We investigated the complex relationships between the environmental characteristics of blue spaces and visit-related mental well-being in a multi-country study including 17 bluespace types and four facets of subjective well-being. Our aim was to operationalise, and consider the utility of, the Bratman et al.9 conceptual model that links ecosystem services (ESS) with mental health.
Consistent with the proposed conceptual model, mental well-being outcomes relied on a complex interplay of individual, environmental, and visit characteristics.
Summary of findings
Overall, bluespace visits were associated with better subjective mental well-being outcomes if the visits took place in nearby coastal areas or rural rivers, were perceived as safe and to have good water quality, and had a long duration. They could involve a range of activities such as playing with children, socialising, or walking. The degree to which the perceived presence of wildlife predicted visit satisfaction varied depending on the bluespace type, suggesting that the importance of ecosystem features such as biodiversity may vary by the setting.
We can also identify the combination of environmental and visit characteristics associated with particularly high levels of well-being for a specific outcome. For example, an optimal visit in terms of happiness might be to sandy beaches where there are high levels of perceived safety and excellent water quality; with a visit lasting at least three hours; and possibly involving playing with children, socialising, sunbathing/paddling and/or walking with a dog; and has short travel times that do not involve public transport.
RQ1—natural and environmental features
Research question 1a—Which bluespace type(s) were associated with the highest levels of recalled visit mental well-being?
Four of the five bluespace types associated with the highest levels of visit satisfaction were coastal (sea cliffs, rocky shore, sandy beaches, rural river and seaside promenade), indicating that these environments may be particularly beneficial for well-being. Visits to these environments were also associated with the lowest levels of visit anxiety, with the exception of seaside promenade and sea cliffs, which were not significantly different to the grand mean. Seaside promenade was the only urban environment in the top five.
In addition, only coastal sites were associated with significantly higher levels of visit happiness (compared to the grand mean), further highlighting the potential importance of these environments. Although not explored here, coastal scenes tend to be associated with particularly high aesthetic and scenic value25,26 which may also be positively related to subjective well-being.
These findings are broadly consistent with other studies from the UK17,27, but are extended here to our international sample. White et al.28 also used data from the BlueHealth International Survey (BIS) and explored visit frequency to different environments and associations with general mental health and well-being outcomes, including the World Health Organisation five-item Well-being index referring to the two weeks prior to the survey. Consistent with the results here, they found that visit frequency to “coastal blue” environments was more strongly associated with psychological well-being in general than visit frequency to “inland blue” environments. Our study adds to these more general findings by showing that these associations may come as a direct result of the recalled well-being experienced on specific visits to these locations.
Confidence in our results was strengthened as we included general mental well-being in our analysis to adjust for whether happier people tend to visit sandy beaches, for example. The results for visit anxiety were not always the inverse of the trends observed in the positive measures of well-being, supporting the need to look at multiple aspects of mental well-being when considering the effects of nature contact.
Research question 1b—Which bluespace qualities were associated with the highest levels of recalled visit mental well-being?
Of the range of qualities that we investigated as predictors, perceived safety and ‘excellent’ water quality (vs. ‘sufficient’) consistently exhibited the strongest relationships with subjective mental well-being. Perceived safety has been found to be important when visiting blue spaces in several qualitative studies29,30,31, as well as a quantitative study with older adults in Hong Kong14. Blue spaces have particular safety issues with respect to drowning32,33, but fear of crime29,30,33 or pedestrian safety34 may also be relevant.
Water quality has also been found to be important in previous economic valuation studies of recreational use and enjoyment of lakes and estuaries in the USA and Australia35,36 as well as a contingent behaviour experiment carried out as part of the BlueHealth International Survey (in European countries only)37. We recognise that here we used a metric of perceived water quality, rather than measures based on biological or toxicological sampling. Nevertheless, perceptions have been reported to positively correlate with sampled water quality parameters38, although assessments can vary systematically such as by bluespace type39. Highly visible harmful algal blooms, for instance, have also been found to affect experiences of blue spaces40.
Further, and again consistent with earlier work15,41,42, the presence of facilities and wildlife, and absence of litter, were generally associated with better subjective mental well-being. Both perceived presence of wildlife and facilities were also associated with higher levels of anxiety however, indicating complexities between environmental qualities and well-being. Some wildlife may be deemed unpleasant or an ecosystem disservice, for example. The presence of good facilities may indicate the presence of more people; and visitor density in natural environments can be related to preference43. These results highlight the importance of environmental quality and not just type, consistent with other frameworks12,37.
Research question 2—How is exposure, as operationalised by visit duration, related to recalled visit mental well-being?
Broadly consistent with research in the green and bluespace literature14,17,44, we found that mental well-being outcomes were generally higher with greater exposure as indicated by visit duration. For decreasing visit anxiety, this was only significant when visits were longer than an hour and a half. As we did not measure pre-visit anxiety levels, we are cautious about identifying this as a potential temporal threshold for reducing anxiety at this stage.
Similarly, also using the BlueHealth International Survey, White et al.28 found that well-being outcomes were higher with greater visit exposure to green and blue spaces using a metric of visit frequency. However, in contrast to this and other research which looked at overall weekly aggregated time in nature (e.g.28,45), we have no evidence of diminishing marginal returns as the effect sizes associated with specific visit duration continued to increase with increasing duration.
Research question 3—What experiences in blue spaces, in terms of activities (3a) and companions (3b), are associated with the most positive recalled visit mental well-being outcomes?
Although walking was the most popular activity, the activity with the highest mental well-being ratings was playing with children, especially in certain locations such as beaches (Fig. 4). However, we also find that anxiety tended to be higher when children were present. We speculate that the purpose of the visit may be important. For example, many who go to the beach with children do so in order to play. However, if children are present on more adult-oriented activities such as hiking, this may increase adult anxiety during the visit. From a representative sample of English adults, White et al.17 found that recent nature visits with children were associated with the lowest levels of well-being. Therefore, visits with children may be associated with a more complex set of emotions, being both slightly more stressful, but also potentially more rewarding and ‘meaningful’46. Ecosystem features of beaches may be particularly supportive of high well-being activities. A qualitative study in the UK, for instance, highlighted the particular opportunities for adults and children to play together at the beach, including rock-pooling and making sandcastles as well as water-based activities47.
Visits with other adults were associated with higher levels of both visit satisfaction and worthwhile-ness, and socialising as an activity was associated with better visit well-being for all outcomes compared to the grand mean. This is consistent with studies using the day reconstruction method, which link activities with experiential well-being, in the USA48 and Germany49 where socialising was associated with the highest, or second highest, levels of well-being for all the activities assessed. Further, social interactions have been recognised as an important benefit by many of those visiting freshwater blue spaces in a previous study18.
Research question 4—Does the relationship between wildlife presence and recalled visit well-being vary by bluespace settings?
The relationship between the presence of wildlife and visit satisfaction varied with bluespace type. The strongest positive association was found for fen, marsh and bog areas, which may also be related to the purpose of visit. For instance, those who visit places such as fens, marshes and bogs, may do so for the explicit purpose of observing wildlife (often birds) and the presence of wildlife would therefore be important for satisfaction with the visit.
Perceptions towards wildlife have been found to vary by location in other studies. For example, in Sweden, greater prior experience with geese at beaches was associated with a negative attitude towards geese50. Further, the species present are likely to vary across different environments. In three urban areas in the UK, green spaces correlated with the abundance and species richness of birds considered to provide cultural services (songbirds and woodpeckers), while an abundance of birds considered to provide disservices (e.g. some gull species, feral pigeons) was independent of green spaces51. Preferences for some species over others may explain some of the negative or null relationships between the presence of wildlife at different blue spaces. These examples from the literature, alongside our own results, indicate the potential for benefits from the management of wildlife for psychological ecosystem services differentially across environments, although these should be considered alongside other conservation and ESS goals.
Mechanisms
Several mechanisms potentially explain the beneficial effects of visiting blue spaces on mental health and well-being12, including the provision of opportunities for physical activity52,53; social interaction18; cognitive restoration and stress reduction17,54; emotion regulation55 and connecting with nature12. Consistent with these mechanisms, we found that respondents were using blue spaces for both physical activity and social interaction; and that playing with children and socialising were associated with particularly high levels of well-being.
In addition to the positive association we find between some ESS and well-being, including presence of wildlife and water quality, additional bluespace ESS not considered here, may also affect mental health and well-being12. For example, the provision of a cooling effect56 and air pollution mitigation57.
Strengths and limitations
A key strength is our operationalisation of the Bratman et al.9 conceptual model for mental health using data from a large, 18 country survey that included 17 different bluespace types, five quality metrics and four subjective mental well-being outcomes. The relatively high explanatory power of our models suggests all the variables we explored were important for subjective well-being.
Despite the strengths, however, there were also several limitations. The survey was cross-sectional and causality cannot be inferred. For example, happier people may choose to visit a beach rather than another location, although we also controlled for general levels of subjective mental well-being in an attempt to control for this possibility (See Supplemental Materials). Further, although the majority of respondents (53%) recalled a visit within the last 7 days, some were recalling visits up to a month ago, with potential memory biases increasing in line with length of recall.
Although our data were collected by an international market research company to be representative of age, gender and region within country, our online sample may not be fully representative across more characteristics and any country-level conclusions need to be treated with caution. We also acknowledge that there were no results from Africa, the Middle East or South America; and Hong Kong was the only representative from Asia. This suggests far more research is needed in other regions to better understand how bluespace ecosystems interact with subjective well-being globally.
There may also be socioeconomic confounds that we did not include in our models which may account for some of the effects. Not everyone visits nature for recreation58, including about 4000 people here who did not visit a bluespace in the four weeks prior to responding to the survey. Some groups may therefore have been under-represented; and we should be careful in assuming that our findings generalise to all sub-population groups.
Nevertheless, our visit sub-sample distributions were generally similar to that of the weighted percentages in the full sample, with the exception of age where those aged over 60 were under-represented (Table S2); therefore, we suspect these issues were not too influential for the overall results, although care needs to be extended to inferences with respect to older adults.
A further limitation was that we only considered the qualities of places where people reported making recreational visits, with respondents presumably less likely to visit places where they feel really unsafe or lacking in facilities29. Further research may want to study responses to a broader range of bluespace settings, including those that are less visited, to determine the generalisability of the generally positive results found here. Such studies could use pre-existing tools to objectively assess the quality of blue spaces59.
Implications
Our finding that coastal environments are particularly beneficial adds to the body of evidence linking coastal environments with health and well-being and suggests this is consistent across many countries. Previous research has found that greater proximity to blue spaces, especially coastal settings, predicts visit frequency14,60,61 as well as other health outcomes—e.g. reduced risk of mortality and better general health, well-being and physical activity53,62. Here, we found that shorter travel times also predict visit well-being, highlighting the importance of having equitable access to good quality natural environments near to people’s homes.
We also identified that different types of coastal and inland blue spaces (e.g. seaside promande, rural rivers), with different qualities (e.g. wildlife present), involving particular types of activities in specific social configurations (e.g. playing with children), were especially good at promoting well-being. This moves beyond a simple location-based assessment of benefit to one that recognises the complex interplay between location, behavioural and social processes. Numerous commentators63 (including Bratman et al.9 on which we have based this paper) have argued that we need to go beyond the determinate effects of green and blue spaces and develop a far richer, more nuanced understanding. The approach we have taken here is intended as a step in this direction.
In terms of policy applications, these results provide support for the potential health benefits of efforts to improve equitable access to high quality environments, such as the English Coast Path (https://englandcoastpath.co.uk/) and the creation of beaches in Barcelona with the Olympic project in 199264. Our results also hint at the importance of high-level legislation, such as the EU’s Bathing Waters Directive65 for mental well-being37. If conducted on a more fine-grained geographical level, results could have the potential to leverage public support for more localised conservation initiatives. Furthermore, such results could be used as a basis for integration into more systematic conservation planning66.
Further research
Although we incorporate a range of variables in our analysis, and our pseudo-R2 values are relatively high for a social research context, considerable variation remains unexplained. Although other individual characteristics may be important, such as nature connectedness67 and memories68, further research could explore the specific ecosystem features and social contexts associated with the particular positive results from coastal spaces, which would be of interest to policy makers and environmental managers. We also speculated that purpose of visit may explain some of our findings. Further research could explore the interactions between motivations and location, experience, and well-being outcomes.
The presence of wildlife was differentially important across bluespace types and further research could unpack this. Exploring similar possibilities for the other quality metrics, as well as considering additional ecosystem characteristics, would also be informative. For example, identifying which factors are important in perceptions of safety in blue spaces. Bratman et al.9 also considered effect modification by visitor characteristics and further research could include interactions, or sub-group analysis, by socio-demographic factors.
Further research could also explore longer-term benefits of these features over repeated visits; the potential for ecosystem disservices, such as the relationships we find between an interaction of wildlife and ice rinks and well-being; the potential for negative outcomes associated with ecosystem degradation69; and the potential for positive mental health outcomes from ecological restoration70.
We have demonstrated some of the complexities involved in the human-nature relationship and that many factors are related to the outcome from a visit. The conceptual model applied allows the investigation of a wide range of variables including natural features and other environmental qualities, and characteristics of the exposure and experience, as well as individual parameters. We suggest that other researchers can apply this conceptual model and design data collection accordingly to target specific research questions and hypotheses (as opposed to where we have fitted already collected data).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
