Planning for Urban Sustainability through Residents’ Wellbeing: The Effects of Nature Interactions, Social Capital, and Socio-Demographic Factors

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine how varied environmental and social factors in urban environments affect human wellbeing, which is an important dimension of urban sustainability. Past research has focused on individual dimensions of health and isolated nature interactions, limiting knowledge about how different environmental and social factors affect distinct aspects of residents’ wellbeing. Through quantitative analyses of social survey and environmental data in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona (USA), we explored how distinct nature recreation activities—along with nature satisfaction and social capital—affected residents’ subjective, mental, and physical wellbeing across diverse neighborhoods during the COVID-19 pandemic, controlling for socio-demographics. Results reveal how distinct drivers shape different dimensions of wellbeing. Perceived social and environmental attributes of neighborhoods and proximity to nature preserves were associated with subjective wellbeing, while park visitation was linked to physical health. Nature interactions largely were unrelated to mental health. Changes in nature recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly impact any dimension of wellbeing. Our research suggests that multiple local environmental and social features should be considered when designing healthy communities for urban sustainability.

1. Introduction

Home to half of the global population and 83% of the U.S. population, metropolitan regions significantly affect multiple aspects of sustainability, including human wellbeing [1]. Urban residents have a higher risk of stress-related mental health problems compared to rural residents [2]. Moreover, people who lack nature interactions in cities or lack positive connections with nature around them exhibit decreased life satisfaction [3]. Conversely, urban residents with increased exposure to greenspaces or greater connections with nature have higher reported happiness and wellbeing [4,5]. Thus, planning and designing neighborhoods and cities to enhance nature interactions and local environmental conditions—especially where people live—can significantly impact human wellbeing and urban sustainability.

While studies have shown the health benefits of nature, they tend to focus on specific aspects of nature exposure (e.g., different types of outdoor recreation or proximity to parks) in relation to isolated dimensions of wellbeing (e.g., distinct aspects of physical or mental health). Past research addresses, for instance, the impact of gardening [6] on mental health without considering physical or social dimensions of wellbeing. Research has also focused on how engagement with parks and greenspaces affects mental [6] or physical [7] health without considering other types of nature exposure or other aspects of wellbeing. Investigating how different nature interactions affect multiple dimensions of health relative to other factors is crucial for improving human wellbeing in urban areas. Yet little research has examined various dimensions of wellbeing relative to various types of nature interactions. Our study fills this gap by examining how different types of nature recreation and exposure distinctly impact three dimensions of wellbeing: subjective; physical; and mental. Comparing how different outdoor activities, environmental conditions, and socio-demographics affect varied aspects of wellbeing provides evidence for urban planning strategies that improve multiple dimensions of health and overall human wellbeing.

Through quantitative analyses of social survey and environmental data from the metropolitan region of Phoenix, Arizona, we explore how diverse environmental and social factors affected residents’ wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we ask, how do different forms of urban nature interactions, local neighborhood conditions, and socio-demographic factors affect distinct dimensions of wellbeing? By employing the tripartite approach [8,9] to wellbeing, we evaluate three subjective, mental, and physical health measures. This holistic approach reveals how urban planners can invest in urban infrastructure and environmental amenities to improve human wellbeing.

1.1. Human Wellbeing

As a multi-dimensional construct [10,11], human wellbeing incorporates both objective and subjective measures of physical and mental health [8,12]. In our research, we follow a tripartite model of wellbeing by evaluating physical, mental, and subjective wellbeing [8,9]. While we analyze physical and mental health diagnoses as objective measures, we employ Diener’s commonly used and reliable measure of life satisfaction [13] to evaluate subjective wellbeing. This five-statement survey scale for evaluating life satisfaction captures how well a person feels about their life overall [13,14,15]. Secondly, physical health refers to the functioning of the human body [16]. Due to the pervasiveness of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and asthma in the U.S. [17,18], we evaluate self-reported diagnoses of these physical health ailments in our study. Thirdly, we evaluate mental health as the diagnosis of depression and anxiety, given their prevalence in the U.S. and elsewhere [19].

1.2. Nature Interactions

Interacting with the natural world enhances human wellbeing [20,21] through increased physical activity, reduced stress, and stronger social ties, among other pathways [22]. Broadly, outdoor recreation through physical activities in parks or other natural settings can improve physical health [23,24]. Public parks and greenspaces also improve wellbeing through increased community satisfaction, especially in urban areas [25,26]. While residents’ proximity to local parks may increase their accessibility, people’s satisfaction with parks and their amenities strongly influences visitation of and physical activities within parks [27,28,29]. Other perceptions of local environments, such as the perceived safety of parks or neighborhoods and aesthetic appreciation of trees or other vegetation, further affect residents’ recreational activities and satisfaction with a place [30,31].

Residential gardening provides another avenue for beneficial human–nature interactions by increasing physical activity, improving mental health through stress relief, and enhancing social connections with other gardeners (especially in community gardens) [32,33]. Gardeners tend to have lower reported stress and depression and higher reported wellbeing than those who do not garden, yet access to gardens can be limited by socioeconomic status [6,34]. Some studies indicate that home gardening may have a more beneficial impact on mental health than visiting urban greenspaces, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic [35,36].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people globally interacted with nature more than usual since quarantining limited indoor leisure activities and social gatherings [37]. Both gardening and visiting parks positively affected wellbeing during the pandemic, a phenomenon attributed to people’s ability to exercise, socialize, and engage in restorative activities [33,38]. Yet, these effects varied based on personal and environmental circumstances, as well as local and national COVID-19 policies [34,39]. Overall, research has recently shown that different types of nature interactions could positively impact different dimensions of wellbeing. However, given mixed results, research is still needed to evaluate how different types of nature interactions affect physical, mental, and subjective wellbeing.

1.3. Neighborhood Dynamics

Neighborhoods, defined here as local geographic areas with significance to residents, provide spaces for living, community engagement, and recreation [40,41]. Since neighborhood landscapes are the most common interfaces between urban residents and nature (e.g., local trees and parks), scholars increasingly consider them a public health resource [42]. Furthermore, landscape sustainability scholars have underscored the ability of landscape-specific features to enhance human wellbeing through various mechanisms [43,44].

Objectively measured attributes of neighborhood landscapes that affect residents’ wellbeing include the amount and type of vegetation, which impact microclimates, air quality, and other environmental conditions linked to health ailments (e.g., heat stress and asthma) [45,46]. While environmental risks vary demographically, such that low-income and communities of color are more negatively impacted, vegetation generally and tree cover specifically also varies socio-spatially across urban neighborhoods. For example, residents in neighborhoods with higher neighborhood greenness typically report better physical and mental health, decreasing the prevalence of cardiovascular disease and stress by providing comfortable outdoor spaces for physical activity and recreational enjoyment [47,48].

Neighborhood social capital, defined as localized interpersonal relations and networks that foster trust and community support, also affects the wellbeing of urban residents [49,50]. Moreover, local landscape features can affect social capital; for instance, proximity to neighborhood parks and greenspaces has been associated with reduced feelings of loneliness and social isolation [51], and residents’ satisfaction with neighborhood parks has also been linked to higher social capital [52]. Participation in social activities is also associated with wellbeing and physical health [53], especially in urban neighborhoods. Since neighborhood landscapes are known to affect social connections and wellbeing, research is needed to differentiate which aspects of local neighborhoods affect distinct aspects of wellbeing compared to broader nature interactions and socio-demographic factors.

1.4. Socio-Demographic Factors

Wellbeing is closely tied to socio-demographics [54,55,56]. For example, physical health diagnoses such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes typically increase with age [57]. Additionally, both physical and mental health ailments tend to be greater for lower-income residents, largely due to factors such as increased daily stress, emotional exhaustion, and frustration [58]. While our study is focused on evaluating how different types of nature interactions—linked to both outdoor recreation and local neighborhood environments—affect distinct aspects of wellbeing, we also analyze various socio-demographic factors since they are also known to significantly impact human health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Our study area is located in the Phoenix metropolitan region of Central Arizona, one of the fastest growing areas of the U.S. Metropolitan Phoenix, which has about five million residents and is the country’s fifth largest city [59]. Located within the Sonoran Desert of the American Southwest, the region has a warm, semi-arid climate with an average of 7.11 inches of precipitation annually [60]. With triple-digit temperatures common through June, July, August, and September, most outdoor living and recreation happens during the mild winter months. During the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, park visits increased [61]. Parks in metropolitan Phoenix include several large desert preserves that punctuate the urban landscape, covering more than 41,000 acres of land and over 200 miles of trails. Additionally, smaller, relatively developed parks with sports facilities, playgrounds, and picnic areas are common throughout the region’s neighborhoods. Many parks and neighborhoods have water features, including built lakes, canals, and portions of the Salt River channel, which tends to run dry throughout the region due to upstream dams.

2.2. Survey Methods

The survey data analyzed in this study were collected from spring to summer of 2021. Using a stratified random sampling approach, the twelve intentionally chosen neighborhoods include low-to-high-income areas distributed across core urban, suburban, and fringe neighborhoods, including those with a large portion of Hispanic residents (who comprise roughly 40% of the population). Within this study’s neighborhoods, 496 residential addresses were invited to complete the survey since those homes participated in an earlier survey in 2017. An additional 1549 addresses were randomly drawn from U.S. Postal Service files (for more details on the survey methods, see [62]). With a response rate of 35.6%, the final sample size was 509. While the sample represents the average age of adult residents in the study neighborhoods, as well as the median household income, the sample was more highly educated and also underrepresented the Latino population (although 20% of the sample was reportedly Latino) [62]. Due to the sampling design, the results cannot be generalized to the entire region.

Using a five-wave mailing in the summer of 2021, three full packets and two postcards were sent to potential participants. The initial mailing was a postcard with information about the survey with a unique URL link to the web version (offered in English and Spanish). The second mailing was a full packet of the 20-page printed survey with a pre-addressed return envelope and a $5 cash pre-incentive. In the third and fifth packets, households with Hispanic last names were also sent a Spanish version. In between those mailings, a fourth mailing sent a reminder postcard. Residents who participated in the survey were also mailed a $25 generic gift card as an incentive and token of appreciation.

2.3. Dependent Variables

Following the tripartite model of wellbeing, we analyzed three dependent variables (for an overview of our conceptual and methodological approach, see Figure 1). First, subjective wellbeing was measured with the well-established Life Satisfaction Scale [13], which included five statements evaluated on a five-point scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) (see supplementary Table S1 for verbatim statements). To create a reliable scale representing life satisfaction, we averaged individuals’ responses to the five statements (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). Next, for physical and mental health, participants answered questions indicating if a medical professional had diagnosed them with any of five health problems common in the U.S.: asthma; obesity; diabetes; hypertension; and depression or anxiety (Table S1). The physical health variable counts the four physical health ailments, while the mental health variable indicates a yes or no response to depression or anxiety. Participants typically reported feeling moderately satisfied with their lives (3.71) and having one physical health diagnosis. Hypertension had the highest frequency (29%), followed by obesity (18%), asthma (15%), and diabetes (12%) (Figure 2). About one-quarter of respondents reported a depression or anxiety diagnosis.

2.4. Explanatory Variables

We analyzed three sets of explanatory variables to capture nature-based recreational activities, place-based neighborhood characteristics (both environmental and social), and socio-demographic factors. As seen in Figure 1, each of these larger constructs was evaluated with multiple measures.

2.4.1. Nature Activities

To evaluate nature recreation, we analyzed both park visitation and gardening activities in general and in relation to COVID-19 (see Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials). The frequency of park visitation was evaluated for the previous year on a five-point ordinal scale, ranging from “never” (1) to “at least once a week or more” (5) for four types of parks: desert preserves; neighborhood parks; and streams, ponds, or lakes within or beyond the metropolitan area. To measure park visitation overall, we averaged the responses to the four statements to create a park visitation frequency scale variable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79). Residents’ gardening activities were evaluated with five questions that asked if they added trees, desert plants, food-bearing plants, or plants for rainwater control or if they added or maintained plants that attracted birds. The binary variables were summed to create a variable counting the number of gardening activities participants undertook. The typical participant engaged in a moderately low level of gardening and occasionally visited parks (Table S2).

Relative to the COVID-19 pandemic, the survey asked participants to report changes in three activities—gardening, hiking, and visiting parks—compared to the previous year. The five-point, ordinal response scale ranged from “a lot less time” (1) to “a lot more time” (5). These three variables were recoded into binary variables for analysis, with 1 indicating an increase in each activity and 0 indicating a decrease or no change. About one-fifth of participants (20.9% to 23.5%) increased their gardening, hiking, or park visitation activities in 2021 (Table S2).

2.4.2. Neighborhood Factors

The independent variables measuring neighborhood characteristics encompass objective, subjective, and social measures (see Table S3 in Supplementary Materials). To objectively measure attributes of individuals’ neighborhood environments, we used a geospatial approach to evaluating the parks and vegetation in proximity to survey respondents’ homes. Specifically, we evaluated residents’ proximity (based on kilometers) to desert preserves and neighborhood parks, in addition to neighborhood greenness (as measured by the Normalized Density Vegetation Index, or NDVI) around individuals’ homes (see Table S4 in Supplementary Materials). The first proximity variable was coded as a (1) if residents were within one kilometer of a neighborhood park or a (0) if they were farther away since this is a standard distance for an average adult to walk the distance in ten minutes and, as such, is commonly used in planning for neighborhood park accessibility [63]. For the desert preserves, which are far less numerous across the region, we used a five-kilometer distance to the nearest preserve, which equates to an approximately ten-minute drive, to indicate if residents were proximal (1) or not (0). We also observed a natural break in the distance to the nearest preserve variable at 5 km, which further justified this decision. The NDVI variable was calculated as the average value within a one-kilometer area around each respondent’s address to reveal the greenness of vegetation using remote sensing imagery [64]. With an average greenness of 0.22 (Table S4), this variable suggests sparse vegetation (0.2–0.5 NDVI values) in the vicinity of surveyed residents; however, NDVI values are inherently lower in arid regions compared to humid ones due to drier conditions and desert vegetation. Most respondents (76.4%) lived within 1 km of a neighborhood park; 44.8% lived within 5 km of a preserve (Table S4).

Both subjective neighborhood satisfaction and self-reported social capital were measured using a five-point response scale across multiple statements, each averaging to form a reliable composite variable. For local environmental satisfaction, we averaged six statements (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; Table S3) that asked respondents about their satisfaction with the number and quality of parks and preserves, the presence of water features, and the number of trees and birds in their neighborhood. The response scale ranged from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied (5), with “neutral” (3) in between. Social capital was measured following Larsen et al. (2004) with three statements (e.g., “I live in a close-knit neighborhood”; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72) on a scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) (Table S3). Participants typically reported moderate levels of social capital and satisfaction with their local natural environments.

2.4.3. Socio-Demographic Variables

The variables representing residents’ socio-demographic characteristics were measured following the questions in the U.S. census (see Larson et al., 2021 and Table S5 in Supplementary Materials). These include age, education level, household income, gender identity, and race/ethnic identity. We also accounted for whether participants lived in a single- or multi-family dwelling (e.g., a house versus a multi-family apartment or condo). The mean household income of survey respondents was around $100,000, and many respondents had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (Table S5). Sixty percent of respondents were women, and 75.5% lived in single-family residences. The median age was 56 years. The racial/ethnic group most represented in the survey was White at 64.3%, and the next largest group was Latinx/Hispanic at 18.2% of respondents.

2.5. Analyses

Using SPSS statistical software (version 28.0.1.0), we ran regression models to identify and compare the factors influencing the three measures of wellbeing. For subjective wellbeing and physical health, we ran generalized linear regression models. Because the dependent variable for mental health was binary, we used logistic regression for this model. Participants with any missing values for the variables analyzed were excluded from each analysis (n = 54 for subjective wellbeing, n = 55 for physical health, n = 61 for mental health). To normalize the variable for analysis, we standardized NDVI using Z-scores. All models were checked for collinearity and had a VIF below two. Statistical significance was set at the p < 0.05 level and any marginal significance indicates values at the p < 0.10 level.

3. Results

3.1. Subjective Wellbeing

The explanatory variables in our models were most associated with subjective life satisfaction, with 31.8% of the variation explained by four significant variables (Figure 3). Perceptions of local social capital (B = 0.24) and nature characteristics in neighborhoods (B = 0.20) were most highly correlated with life satisfaction based on standard Beta values (p < 0.01). Proximity to desert preserves (B = 0.17; p < 0.10) was another strong predictor of life satisfaction, with households nearer to preserves reporting higher subjective wellbeing. Respondents with higher income levels reported higher life satisfaction (B = 0.20; p < 0.01). No other socio-demographic factors were significantly associated with life satisfaction (see Table S6 for details in Supplementary Materials).

Visiting parks (B = 0.09; p = 0.053) and increased gardening during COVID-19 (B = −0.07; p = 0.094) were marginally associated with residents’ life satisfaction. People who reported more frequent park visits were more likely to report higher life satisfaction, as expected. However, those who reported increased gardening were likelier to report lower life satisfaction. No other nature activities were significantly associated with life satisfaction. Neighborhood greenness and proximity to a neighborhood park were also non-significant (Table S6).

Since satisfaction with their neighborhood environments was among the most significant explanations for subjective wellbeing, we ran bivariate (Spearman’s) correlations between life satisfaction and the six individual variables in the composite survey scale for local nature satisfaction to further probe which neighborhood features were most strongly linked to subjective wellbeing (Figure 4). This additional analysis showed that residents’ satisfaction with trees in their neighborhoods was most strongly related to wellbeing (rho = 0.32), followed by the quality of parks, the amount of desert preserves, and the variety of birds in the area (rhos = 0.25–0.28; Figure 4). The least correlated variables were the number of parks and the presence of waterbodies in neighborhoods (rhos = 0.14–0.20).

3.2. Physical Health

The explanatory variables captured relatively slight variation in physical health (9.2% accounted for) (Figure 5; Table S7 in Supplementary Materials). Visiting and living near parks and some socio-demographic factors were significantly associated with physical health. Residents who lived near desert preserves (B = −0.23; p < 0.001) and visited parks more frequently (B = −0.11; p < 0.05) had fewer physical health problems than those who did not. Residents who increased their frequency of park visits during the pandemic did not necessarily have better physical health. Older age was associated with more physical health problems (B = 0.15, p = 0.01), while higher levels of education were associated with fewer physical health problems (B = −0.11, p = 0.05). Increased satisfaction with neighborhood environments (B = −0.10) and identifying as Latinx (B = −0.09) were marginally significant (p < 0.10) and related to having fewer physical health problems. No other explanatory variables were significantly associated with physical health.

3.3. Mental Health

Socio-demographic factors were most related to respondents’ mental health (Figure 6 and Table S8 in Supplementary Materials). Wealthier (B = 0.09), older (B = 0.98), more highly educated (B = 0.85), and Latinx respondents (B = 0.46) had a reduced likelihood of reporting mental problems (p < 0.05). Neighborhood greenness, which was, on average, low in surveyed neighborhoods, was marginally associated with a higher likelihood of mental health problems (B = 1.29; p = 0.061), contrary to expectations. No other social or environmental characteristics or nature activities were related to mental health.

3.4. Comparing Models

The multivariate models all exhibited a good fit of the data (

Table 1. Summary of significant variables across all wellbeing measures ¹.

Explanatory Variables	Subjective Wellbeing	Physical Health Problems	Mental Health Problems
	Std B	Std B	Exp(B) †
Nature Activities
General parks visitation	0.09 ^	−0.11 *
Increased gardening in 2021	−0.07 ^
Local Environment
Social capital	0.24 **
Local nature satisfaction	0.20 **	−0.10 ^
Neighborhood greenness			1.29 ^
Proximal to desert preserve	0.17 **	−0.23 **
Socio-Demographics
Income	0.20 **		0.90 *
Education		−0.11 *	0.85 *
Age		0.15 **	0.98 *
Ethnicity: Latinx		−0.09 ^	0.46 *
Model Fit	R2 = 0.318 F = 14.28 (p < 0.001)	R2 = 0.092 F = 3.96 (p < 0.001)	Cox and Snell R2 = 0.085 Nagelkerke R2 = 0.122

Significant variables are flagged as ** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, ^ p < 0.10. ¹. Non-significant variables left out: proximity to local park; gardening activities; increased hiking in 2021; increased park visits in 2021; gender; housing type. † As a reminder, Exp(B) values < 1 are negatively related to mental health problems, and those >1 are positively related (i.e., compared to the Beta values for the other models).

). The independent variables explain 32% of the variation in subjective wellbeing and less variation (~10%) in physical and mental health problems. While perceived social capital within neighborhoods uniquely explained subjective wellbeing, residents’ satisfaction with the local natural environment was significantly associated with subjective wellbeing and marginally associated with physical health. Meanwhile, proximity to nature (desert) preserves is substantially and positively associated with subject wellbeing and physical health, and better physical health is also significantly tied to visiting parks. In contrast, mental health was not significantly associated with nature interactions either in neighborhoods or through outdoor recreational activities—although greenness was marginally linked (p < 0.1) to better mental health (Table 1). Instead, socio-demographic factors were most strongly associated with mental health problems. In particular, depression and anxiety were linked to younger adults with lower income and education levels, as well as non-Latinx residents. Finally, increasing nature interactions during COVID had no significant, positive impacts (p < 0.05) on any of the wellbeing variables, nor did neighborhood greenness, proximity to a local park, gender, or type of residence.

4. Discussion

Previous studies on how nature interactions impact human wellbeing have been limited to evaluating specific nature recreation activities or single dimensions of wellbeing. Multi-dimensional assessments are critical to differentiating the factors influencing distinct dimensions of wellbeing, and, by extension, tailoring interventions to enhance urban sustainability. Our study helps fill this gap by using a tripartite approach [8,9] to examine how different types of nature interactions—both recreational and place-based—combine with socio-demographic factors to influence subjective wellbeing and physical and mental health (respectively measured as personal life satisfaction and clinical diagnoses of common health ailments). The findings provide evidence for strategic planning to improve human health in urban environments while also offering a multifaceted approach to evaluating how various types of nature interactions impact different dimensions of wellbeing.

Our results suggest that infrastructure and amenity investments linking people to nature promote subjective wellbeing and physical health. Specifically, we found that residents’ life satisfaction was influenced by their perceptions of local environmental features and their proximity to nature preserves. Meanwhile, nature interactions—particularly park visitation and proximity to nature preserves—were significantly and positively associated with residents’ physical health. Altogether, these results imply that urban planning and health interventions that provide park infrastructure and other investments (e.g., tree plantings) to establish natural areas in the neighborhoods could enhance subjective wellbeing and physical health, especially if residents appreciate them [65,66]. Moreover, since residents’ self-reported social capital within neighborhoods also substantively improved subjective wellbeing, infrastructure and other interventions that foster social interactions may enhance wellbeing. Since the nature interactions we studied were primarily not associated with anxiety or depression, further research on the links between different types of nature interactions and different aspects of mental health is needed. We expound on these and other insights from our findings below.

4.1. Local Nature Interactions and Satisfaction during the COVID Pandemic

Although previous research has linked nature interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic to positive effects on multiple dimensions of health [33,67], the COVID-19-based changes in nature interactions we analyzed were not significantly related to any dimensions of wellbeing. Additionally, the only marginally significant effect was negative for increased gardening during the pandemic and subjective wellbeing. These results may be due to the timing of the survey in the summer of 2021 when vaccines were available, and engagement in normal activities was resuming compared to the pandemic’s earlier stages. However, an alternative perspective is that neighborhood-based environmental and social factors were more critical than COVID-based recreation activities in enhancing individuals’ wellbeing. Conducting our research during the pandemic—when feelings of social isolation were heightened—may have amplified these relationships if residents sought more social engagement with neighbors during this time, for example, by chatting or interacting with neighbors during walks or daily activities, or writing chalk messages on driveways, sidewalks, and streets while social distancing at home [52].

As a whole, our findings underscore the importance of local social connections and neighborhood-based nature interactions to urban residents’ wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that the pandemic deeply impacted all aspects of life [68], including the time spent in and around people’s homes, additional research should further evaluate how recreational and place-based nature interactions, coupled with local social dynamics, influence dimensions of wellbeing across diverse temporal and socio-spatial contexts.

4.2. Neighborhood Design for Social Engagement and Justice

Our research reinforces the importance of promoting subjective wellbeing through design strategies that bolster local social capital, especially in light of other research that has found that socialization and interpersonal factors improved health during non-pandemic times [26,52,53,69]. Public investments to support social gatherings and related infrastructure, such as pagodas and group seating at parks, could, therefore, enhance wellbeing. Additional planning strategies to increase interpersonal relations include the following: adding features such as sidewalks and shade trees to improve walkability and the potential for interactions among neighbors; engaging residents in street beautification projects and community gardening; removing regulations that prohibit residents from using their driveways, sidewalks, and streets for creative expression; and integrating mixed-use zoning to provide opportunities for “third spaces” like community centers, coffee shops, or other places where residents can gather outside [70,71,72]. Since previous, well-intentioned investments in neighborhood infrastructure have led to the displacement or disregard of marginalized communities, which can worsen their wellbeing [73,74,75], place-based interventions should be designed in a way that does not disadvantage already marginalized residents or limit access to public spaces or activities for specific individuals more than others.

In our analysis, residents with lower income and education were especially prone to depression and anxiety, and residents with higher income levels had higher subjective wellbeing. Furthermore, residents who live relatively close to large desert preserves reported higher subjective wellbeing and better physical health, which supports expectations that proximity to nature is linked to higher wellbeing [76]. Since neighborhoods nearer to desert preserves tend to pay a premium to live close to nature, wealth is often tied to the residents who reap everyday interactions with nature and the associated positive impacts on their health [29]. In some cases, the greenspaces in neighborhoods may be reserved for local residents due to the lack of parking spaces or other points of access for outside visitors (e.g., [77]). Thus, a double burden exists wherein low-income community members may not be able to afford to live near or readily visit desert preserves. Remedying this injustice requires investing in local vegetation and park amenities in marginalized communities, along with transportation infrastructure that can allow residents to travel to and access parks and other natural areas [63,78].

4.3. Interventions Centered on Perceptions and Diverse Voices

Our survey participants’ subjective wellbeing and physical health were strongly linked to their perceptions of their local environments. This implies that effective public health and planning interventions will require knowledge of residents’ perceptions and interests, coupled with participatory, community-based approaches that center diverse and local voices in neighborhood plans [75,79,80]. Since people from marginalized communities tend to have worse mental and physical health, culturally sensitive intervention is needed for health solutions. For example, negative health factors could be prevented or managed through initiatives that increase access to culturally relevant and preferred amenities, including natural features or built infrastructure that foster outdoor activities [73,81,82]. In addition, since the recreational interests and social interactions of residents vary within and across urban neighborhoods [79], improvements to local parks might require multifaceted investments to meet different preferences (e.g., based on aesthetic appreciation of certain trees) and concerns (e.g., regarding safety) among park users.

Park investments could help improve health, but planners must go beyond park provisioning. Research has shown that while marginalized groups often have access to local parks, those parks are smaller and lack the infrastructure and attributes affecting their quality, use, and related aspects of human wellbeing [63,83]. Since public perceptions of local neighborhood environments were more influential to wellbeing than objective measures (such as greenness and proximity to parks) in our research, tailoring interventions to subjective views of residents in particular neighborhoods is crucial. Thus, as park investments seek to enhance park quality and local environmental quality, planners must attend to local residents’ needs and interests, especially among elderly communities and those of lower socioeconomic status [69,75]. Understanding residents’ preferences for different types of trees or other vegetation, along with infrastructure (e.g., trails, playgrounds, and shaded ramadas) and activities (e.g., grilling, exercising, dog walking) that are locally desired or necessary for recreation and enjoyment—would encourage community members to use and enjoy parks or preserves [75]. Avoiding interventions focused on single activities (e.g., hiking trails) should also be avoided since they might be exclusionary (e.g., if hiking is physically challenging or unattractive to some residents) [84,85]. Overall, to increase wellbeing among marginalized communities, inclusive interventions to foster wellbeing must implement culturally desirable recreational activities and nature interactions [86].

4.4. Nature Interactions and Mental Health

In our study, residents’ likelihood of anxiety or depression diagnoses was not associated with local nature interactions. Furthermore, people who lived in greener neighborhoods were more likely to report a mental health diagnosis. Although the latter finding was marginally significant, these findings are counter to previous studies’ expectations [35,87] but consistent with evidence of weak links between mental health and urban environments, including green infrastructure [88]. One possible explanation is that residents with prior diagnoses may be more likely to move into communities with higher greenness, possibly for their restorative benefits. Future research should more deeply investigate this hypothesis, and broadly, we recommend qualitative or quasi-experimental research to unravel the mechanisms underlying this finding [88].

Further, our study found that identifying as Latinx was associated with better mental health, which is a finding bolstered by other research [89]. This observation could be explained by the epidemiological paradox that characterizes the Latinx population and says that Latinx communities, even in the face of structural injustices, have better mental health than other sectors of the population [90,91,92]. However, our findings should be taken with caution, given that the stigmatization of mental health among the Latinx community may have led to biased reporting [93].

4.5. Limitations and Future Research

The findings from this research should be acted on with caution, given that they are correlational and not generalizable to broad populations. Further research on the relationships between assorted nature interactions and tripartite wellbeing in diverse places in the post-pandemic period is needed to understand the generalizability of our results. Another limitation of our study lies in our physical and mental health measures. By quantifying physical health as a count of only four specific diagnoses and by evaluating mental health as the reported diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression, our results may not capture the entirety of an individual’s physical or mental health. Robust measures should be used in future research to measure reported physical and mental health with more nuance and precision, for example, through survey scales such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) or the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-42) [94,95]. Despite these limitations, our tripartite approach to measuring distinct aspects of wellbeing demonstrated internal validity in identifying significant relationships with particular explanatory variables in this study.

Finally, we recommend the tripartite approach to examining how diverse nature interactions and other factors distinctly affect subjective wellbeing and physical and mental health outcomes. As employed in our study (Figure 1), conceptual and methodological approaches that enable comparisons of different types of outdoor recreational activities and place-based natural features in urban neighborhoods are worthwhile in refining knowledge about the relationships between distinct nature interactions and health outcomes. Since our analysis relied on readily available data for a larger project, we could not capture important distinctions in nature interactions. Future research should further distinguish between nature interactions in private and public settings (e.g., home versus community gardens) and those involving solo or group activities (e.g., gardening or hiking alone or with others) for both active and passive experiences (e.g., gardening or hiking versus ambient environmental exposure). The location and timing of activities also deserve attention since the frequency, duration, and contexts of nature interactions and their impacts can vary widely across contexts.

5. Conclusions

A unique contribution of this research lies in the multiple types of nature exposure we analyzed, coupled with a tripartite approach to human wellbeing, which highlighted that differing environmental, social, and personal factors distinctly influenced life satisfaction, physical health, and mental health. By extension, designing sustainable urban landscapes for increased wellbeing should incorporate considerations outlined herein to promote holistic resident wellbeing. In particular, planning for subjective wellbeing should focus on bolstering neighborhood-based social interactions and natural areas tailored to local residents’ needs and interests. At the same time, interventions for physical health should target park quality and accessibility based on residents’ preferences and perceptions. To ensure that residents equitably use and benefit from public parks, participatory processes in local neighborhoods should incorporate input from diverse residents who may have different concerns, recreational desires, and interpersonal interests.

To conclude, a core tenet of sustainability research and practice is the advancement of wellbeing across the globe, and this research demonstrated that wellbeing is tied to the communities in which we live. Urban planners aiming to increase wellbeing should use place-based information to successfully design happy and healthy neighborhoods while also ensuring that diverse people are involved in public investments in parks and environmental infrastructure. Planning for equitable health interventions for all urban residents requires attention to the accessibility and quality of desirable parks and natural areas to enhance human wellbeing. By implementing local and equitable wellbeing interventions, achieving widespread wellbeing is possible for a better future.