Nature may help to reduce income-based disparities in well-being among college studentsResearch on nature’s “equigenic effect” has shown that its benefits can be strongest for people experiencing social and economic disadvantage. Importantly, such studies suggest that exposure to nature may narrow health inequities between low- and high-resourced populations. However, evidence for this effect is limited and mixed—especially regarding the influence of race and ethnicity—and few studies have examined how individuals personally experience or perceive natural spaces. To clarify whether exposure to natural spaces may buffer against the mental health impacts of disadvantage, this quasi-experimental walking intervention study examined (1) if the perceived naturalness of walks was associated with psychological well-being, and (2) whether these effects differ across race/ethnicity and socioeconomic indicators.
The study was conducted with 475 undergraduate students who were recruited from a university in the Midwestern United States. Because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the university campus was closed, and students were residing in their permanent homes. An initial screening survey was administered to collect participants’ demographic and baseline information. Within one week of this screening, participants were instructed to complete a 45-minute self-directed walk (Walk 1) and to complete pre- and post-surveys before and after the walk. Within 2 to 10 days after Walk 1, participants were asked to complete a second walk along the same route. Pre- and post-surveys were repeated before and after Walk 2. The surveys assessed psychological well-being using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS). Participants also rated the naturalness of their walk on a 7-point scale, ranging from “Very Built” to “Very Natural.” Demographic information collected from participants included race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). Race and ethnicity were categorized as either White or People of Color (POC). SES was assessed using three indicators: (1) first-generation college student status, (2) Pell Grant recipient status (an indicator of financial need), and (3) self-reported social class (low, middle, or high). Finally, participants reported their access to nature near their home on a 4-point scale, ranging from “great difficulty with access” to “very easy access.” Fully complete survey data were obtained from 475 participants (median age 21), who completed a total of 781 walks. The majority of participants identified as White (71%), women (73%), suburban (65%), and middle or upper-middle class (74%). Statistical analysis examined (1) the relationship between walk naturalness scores and self-reported psychological well-being scores and (2) whether the relationship between walk naturalness and well-being differed by race/ethnicity and SES.
Analysis revealed that post-walk well-being scores were related to perceived walk naturalness. Walks with a perceived naturalness of 6 (moderately natural) or 7 (very natural) were linked to significantly higher post-walk well-being scores compared to walks with low perceived naturalness (levels 1 through 5). Well-being scores gradually increased as naturalness levels increased from level 1 to level 5. Interestingly, a comparatively larger increase in well-being scores was observed between levels 5 and 6 (from slightly natural to moderately natural). Well-being scores once again showed a more gradual increase between levels 6 and 7 (from moderately natural to very natural). The researchers note that “this pattern loosely suggests that the well-being benefits associated with natural space may reflect a threshold effect at higher levels of perceived naturalness, rather than a strictly graded increase across all levels.”
The analysis then examined the interactions between perceived walk naturalness and sociodemographic variables. For walks with a naturalness rating of 1 (most built), the well-being scores of POC and non-POC participants did not meaningfully differ. However, when participants reported their walk was very natural (level 7), non-POC participants had higher well-being scores than POC participants. This finding unexpectedly suggests that non-POC participants experienced greater well-being benefits than POC participants from very natural walks. Additionally, no meaningful differences were detected in post-walk well-being scores among participants in lower classes compared to those in higher classes at any level of naturalness, indicating no evidence of an equigenic effect. Meaningful differences were detected between middle- and higher-class participants, however. Middle-class participants showed higher post-walk well-being than higher-class participants at moderate (levels 3-5) and higher (levels 6-7) perceived naturalness. On the other hand, participants who received Pell Grants showed meaningful increases in post-walk well-being scores as perceived walk naturalness increased. At level 1, Pell Grant recipients had lower post-walk well-being scores than non-recipients, revealing a “meaningful well-being gap.” This gap narrowed as perceived naturalness increased, and at the most natural walk level, Pell Grant recipients had slightly higher post-walk well-being scores than non-recipients. This finding provides partial support for an equigenic effect and suggests that more natural walks may reduce well-being gaps for Pell Grant recipients. First-generation college students also showed meaningful improvements in well-being after walks perceived as the most natural; however, “these benefits were not sufficient to narrow the gaps in the well-being levels of advantaged and marginalized peers.” Therefore, no evidence of an equigenic effect was reported based on first-generation student status.
Results indicate that walks perceived as more natural were linked with greater post-walk well-being than walks in more built settings. This finding aligns with a broad body of research that suggests exposure to nature is associated with improved mental health. Findings regarding potential equigenic effects revealed more nuanced patterns. When race/ethnicity and self-reported social class were used as indicators of disadvantage, an equigenic effect was not observed. However, an equigenic effect was documented when Pell Grant status was used as an objective measure of disadvantage. Therefore, overall findings lend partial support to the equigenesis hypothesis (i.e., benefits are disproportionately greater for marginalized populations) and demonstrate that nature can help reduce income-based disparities in well-being among college students. The study contributes to a growing evidence base suggesting that “even small increases in naturalness in low-income areas can promote health equity, particularly where access to restorative spaces is limited.”
The Bottom Line