This study investigates the relationship between urban green spaces (UGS) and residents’ mental health in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with a focus on the mediating roles of social cohesion and physical activity.
Design
Multilevel regression and mediation analysis with cross-sectional data were constructed.
Setting
10 UGS in Dhaka were selected based on spatial variation.
Sample
A total of 276 adult residents (response rate: 85.2%) were surveyed using quota sampling to ensure demographic diversity.
Measures
The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) was used for mental health assessment, validity scales for social cohesion and IPAQ-SF for physical activity. UGS accessibility and quality were evaluated using NDVI, GIS buffers, and on-site audits.
Analysis
Multilevel linear regression and Sobel tests were employed to examine direct and mediated effects of UGS on mental health.
Results
UGS-level factors explained 18% of the variance in mental health. UGS accessibility (β = 0.285***), safety (β = 0.212***), and amenities (β = 0.220***) were positively associated with mental health. Social cohesion (Z = 2.82***) and physical activity (Z = 2.15**) partially mediated these relationships.
Conclusion
UGS enhances mental health in dense urban environments through both direct and mediated pathways. Subgroup analysis reveals that high and medium-quality UGS have more substantial positive effects through physical activity and social cohesion on mental health. In contrast, the impact of low-quality UGS’s is minor and insignificant. Respondents with higher education and income benefit more from UGS on their mental health. Future research using longitudinal data or experimental designs could enhance the robustness of causation.
MukherjeeMTakaraK. Urban green space as a countermeasure to increasing urban risk and the UGS-3CC resilience framework. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018;28:854-861. doi:10.1016/J.IJDRR.2018.01.027
2.
IgnatievaMMofradF. Understanding urban green spaces typology’s contribution to comprehensive green infrastructure planning: a study of Canberra, the national capital of Australia. Land. 2023;12(5):950. doi:10.3390/LAND12050950
3.
BressaneAGalvãoALdSLoureiroAISFerreiraMEGMonstansMCMedeirosLCdC. Valuing urban green spaces for enhanced public health and sustainability: a study on public willingness-to-pay in an emerging economy. Urban For Urban Green. 2024;98:128386. doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2024.128386
4.
KrolsJAertsRVanlessenNDewaelheynsVDujardinSSomersB. Residential green space, gardening, and subjective well-being: a cross-sectional study of garden owners in northern Belgium. Landsc Urban Plann. 2022;223:104414. doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2022.104414
5.
KaplanRKaplanS. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1989. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_6
6.
UlrichRSSimonsRFLositoBDFioritoEMilesMAZelsonM. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 1991;11(3):201-230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
MillikenSKotzenBWalimbeSCouttsCBeatleyT. Biophilic cities and health. Cities Health. 2023;7(2):175-188. doi:10.1080/23748834.2023.2176200
9.
HuangSQiJLiWDongJvan den BoschCK. The contribution to stress recovery and attention restoration potential of exposure to urban green spaces in low-density residential areas. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2021;18(16):8713. doi:10.3390/IJERPH18168713
10.
YusufJEAllenTSaitgalinaM, et al.Considering equity in green infrastructure using an integrative planning framework for green infrastructure implementation. Publ Works Manag Pol. 2025;30:179-201. doi:10.1177/1087724X251314421
11.
BaróFLangemeyerJŁaszkiewiczEKabischN. Editorial to the special issue ‘advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice. Environ Sci Pol. 2021;115:43-46. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2020.10.008
12.
AlawadiKAnabtawiRAlshehhiG. The minute city: between theory and practicality in suburban landscapes. Sustain Sci Pract Pol. 2025;21(1):2444007. doi:10.1080/15487733.2024.2444007
13.
MaXZhangGLiuXZhaoMXiB. Associations of green and blue spaces with visual acuity in youths from Shandong Province, China: a large population-based study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2025;292:117947. doi:10.1016/J.ECOENV.2025.117947
14.
McDonaldTL. Review of environmental monitoring methods: survey designs. Environ Monit Assess. 2003;85(3):277-292. doi:10.1023/A:1023954311636
15.
HuiLCJimCY. Unraveling visiting-activity patterns of heterogeneous communities for urban-park planning and design. Forests. 2022;13(6):841. doi:10.3390/F13060841
16.
ShahNCaderMAndrewsWPWijesekeraDStewart-BrownSL. Responsiveness of the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS): evaluation a clinical sample. Health Qual Life Outcome. 2018;16(1):239. doi:10.1186/S12955-018-1060-2
17.
MohamedASharkawyEElkholyREAlmokademHA. Physical activity and nutritional profile assessment in elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients. Egyptian Rheum Rehab. 2025;52(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/S43166-025-00317-5
18.
TianSNingSLiHChenLZhuHGaoG. Relationship of social capital, community identity, and perceived safety resilience during public emergencies in Shanghai. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):1–15. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86990-0
19.
MaasJvan DillenSMEVerheijRAGroenewegenPP. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place. 2009;15(2):586-595. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
20.
ZhangXLinESTanPYQiJWaykoolR. Assessment of visual landscape quality of urban green spaces using image-based metrics derived from perceived sensory dimensions. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2023;102:107200. doi:10.1016/J.EIAR.2023.107200
KabischNStrohbachMHaaseDKronenbergJ. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol Indic. 2016;70:586-596. doi:10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2016.02.029
23.
BengtssonAÅshageAGrahnP. Designing urban green spaces supporting health and recovery. In: Creating Urban and Workplace Environments for Recovery and well-being: New Perspectives on Urban Design and Mental Health. Routledge; 2024:61-82. doi:10.4324/9781003435471-5
HannaCWhiteIFuXCrosslandKSerrao-NeumannS. Green or grey pandemic recovery? revealing the blue–green infrastructure influences in Aotearoa-New Zealand’s ‘Shovel Ready’ Covid-19 response. Urban Pol Res. 2023;41(1):38-54. doi:10.1080/08111146.2022.2103669
26.
VölkerSHeilerAPollmannTClaßenTHornbergCKistemannT. Do perceived walking distance to and use of urban blue spaces affect self-reported physical and mental health?Urban For Urban Green. 2018;29:1-9. doi:10.1016/J.UFUG.2017.10.014
27.
MaLYeREttemaDvan LieropD. Role of the neighborhood environment in psychological resilience. Landsc Urban Plann. 2023;235:104761. doi:10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2023.104761
28.
CinderbySArcherDMehtaVK, et al.Assessing inequalities in wellbeing at a neighbourhood scale in low-middle-income-country secondary cities and their implications for long-term livability. Front Sociol. 2021;6:729453. doi:10.3389/FSOC.2021.729453/BIBTEX
29.
KühnSSchmalenKBeijersRTyborowskaARoelofsKde WeerthC. Green is not the same as green: differentiating between the association of trees and open green spaces with children’s brain structure in the Netherlands. Environ Behav. 2023;55(5):311-334. doi:10.1177/00139165231183095
30.
LovellSTTaylorJR. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28(8):1447-1463. doi:10.1007/S10980-013-9912-Y/TABLES/2
31.
SharmeenNHoustonD. Spatial characteristics and activity space pattern analysis of Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Urban Sci. 2019;3(1):36. doi:10.3390/URBANSCI3010036
32.
AlamINurSMSMitraC. Accessibility to public open space of a densely populated city: a case study of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Comput Urban Sci. 2025;5(1):1-22. doi:10.1007/S43762-025-00187-9/TABLES/6
