
Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., and Jorgensen, A. (2017). All about the ‘wow
factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative eﬀect and perceived
biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plann. 164, 109–123.
Huby, M., Cinderby, S., Crowe, A. M., Gillings, S., McClean, C. J., Moran, D., et al.
(2006). The association of natural, social and economic factors with bird species
richness in rural England. J. Agric. Econ. 57, 295–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.
Hussain, R. I., Walcher, R., Eder, R., Allex, B., Wallner, P., Hutter, H. P., et al.
(2019). Management of mountainous meadows associated with biodiversity
attributes, perceived health beneﬁts and cultural ecosystem services. Sci. Rep.
9, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019- 51571-5
Johansson, M., Gyllin, M., Witzell, J., and Küller, M. (2014). Does biological quality
matter? Direct and reﬂected appraisal of biodiversity in temperate deciduous
broad-leaf forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 13, 28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.
Jones, B. (2017). Invasive species impacts on human well-being using the life
satisfaction index. Ecol. Econ. 134:257. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016- 1423-5
Jorgensen, A., and Gobster, P. H. (2010). Shades of green: measuring the ecology of
urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nat. Cult. 5,
338–363. doi: 10.3167/nc.2010.050307
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 11 May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 12
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge university press.
Kellert, S. R. (1995). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
King, H. P., Morris, J., Graves, A., Bradbury, R. B., McGinlay, J., and Bullock, J. M.
(2017). Biodiversity and cultural ecosystem beneﬁts in lowland landscapes in
southern England. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 185–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.
Kortmann, M., Müller, J. C., Baier, R., Bässler, C., Buse, J., Cholewi´
et al. (2021). Ecology versus society: impacts of bark beetle infestations on
biodiversity and restorativeness in protected areas of Central Europe. Biol.
Conserv. 254:108931. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108931
Kosanic, A., and Petzold, J. (2020). A systematic review of cultural ecosystem
services and human wellbeing. Ecosyst. Serv. 45:101168. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., and Matthies, D. (2018). The inﬂuence of plant species
richness on stress recovery of humans. Web Ecol. 18, 121–128. doi: 10.3390/
Lovell, R., Wheeler, B. W., Higgins, S. L., Irvine, K. N., and Depledge, M. H.
(2014). A systematic review of the health and wellbeing beneﬁts of biodiverse
environments. J. Toxicol Environ. Health B. Crit. Rev. 17, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/
Luck, G. W., Davidson, P., Boxall, D., and Smallbone, L. (2011). Relations between
urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to
nature. Conserv. Biol. 25, 816–826. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01685.x
MacDonald, D. E., Wong, E., and Dionne, M. M. (2015). “Correlational designs,”
in The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, eds R. L. Cautin and S. O. Lilienfeld
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). doi: 10.1002/9781118625392.
Marselle, M. R., Bowler, D. E., Watzema, J., Eichenberg, D., Kirsten, T., and Bonn,
A. (2020). Urban street tree biodiversity and antidepressant prescriptions. Sci.
Rep. 10, 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020- 79924-5
Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., Lorenzo-Arribas, A., and Warber, S. L. (2015).
Moving beyond green: exploring the relationship of environment type
and indicators of perceived environmental quality on emotional well-being
following group walks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12:106. doi: 10.3390/
Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., Lorenzo-Arribas, A., and Warber, S. L. (2016).
Does perceived restorativeness mediate the eﬀects of perceived biodiversity and
perceived naturalness on emotional wellbeing following group walks in nature?
J. Environ. Psychol. 46, 217–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.008
Marselle, M. R., Martens, D., Dallimer, M., and Irvine, K. N. (2019). “Review
of the mental health and well-being beneﬁts of biodiversity,” in Biodiversity
and Health in the Face of Climate Change (Cham: Springer), 175–211. doi:
Mavoa, S., Davern, M., Breed, M., and Hahs, A. (2019). Higher levels of greenness
and biodiversity associate with greater subjective wellbeing in adults living
in Melbourne, Australia. Health Place 57, 321–329. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.
Mears, M., Brindley, P., Jorgensen, A., Ersoy, E., and Maheswaran, R. (2019).
Greenspace spatial characteristics and human health in an urban environment:
an epidemiological study using landscape metrics in Sheﬃeld. UK. Ecol. Indic.
Methorst, J., Arbieu, U., Bonn, A., Böhning-Gaese, K., and Müller, T.
(2020). Non-material contributions of wildlife to human well-being: a
systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:093005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/
Methorst, J., Rehdanz, K., Mueller, T., Hansjürgens, B., Bonn, A., and Böhning-
Gaese, K. (2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in
Europe. Ecol. Econ. 181:106917. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106917
Meyer-Grandbastien, A., Burel, F., Hellier, E., and Bergerot, B. (2020). A
step towards understanding the relationship between species diversity and
psychological restoration of visitors in urban green spaces using landscape
heterogeneity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 195:103728. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.
Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., and Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem
services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18:44.
Nghiem, T. P. L., Wong, K. L., Jeevanandam, L., Chang, C., Tan, L. Y. C., Goh,
Y., et al. (2021). Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: experimental evidence
linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional wellbeing. Urban For.
Urban Green. 59:127030. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127030
Olszewska-Guizzo, A., Sia, A., Fogel, A., and Ho, R. (2020). Can exposure to certain
urban green spaces trigger frontal alpha asymmetry in the brain? Preliminary
ﬁndings from a passive task EEG study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
17:394. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17020394
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006).
Guidance on the Conduct of NarrativeSynthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product
from the ESRC Methods Programme Version, 1, b92.
Rantakokko, M., Keskinen, K. E., Kokko, K., and Portegijs, E. (2018). Nature
diversity and well-being in old age. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 30, 527–532. doi:
Raymond, C. M., Diduck, A. P., Buijs, A., Boerchers, M., and Moquin, R. (2019).
Exploring the co-beneﬁts (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity
conservation. Local Environ. 24, 258–273. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2018.1561657
Reining, C. E., Lemieux, C. J., and Doherty, S. T. (2020). Linking restorative human
health outcomes to protected area ecosystem diversity and integrity. J. Environ.
Plan. Manage. 64, 2300–2325. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1857227
Saw, L. E., Lim, F. K. S., and Carrasco, L. R. (2015). The relationship between
natural park usage and happiness does not hold in a tropical city-state. PLoS
One 10:e0133781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133781
Scannell, L., and Giﬀord, R. (2017). The experienced psychological beneﬁts of place
attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 256–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.001
Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Schultz, L., and Weinstein, P. (2019). The wellbeing
beneﬁts associated with perceived and measured biodiversity in Australian
urban green spaces. Sustainability 11:802. doi: 10.3390/su11030802
Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Schultz, L., and Weinstein, P. (2020). The nature
of reality: human stress recovery during exposure to biodiverse, multisensory
virtual environments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:56. doi: 10.3390/
Simkin, J., Ojala, A., and Tyrväinen, L. (2021). The perceived restorativeness
of diﬀerently managed forests and its association with forest qualities and
individual variables: a ﬁeld experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
18:422. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020422
Skevington, S. M., Emsley, R., Dehner, S., Walker, I., and Reynolds, S. E. (2019).
Does subjective health aﬀect the association between biodiversity and quality
of life? Insights from international data. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 14, 1315–1331.
doi: 10.1007/s11482-018- 9649-5
Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., and Evans, K. L. (2017).
Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’
perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158,
105–118. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.003
Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., and Evans, K. L. (2018).
Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues, accuracy and well-
being impacts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 172, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.
Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J., and Depledge, M. H.
(2011). Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments
have a greater eﬀect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity
indoors? A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1761–1772. doi: 10.
Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Tretheway, R. L., Blain, C. J., O’Neil-
Dunne, J. P., et al. (2016). Multiple health beneﬁts of urban tree canopy: the
mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health Place 42, 54–62. doi: 10.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (2006). Use of Terms.
Available online at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-02#:
between%20species%20and%20of%20ecosystems (accessed May 23, 2021)
Van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., Van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van
Mechelen, W., and Maas, J. (2015). Health beneﬁts of green spaces
in the living environment: a systematic review of epidemiological
studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, 806–816. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.
van den Bosch, M. A., Östergren, P., Grahn, P., Skärbäck, E., and Währborg, P.
(2015). Moving to serene nature may prevent poor mental health-results from
a swedish longitudinal cohort study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12,
7974–7989. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120707974
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 12 May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727
fevo-10-865727 May 18, 2022 Time: 15:7 # 13
Hedin et al. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Wellbeing
Wheeler, B. W., Lovell, R., Higgins, S. L., White, M. P., Alcock, I., Osborne, N. J.,
et al. (2015). Beyond greenspace: an ecological study of population general
health and indicators of natural environment type and quality. Int. J. Health
Geogr. 14:17. doi: 10.1186/s12942-015- 0009-5
White, M. P., Weeks, A., Hooper, T., Bleakley, L., Cracknell, D., Lovell, R., et al.
(2017). Marine wildlife as an important component of coastal visits: the role of
perceived biodiversity and species behaviour. Mar. Policy 78:89.
Wineﬁeld, H. R., Gill, T. K., Taylor, A. W., and Pilkington, R. M. (2012).
Psychological well-being and psychological distress: is it necessary to
measure both? Psychol. Well-Being: Theory, Res. Pract. 2:3. doi: 10.1186/2211-
Wolf, L. J., Zu Ermgassen, S., Balmford, A., White, M., and Weinstein, N. (2017).
Is variety the spice of life? An experimental investigation into the eﬀects of
species richness on self-reported mental well-being. PLoS One 12:e0170225.
Wood, E., Harsant, A., Dallimer, M., Cronin de Chavez, A., McEachan, R. R., and
Hassall, C. (2018). Not all green space is created equal: biodiversity predicts
psychological restorative beneﬁts from urban green space. Front. Psychol.
9:2320. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320
World Health Organisation (2018). Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response.
Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
mental-health- strengthening-our-response (accessed May 25, 2021)
Wyles, K. J., White, M. P., Hattam, C., Pahl, S., King, H., and Austen, M. (2019). Are
some natural environments more psychologically beneﬁcial than others? The
importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological
restoration. Environ. Behav. 51, 111–143. doi: 10.1177/001391651773
Young, C., Hofmann, M., Frey, D., Moretti, M., and Bauer, N. (2020). Psychological
restoration in urban gardens related to garden type, biodiversity and garden-
related stress. Landsc. Urban Plan. 198:103777. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.
Conﬂict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or ﬁnancial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conﬂict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aﬃliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Hedin, Hahs, Mata and Lee. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academicpractice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | www.frontiersin.org 13 May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 865727