Improving mental health in poorer communities may involve more than increasing access to doctors and medicines.
New research from Scotland suggests that something as ordinary as a well-kept local woodland could also make a meaningful difference.
A study by researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow found lower use of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medicines among people living close to woodlands that had been improved for public use. The findings were published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
The research included more than 129,000 people and followed data across five years. This makes it one of the largest studies to examine whether a long-running woodland improvement program is connected with mental health.
The woodlands were part of Scottish Forestry’s Woods In and Around Towns initiative. Rather than simply planting trees, the program aimed to turn existing local woods into places that people could more easily enter, walk through and enjoy.
Changes could include better footpaths, signs and woodland management as well as events designed to involve local communities. The program particularly targeted socially and financially disadvantaged areas where woodland had often been poorly managed or difficult to use.
This distinction between having green space and having usable green space is important. A neglected woodland may be physically close to a neighborhood while still offering little benefit if residents feel unable or unwilling to visit it.
The researchers combined census information with NHS prescription records. They asked whether residents living within roughly a 10-minute walk of an improved woodland showed different patterns of medicine use from residents living farther away.
The difference was noticeable. In deprived urban communities, people living close to improved woodland were 10% less likely to be prescribed antidepressants and 6% less likely to be prescribed medicines for anxiety.
These percentages describe an association rather than a guarantee for any individual. Living beside a woodland does not mean someone will avoid depression or anxiety, and people who need treatment should not see green space as a substitute for professional care.
Still, the researchers tried to address an important problem that has affected earlier green-space studies. People who live in greener neighborhoods can differ from people elsewhere in income, health, age and many other ways.
To reduce this problem, the team adjusted its analysis for factors such as poverty and demographic differences. More importantly, researchers were able to follow the same people as their distance from improved woodlands changed over time.
For example, if someone moved closer to an improved woodland, the researchers could compare that person’s prescription pattern before and after the change. The results suggested that closer access was associated with reduced medication use even within the same individuals.
This strengthens the evidence because the comparison is not based only on different groups of people living in different neighborhoods. It still does not provide the certainty of a controlled experiment, but it makes some alternative explanations less likely.
Why might a woodland matter to mental health? One explanation is physical activity, because an inviting path through trees can give people a free and convenient place to walk.
Nature may also offer relief from noise, traffic and everyday stress. A pleasant shared space can create opportunities for neighbors to meet, children and families to spend time outdoors, and people to feel more connected with their local area.
These possibilities matter because mental health is shaped by many parts of daily life. Income, housing, employment, relationships, physical health, access to services and the surrounding environment can all influence how people feel and cope.
People living in disadvantaged areas often carry a heavier burden of poor health. At the same time, they may have less access to attractive parks and other well-maintained natural spaces, making investment in these neighborhoods a possible way to reduce inequalities.
Researchers involved in the study have worked with Scottish forestry experts for more than two decades to investigate the social and health value of local woodland. The latest analysis provides unusually detailed evidence because it connects a national woodland program with long-term health records.
However, prescriptions are an imperfect measure of depression and anxiety. Some people with mental health problems do not take medication, while others may receive the same medicines for different medical reasons.
The researchers also cannot know from residential distance alone how frequently each person visited the woodland. Better mental health could depend on actual use, the quality of the improvements, personal mobility and many other factors.
For these reasons, the study should not be interpreted as proving that improving a woodland directly prevents depression. Its strongest contribution is showing a consistent relationship in a very large real-world population and demonstrating that the relationship remained when researchers followed individuals over time.
The results have practical implications for urban planning. Building new health services can be expensive, while improving an existing woodland with paths, signs and basic management may provide several benefits at once, including opportunities for exercise, social contact, cleaner surroundings and contact with nature.
Future studies could identify which woodland improvements matter most and whether benefits differ by age, health or frequency of use. If the findings are confirmed, good-quality local green space could become a useful complement to traditional public health and mental health services.
The broader message is that the places surrounding homes may influence health in ways that are easy to overlook. Making nearby nature safe, welcoming and genuinely usable may be a relatively simple investment with benefits that reach beyond the woodland itself.
Source: University of Edinburgh and University of Glasgow.
