Time-Dependent Effects of Exposure to Nature and Perceived Behavioral Control over Social Distancing in Shared Open Spaces on Psychological Distress of Residents during Pandemic of COVID-19

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1035834/v1

Abstract

Background: Further research into the influence of the COVID-19 epidemic on mental health is needed. Some research has highlighted the positive effects of nature exposure on mental health, as well as the importance of subjective assessments of green spaces.

Methods: Considering both private and semi-public environments, the current longitudinal study examines the moderating effects of exposure to nature and perceived behavioral control over social distancing on the relationship between perceived interior crowding, social isolation, and psychological distress. Finally, it investigates whether these connections change through time. During the Iranian national lockdowns, data from 718 middle-aged women who completed an online questionnaire survey in two waves were used.  

Results and Conclusion: The findings of structural equation modeling back up the idea that social isolation plays a key role in the association between perceived interior crowding and psychological distress. Multi-Group Analysis revealed that exposure to nature reduced the negative effects of perceived interior crowding on psychological distress, as predicted. Nevertheless, this relationship is time-dependent and nature exposure during the time did not necessarily assist in reducing negative impacts. The current research adds to the body of knowledge by identifying perceived behavioral control as a buffer against the adverse effects of social isolation on psychological distress over time. These findings provide for a better understanding of psychological processes and could help in the promotion of design policies in the event of a pandemic.

1. Introduction

The global outbreak of coronavirus disease, which began in 2019, has a tremendous impact on the health of all people (Díaz de León-Martínez et al., 2020) and our quality of life. This pandemic has had a direct impact on recent sustainability notions, emphasizing the resilience of systems and their ability to organize and recover from changes and disruptions (Tahvonen & Airaksinen, 2018). Sustainability in urban planning began with a focus on development management, compact areas, and decentralization (Khavarian-Garmsira et al., 2021). The current pandemic, on the other hand, has raised doubts regarding the desirability of compact urban development and defined planning aims to promote urban life and citizens' well-being (Hakovirta & Denuwara, 2020; Megahed & Ghoneim, 2020).

Well-being is linked not just to the environment through the dangers of pollution exposure, but also to mental health (Díaz de León-Martínez et al., 2020, p. 3). COVID-19 became a global pandemic and caused a variety of precautionary measures, including national quarantines and stay-at-home orders (Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2021). Social isolation and loneliness have been linked to poorer mental health outcomes such as cognitive decline, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress in previous studies (Gorenko et al., 2021; Pakenham et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2020). The effects of urban, socioeconomic, and environmental factors on people's health have been extensively researched and documented. Their relationship to COVID-19, on the other hand, is still a work in progress (Viezzer & Biondi, 2021). As a result, we must find ways to mitigate the pandemic's adverse mental health effects and the resulting lockdowns in residential areas (Allam & Jones, 2020).

While lockdown restrictions compelled people to stay home with their families or cohabitants, there will be a substantial amount of perceived interior crowding. Chronic crowding in a high interior density residence is a substantial cause of stress and has a harmful impact on psychological health (Evans, 1979; Rollings & Evans, 2019, p. 592). At the same time, the physical and built environment has a direct impact on human health, both within the structures in which we live and through the open spaces that connect these buildings (Jens & Gregg, 2021). An increasing amount of data supports the importance of nature exposure and access to green spaces in promoting urban sustainability and improving human health (Ahmadpoor & Shahab, 2020; Gascon et al., 2015; Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2020; Kim & Miller, 2019). According to recent research, perceived green space measures differ from objective ones, providing a novel perspective on the green space-health relationship (Cleary et al., 2019). The health advantages can only be obtained if residents have reasonable access to open and green places (Wang et al., 2015, p. 85). The study of access to and utilization of open places while maintaining social distance is becoming increasingly important in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The theory of planned behavior provides a theoretical framework for investigating how the multidimensional idea of accessibility might explain and predict people's behavioral intentions to use shared open spaces.

It is necessary to have a good grasp of how people's mental health is affected by exposure to nature and experiences of physical distancing. There have been few longitudinal investigations that compare the psychological effects of the COVID-19 epidemic across time. By conducting empirical research in Mashhad, Iran, and studying the link between perceived interior crowding, social isolation, and psychological distress, this study intends to fill current gaps in the literature. The first goal of this research was to see if social isolation and psychological distress increased over time. Second, social isolation is thought to have mediated the relationship between perceived interior crowding and psychological distress. Third, it is aimed to investigate if nature exposure can alleviate the influence of perceived interior crowding on psychological distress, in keeping with prior studies demonstrating that exposure to nature may have a positive impact on mental health. Finally, based on previous research, it is hypothesized that perceived behavioral control to maintain social distance in shared open spaces will decrease the effect of social isolation on psychological distress. Finally, the last two hypotheses were tested over time utilizing two waves of data.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Pandemic, social isolation and mental health

COVID-19 home confinement is frequently considered social isolation and a lack of social ties (Pasion et al., 2020). Because humans are social beings that rely on secure social ties, being socially isolated has been related to poor mental health (Taylor et al., 2016; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2003; Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2021). Individual pathology is conditioned by social dynamics, according to a traditional Durkheimian approach, and large-scale social crises may have a negative impact on individual health and well-being by reducing social integration (Durkheim, [1897] 1951, cited by Berkman et al., 2000). A plethora of evidence backs up this viewpoint, proving that a lack of social connection and companionship can harm one's mental health (Hyun-Soo & Jung, 2021).

2.2. Perceived interior crowding and mental health

The density of interior spaces is referred to as crowding (Forsyth et al., 2007). Rather than square footage per person, the number of occupants per room is a measure of density more strongly linked to behavioral outcomes (Evans, 2006). Chronic crowding, according to research, is a major source of stress and has a negative impact on mental health. Reduced feelings of control, particularly over desired social interaction (Altman, 1975); overstimulation (Evans, 1979); interference with socially supportive relationships among home residents leading to social withdrawal (Rollings & Evans, 2019); and adverse health outcomes such as psychological distress and anxiety (Evans, 2003; Cavazza et al., 2021) are among the psychosocial processes that result from perceived crowding.

Evans and Lepore (1993) proposed three mechanisms through which the negative effects of household crowding could lead to negative consequences: reduced access to valuable resources, increased social competition, and interfering with goal attainment; lack of perceived control over, and predictability of, the environment; and enforcing excessive stimulation, causing overload and unpleasant over-arousal. Furthermore, high social density is linked to a drop in perceived social support (Cavazza et al., 2021), while a lack of social support is linked to higher levels of depressed symptoms (especially for women) (Mair et al., 2010). As the above brief review suggests, perceived interior crowding not only has the potential to affect psychological distress negatively, but it also has the potential to be a perceptual factor linked to social withdrawal and social isolation, having an indirect negative impact on psychological distress.

2.3. Effects of exposure to the nature

The Attention Restoration Theory (ART), which claims that exposure to nature can restore depleted attention capacity (Kaplan, 2001), is one of the most well-known hypotheses explaining the salutogenic potential of natural environments. This theory contends that spending time in nature, even in urban open spaces with vegetation, replenishes weary attention, allowing individuals to function more effectively than when they are mentally exhausted (Kim & Miller, 2019).

Previous study has suggested that exposure to nature and green space in the neighborhood can help to ‘buffer' the physiological and psychological effects of stressful life events (Marselle et al., 2019; Corely et al., 2021). Nature and high levels of residential green space have been linked to lower rates of mental ill-health indicators such as cognitive decline (Astell-Burt & Feng, 2020) and psychological distress (Sturm & Cohen, 2014). Residential green space has also been linked to indicators of positive mental health, including the restoration of depleted attention capacity and cognitive processes (Kaplan & Rogers, 2003), reduced risk of anxiety mood disorder treatment and the rate of antidepressant prescriptions (Nutsford et al., 2013; Kim & Miller, 2019), a greater sense of mental well-being and place-making (Hadavi, 2017; Hernandez et al., 2018), and subjective well-being (Mavoa et al., 2019; Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2021).

2.4. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Due to constraints on outside activities, it is critical in the COVID-19 context to reduce the crowding of shared open spaces where people spend their time (Kim & Kang, 2021). This emphasizes the need of attempting to increase control over social distancing and separation in these spaces. The issue's practical implication is that perceived behavioral control over social distancing can be altered by the built environment's characteristics.

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and its extension, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), are the most well-known theories for predicting human behavioral intentions (Rhodes et al., 2006) and subsequent behaviors in a variety of disciplines, including social psychology and environmental studies (Armitage & Conner, 2001). The motive that leads to engagement in a particular behavior, behavioral intention, is essential to the TRA model (Ajzen, 2002). According to this concept, attitude and subjective norm are two important aspects determining a person's desire to behave, and behavioral intention then influences actual behavior performance. The amount to which an individual senses public social pressure - from others such as friends and family members - towards the propriety of performing the conduct is referred to as subjective norm (Rossi & Armstrong, 1999).

The primary premise of TRA is that individuals have control over their actions (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Internal elements like knowledge and abilities, as well as external factors like convenience, can constrain or facilitate a behavior (Wan & Shen, 2015). TPB, as a condensed theory proposed by Ajzen (1991), incorporates the most critical aspects in understanding various behaviors. The TRA model now includes a new feature called Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC). The perceived ability and ease with which an individual can do a given activity is referred to as PBC (Wang et al., 2015, p. 86).

The efficacy of TPB in explaining behaviors has been well-proven (Armitage & Conner, 2001). TPB has also been applied in predicting behaviors to use urban green spaces by Wan and Shen (2015). The use of public facilities is related to perceived accessibility because every individual or household perceives access to urban facilities such as shared open spaces (Zondag & Pieters, 2005). Subjective measures are essential because the willingness to act or avoid action results from a collective evaluation of objective attributes (Wang et al., 2015, p. 87).

TPB's effectiveness in explaining behaviors has been well-documented (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Wan and Shen (2015) have also used TPB to forecast how people use urban green spaces. Because every individual or family perceives access to urban facilities such as shared open spaces, the utilization of public facilities is linked to perceived accessibility (Zondag & Pieters, 2005). Subjective measures are necessary because the willingness to act or refrain from acting is based on a communal assessment of objective characteristics (Wang et al., 2015, p. 87).

2.5. Study design

During the COVID-19 epidemic, fewer longitudinal studies are looking into the impacts of exposure to nature, perceived behavioral control over social distancing, and people's mental health. Over time, social isolation and psychological distress are expected to rise (H1). According to the presented model, perceived interior crowding not only has a direct negative impact on psychological distress (H2) but also serves as a potential perceptual factor associated with social isolation (H3), with the effect of perceived interior crowding on psychological distress being mediated through social isolation (H4). During the pandemic, the intensity of the link between social isolation and psychological distress changes (H5).

Another goal of this research was to see if nature exposure could help to mitigate the adverse effects of perceived interior crowding caused by stay-at-home orders on psychological distress, thereby acting as a buffer against potential environmental stressors. Exposure to nature, it is hypothesized, would reduce this link (H6). Given that residents in a pandemic situation must maintain social distance from others, it is expected that they will react more emotionally to environmental limits. TPB is a flexible model that may be tailored to suit research needs. The fundamental pathways and variables can be modified and expanded to satisfy research needs using this user-friendly model. We investigate the role of perceived behavioral control in the relationship between social isolation and psychological distress using the TPB model. The consequences of social isolation on psychological distress would be moderated by perceived behavioral control over social distancing in shared open spaces (H7). To investigate the effect of time on the connections between variables, hypotheses 5 to 7 are examined using two waves of data at different time intervals. The experiment used a within-subject design, with data obtained at the start of the lockdown and one year later.

3. Method

3.1. Study area and time

After China, Iran became the second focal location for spreading the COVID-19 worldwide in mid-February 2020. The head of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education's Public Relations and Information Center declared on April 23, 2020, that the third level of COVID-19 quarantine has begun. The first order for a stay-at-home lasted 42 days (from 29 February until 10 April). Iran has had five peaks of the Corona pandemic and its associated quarantine. Due to the significant spread of the Delta version of COVID-19, severe lockdown lasted over 10 days, from August 12 to August 21, 2021. People were forced to spend the entire day and night indoors with their family or cohabitants, leaving only for fundamental reasons.

Housing quality and living conditions were substantial predictors of the ward level COVID-19 mortality count, according to Hu et al., (2021). The study focused on six dense gated communities in Mashhad, Iran's second-largest city, with comparable housing quality. The places were chosen based on middle-income status, housing rate, comparable residential density, the amount of green space in the community areas, and various housing layouts (see Table 5).

3.2. Participants and data collection

Participants were solicited via telegram groups to which inhabitants of the gated residential neighborhoods are members about two months after COVID-19's first lockdown began. Respondents received a message with the survey URL and an explanation that participation in the survey was voluntary to complete an online survey questionnaire. Participants were educated on the research purpose and design before beginning the survey. They were demanded to take a 25-minute online survey about mental health outcomes and perceptual characteristics. To assure data quality, human verification and attention checks were used throughout the survey.

A Participant Information Sheet included information on gender, education background, known mortality cases in neighbors, colleagues, or family members involved, and pre-lockdown emotional-mental health at the start of the questionnaire. The latter was assessed with a single question: "In general, would you describe your emotional and mental health was... before the COVID-19 pandemic" was introduced. The responses were graded on a three-point scale (good, fair, and poor).

Demographic data on gender, age, education, household income, neighborhood disadvantage, employment status, and occupation were considered potential confounders of the relationship between perceptions and psychological well-being based on previous research on factors associated with psychological well-being (Cleary et al., 2019). The first sample for the online survey consisted of 1384 women who lived in six gated communities, using the purposive sampling method. Participants who indicated the number of deaths on the Participant Information Sheet were eliminated from the sample due to known death cases, which may have influenced psychological distress. Based on claimed pre-pandemic emotional-mental health, not living alone, and age, only one household member is included in the sample.

A total of 1037 competitors from the first wave were accepted to participate in the second phase. Data was taken in April 2021, around a year after the state of emergency of COVID-19 was declared, at the peak of the pandemic's fourth wave, and during the lockdown. Due to a lack of accountability or missing data on the primary variables of interest, 329 participants were eliminated from the analyses. Finally, valid responses were found on all of the variables in a sample of 718 women (Mage = 49.63, SD = 12.39). Table 1 shows the demographics of the sample.

3.3. Measurement of variables

Perceived interior crowding: Participants rated their level of agreement with five statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) to express their opinions of the adequacy of home space and perceived interior crowding: “Despite the mandatory stay-at-home order, the size of my home is insufficient to ensure my personal space”; "I have a space at home where I can be alone away from others” (inverse-scored); “Verbal and, or physical violent behaviors have increased at home during the current mandatory lockdown” (Pakenham et al., 2020); “I feel squished or cramped at home” (Rollings & Evans, 2019).

Exposure to nature

Participants were asked three questions on their perceptions of the presence of nature and the amount of green space in their neighborhood. “There is a lot of greenery in public open spaces”; “There is tree cover along many of the walks”; and “I have a good view of nature from my home window” were all assessed on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree).

Dependent variable

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) was employed as a dependent variable in this study as a mental health screening tool. The K6's six items use a 5-point scale (ranging from 0 = never to 4 = always) to assess how often the respondent felt (a) nervous (e.g., ‘‘How often have you felt nervous? ’’), (b) hopeless, (c) restless or fidgety, (d) so depressed that nothing could cheer you up, (e) that everything was an effort, and (f) worthless over the previous two weeks (Kessler et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2016).

Social isolation: Five previously approved questions were used to assess subjective social isolation: (a) subjective closeness between family members, (d) subjective closeness between friends, (c) a lack of companionship, (d) feeling left out, and (e) feeling alienated from others (Taylor et al., 2016).

Perceived behavioral control over social distancing

PBC can be measured using global questions about how easy or difficult it is to act, or belief-based measures that combine personal beliefs about specific inhibitors to perform the action with perceptions of the inhibitors' power (Rossi & Armstrong, 1999; Wang et al., 2015). The use of belief-based behavioral control measures was evaluated in the current study, as well as the relative ease of getting distance from others in shared open spaces. ‘‘I feel personal control over social distancing if I wanted to use shared open spaces’’; ‘‘I feel that maintaining social distance in shared open spaces is beyond my control’’ (inverse-scored); ‘‘Due to the open space design, it is difficult to avoid facing others in shared open spaces’’ (inverse-scored); and ‘‘The size of the open space makes it easier to keep your distance from others’’.

3.4. Statistical analyses

The level of social isolation and psychological discomfort between the two waves was compared using an independent samples t-test. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to investigate the relationship between variables in order to answer other research issues. To assess the research model, this study used the partial least square (PLS) technique for data analysis with Smart-PLS 3.0 software. A variance-based SEM can be used to estimate complex cause-effect models using latent variables. The key advantage of adopting the PLS approach is that it allows latent components to be modeled as reflective or formative constructs and has fewer sample size restrictions (Chin, 1998). The researchers employed a hierarchical component model using a two-stage method that included a measurement model and a structural model.

4. Results

Table 1 shows that the age range of 35–44 years was the most common (67.27%), followed by 45–54 years (32.73%). The majority of respondents (60.58%) held a university degree, followed by those with professional education (22.15%) and those who had just completed high school (13.09%).

 
Table 1

Survey respondents demographic characteristics (N = 718).

Measure

Item

N

(%)

Gender

Female

388

54.04%

Male

330

45.96%

Age

35–44 years old

483

67.27%

45–54 years old

293

32.73%

Education

Lower than high school

30

4.18%

High school only

94

13.09%

Professional education

159

22.15%

Undergraduate degree

423

58.91%

Postgraduate degree

12

1.67%

Employment status

Public sector

167

23.26%

Private sector

191

26.60%

Self employed

71

9.89%

housekeeper

289

40.25%


3.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the variables. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare social isolation and psychological distress during the time. Participants in wave 2 reported higher levels of psychological distress (M = 2.925, SD = 0.591) than those in wave 1(M=2.683, SD=0.583), t (1434) = 7.830, p<0.000. Wave 2 had a higher level of social isolation (M = 3.007, SD = 0.546), and there was a significant difference between the two waves (wave 1 (M=2.713, SD=0.647), t (1434) = 9.293, p<0.000), supporting H1.

 Table 2: Mean, SD, and Independent Samples t-test results

 

Wave1

Wave2

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

 

Mean

Std. Deviation

Mean

Std. Deviation

 

 

 

PIC

2.610

0.612

2.809

0.551

 

 

 

PD

2.683

0.583

2.925

0.591

.000

0.242

0.031

SI

2.713

0.647

3.007

0.546

.000

0.293

0.031

 

3.2. Assessment of measurement model

The conceptual model was evaluated and causal linkages were investigated using SEM. The usage of PLS was deemed reasonable and most appropriate according to the research model. In the first stage, the indicator reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and assessment of the measurement models were investigated, while the second stage established testing of the structural linkages proposed in the conceptual model.

Table 3 summarizes the measurement model's findings. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR) were both more than 0.70, indicating strong internal consistency and reliability (Henseler et al., 2009). The model's capacity to explain the variance of the indicator is known as convergent validity. A criterion of 0.5 for average variance extracted (AVE) is suggested for providing convergent validity. The AVE for two waves in this investigation varied from 0.511 to 0.645, significantly over the needed minimum, showing an acceptable level of convergent validity. In the structural model, each set of predictors was checked for probable collinearity. If the variance inflation factor (VIF) is 5 or higher, it suggests collinearity (Hair et al., 2017). As a result, there was no problem with collinearity in our investigation.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics, alphas, and discriminant validity.

 

 

Wave1

 

 

Wave2

 

 

Alpha

CR

AVE

Alpha

CR

AVE

PBC

0.797

0.854

0.601

0.797

0.859

0.611

PD

0.759

0.837

0.511

0.802

0.864

0.560

PIC

0.784

0.848

0.529

0.787

0.854

0.541

SI

0.786

0.856

0.550

0.789

0.856

0.549

EtN

0.754

0.844

0.644

0.726

0.827

0.615

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Alpha = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

 Table 5: Case study areas.

 

Case1

Case2

Case3

Case4

Case5

Case6

Housing type: 

Medium-rise

 image

image

image

image

image

image

Housing layout

Courtyard form

Courtyard form

Linear block

Linear block

Periphery Blocks

Periphery Blocks

participants

142

97

133

138

121

87

 

 Table 6: Moderating effect of exposure to nature- Hypotheses test by Groups: Wave1 Versus Wave2 (MGA).

 

 

 

Wave1

 

 

 

 

Wave2

 

 

PLS-MGA


Path c

Mean 

SD

T-Value

p-Value

Path c

Mean 

SD

T Value

p-Value

Path Coefficients-diff

p-Value

Moderating Effect 1 -> PD

0.069

0.067

0.025

2.798

0.005

0.019

0.016

0.021

0.897

0.370

0.051

0.058

PIC -> PD

0.575

0.574

0.033

17.475

0.000

0.381

0.380

0.029

13.084

0.000

0.195

0.000

PIC -> SI

0.707

0.708

0.020

35.309

0.000

0.594

0.595

0.029

20.319

0.000

0.113

0.001

SI -> PD

0.306

0.307

0.036

8.619

0.000

0.547

0.546

0.028

19.623

0.000

0.240

1.000

VtN -> PD

0.046

0.048

0.025

1.872

0.061

0.012

0.015

0.024

0.521

0.602

0.034

0.164


Table 7: Moderating effect of perceived behavioral control over social distancing- Hypotheses test by Groups: Wave1 Versus Wave2 (MGA).

 

 

 

Wave1

 

 

 

 

Wave2

 

 

PLS-MGA


Path c

Mean 

SD

T-Value

p-Value

Path c

Mean 

SD

T Value

p-Value

Path Coefficients-diff

p-Value

Moderating Effect 2 -> PD

-0.011

-0.008

0.024

0.466

0.641

0.034

0.034

0.016

2.084

0.037

0.045

0.939

PBC -> PD

-0.028

-0.033

0.022

1.272

0.203

-0.067

-0.069

0.022

3.009

0.003

0.038

0.113

PIC -> PD

0.562

0.561

0.034

16.521

0.000

0.370

0.369

0.030

12.378

0.000

0.191

0.000

PIC -> SI

0.707

0.708

0.020

35.307

0.000

0.594

0.594

0.030

20.121

0.000

0.113

0.001

SI -> PD

0.313

0.312

0.035

8.813

0.000

0.532

0.531

0.029

18.391

0.000

0.219

1.000

Notes: The multi-group comparison is based on a non-parametric approach (MGA); *, **, *** indicate significance at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels.


3.3. Assessment of structural model

The associations among constructs were evaluated based on the study's aims. To determine the model's t-values, 5000 bootstrapping samples were utilized, each with the same amount of observations as the original sample to create standard errors and t-values (Hair et al., 2011). With a P-value of less than 0.1, values of t equal to or greater than 1.96 suggest a significant level of the proposed link (Hair et al., 2017; Chin, 1998). The significance and magnitude of the path coefficients were used to estimate path links between the latent variables in the model. The results are summarized in Table 4.

Hair et al., (2017) suggested that the structural model could be evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R-square) and predictive relevance (Q-square). R2 values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19, according to Chin (1998), must be considered for substantial, moderate, and weak estimations, respectively. The R2 values in this study were above the acceptable level, with an acceptable (0.571) value for wave 1 and a moderate (0.363) value for wave 2, indicating that the corresponding construct has a good predictive potential. All of the path coefficients are also significant. The Q2 calculation yielded 0.37(wave1) and 0.32(wave2) for psychological distress in the current investigation, showing that they are sufficiently predictive.

Perceived interior crowding had a favorable and significant impact on psychological distress (ß = 0.56; p < 0.001 at wave 1 and ß = 0.38; p < 0.001 at wave 2), as demonstrated in Table 4, confirming H2. This is in line with the belief that people who have a negative perception of interior crowding are more likely to express psychological distress.

Regarding the direct impacts on social isolation, H3 was supported by the finding that perceived interior crowding was substantially linked with social isolation (ß = 0.71; p < 0.001 at wave 1 and ß = 0.59; p < 0.001 at wave 2). Individuals who perceive more interior crowding are more likely to feel alone, according to these positive coefficients. These findings back up what earlier research has found (Evans, 2003; Rollings & Evans, 2019). The effects of social isolation on psychological distress were both positive and significant (ß = 0.32; p < 0.001 at wave 1 and ß = 0.55; p < 0.001 at wave 2). This implies that people who score higher on social isolation have higher degrees of psychological distress (Hyun-Soo & Jung, 2021; Taylor et al., 2016).

Both direct and indirect effects were examined to test Hypothesis 4, which predicts that social isolation will influence the link between perceived interior crowding and psychological distress. There was a significant indirect effect of perceived interior crowding on psychological distress (β = 0.225, p < 0.000 at wave 1 and β = 0.325, p < 0.000 at wave 2).

 Table 4: Base model- without moderation

 

 

 

Wave1

 

 

 

 

Wave2

 

 

 

PLS-MGA


Path c

Mean (M)

SD

T-Value

p-Value

Path c

Mean (M)

SD

T Value

p-Value

Path Coefficients-diff

p-Value

PIC -> PD

0.558

0.558

0.034

16.501

0.000

0.380

0.381

0.029

12.937

0.000

0.178

0.000

PIC -> SI

0.707

0.708

0.020

34.932

0.000

0.594

0.594

0.029

20.298

0.000

0.113

0.001

SI -> PD

0.318

0.319

0.035

8.993

0.000

0.547

0.547

0.028

19.868

0.000

0.229

1.000


3.4. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses

The model was calculated separately for the two waves to ensure that the structural relationships were significant. The results of the Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) technique, which examines the differences between the path coefficients among two waves were used to evaluate group differences in PLS-SEM (Henseler et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2017). The p-values of the difference in path coefficients between Wave 1 and Wave 2 for the structural links hypothesized in H5, H6, and H7 are significant, as shown in Tables 6 and 7. Social isolation was significantly and positively linked with psychological distress at both time points (Table 6 and 7). Participants who felt isolated from others were more likely to experience psychological distress. For the fully corrected models, the effect sizes were comparable (β = 0.318, p0.001 at Wave 1 and =0.547, p0.001 at Wave 2). As can be observed, social isolation has an increasing influence on psychological distress over time.

The MGA approach was used to assess the moderation effects of exposure to nature across time, supporting the change in moderation role of exposure to nature during the epidemic. Participants in Wave 1 who felt they had more exposure to nature in their areas were less likely to experience psychological distress. In Wave 2, exposure to nature was found to be a non-significant moderator, indicating that the effects of perceptions of green space on mental health were not stable over time; this finding contradicts Cleary et al., (2019) who found that the effects of perceptions of green space on mental health were stable over time.

5. Discussion

Subjective well-being has regularly been proved to be an independent predictor of health (Corley et al., 2021). In addition to its terrible physical implications, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed a mental health issue, prompting governments worldwide to impose lockdowns to prevent disease spread. When people's access to work, education, and public spaces is limited, their homes must play a special role in their daily lives and mental health (Meagher & Cheadle, 2020).

There is a well-established link between perceived interior crowding, social isolation, and poor mental health. It is also widely acknowledged that exposure to nature has a positive impact on mental health. Nonetheless, in the contemporary setting of COVID-19, little is known about the critical role of time in correlations between perceptual characteristics and the repercussions of social isolation (Melo & Soares, 2020). Our goal was to shed more light on this topic by examining changes in psychological distress in a cohort of healthy women during the pandemic-related stay-at-home order, using two waves of data. The current study adds to the body of knowledge by addressing the following issues: During a lockdown, did social isolation and psychological distress increase? Is there a link between nature exposure and psychological distress caused by perceived interior crowding? Is this moderating role temporally dependent? Is it possible that having a sense of behavioral control over social distancing from others in public areas could reduce the impact of social isolation on psychological distress?

The most important predictor variable in the model was perceived interior crowding, which had both direct and indirect effects on psychological distress. Perceived interior crowding was adversely associated with social isolation and psychological distress in both waves of this investigation, indicating that people's impressions of their homes can contribute to poor mental health outcomes. The model revealed that social isolation was the second strongest predictor and a significant mediator variable, confirming prior findings (e.g., Wells & Harris, 2007). Our data indicated that social isolation is linked to psychological distress, confirming Durkheim's theory that lack of social integration has negative mental health repercussions (Berkman et al., 2000). Many areas of people's lives, including levels of physical activity, psychological and physical wellbeing, have been negatively impacted by key policies such as social distancing and self-isolation (Cellini et al., 2020; Corely et al., 2021). Self-reported social isolation and psychological distress were considerably higher at wave 2 than at wave 1. This finding demonstrated that, while social distancing techniques may assist safeguard public health, they may have unanticipated negative repercussions for mental health, consistent with evidence identifying loneliness as a risk factor for mental health (e.g., Liu et al., 2020). Cutting off from social networks can make people feel vulnerable and pessimistic about their situation, resulting in negative mood states and discomfort, amplified during a pandemic. Because residents are likely to have already experienced a loss of interpersonal bonds due to the epidemic, the additional social isolation brought on by the mandatory physical separation can exacerbate the psychological toll (Hyun-soo & Jung, 2021). The pandemic is a global stressor with no predictable endpoint, and its effects cannot be controlled by a single individual factor; additionally, psychological distress can arise not only from isolation and loneliness, but also from increased worry (Gorenko et al., 2020) and the pandemic's simultaneous impacts on various domains (e.g., financial, and physical health) (Liu et al., 2020).

Exposure to nature has been linked to various health advantages based on classic early studies, such as attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 2001) and stress reduction theory (Brooks et al., 2020). However, some studies have discovered significant positive correlations between perceptions of urban green space quantity and mental health outcomes (Sugiyama et al., 2008; Cleary et al., 2019); recent urban studies have found that psychological well-being has a significant relationship with perceptions of green space, which may differ from objective measures. Considering the quantity and objectively quantifying green space without taking into account how people perceive the space may not provide the full picture of a situation (Hyun-soo & Jung, 2021). As a result, we have concentrated on how people feel about being in nature.

Access to nature is rapidly acknowledged as playing a significant part in the COVID-19 pandemic (Ahmadpoor & Shahab, 2020; Ferrini & Gori, 2021). Exposure to nature during the stay-at-home order was also thought to mitigate the negative impacts of perceived interior crowding on mental health outcomes (Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2021). This relationship is explored over time in a longitudinal study. Our findings imply that exposure to nature may aid in maintaining people's health during a pandemic but this link is time-dependent (Meagher & Cheadle., 2020). It is worth noting that this link was strong at the start; hence, exposure to nature predicted short-term mental health effects. At any stage throughout the pandemic, individuals' reported exposure to nature did not help to mitigate the detrimental effect of perceived interior crowding on psychological distress. This study supports prior findings that the pandemic restrictions' broader implications on public health may not be apparent for some time (e.g., Corley et al., 2021). During the earliest stages of the national response to the outbreak, one's link to nature was vital. Given the possibility of additional lockdown reinstatement at a local level, this is helpful. As a result, the ordinary mental health benefit of exposure to nature may not be sufficient to safeguard against psychological distress over the long term in the event of a widespread pandemic. This problem, however, can be linked to the quality of green space, emphasizing the need to provide a high-quality natural experience in cities as well as a variety of visual exposures (Olszewska-Guizzo et al., 2021).

The role of perceived behavioral control in the link between social isolation and psychological distress (in wave 2) provides empirical support for the influence of perceived behavioral control on the usage of open places during the pandemic. This study suggests that therapies aimed at increasing distress tolerance, such as mindfulness-based therapy, may be more beneficial than cognitive interventions to change core self-beliefs (Nila et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2020). Spending time in public open areas may encourage people to interact with their neighbors, fostering a sense of community and social relationships. Increased social cohesion has been identified as a fundamental driver of psychological wellbeing and as an underlying mechanism in the link between green space and health (De Vries et al., 2013; Corley et al., 2021). Furthermore, neighborhood identification is an essential driver of responses to the local environment and has a direct impact on mental health (Fong et al., 2019). The advantages of having an optimistic attitude in life were amplified by community togetherness. This conclusion emphasizes that a home's appraisal will vary depending on the amount to which particular sorts of psychological needs are addressed or not. Individuals' ability to directly organize the home environment to allow desirable behaviors can also be an important aspect of maintaining excellent mental health (Meagher et al., 2020). Effective self-regulation, for example, frequently entails engaging in future self-control by establishing an atmosphere that encourages desired behaviors while discouraging undesired ones (Hyun-soo & Jung, 2021).

To promote mental health through the built environment, residential spaces should be planned and managed to accommodate differing preferences and perceptions, particularly among people from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Only individuals with a particular degree of technology skill and internet connection were eligible to participate; the study sample may be biased toward people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Because the relationship between perceived interior congestion and adverse outcomes varies by gender (Rollings & Evans, 2019), generalizing the findings should be done with caution.

Given that this case study was limited to a small number of socio-demographic and health-related characteristics, as well as gated communities in a specific context, future research should look at the outcomes in other cities and socio-cultural settings. It seems logical that the physical, social, and cultural contexts can foster or restrain social distancing; consequently, future research should compare the influence of open space arrangements and home layouts. Our longitudinal data supports the core assumption that the effects of built environment features linked to mental health outcomes change with time. Future longitudinal studies could, however, concentrate on different waves of data collection in order to better address the issue of temporal ordering of the focal relationships. Finally, future research should confirm the findings of this study using a larger, more representative sample in various settings and demographics.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate (Human Ethics, Animal Ethics or Plant Ethics)

This research is not based on laboratory data and the satisfaction of all participants has been obtained.

-Consent for publication

Not available

-Availability of data and materials

It will be available if needed.

-Competing interests

Not available

-Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

-Authors' contributions

S.F. Mousavinia conceived of the presented idea, developed the theory and performed the analytical methods.

-Acknowledgements

Not available

References

  1. Ahmadpoor, N., & Shahab, S. (2020). Realising the value of greenspace: A planners’ perspective on the COVID-19 pandemic. Town Planning Review, 92(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2020.37
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
  4. Allam, Z., & Jones, D. S. (2020). Pandemic stricken cities on lockdown. Where are our planning and design professionals [now, then and into the future]? Land Use Policy, 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104805
  5. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
  6. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
  7. Astell-Burt, T., & Feng, X. (2020). Greener neighbourhoods, better memory? A longitudinal study. Health & Place, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102393
  8. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 843-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4
  9. Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., et al. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30460-8
  10. Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2003). Social isolation and health, with an emphasis on underlying mechanisms. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 46(3), S39-S52.
  11. Cavazza, N., Russo, S., Colloca, P., & Roccato, M. (2021). Household crowding can have political effects: An empirical study on support for anti-democratic political systems during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101628
  12. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Methodology for Business and Management. Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher, 295–336.
  13. Cleary, A., Roiko, A., Burton N. W., Fielding, K. S., Murray, Z., & Turrell, G. (2019). Changes in perceptions of urban green space are related to changes in psychological well-being: Cross-sectional and longitudinal study of mid-aged urban residents. Health & Place, 59, 102201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102201
  14. Corley, J., Okely, J. A., Taylor, A. M., Page, D., Welstead, M., Skarabela, B., Redmond, P., Cox, S. R., & Russ, T. C. (2021). Home garden use during COVID-19: Associations with physical and mental wellbeing in older adults. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101545
  15. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Hessling, R. M., Brown, P. A., & Murry, V. (2000). Direct and moderating effects of community context on the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1088
  16. De Vries, S., Van Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030
  17. Díaz de León-Martínez, L., Luz de la Sierra-de la Vega, Palacios-Ramírez, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, M., & Flores-Ramírez, R. (2020). Critical review of social, environmental and health risk factors in the Mexican indigenous population and their capacity to respond to the COVID-19. Science of the Total Environment, 733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139357
  18. Evans, G. W. (1979). Behavioral and physiological consequences of crowding in humans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1979.tb00793.x
  19. Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80, 536-555.
  20. Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190057
  21. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and social support: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.308
  22. Ferrini, F., & Gori, A. (2021). Cities after covid-19: how trees and green infrastructures can help shaping a sustainable future. Ri-Vista. Research for Landscape Architecture, 19(1), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.13128/rv-8553
  23. Fong, P., Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2019). Neighbourhood identification and mental health: How social identification moderates the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.006
  24. Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M., Schmitz, K. H., & Hearst, M. (2007). Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Studies, 44, 679-697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601184729
  25. Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plas`encia, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354
  26. Gorenko, J. A., Moran, C., Flynn, M., Dobson, K., & Konnert, C. (2021). Social isolation and psychological distress among older adults related to covid-19: A narrative review of remotely-delivered interventions and recommendations. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 40(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464820958550
  27. Hadavi, S. (2017). Direct and indirect effects of the physical aspects of the environment on mental well-being. Environment and Behavior, 49(10), 1071–1104. https://doi.org/1177/0013916516679876
  28. Hadavi, S., Kaplan, R., & Hunter, M. R. (2018). How does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landscape Research, 43(3), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1314453
  29. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
  30. Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
  31. Hakovirta, M., & Denuwara, N. (2020). How COVID-19 redefines the concept of sustainability. Sustainability, 12(9), 3727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093727
  32. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M., (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–135.
  33. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. , & Sinkovics, R. R., (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, Publisher: Emerald JAI Press, 277–319.
  34. Hernandez, J. G. V., Pallagst, K., & Hammer, P. (2018). Urban green spaces as a component of an ecosystem functions, services, users, community involvement, initiatives and actions. International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources, 8(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5354/0717- 5051.2017.47057
  35. Hu, M., Roberts, J. D., Azevedo, G. P., & Milner, D. (2021). The role of built and social environmental factors in Covid-19 transmission: A look at America’s capital city. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102580
  36. Hyun-Soo Kim, H. & Jung, J. H. (2021). Social isolation and psychological distress during the covid-19 pandemic: A cross-national analysis. The Gerontologist, 61(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa168
  37. Jens, K., & Gregg, J. S. (2021). How design shapes space choice behaviors in public urban and shared indoor spaces- A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, [102592]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102592
  38. Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973106
  39. Kaplan, G. T., & Rogers, L. J. (2003). Gene worship: Moving beyond the nature/nurture debate over genes, brain, and gender. Other Press, LLC.
  40. Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S-L.T., Walters, E.E. & Zaslavsky, A.M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence’s and trends in nonspecific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959-976.
  41. Khavarian-Garmsira, A. R., Sharifi. A. & Moradpoure, N. (2021). Are high-density districts more vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic? Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102911
  42. Kim, Y. J., & Kang, S. W. (2021). Perceived crowding and risk perception according to leisure activity type during COVID-19 using spatial proximity. International journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020457
  43. Kim, G., & Miller, P. A. (2019). The impact of green infrastructure on human health and well-being: The example of the Huckleberry Trail and the Heritage Community Park and Natural Area in Blacksburg, Virginia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101562
  44. Liu, L. (2020). Emerging study on the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) from urban perspective: Evidence from China. Cities, 103, 102759.
  45. Mair, C., Diez Roux, A. V., & Morenoff, J. D. (2010). Neighborhood stressors and social support as predictors of depressive symptoms in the Chicago Community Adult Health Study. Health & Place, 16(5), 811–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.006
  46. Marselle, M. R., Warber, S. L., & Irvine, K. N. (2019). Growing resilience through interaction with nature: Can group walks in nature buffer the effects of stressful life events on mental health? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, Article 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060986
  47. Mavoa, S., Davern, M., Breed, M., & Hahs, A. (2019). Higher levels of greenness and biodiversity associate with greater subjective wellbeing in adults living in Melbourne, Australia. Health & Place, 57, 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.05.006
  48. Meagher, B. R., & Cheadle, A. D. (2020). Distant from others, but close to home: The relationship between home attachment and mental health during COVID-19. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101516.
  49. Megahed, N. A., & Ghoneim, E. M. (2020). Antivirus-built environment: Lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102350
  50. Melo, M.C.A. & Soares, D. (2020). Impact of social distancing on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: An urgent discussion. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(6), 625-626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020927047
  51. Nila K., Holt D.V., Ditzen B., & Aguilar-Raab C. (2016). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) enhances distress tolerance and resilience through changes in mindfulness. Mental Health Prevention, 4, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2016.01.001
  52. Nutsford, D., Pearson, A. L., & Kingham, S. (2013). An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health, 127(11), 1005–1011.
  53. Olszewska-Guizzo, A., Fogel, A., Escoffier, N., & Ho, R. (2021). Effects of COVID-19-related stay-at-home order on neuropsychophysiologiacal response to urban spaces: Beneficial role of exposure to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101590
  54. Olszewska-Guizzo, A., Sia, A., Fogel, A., & Ho, R. (2020). Can exposure to certain urban green spaces trigger frontal alpha asymmetry in the brain?—preliminary findings from a passive task EEG study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 394.
  55. Pakenham, K. I., Landi, G., Boccolini, G., Furlani, A., Grandi, S., & Tossani, E. (2020). The moderating roles of psychological flexibility and inflexibility on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown in Italy. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 17, 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.003
  56. Pasion, R., Paiva, T. O., Fernandes, C., & Barbosa, F. (2020). The AGE effect on protective behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak: Sociodemographic, perceptions and psychological accounts. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 561785.
  57. Rhodes, R. E., Brown, S. G., & McIntyre, C. A. (2006). Integrating the perceived neighborhood environment and the theory of planned behavior when predicting walking in a Canadian adult sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(2), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-21.2.110
  58. Rollings, K. A., & Evans, G. W. (2019). Design moderators of perceived residential crowding and chronic physiological stress among children. Environment and Behavior, 51(5), 590–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518824631
  59. Rossi, A. N., & Armstrong, J. B. (1999). Theory of reasoned action vs. theory of planned behavior: Testing the suitability and sufficiency of a popular behavior model using hunting intentions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209909359156
  60. Sturm, R., & Cohen, D. (2014). Proximity to urban parks and mental health. Journal of Mental Health Policy Economy, 17 (1), 19.
  61. Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., et al. (2008). Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.064287
  62. Tahvonen, O., & Airaksinen, M. (2018). Low-density housing in sustainable urban planning – Scaling down to private gardens by using the green infrastructure concept. Land Use Policy, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.017
  63. Taylor, H. O., Taylor, R. , Nguyen, A. W., & Chatters, L. (2016). Social isolation, depression, and psychological distress among older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 30(2), 229-246. doi:10.1177/0898264316673511
  64. Viezzer, J., & Biondi, D. (2021). The influence of urban, socio-economic, and eco-environmental aspects on COVID-19 cases, deaths and mortality: A multi-city case in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, 102859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102859
  65. Wan, C., & Shen, G. Q. (2015). Encouraging the use of urban green space: The mediating role of attitude, perceived usefulness and perceived behavioural control. Habitat International, 50, 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.010
  66. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015). A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities, 42, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.003
  67. Wells, N. M., & Harris, J. D. (2007). Housing quality, psychological distress, and the mediating role of social withdrawal: A longitudinal study of low-income women. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.11.002
  68. Zondag, B., & Pieters, M. (2005). Influence of accessibility on residential location choice. Transportation Research Record, 1902, 63–70. https://doi.org/3141/1902-08