Froglife

Leaping forward for reptiles and amphibians

You are here: Home / Archives for Croaking Science

Croaking Science

Croaking Science: The benefits of green spaces and nature on mental health

by

“In every walk with nature, one receives far more than he seeks” – John Muir

As well as the conservation work Froglife does for amphibians and reptiles across the UK, we also run projects that promote education amenities and research activities for the benefit of the public. We run wildlife projects for disadvantaged young people and those with dementia, such as our Green Pathways, Green Pathways for Life and Leaping forward for Dementia projects. A common issue amongst our participants is mental health, especially coming out the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our Eco therapy style project is based on scientific research that suggests being outdoors and connecting with nature, have hugely positive effects on individuals.

As countries become increasingly urbanised, the world’s population is spending increasingly less time exposed to natural environments (Cox et al, 2018). It has been reported that 55% of the world’s population live in urban areas and this is expected to increase to 68% by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). Unfortunately, urbanisation not only means spending less time in natural environments but more time destroying them and reducing the number of green spaces around the globe (Collins, 2014). Aside from the detrimental environmental effects of this, loss of these green spaces and time spent in them could have hugely negative effects on people’s mental health and well-being.

There is growing evidence to suggest that being in nature has positive effects on people’s mental health. Studies have shown that green spaces can lower levels of stress (Wells et al, 2003) and reduce rates of depression and anxiety, reduce cortisol levels (Park et al, 2010) and improve general well-being. Not only can a simple walk in nature boost your mood but also improve your cognitive function and memory (Berman et al, 2012).  Green spaces can provide a buffer against the negative health impacts of stressful life events. A Dutch study showed that residents with a higher area of green spaces within a 3km radius had a better relationship with stressful life events (Van den Berg et al, 2010) which was soon to be increasingly important in recent years with the effects of COVID-19.

So what is it about natural environments that are good for mental health and wellbeing?

Positive Physiological effects

Something as simple as exposure to natural environments can be physiologically restorative (Conniff et al, 2014). This means that being in a natural outdoor environment can have positive mental health effects due to the physical processes elicited in the body. A Japanese study showed that viewing and walking in forest environments can promote lower concentrations of cortisol, lower pulse rates and blood pressure when compared to city environments (Park et al, 2010). These physiological effects are all a counter to the physical effects stress causes in the body and are what happens when you relax. A recent study found that those who had access to natural spaces during the COVID-19 lockdowns had lower levels of stress and those that could view nature from home had reduced psychological distress (Ribeiro et al, 2021).

There are multiple psychological theories as to how nature helps our mental well-being. The two common prevailing theories on how nature brings about these positive effects are the Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) coined by Ulrich (1981) and Kaplan et al’s (1989) Attention Restoration Theory (ART).  SRT suggests that nature promotes recovery from stress and that urban environments have the opposite effect. Ulrich proposes that being in unthreatening natural environments (a green space you would consider safe) activates a positive emotional response. That being in nature produces this as a universal innate connection, promoting the physiological effects of lower blood pressure, heart rate and increases attention which in turn blocks negative thoughts and emotions (Ulrich et al, 1991). Kaplan et al’s ART works around the idea that we have different types of attention: voluntary or involuntary, and that the latter requires no effort. After using voluntary attention we experience ‘attention fatigue’, reducing our cognitive abilities and increasing mental fatigue. According to Kaplan et al, when we use our involuntary attention it gives us time to restore our voluntary attention. From this, Kaplan et al have suggested that what nature provides acts as a restorative power by providing four processes:

  • Being away – an opportunity to distance from routine activities and thoughts.
  • Soft fascination – nature holds attention effortlessly: think about the sunsets, sound of water, leaves blowing in the wind all-natural phenomena allowing your voluntary attention to rest.
  • Extent – nature provides an immersion experience, engaging the mind and rest from concerns.
  • Compatibility – a setting that is well matched to human needs and desires, providing a feeling of being in harmony with a greater whole.

These two theories have much in common: they focus on cognitive vs autonomic processes and both support a change in attention and stress load when an individual interacts with the natural environment (Gregory N. Bratman, 2012). However, they differ in how they suggest the primary mechanisms work. The effects the theories suggest are blurred in the sense of cause and effect: does a reduction in stress levels allow someone to concentrate better or does replenished direct attention help reduce stress?

Both these assertions are controversial in the field of environmental psychology, yet much research falls under either both or one of these theories.

Mental Health and Nature Policy

To what degree these theories influence policy is debated but it is clear that in recent years, especially after the recent pandemic, that nature spaces are becoming an increasing priority for mental health provision. Research has evidenced that we need to shift our attention from focusing on people visiting green spaces to how we interact and connect with nature close to home through simple activities (Mental Health Foundation, 2021). The Mental Health Foundation suggests from their research findings that we need to focus on six main areas in policy:

  1. Facilitating connection with nature
  2. Protecting the natural environment and restoring biodiversity
  3. Improving access to nature
  4. Making green spaces safe for all
  5. Using the planning system and urban design to improve the visibility of nature in every local area
  6. Developing a life – long relationship with nature.

Through our projects at Froglife we provide ways for people to interact with the environment instead of simply just being in it.

Promotion of Physical activity

Green spaces such as nature reserves, wilderness environments and urban parks also promote certain behaviours, such as encouraging physical activity within the space, which is a pro-mental health behaviour. Experimental studies have shown that not only do green spaces promote experience but they may be better for mental health than activity in other environments. Those that perform exercise in natural environments once a week are at about half the risk of poor mental health as those that don’t (Mitchell, 2013). Participation and involvement in nature is often tied to physical activities such as gardening or farming, trekking or running: the evidence of the benefits of this promotes the idea that green spaces should be seen as an essential health resource (Pretty, 2004).

There are many more benefits associated with natural green spaces. However, in terms of mental well-being, greener areas have been associated with a sustained improvement in mental health, highlighting the significance of green spaces, especially in urban areas. They provide not only a habitat for wildlife but also sustainable public health benefits (Alcock et al, 2014). Many studies have shown that more time spent in nature is associated with better mental health, independent of culture and climatic contexts, as well as the promotion of physical activity.

In addition to the wildlife and environmental benefits of conserving nature spaces, especially in urban areas, we also benefit in many ways from these natural spaces. This gives us even more reason to continue to protect our wildlife and conserve our natural areas and green space.

 

References

Alcock, I, et al., 2014. Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environmental Science & Technology , 48, 1247-1255.

Berman, M.G, et al., 2012. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300-305.

Bratman, M.G, et al., 2012. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Issue: The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology), 1249, 118-136.

Collins, A.M., 2014. Destruction of urban green spaces: A problem beyond urbanization in Kumasi city (Ghana). American Joural of Environmental Protection, 3, 1-9.

Conniff, A, et al., 2016. A methodological approach to understanding the wellbeing and restorative benefits associated with greenspace. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, 103-109

Cox, D.T.C, et al., 2018. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landscape and Urban Planning, 179, 72-82.

Kaplan, R, et al., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mental Health Foundation, 2021. Nature- How Connecting with nature benefits our mental health. Published on-line.

Mitchell, R., 2013. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130-134.

Park, B.J, et al., 2010. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 15, 18-26.

Pretty, P. J., 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International, 5, 68-78.

Ribeiro, A.I, et al., 2021. Exposure to nature and mental health outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown. A comparison between Portugal and Spain. Environment International, 154 article 106664.

Ulrich, R. S., 1981. Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior 13, 523-556.

Ulrich, R. S., et al., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.

Van den Berg, A. E, et al., 2010. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1203-1210.

Wells, N.M. & Evans, G.W., 2003. Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress among Rural Children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311-330.

The Ecological Importance of Small Freshwater Bodies

by

Small Freshwater Bodies include ponds, ditches, springs and flushes. All of these provide huge ecological benefits, supporting a wide range of aquatic species and offsetting some of the negative impacts of many environmental issues facing us such as climate change, flooding and noise pollution.

Ponds support an extraordinary two-thirds of all freshwater species and are central to the survival of many including frogs, toads, newts, a huge range of aquatic invertebrates and plants. Freshwater Bodies also provide mammals and birds with drinking water and some species such as grass snakes with important foraging areas.

One third of ponds are thought to have disappeared in the last fifty years or so and of those that remain more than 80% are considered to be in ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ condition (Freshwater Habitats Trust research). This has had an enormous impact on aquatic wildlife. 

Creating a clean, new pond is one of the simplest and most effective ways to protect freshwater wildlife.  Where it is not a viable option to create new ponds, restoring existing, depleting ponds is greatly beneficial.

You can find tonnes of information on pond creation in our Just Add Water leaflet here. 

The astonishing diversity of reproductive modes in amphibians: a new classification

by

Written by Roger Downie, Froglife Trustee and University of Glasgow

In the UK, we are accustomed to amphibians breeding in the spring and depositing their eggs in freshwater bodies, usually ponds rather than streams or lakes. Frogs deposit their eggs as a clump of jelly; toads as strings; and newts wrap theirs individually in folded leaves. The embryos hatch as larvae and feed in the water until they are ready to metamorphose into juvenile versions of the adult form. The adults spend no time with their eggs after deposition. So far, so familiar. But, when we look beyond our UK species, we find a wide diversity of reproductive modes. How many, and what are they like?

The term ‘reproductive mode’ (RM) was coined by Breder and Rosen (1966) to help them make sense of reproductive diversity in fish. Later, Salthe and Duellman (1973), in the context of amphibians, defined RM as a set of characters including oviposition site, ovum and clutch characteristics, rate and duration of development, stage and size of hatchlings, and type of parental care, if any. Without using the term RM, Boulenger (1886) had identified 10 amphibian modes. A hundred years later, Duellman and Trueb’s (1986) textbook recognised 29 RMs in anurans, seven in urodeles and two in caecilians. Haddad and Prado (2005) extended this to 39 modes for all amphibians, and there have been a few additions since. However, Nunes-de-Almeida et al. (2021) have now published a new classification, identifying 74 RMs in amphibians, almost a doubling of the 2005 list. How and why?

Their method is to divide the reproductive process into a set of eleven characters where each species can be assigned to one of two (occasionally more) states. The characters are:

  1. Reproduction type: oviparity (egg-laying) or viviparity (eggs not laid: the female gives birth to larvae or juveniles). Viviparity is common in caecilians, but also occurs in a few frogs and salamanders.
  2. Oviposition macrohabitat: eggs are deposited into the environment or they develop in or on the body of either the female or the male parent.
  3. Spawning type: the distinction here is between cases where eggs are immersed in froth, or not. Froth is made from oviduct secretions in two ways: either a foam is generated by beating movements of the adults’ limbs; or bubbles are made by the female’s jumping movements.
  4. Oviposition substrate: either in water, or not in water: on the ground, or in vegetation, or attached to a parent.
  5. Medium surrounding the eggs: the main distinction here is between two kinds of aquatic habitat: lentic (still water, like a pond) or lotic (flowing waters, such as streams). The medium can also be air, as in eggs deposited on the ground, or attached to a parent’s body.
  6. Nest construction: a constructed nest is defined as a place to deposit eggs which the parents have made by digging, or cleaning, or building in some way. ‘Froth’ nests are excluded from this category (I’m not sure this exclusion is fully justified). Constructed nests can be burrows, or depressions, or cleared areas on the forest floor, or leaves folded around the eggs.
  7. Oviposition microhabitat: here, Nunes-de Almeida and colleagues find 15 variables: eggs on the surface of water, at the bottom of a pool, on the ground, on a leaf, on a rock, in a bromeliad tank etc.

The remaining characters distinguish different patterns of development:

  1. Embryonic development: can be indirect, with a larval stage, or direct – lacking a distinct larval form, and progressing directly from embryo to juvenile.
  2. Embryonic nutrition: all amphibians have yolky eggs, and the yolk provides the nutrients needed for embryonic development, but in some cases the mother provides additional nutrients. Where all nutrients derive from the yolk, development is termed lecithotrophic; where the mother provides extra, it is matrotrophic.
  3. Larval and newborn nutrition: when embryos hatch and become free-living, we consider them as larvae. Generally, this marks the stage when they begin to forage for food, although they still have some of the egg-yolk left. However, some species do not feed as larvae, but obtain their nutrition from their large remaining yolk reserves: these are termed endotrophic. Most larvae are exotrophic, obtaining most of their nutrition from external food sources. In a few cases, parents provide this nutrition. For example, so-called trophic eggs, unfertilised eggs deposited by females to feed their hatched larvae. Another example is the feeding of some caecilian young on their mother’s skin secretions.
  4. Place of larval development: mostly this occurs either in a pool (lentic) or a stream (lotic), but there are also cases of larval development on land, or attached to a parent’s body.
Credit: Julia Page

Overall, the authors reviewed RMs in 2171 species on which they could find adequate information: this is 26 % of all amphibians (8393 species, November 2021). Anurans showed 71 of the 74 RMs; urodeles 16 and caecilians seven. Most species showed a single RM, but some fitted up to four of the modes.

Nunes-de-Almeida and colleagues have made a valiant effort to classify the rich diversity of amphibian RMs, but it is not without some problematic aspects. One omitted feature is fertilisation mode: internal or external. This is a crucial feature in research on reproductive strategies relating to certainty of paternity and male competition. Another aspect largely omitted is parental care behaviour. Parental care can be defined as non-gametic investments in offspring that incur a cost to the parent, but which provide a benefit to the offspring. Parental care in amphibians is discussed in Croaking Science (date to come). The new RM classification  explicitly excludes parental care on the grounds that parental care information is lacking for too many species. However, many kinds of parental care are actually included: for example, the provision of trophic eggs to larvae (character 10 above); while others such as larval transportation by adults are omitted. Another omitted feature which I find surprising is the differences in anuran spawn characteristics: single non-adhesive eggs, eggs in clumps, eggs in strings. It is likely that these differences are evolved characteristics important to reproductive success, so should be included in a classification of RMs. Another omission is the diversity of larval forms: there is huge diversity in tadpole form and behaviour, related to the habitats they live in: this may go beyond the usual definition of an RM, but is an important aspect of reproductive success. There are also occasional inconsistencies: phyllomedusine tree frogs wrap their egg clutches in leaves, and this is classed as a constructed nest (character 6 above); newts wrap their eggs individually in leaves, but this behaviour is not acknowledged as a kind of nest construction.

One excellent point made by the authors is about plasticity: i.e. individuals within a species may vary their RM, depending on circumstances. One example I’ve observed is the giant tree frog Boana boans. These frogs generally construct nests, as basins in gravel or sand (character 6 above), just beyond the edge of streams. However, where there is no suitable ‘beach’, the eggs are deposited at the water surface amongst emergent vegetation.

I’m sure that this new RM classification will stimulate discussion and research, and that later versions will include more species and modes. The authors hope that their work will stimulate the development of RM classifications for other taxa: how about reptiles?

References

Breder and Rosen (1966). Modes of Reproduction in Fishes. Natural History Press, New York.

Duellman and Trueb (1986). Biology of Amphibians. Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

Haddad and Prado (2005). Reproductive modes in frogs and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55, 207-217.

Nunes-de-Almeida et al. (2021). A revised classification of the amphibian reproductive modes. Salamandra 57, 413-427.

Salthe and Duellman (1973). Quantitative constraints associated with reproductive modes in anurans. Pp 229-249 in: Vial (ed.) Evolutionary biology of the anurans. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

Parental care in amphibians: research findings from 1705 to the present day

by

Writen by Roger Downie, University of Glasgow and Froglife

Croaking Science does not usually urge its readers to study a particular scientific paper, but this is an exception. The paper is Schulte et al.’s (2020) review of research into amphibian parental care, a fascinating and essential read for all amphibian enthusiasts. Parental care is usually defined as ‘non-gametic investments in offspring that incur a cost to the parent’ and which provide some benefit to the offspring. Common examples are egg-guarding, and provisioning of young after hatching. Although some authors restrict discussions of parental care to actions that occur after fertilisation, others include activities like nest-building in preparation for egg laying. For example, we generally consider UK amphibians as lacking parental care: they deposit their eggs in water, then leave. But Schulte et al include the behaviour of female newts that wrap their eggs individually in leaves: this behaviour takes a substantial amount of time, so is costly to the female, and contributes to offspring survival by reducing predation.

Research into parental care tends to focus disproportionately on birds and mammals. Stahlschmidt (2011) in a review of what he termed ‘taxonomic chauvinisn’ found amphibian and reptile parental care much less studied than cases from birds, mammals and even fish. Schulte at al. redress this situation through a vast historically-based review, identifying 685 studies spanning the period 1705-2017. Early studies were mainly simply descriptive, but since 1950, there has been a greater focus on the investigation of explanations: what does parental care achieve, and what does it cost?

The paper’s Table 1 lists each of the parental care modes so far described: four in Caecilians; eight in Urodeles; 28 in Anurans. Some modes occur in all three Orders e.g. terrestrial egg guarding; others occur in only one Order e.g. wrapping of individual eggs in leaves by newts; foam-nest construction by many frogs. Overall, parental care is known from 56 (74%) of the amphibian Families. It is not really surprising that more parental care modes occur in the Anurans than in the other two Orders, since anuran species diversity is so high (Frost, 2021 lists 7406 anurans, 768 urodeles and 212 caecilians).

The first known report of parental care in an amphibian, remarkably, was by a German female natural historian and artist, Maria Sibylla Merian in 1705. Her book was mainly devoted to meticulous drawings of the insects she observed in Suriname, but she also included an illustration and observations on an aquatic frog, later named the Suriname toad (Pipa pipa), which incubates its eggs in individual pockets on its back: she saw the metamorphosed juveniles emerging from the pockets. I was lucky, on my first visit to Trinidad, to see this for myself. We captured a ‘pregnant’ female and the babies later hatched into the water, some still with tail stumps, others fully metamorphosed. Female biologists have been prominent in the study of amphibian parental care: in addition to Maria Sibylla Merian, Martha Crump (1996) and Bertha Lutz (1947) come to mind, as well as the four authors of the review under discussion.

Suriname Toad

Among the 500 or so papers that Schulte et al. cite, I was pleased to see two from the work we have done in Trinidad (Downie et al., 2001; Downie et al., 2005). These are about the Trinidad stream frog Mannophryne trinitatis (see Croaking Science September 2020), where the fathers guard the eggs on land then transport hatchlings on their backs to a pool where they can complete development to metamorphosis. Tadpole transportation is a common aspect of parental care in the neotropical families Dendrobatidae and Aromobatidae. We found that the fathers are choosy over where to deposit their tadpoles, avoiding pools that contain potential predators, and therefore contributing to their survival. The search could take up to four days. We wondered how costly this might be to fathers: to our surprise, transporting a relatively heavy load of tadpoles did not appear to reduce the fathers’ jumping ability, nor did it prevent them from finding food. However, four days away from their territory must count as at least some cost in terms of lost mating opportunities.

A male Trinidad stream frog, Mannophryne trinitatis transporting his tadpoles (photo credit: Joanna Smith)

Schulte et al. conclude with a timely plea for a revival of teaching and research in natural history. As they say, natural history observations – on the distribution, numbers and habits of organisms- form the basis of all new ideas and hypotheses in ecology and evolutionary biology. They note that there remain many amphibian species whose habits are poorly known and that many novel observations have been made on parental care in recent years. They therefore expect that much could be discovered, as long as effort is put into new field work. Over 20 years ago, I wrote lamenting the modern status of natural history (Downie 1997, 1999), and Schulte et al. report that the loss of organism-based teaching and research is widespread. In the UK, there are moves to create a natural history curriculum, to complement biology in schools. I feel that it is much needed.

References

Crump (1996). Parental care among the amphibia. Advances in the Study of Behaviour 25, 109-144.

Downie (1997). Are the naturalists dying off? The Glasgow Naturalist 23 (2), 1.

Downie (1999). What is natural history, and what is its role? The Glasgow Naturalist 23 (4), 1.

Downie et al. (2001). Selection of tadpole deposition sites by male Trinidadian stream frogs (Mannophryne trinitatis; Dendrobatidae): an example of anti-predator behaviour. Herpetological Journal 11, 91-100.

Downie et al. (2005). Are there costs to extended larval transport in the Trinidadian stream frog (Mannophryne trinitatis, Dendrobatidae)? Journal of Natural History 39, 2023-2034.

Frost (2021). Amphibian species of the world : an online reference. Version 6.1 (accessed 29/9/21). Electronic database accessible at http://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.

Lutz (1947). Trends towards non-aquatic and direct development in frogs. Copeia 1947, 242-252.

Schulte et al. (2020). Developments in amphibian parental care research: history, present advances, and future perspectives. Herpetological Monographs 34, 71-97.

Stahlschmidt (2011). Taxonomic chauvinism revisited: insight from parental care research. PLoS ONE 6, e24192.

Blog: Ben Harris- Climate Change

by

With Froglife’s attendance at COP26 quickly approaching, my thoughts have been directed towards the impact of climate change on our native reptile and amphibian species. Climate change has always loomed in my mind as the other ugly sibling of biodiversity loss, but it is the one I have never really given enough attention to, and certainly the one I understand less about. I imagine it is my line of work in habitat management and public engagement that has led to this bias; it has always seemed more pressing to me to focus on improving the plight of our dwindling wildlife, whether through good land management or working with the public to increase awareness.  However, I know the two are inextricably linked and we cannot work on solving one of these issues without considering the other.

Dunford and Berry’s (2012) paper is an illuminating report on the effects climate change might have on the UK’s herpetofauna. The predictions on how the range and populations of certain species are mixed, but by and large the prognosis is poor if climate change continues on its current trajectory. Both reptiles and amphibians rely heavily on specific features within their environment, and even small changes in their habitat caused by climate change might have an impact. For example ponds, areas for thermoregulation, hibernation spots, and places to lay eggs are all needed within reasonable distance of each other to support different species. Whilst climate change will likely result in the disappearance of some of these features outright, it will also degrade them as well. It is this in particular that I want to explore: habitat degradation and how we can mitigate it in habitat management.

Recently, I have seen a lot of media coverage on the benefits of rewilding and restoring natural ecological processes. It is refreshing to see such public interest in environmental conservation, but I do worry that the continued need for talented land management is being overlooked. Where possible, rewilding of our native species should be explored and encouraged, but in some cases it is an idealistic pursuit. Many of our species, particularly reptiles and amphibians, rely on habitat in varying states of mid-succession (such as areas of long grass and scrub), and in many places it is only feasible to create and maintain these through artificial means. When we add climate change to the mix, land managers are now going to have to deal with even more problems and interactions than they currently do, and it is clear to me that we will still require excellent habitat management to deal with less than ideal quality. An example would be at Hampton Nature Reserve, a 300 acre Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and home to all of the widespread UK reptiles and a variety of amphibians. We manage the land here in such a way that it is still valuable for these species. Without the annual pond clearances and coppicing, the mosaic of water bodies which make it such a valuable habitat would cease to exist, and climate change would just accelerate his.

As habitat degrades due to climate change, reptiles and amphibians will also need to be able to move throughout the landscape to seek better alternatives. Although climate change might not directly affect habitat connectivity, it will certainly make it even more important than it already is. Reptiles in particular are notoriously poor colonisers, and even now, species such as the adder live in isolated pockets without the potential for movement. Again, it is down to land managers and owners to work in partnership with one another and invent creative and diplomatic ways of reconnecting our fragmented countryside. I hope COP26 will highlight the need to commit to greener economic solutions and move away from carbon-based energy sources, and by doing so we can perhaps avoid the worst of climate change. But the effects are already having an impact on our native wildlife and we will still require continued investment in habitat management to mitigate it.

 

The benefits of green spaces and nature on mental health.

by

“In every walk with nature, one receives far more than he seeks” – John Muir

As well as the conservation work Froglife does for amphibians and reptiles across the UK, we also run projects that promote education amenities and research activities for the benefit of the public. We run wildlife projects for disadvantaged young people and those with dementia, such as our Green Pathways, Green Pathways for Life and Leaping forward for Dementia. A common issue amongst our participants is mental health especially coming out the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our Eco therapy style project is based on scientific research that suggests being outdoors and connecting with nature, have hugely positive effects on individuals.

As countries become increasingly urbanised, the world’s population is spending increasingly less time exposed to natural environments (Cox et al, 2018). It has been reported that 55% of the world’s population live in urban areas and this is expected to increase to 68% by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). Unfortunately, urbanisation not only means spending less time in natural environments but more time destroying them and reducing the number of green spaces around the globe (Collins, 2014). Aside from the detrimental environmental effects of this, loss of these green spaces and time spent in them could have hugely negative effects on people’s mental health and well-being.

There is growing evidence to suggest that being in nature has positive effects on people’s mental health. Studies have shown that green spaces can lower levels of stress (Wells et al, 2003) and reduce rates of depression and anxiety, reduce cortisol levels (Park et al, 2010) and improve general well-being. Not only can a simple walk in nature boost your mood but also improve your cognitive function and memory (Berman et al, 2012).  Green spaces can provide a buffer against the negative health impacts of stressful life events. A Dutch study showed that residents with a higher area of green spaces within a 3km radius had a better relationship with stressful life events (Van den Berg et al, 2010) which was soon to be increasingly important in recent years with the effects of COVID-19.

So what is it about natural environments that are good for mental health and wellbeing?

Positive Physiological effects

Something as simple as exposure to natural environments can be physiologically restorative (Conniff et al, 2014). This means that being in a natural outdoor environment can have positive mental health effects due to the physical processes elicited in the body. A Japanese study showed that viewing and walking in forest environments can promote lower concentrations of cortisol, lower pulse rates and blood pressure when compared to city environments (Park et al, 2010). These physiological effects are all a counter to the physical effects stress causes in the body and are what happens when you relax. A recent study found that those who had access to natural spaces during the COVID-19 lockdowns had lower levels of stress and those that could view nature from home had reduced psychological distress (Ribeiro et al, 2021).

There are multiple psychological theories as to how nature helps our mental well-being. The two common prevailing theories on how nature brings about these positive effects are the Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) coined by Ulrich (1981) and Kaplan et al’s (1989) Attention Restoration Theory (ART).  SRT suggests that nature promotes recovery from stress and that urban environments have the opposite effect. Ulrich proposes that being in unthreatening natural environments (a green space you would consider safe) activates a positive emotional response. That being in nature produces this as a universal innate connection, promoting the physiological effects of lower blood pressure, heart rate and increases attention which in turn blocks negative thoughts and emotions (Ulrich et al, 1991). Kaplan et al’s ART works around the idea that we have different types of attention: voluntary or involuntary, and that the latter requires no effort. After using voluntary attention we experience ‘attention fatigue’, reducing our cognitive abilities and increasing mental fatigue. According to Kaplan et al, when we use our involuntary attention it gives us time to restore our voluntary attention. From this, Kaplan et al have suggested that what nature provides acts as a restorative power by providing four processes:

  • Being away – an opportunity to distance from routine activities and thoughts.
  • Soft fascination – nature holds attention effortlessly: think about the sunsets, sound of water, leaves blowing in the wind all-natural phenomena allowing your voluntary attention to rest.
  • Extent – nature provides an immersion experience, engaging the mind and rest from concerns.
  • Compatibility – a setting that is well matched to human needs and desires, providing a feeling of being in harmony with a greater whole.

These two theories have much in common: they focus on cognitive vs autonomic processes and both support a change in attention and stress load when an individual interacts with the natural environment (Gregory N. Bratman, 2012). However, they differ in how they suggest the primary mechanisms work. The effects the theories suggest are blurred in the sense of cause and effect: does a reduction in stress levels allow someone to concentrate better or does replenished direct attention help reduce stress?

Both these assertions are controversial in the field of environmental psychology, yet much research falls under either both or one of these theories.

Mental Health and Nature Policy

To what degree these theories influence policy is debated but it is clear that in recent years, especially after the recent pandemic, that nature spaces are becoming an increasing priority for mental health provision. Research has evidenced that we need to shift our attention from focusing on people visiting green spaces to how we interact and connect with nature close to home through simple activities (Mental Health Foundation, 2021). The Mental Health Foundation suggests from their research findings that we need to focus on six main areas in policy:

  1. Facilitating connection with nature
  2. Protecting the natural environment and restoring biodiversity
  3. Improving access to nature
  4. Making green spaces safe for all
  5. Using the planning system and urban design to improve the visibility of nature in every local area
  6. Developing a life – long relationship with nature.

Through our projects at Froglife we provide ways for people to interact with the environment instead of simply just being in it.

Promotion of Physical activity

Green spaces such as nature reserves, wilderness environments and urban parks also promote certain behaviours, such as encouraging physical activity within the space, which is a pro-mental health behaviour. Experimental studies have shown that not only do green spaces promote experience but they may be better for mental health than activity in other environments. Those that perform exercise in natural environments once a week are at about half the risk of poor mental health as those that don’t (Mitchell, 2013). Participation and involvement in nature is often tied to physical activities such as gardening or farming, trekking or running: the evidence of the benefits of this promotes the idea that green spaces should be seen as an essential health resource (Pretty, 2004).

There are many more benefits associated with natural green spaces. However, in terms of mental well-being, greener areas have been associated with a sustained improvement in mental health, highlighting the significance of green spaces, especially in urban areas. They provide not only a habitat for wildlife but also sustainable public health benefits (Alcock et al, 2014). Many studies have shown that more time spent in nature is associated with better mental health, independent of culture and climatic contexts, as well as the promotion of physical activity.

In addition to the wildlife and environmental benefits of conserving nature spaces, especially in urban areas, we also benefit in many ways from these natural spaces. This gives us even more reason to continue to protect our wildlife and conserve our natural areas and green space.

References

Alcock, I, et al., 2014. Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environmental Science & Technology , 48, 1247-1255.

Berman, M.G, et al., 2012. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300-305.

Bratman, M.G, et al., 2012. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Issue: The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology), 1249, 118-136.

Collins, A.M., 2014. Destruction of urban green spaces: A problem beyond urbanization in Kumasi city (Ghana). American Joural of Environmental Protection, 3, 1-9.

Conniff, A, et al., 2016. A methodological approach to understanding the wellbeing and restorative benefits associated with greenspace. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19, 103-109

Cox, D.T.C, et al., 2018. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landscape and Urban Planning, 179, 72-82.

Kaplan, R, et al., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mental Health Foundation, 2021. Nature- How Connecting with nature benefits our mental health. Published on-line.

Mitchell, R., 2013. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130-134.

Park, B.J, et al., 2010. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 15, 18-26.

Pretty, P. J., 2004. How nature contributes to mental and physical health. Spirituality and Health International, 5, 68-78.

Ribeiro, A.I, et al., 2021. Exposure to nature and mental health outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown. A comparison between Portugal and Spain. Environment International, 154 article 106664.

Ulrich, R. S., 1981. Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior 13, 523-556.

Ulrich, R. S., et al., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.

Van den Berg, A. E, et al., 2010. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1203-1210.

Wells, N.M. & Evans, G.W., 2003. Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress among Rural Children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311-330.

Please click "Accept" to use cookies on this website. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close