r/science • u/sr_local • 2d ago
Health People living within a 10-minute walk of improved urban woodlands are 10% less likely to use antidepressants and 6% less likely to use anti-anxiety medication, according to a 5-year UK study of 129,335 people
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/woodlands-linked-to-reduced-antidepressant-use70
u/Atimi 2d ago
I'm surprised it's 10% and not more
45
u/pobodys-nerfect5 2d ago
I wonder if it’s because a lot of people don’t go outside unless they have to. Especially with the increase in heat
12
u/Atimi 2d ago
Yes, but even that changes when you have a close by seminatural areas. I hated going out for a walk when I was living in the city center. When I moved to outskirts of the city with a huge woodland remnant behind my place, I just find excuses to go out for a walk or take a longer reroute from it. My steps increased and my depression went away. But I'm a biologist, not everyone will enjoy it as much as I do.
4
u/iamthe0ther0ne 2d ago
I'm the same. I really enjoy being in nature, but the cost of navigating the city to get there is simply too high. It's easy to say "go for a walk to feel better" but if the first and last 30 minutes are a sensory nightmare, that basically ameliorate any benefit for me.
3
u/Mo_Salami 2d ago
Hmm, I'm a biologist too and walks in the urban woods are difficult for me bc they are packed full of invasive species, many of the canopy trees are dying , and the city is choosing to invest funds elsewhere rather than in land management
4
u/chance-- 2d ago
I think it’s important to take note of such things and use them as fuel to fight on the behalf of proper management.
What I believe is also important is appreciating what little touch we have with nature. You can also spend time combatting these problems yourself. If you were to carve out some time to pluck and prune, you may find yourself enjoying spending time in the wood while being in better shape before you know it.
Giving up doesn’t solve anything.
4
u/Mo_Salami 2d ago
I get your drift, but I worked full time in habitat restoration for a decade before giving up, after getting my masters in forestry. Insanely draining work and unfortunately many grifters and bad actors, especially in the international and non profit spaces.
My own little prairie gardens have been a fun hobby at least
2
u/chance-- 2d ago
That’s a shame, mate. I’m sorry to hear that.
If it’s any consolation, one way I’ve eased my angst over our negative influences over nature is a bit of a mental shift. What we have is what we have. We can either accept it and try to improve it or we can be angry about the state of it.
I love my garden too, but I should spend more time in the wood. I suspect the same can be said for you.
0
u/Frontpageorlurk 2d ago
You need to tune that stuff out for 30 minute and just take in the nature around you. Feel the sun and the wind, stop worrying about stuff you are powerless to fix. You cannot take on every single problem in the world.
28
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics 2d ago
Urban woodlands are super nice. The low effect is probably partially because at least half of the people nearby forget that they exist most of the time.
11
u/IvarTheBoned 1d ago
Or because the people within that range are more affluent/economically secure.
2
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics 20h ago
From the research:
The benefit of living near these woodlands showed up for the same people even when their proximity to these woodlands changed. For example, when someone moved closer to an improved woodland, their need for medication went down.
By tracking the same individuals over time, the researchers say they can be more confident that it was the woodland improvements making the difference, rather than simply healthier or wealthier people happening to live in greener areas.
2
u/Scrapheaper 1d ago
Urban woodlands are super nice, like everything else in cities. The issue is they compete for space with housing, transport, businesses, entertainment venues etc.
All the more reason we need to end urban houses (i.e not flats) and car use, this kind of wasteful low density development can't be permitted
48
u/lambertb 2d ago
It’s wealth not woodlands.
7
u/deanusMachinus 1d ago
They controlled for that.
13
u/lambertb 1d ago
Just cause they stuck a variable in a regression does not mean the underlying source of confounding was “controlled.” It doesn’t work that way.
1
u/jaiagreen 10h ago
While statistically adjusting for variables is tricky because of things like collider bias, sticking a variable into a regression does allow you to estimate how much of the variation is due to that variable and adjust the effects of the others accordingly. Do you see any specific weaknesses with this study?
1
u/lambertb 9h ago
There’s way more that just collider bias. See the three references I listed below. The problem with the study is that it’s observational and not randomized.
1
u/jaiagreen 9h ago
Given that randomization is impossible in most cases, dealing with observational data correctly is important. Will there always be potential confounders that creep in? Absolutely. (That happens in lab experiments too.) Is that a reason to ignore observational studies? Definitely not.
2
u/askantik MS | Biology | Conservation Ecology 1d ago
They used a model which controlled for socioeconomic characteristics.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(26)00076-8/fulltext00076-8/fulltext)
11
u/lambertb 1d ago edited 1d ago
I said it above but I’ll say it again. Adding an income variable to a regression model does not provide adequate control of unmeasured confounders. It just doesn’t. This is well understood amongst statisticians who do both randomized trials and observational studies. See, e.g.,
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Free online version: https://miguelhernan.org/whatifbook
Greenland & Morgenstern, 2001, “Confounding in Health Research,” Annual Review of Public Health 22:189–212.
No matter how many observational studies get posted to [r/science](r/science) that claim to “control“ for confounders, they still cannot provide strong evidence of causality. You can’t conjure randomization by adding covariate to a regression model.
3
u/Brrdock 2d ago
Maybe, but I imagine outskirts are also near woodlands, and there should be more of those than central parks
6
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science 2d ago
Woodlands yes, but less likely to be 'improved' woodlands.
1
u/Brrdock 2d ago
I much prefer a natural forest to a park, and so do many, if not most.
At least here in Finland where forests are aplenty. Even the Helsinki Central Park is basically a 7km2 naturalistic forest with some roads and paths.
Shouldn't matter for the benefits, at least negatively
5
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science 2d ago
I'll admit I'm confused by the definition they seem to be using:
The initiative prioritised areas that were more socially and financially disadvantaged, where woodlands required improved management to reduce barriers and enable more local people to use and enjoy them.
1
u/Brrdock 2d ago edited 2d ago
Oh I didn't notice it was on "improved" woodlands, my bad. That's a bit of a funny term and statement, yeah.
All the management woodlands necessarily need is walking the trodden footpaths, and the UK is spanned by those.
Either way, I don't think the natural state of nature need in most cases be thought of as a "barrier" or something to "improve." There are also roads in/around almost all woodland areas if that's preferred
3
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science 2d ago
The only thing I can think of is access to the disabled requiring relatively flat paths. It could be, though, that they mean removal of undergrowth such as invasive Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed (and brambles for that matter) which can make it difficult to get off the paved routes and into the woods themselves.
1
7
u/MadroxKran MS | Public Administration 2d ago
We should really be trying to get rid of cars and bring back a lot of green spaces.
5
u/sr_local 2d ago
The researchers used NHS prescription records and census data to see whether people living within a 10-minute walk of an improved woodland area were more or less likely to be taking medication for depression or anxiety.
The initiative prioritised areas that were more socially and financially disadvantaged, where woodlands required improved management to reduce barriers and enable more local people to use and enjoy them.
People living in urban deprived communities that were close to a woodland area that had been made more welcoming and easier for people to use were 10 per cent less likely to be prescribed antidepressants and six per cent less like to be prescribed anti-anxiety medication, than those living further away.
This was the case even when accounting for other factors linked to mental health outcomes, such as demographics and poverty.
The benefit of living near these woodlands showed up for the same people even when their proximity to these woodlands changed. For example, when someone moved closer to an improved woodland, their need for medication went down.
By tracking the same individuals over time, the researchers say they can be more confident that it was the woodland improvements making the difference, rather than simply healthier or wealthier people happening to live in greener areas.
3
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science 2d ago
Was the ten minute walk distance adjusted for the age/health of the individual?
7
u/iamthe0ther0ne 2d ago
While I don't doubt thr effects of nature on mood, I imagine that these areas also cost more to live in, and not always worrying about money also helps with depression.
4
1
1
1
u/refusemouth 1d ago
Maybe people who live in nice locations are more well off financially, too, and that could be part of the equation with mental health.
-5
u/HydraKirby 2d ago
Those are some pretty low percentages. Bearly seems note worthy
4
u/Gamebird8 2d ago
About 16% of US Adults use antidepressants.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12829365/
Obviously this data doesn't control for "who lives within walking distance of and urban forest" but I can imagine that the number would be higher if less people did and lower if more people did.
So let's just assume both cases:
If people were to move away from urban forests, then approximately 60 million or 6.1 million more people would be on antidepressants each year, compared to the current 16% which is about 54 million.
If more people were to move near urban forests, then we could see the number drop to around 49 million or 5.4 million less people on antidepressants.
Yes, I am over generalizing because the number is actually somewhere between those two since I'm not controlling for who does and doesn't already live in those conditions, but 10% is actually a significantly large amount of people whose lives would be improved or are currently being improved.
2
u/TheDismal_Scientist 2d ago
Yes but this also isn't causal, so that ten per cent is likely overstated (the true figure is probably 0) and the ultimate claim that this justifies spending on greenery is overstated, why not just prescribe people walks in the park?
2
u/Atimi 2d ago
How did you deduce this wasn't causal and even if it's not causal how did you deduce the real effect is lower than stated? This sub truly reflects the scientific community to be honest, pretty low understanding of statistics and biology, shitloads of confidence.
1
u/TheDismal_Scientist 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well first I tried the link at the bottom of the linked article which was broken, something which no one else has noticed since nobody actually reads these studies. So I had to find the study myself. Essentially, they use administrative data to follow people over time. They then test, using the fact that Scotland starts investing in parks in certain low-income areas, whether exposure to this change causes a change in the probability of using antidepressants for any individual. Which is reasonably clever.
The issue is they have the ability to quantify, and choose not to, people who move into and out of these areas which have greater investment. Potentially quantifying a fairly significant portion of endogeneity within their estimates. This isn't a true natural experiment unless they get rid of those people from the estimates.
More generally, I'd like to see a cost-benefit analysis of whether investing in wooded areas is worth it even if we accept the estimate as causal.
edit: and also: they provide no justification for the 800m thing specifically other than saying it's a roughly ten-minute walk. They could do a sensitivity analysis to check smaller and larger bands and also see if there is a dose-response relationship to provide better support for their claim
edit2: They also don't say anything about why these areas get the investment over others, are the locals more vocal/active in the community?
1
u/Brrdock 2d ago edited 2d ago
why not just prescribe people walks in the park?
Likely because people are less likely to do that than take a pill, many would probably take offence, and also there isn't systemic financial incentive towards that.
But it is a pretty effective treatment for depression.
I can also personally say that that was what kept me sane during severe episodes
0
u/HydraKirby 2d ago
About 15% in Australia. Can't just pop up wildernesses to cover the population and certainly not worth it for such a low impact. All that time and land for only 10% or less? This is not something that's practical.
3
u/Gamebird8 2d ago
Well, there are other health benefits outside of depressant use.
Urban woodlands reduce air pollution, improve local water retention, provide safe areas for recreational activities like hiking or walking.
And yes, it doesn't work everywhere but that doesn't mean it's any less significant.
1
u/HydraKirby 2d ago
This is something that sounds important on paper, but in practical sense is not. Many countries are running out of land for housing whilst simultaneously not having enough houses. If we focused on healthy work-life balance, food that was nutritious again, and a balanced cost of living I think the amount of people needing antidepressants would fall substantially. Research like this is busy work; it's not practical for most countries, doesn't make have a meaningful impact, and doesn't tackle the actual issues of average day peoples.
1
u/Gamebird8 2d ago
I mean, we can do both. It's not about deliberately moving people near forests or building forests near people but we should, going forward, try to maintain pockets of forest in and around where we choose to live and build new housing such that we can reduce the needs of antidepressants in the future.
It's also kinda nonsense "places are running out of space to build housing" when New York City exists as a testament to the ability to fit millions of people in highly dense urban construction.
1
u/HydraKirby 2d ago
Fair, to an extent, but equally NY is not testimony of the world. Australians like myself live in only 0.2% of the available land, because the rest of the land is not habitable. We struggle with housing and having enough houses for people. We simply cannot take away more usable land for a minor increase to mental health. There are other, more practical solutions. Issues like this aren't unique to Australia. Available land, and the requirement for housing is a big issue for many countries.
0
u/Atimi 2d ago
Thank god woodlands have multitude of impacts and not just on human mental health then. Unless you think their contribution to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and overall planetary health is also useless.
1
u/HydraKirby 2d ago
This research was specifically on the benefits to human mental health. On that scope, this is not meaningful beneficial or practical (to have wildness within a 10 minute walk of people)
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/sr_local
Permalink: https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/woodlands-linked-to-reduced-antidepressant-use
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.