Cited by 10Urban Green Space and HealthUrban Arborization and Environmental StudiesHealth disparities and outcomes

A cross-sectional analysis of biodiversity, publicly accessible green space and mental well-being in Wales using routinely collected data

Open access
Thwaites, Oliver, Mizen, Amy, Fry, Richard·2024·Landscape and Urban Planning

Abstract

There is a lack of studies investigating the effects of green space and biodiversity on mental well-being, across a large study area. Generally, exposure to natural environments promotes better physical health, mental health and well-being. This study investigated associations between publicly accessible green space, biodiversity and mental well-being for individuals living in Wales using routinely collected survey and biodiversity data. This study used the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) to measure mental well-being. The 2018–19 National Survey for Wales responses containing the WEMWBS scores and socio-demographic factors were linked to green space and biodiversity data in census areas. By utilising Generalised Additive Models this study found that all environmental metrics were associated with mental well-being. However, after adjustment for socio-demographic factors, only bird species richness remained associated with mental well-being, with a highly non-linear relationship. There was little to no evidence of associations between green space or biodiversity when stratifying by income group. When stratified by rural and urban areas, we found bird, plant and total species richness to be associated with mental well-being. Environmental interventions should consider promoting bird species richness in urban areas which may benefit mental well-being. Future areas of research could include longitudinal studies to explore causal links between green spaces, biodiversity and mental well-being, utilising individual-level exposure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104971

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Thwaites, O., Mizen, A., & Fry, R.
Affiliations
Swansea University (GB)
Corresponding author
Thwaites, Oliver
Venue
Landscape and Urban Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
243
Pages
104971
ISSN
0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389359880
Cited by
10
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Landscape and Urban Planning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Cronfa (Swansea University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Arborization and Environmental Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
psychological well-being, green spaces, biodiversity, bird species richness, plant species richness, nature exposure, urban-rural differences, income, sociodemographic factors, environmental interventions, Wales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review