How do urban green spaces impact mental well-being, and does gender play a role? This episode explores a systematic review investigating how gender and sex are addressed in the literature concerning urban greenness and its mental health benefits. We examine whether urban green spaces disproportionately impact the mental well-being of women and females compared to men and males.

Provides crucial insights for designing the Feminist Park to maximize mental health benefits, with a specific focus on ensuring these benefits are equitably distributed and particularly impactful for women and females.

Source for Podcast Episode:

• Book/Paper: "Gender and sex in urban greenness and mental health: A systematic review"

• Author: Marta-Beatriz Fernández Núñez, Lia Campos Suzman, Roser Maneja, Albert Bach, Oriol Marquet, Isabelle Anguelovski, Pablo Knobel

Intro/Outro Music: big-band-tv-show-logo-164230 Music by Anastasia Chubarova from Pixabay

0:12

Welcome to the Feminist Park podcast.

I'm Kwame.

And I'm Leilani.

It's great to be kicking off this journey with you all today.

Yeah.

We're diving into work that's really closely tied to the vision behind the Feminist Park project, which was founded by Hussain Stuck.

That project's goal is pretty ambitious, isn't it?

0:28

Imagining these truly equitable public spaces, starting with the idea for an intersectional feminist park right here in Berlin.

Exactly.

And this podcast, well, it's kind of an extension of that.

We're going to be digging into the academic research that, you know, supports and informs that kind of vision.

0:46

We'll be taking these dense, sometimes quite academic papers and really pulling out the core and insights.

And looking at them through specific lenses.

Things like environmental justice, intersectionality, anti colonial thought, queer theory.

All the stuff that helps us think critically about space.

1:03

So for our first deep dive, we're actually starting with some background research that Hussein came across early on.

And it highlighted something, well, frankly, quite jarring that the benefits we think we all get from urban green spaces, you know, parks and squares and thing like physical and mental well-being, they're often deeply gendered.

1:20

Meaning women and also gender diverse people.

They just don't get the same access or experience those benefits in the same way men do, right?

Less equitable access, fewer benefits.

It seems almost counterintuitive, doesn't it?

A park is just a park open to everyone.

1:37

And today we are plunging into something that seems, well, pretty straightforward at first.

Oh, what's that?

The link between urban green spaces, parks, trees, that kind of thing, and our mental health.

OK.

Yeah, the general idea is pretty solid, right?

Green spaces in cities, it's good for our minds.

1:54

Definitely.

That's the baseline, but the source material we're diving into today adds this really crucial layer, the.

Complication.

You could say that it asks how this benefit might actually play out differently depending on a person's gender and sex.

OK.

2:10

So not necessarily equal benefits for everyone.

Precisely, it challenges that Simple Green is good for all notion.

Our main guide today is a systematic review.

Right from a journal.

Yeah, published in Health in Place back in 2022.

It's titled Gender and Sex Differences in Urban Greenness's Mental Health benefits by Marta Beatrice Fernandez Nunez and colleagues.

2:32

And this is key because.

It pulls together existing research.

It synthesizes what we know or think we know to see if those widely accepted mental health benefits are actually reaching everyone equally, specifically comparing women and men.

2:48

And what made them even ask that question?

Was there some hint that things weren't equal?

There was the papers background mentioned, some pretty pointed findings from earlier studies, research suggesting the benefits, both physical and mental, might be well gendered.

Gendered meaning influenced by gender roles or experiences.

3:05

Exactly.

Meaning women might have different levels of access or interact with these spaces differently than men based on, you know, social factors and their lived experiences.

OK, that makes sense.

And the authors quote this one really striking observation that kind of sums up the problem.

It's from earlier research they cite.

3:21

What does it say?

It says basically.

While men are well catered for in these spaces, for example in terms of safety and accessibility, women are often left out in their own needs and preferences.

Left out.

Yeah, and it goes on.

Some parks, because of their amenities, features and design, are seemingly more oriented to men's needs and preferences.

3:42

That's being more used by men than women.

OK, let's pause on that.

That's that's huge.

It's not just about if there's a park nearby.

No, not at all.

It's about who the park is actually for, who it's designed to make feel comfortable, safe, welcome.

Right.

3:57

And how those design choices may be implicit ones even affect who actually gets to use the space and ultimately benefit from it mentally.

That totally reframes the issue.

It's not just about proximity, it's about usability and belonging which are tied to gender.

4:13

Deeply tied.

So that's our mission for this deep dive.

Unpack what the systematic review found.

How did the studies they looked at tackle this?

What did they find about differences in mental health benefits?

And crucially, you mentioned gender and sex.

How did the studies handle those concepts or maybe mishandle them?

4:33

That's a big part of it, yes.

We'll get into how researchers measured greenness and mental health.

We'll look at the mixed results on who benefits more.

And things like safety, social dynamics, those must play a huge role.

Absolutely critical roles, and we'll cover the review's call for, frankly, better research, more nuanced, more inclusive approaches.

4:52

Because it sounds like the relationship is way more complex than just barks are good.

Far more intricate, and understanding that complexity is well, it's essential if we want to create cities that are truly equitable and healthy for everyone.

OK, let's get into it.

Where does the review start?

It starts with the common ground, the established knowledge.

5:11

Urban green spaces are generally good for mental health.

That's the baseline understanding.

Right, that's not controversial.

Years of research support that.

Exactly.

Fernandez Nunez and her team ground their work right there.

They point to studies showing access to parks, trees, urban forests leads to good things like better social connections in communities.

5:31

And less stress, right?

Fewer stress related issue.

Precisely this existing knowledge is why cities are even bothering with greenness as a public health strategy in the first place.

And it's super relevant now, isn't it, with mental health issues seemingly on the rise globally?

Sadly, yes, and that rise is often linked at least partly to urbanization.

5:51

More people in cities, maybe less connection to nature.

So green spaces are seen as a kind of antidote, a way to bring some nature back into dense urban life.

That's the idea, a critical counterbalance, and it's fueled this whole movement towards green cities.

6:06

We hear that term a lot, cities investing in parks, green roofs, planting trees.

All based on this idea, making greenness more available, more accessible, is key for mental well-being, especially as cities grow.

OK, standard stuff, but then comes the pivot.

Then comes the pivot, the big question lurking underneath Are those benefits really shared equally by everyone living in the city?

6:28

And that's the gap the paper jumps into.

Exactly, the Fernandez Nunez review says look, despite knowing green space is good, very few studies have specifically carefully looked at whether these mental health boosts affect women and men in the same way.

6:44

Why is asking that specific question so important?

Well, a couple of reasons.

First, think about mental health conditions themselves.

There are known disparities.

The paper sites research showing women are about twice as likely to experience depression as men.

So if green spaces can help with mental health, maybe especially depression, we need to know if those benefits are actually reaching women effectively.

7:07

It's a public HealthEquity issue.

Makes sense.

It's about targeting help where it might be most needed.

And it's not just about prevalence.

The paper also points to research suggesting women and men might just interact with green spaces differently to begin with.

How so?

Well, there's evidence women tend to be more selective about which green spaces they use.

7:25

More selective like pickier.

Maybe discerning is a better word.

Studies cited in the review found women often report visiting parks less often than men and staying for shorter times when they do go, which means which can mean less time spent doing things like exercising or socializing in those parks compared to men.

7:45

And those studies often point to why there's that difference in use, right?

It connects back to that quote.

It absolutely does.

Safety concerns come up again and again.

Ah yes, safety.

One study they cite explicitly links women reporting more experiences of violence in public spaces as a reason they might hesitate to use parks freely.

8:03

So the mere existence of a park isn't enough.

Feeling safe there is key, and that feeling isn't the same for everyone.

Not at all.

Research shows crime rates, sure, but even just the feeling, the perception of safety strongly shapes park use.

8:19

And that feeling, that perception, is often more of a barrier for women and girls.

More for women and girls than men and boys.

Significantly so, according to some studies.

One paper mentioned found girls seemed more affected by crime perceptions than boys when deciding whether to use a park.

8:36

Safety becomes this real barrier preventing them from getting the health benefits.

Wow.

So the potential mental health boost from green space could differ not because of biology, but because of how people, especially women and girls, experience these spaces based on gender safety fears, social norms.

8:57

Precisely.

And that leads us straight into a really critical point the review makes right at the start.

Something they found was, well, often botched.

In the studies, they looked at the difference between sex and gender.

The terminology trap.

Exactly.

The review offers a major critique here.

9:13

They found researchers often just used sex and gender like they meant the same thing.

No clear definitions, inconsistent use.

Sometimes maybe even confusing the 2.

Seems like it, and the review argues this isn't just pedantic, it's a fundamental problem.

Because they represent different things, mixing them up screws up the interpretation.

9:29

OK, so let's clarify.

How does the review define them?

Sex.

It's sex.

In this context, is the biological dimension based on reproductive function usually categorized as female or male?

And gender.

Gender is the social dimension.

It's about how societies define roles, expectations, power structures for people seen as women and men.

9:50

It includes self perception, identity, expression.

It's socially constructed.

Biological versus social.

Got it.

Why is blurring that line so bad in this research?

Because, as the paper points out, citing others like Bolte and Sullivan, many differences we see between women and men aren't just biological.

10:06

They're often rooted in social structures, norms, power dynamics, gender roles.

Right, like feeling unsafe in a park.

Exactly.

If a study finds women use parks less due to safety fears and calls out a sex difference, it wrongly blames biology for something social like gendered vulnerability to violence.

10:23

It hides the real cause.

And leads to bad conclusions, maybe bad policy.

Totally.

You can't fix a social problem by thinking it's biological.

Researchers need to be super clear.

Are they looking at biology, sex or social factors?

Gender.

It affects everything from how they design the study to how they explain the results.

10:40

Everything the review authors say, they'll try to be clear which dimension the original studies seem to be pointing at, even if the studies themselves were messy.

And it's important to remember, the studies this review looked at only dealt with binary categories, right?

Absolutely, that's a limitation of the pool they drew from.

10:57

All 16 studies only looked at female male or women men.

No non binary inclusion.

Which the review flags as an issue itself.

Definitely the authors decided on their own clear terminology for the review, using women men when studies seem gender focused social roles experiences and female male when they seemed sex focused biological traits plus terms for kids.

11:20

But it highlights how inconsistent the original research was.

OK.

That's crucial context.

The sex gender confusion is a major backdrop here.

Now, how did the review team actually find these 16 studies?

What was their process?

They used a standard rigorous approach, the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews.

11:37

Meaning structured, transparent, repeatable, trying to minimize bias.

Exactly, they searched 3 big databases.

Snopus.

Web of Science.

Pub Med Good coverage across relevant fields.

Environmental, Social Medical Sciences.

11:53

And use specific keywords.

Yep.

Three main groups, one for greenness terms, parks, green space, vegetation, one for terms indicating sex, gender, health differences, difference disparity, inequality, and one for mental health outcomes, mental health, depression, stress.

12:11

So they were looking for studies connecting greenness, mental health and analyzing sex gender differences.

That was the trifecta to get in a study.

Had to be original, peer reviewed in English, linked greenness to mental health somehow, and must have analyzed for sex or gender differences.

12:28

No studies using like virtual reality green spaces.

And this sort through all the results.

They used a tool called Ryan to help manage the screening. 2 authors independently checked titles and abstracts first, then they read the full text of promising ones against the detailed criteria.

And they did that snowball thing, too.

12:44

Yeah, that's important.

After finding the first batch of studies, they checked the reference lists of those studies to catch any relevant papers missed by the database search.

Smart.

So they started with a lot of papers. 336 initially after removing duplicates screen and cut that down, they fully reviewed 26 potentials.

13:01

It ended up with. 9 relevant ones from the database search, plus another seven found via snowballing.

Bringing the grand total to 16 studies fully analyzed in the review. 16 studies meeting all their specific criteria.

OK, we have our 16 studies.

What were they like?

What kind of research?

13:17

Where, where, Who did they study?

Well, mostly cross-sectional.

About 69% took a snapshot in time showing associations but harder to prove cause and effect.

And the rest.

Around 31% were longitudinal, following people over time.

Better for suggesting impact, you know.

13:34

Right, stronger design.

When were they published?

Between 2005 and 2020, so a decent spread over 15 years.

And sample sizes, you said they varied.

Hugely smallest had just 13 people, probably qualitative deep interviews.

Lodges had almost a million, likely using big health databases.

13:52

Wow, that's a massive range.

Yeah.

Shows different scales of research being combined.

What about ages?

Covered the lifespan from kids aged 8 up to 87 year olds, but most studies, nine of the 16, focused only on adults.

Geographically, where did the research happen?

14:07

Heavily concentrated 9 studies from Europe, mostly Western Europe, 6 from Asia and just one from the Caribbean, Jamaica.

Hold on.

Europe and Asia mainly.

No.

North America, South America, Africa.

Oceania.

That seems limited.

14:22

It definitely is.

The review authors flag this.

A big reason is they only included English language papers, which is common but has downsides.

Especially when talking about gender, which is so culturally specific.

Exactly.

Gender roles, social norms, They vary hugely.

Research, mostly from Europe and Asia, won't capture the global picture of how gender shapes green space experiences.

14:42

The findings might be biased towards those contexts.

Good point.

OK, How did they measure mental health?

Was it consistent?

Not really standardized.

About half use qualitative methods or questionnaires, self-reports, feelings, validated surveys, interviews, observations, and the other half more quantitative or objective measures, clinical psych tests, or data from National Health registers tracking diagnosis or healthcare use.

15:07

So a mix of subjective experience and objective data?

What about measuring the greenness itself?

Lots of ways to do that too, I imagine.

For sure it was also mixed.

The review gripped it into amount quality or self reported interaction.

Interestingly, most studies, 9 out of 16, used subjective measures of greenness.

15:25

Subjective based on people's opinion.

Yeah, or experiences.

Seven of those focused on quality or sensory experience, like researchers reading, park maintenance, analyzing sounds or asking people about perceived quality, how they use the space, their feelings there.

And the other subjective ones.

15:40

To relied on people's self reporting, visit frequency or time spent, or their personal rating of greenness near home.

So more focus on the experience of greenness than just the amount.

Seems so.

The other seven studies used objective measures, things like NDVI from satellite images that quantifies vegetation density.

15:59

Right around someone's house, usually.

Yeah, within a certain buffer zone or calculating distance to parks using different buffers like 800 meters 1K3K or using detailed land cover maps to calculate the percentage of green area.

16:14

Interesting that subjective was more common, maybe better for capturing those experiential nuances where gender differences might really pop up.

That's a really sharp observation, and it leads right into one of the reviews main findings about how these studies actually handled sex and gender.

OK, finding #1 and you hinted it wasn't great.

16:32

No, it was a major critique.

The review found most of the 16 studies just didn't critically reflect on potential gender bias and how they measured mental health or approach sex gender differences at all.

They didn't think about whether their tools might work differently for men and women.

Largely no, and most didn't clearly define sex or gender, often using them interchangeably and consistently.

16:52

Just sloppy.

So that a fundamental distinction we talked about just wasn't carefully handled.

Generally not.

There was 1 exception mentioned.

Oh, who is that?

A study by Curry and colleagues from 2016.

They actually did acknowledge the complexity, using gender deliberately to cover both biological and social aspects linked to social constraints and experience.

17:15

They got that the differences weren't purely biological.

But just one out of 16.

Just one showed that level of critical thought on terminology.

And then there's the binary issue.

Right.

Usually they all stuck to the binary.

Every single one.

Female, male, women, men.

No consideration for anyone identifying outside that.

17:32

And the terminology errors using sex terms for gender findings.

Super common studies would say they analyze gender differences implying social roles, but then report results using females and males, the biological terms.

Which is confusing if the difference was clearly social, like safety fears.

17:49

Exactly.

It misattributes social factors to biology and the review points out relying only on binary options in surveys or observations.

That risks misgendering people or just excluding non binary folks entirely.

It affects accuracy, not just inclusivity.

18:05

The.

Paper calls for a change.

Right, pretty directly, they say.

Future studies need to move beyond the traditional self identification in which only two options exist for gender.

And they suggest looking elsewhere for better approaches.

Absolutely.

They recommend Environmental Health learned from fields like feminist political ecology or feminist urbanism.

18:24

Why those fields?

Because they have more developed theories and methods for looking at how power, norms and gender roles shape experiences and environments, they get that gender is about social relations, not just identity.

They also mentioned combining sex and gender.

Yeah, they brought up concepts like sex, gender or embodiment of gender, citing work by others.

18:43

The idea is that biological and social stuff are often tangled up.

So maybe looking at them together offers a richer picture.

Potentially, yeah.

A more comprehensive way to see how people experience greenness.

It acknowledges you can't always neatly separate biology and social experience.

They interact.

18:59

OK, that makes a lot of sense.

So flawed handling of sex Gender is a major theme.

Let's move to the second big finding.

What did these studies find about mental health outcomes and differences?

Right, So across the 16 studies, what was the main take away about who benefits more?

19:15

Yeah, what's the headline?

The headline is every single study found at least one difference between women and men, and how urban greenness linked to mental health differences are consistently there.

OK.

Differences are the norm, but who benefits more?

That's where it gets mixed.

19:31

No single simple answer. 7 studies found women or females had more beneficial outcomes linked to greenness.

OK.

Almost half leaning towards female benefit.

But then three studies reported more benefit for men or males.

And importantly, the review notes, these studies often tied the male benefit to things like safety issues or cultural norms that only affected women.

19:53

So men might look like they benefit more only because women are being held back by gendered barriers.

Exactly, that's the crucial interpretation.

You have to look why the remaining 4 studies no clear winner results depended on other things like the specific mental illness or how greenness was measured.

20:11

Very context dependent.

OK, let's break it down by condition.

What about depression?

6 studies looked at that.

Yep.

Overall, finding greenness helps with depression and matching the general trend.

The positive effects seem stronger or more consistent for women or females in several studies.

20:28

Which studies found that?

Kusari ET all, Mullings ET all, Sarkar ET all, all reported that pattern.

Did the type of green space matter for depression?

The quality.

Absolutely, several studies stress quality matters, not just quantity.

Kusari, for instance, found greener built environments helped older women with depression, but not older men in similar areas.

20:46

Interesting Sarkar found something similar.

Yeah, they found residential green space linked to better psychological states, potentially mitigating depression, and this benefit seemed uniquely stronger for females.

So maybe the designer feel of the space is more therapeutic for women with depression.

21:02

That's one way to read it.

Raggy at all.

Also noted poorly designed areas lacking good green space negatively impacted neighborhood interaction, which can affect depression.

What about just living nearby versus actually using the space that came up before?

Yes, the study by BOSS said.

21:18

All really focused on this.

Their work suggested mental health benefits, including for depression, were more strongly linked to actually using green spaces, not just living near them.

Use is key.

Did they see age or gender patterns in use?

They did.

Boss found the biggest benefits from park use were in women aged 18, 24 and women over 65.

21:37

But here's a twist for men aged 4554.

In their study, more green space was actually linked to more psychopathology, including depression.

Wait, more green space linked to worse mental health for those men?

The authors wondered if maybe men in that age group, perhaps due to work or family demands, didn't have the opportunity to actually use the green space available O it highlights this complex interlay.

22:00

Availability isn't enough if you can't access or use it, and life circumstances shaping that ability can be gendered.

Wow, that really complicates the Just Add Park's idea.

Opportunity matters hugely.

Totally and Enchmann and all SAWS longitudinal study added that long term view, green space and early childhood seemed protective against later psychiatric issues, including depression, suggesting early life exposure matters may be differently by gender over time.

22:28

OK, let's switch to stress. 5 studies looked at that similar patterns.

Somewhat mixed again, but many pointed towards women.

Females benefiting more from greenness for stress reduction.

Were there physiological measures?

Yes, Row ET all used cortisol, the stress hormone.

They found a lower green space near women's homes was linked to higher cortisol levels, a direct physical stress response.

22:49

So less green translated to more measurable stress specifically for women in that study, that's what.

They found Engemann's study also linked childhood green space density to better outcomes for stress related disorders, especially in girls, and Anerstadt and Boss both found green space qualities reduce stress risk more significantly for women females.

23:11

And wasn't there that fascinating study about sounds and parks?

Ah yes, Shu and Ma's study on kids stress recovery really interesting.

They found parks soundscapes are restorative but differently for boys and girls.

How so?

For boys, ambient noise in the park was actually more restorative than silence, but for girls, ambient noise was rated less pleasant, less restorative.

23:34

They needed silence or specific sounds like fountains for stress recovery.

That's incredibly specific design implications galore, right?

Not just visual, but auditory design needs to consider gender.

Absolutely.

Their conclusion was clear.

If you want parks to be truly restorative for all kids, you need to design the soundscape differently, considering these gender preferences.

23:52

OK, beyond depression and stress, what else did the review cover?

It included studies on more severe outcomes like suicide and various childhood disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, OCD, borderline personality.

What about suicide?

Hellbitch at All Hell's study found long term green space exposure was linked to lower suicide risk later on.

24:14

And the gender part, in areas with low urbanicity, so less built up places only women, females showed a significantly larger drop in suicide risk with more greenness.

So in those settings, greenness seemed particularly protective against suicide for women.

24:30

That's the suggestion, maybe offering a specific kind of resilience for women in those environments.

And the childhood disorders studied by Anjman?

Did green space links differ by gender there?

Too they did.

Engeman found the link between childhood green space and later schizophrenia or mood disorders seem stronger in boys, but for girls the link was stronger for later OCD, or borderline personality disorder.

24:51

So even the type of disorder potentially influenced by early green space differed by gender.

Exactly.

It just keeps reinforcing how complex this relationship is.

It varies by outcome, by age, and definitely by gender.

OK finding #3 social health and behavior. 6 studies looked at safety, social contact, community stuff.

25:11

And again, differences between women females and men males were common found in all but one of these studies.

A huge factor here.

Safety as a mediator.

How did safety mediate the social side?

Studies like Barini and Bell and Curry at all showed that feeling safe, feeling like you belong is fundamental.

25:31

It's the prerequisite for using the space and getting those social and mental benefits.

No safety, no use, no benefit.

Makes sense pretty much.

Barini and Bell found parks with bad reps linked to crime maybe deter use, especially for women.

Kern found perceived safety heavily influenced use frequency and it weighed more on women's decisions.

25:51

And the physical environment plays into that feeling of safety.

Big time.

Barini and Bell pointed to quality of maintenance, appearance, aesthetics.

These signal whether a space feels cared for, welcoming, safe.

And they noted, these visual cues were particularly significant for women's sense of safety and willingness to use the space.

26:08

That loops right back to that intro quote about parks being designed more for men's needs.

Directly.

Barini and Bell basically said it men are catered for.

Women's needs like safety signaling through maintenance are often left out, so men use the spaces more.

It's about design reflecting priorities.

26:25

And yet, despite Stacy being so obviously key, especially for women.

The review found it wasn't even considered in more than half of the 16 studies they analyzed a massive blind spot.

Wow.

What about other social aspects like belonging?

Curry ET all explored that too.

26:42

People felt connected to green spaces, sometimes linked to local identity, which boosted well-being.

Interestingly, men in their study specifically said they felt more comfortable and less restricted in green spaces compared to indoors or work like a place of ease for them.

Suggesting maybe different primary needs or draws.

26:58

Men seeking freedom, women seeking safety or community perhaps?

Potentially different drivers.

Yeah.

And social behavior itself was linked to greenness. 4 studies found more greenness, more social contact, better community cohesion.

Parks is social hubs.

Exactly.

27:13

Whitley ET All highlighted how green public spaces foster social support networks by encouraging neighborly interactions, which protects mental health.

Were there gender differences in that social behavior too?

Oh yes, the study by Tuta Kane in Iran was a stark example.

27:29

It showed how gender shaped by sociocultural norms like rules against unrelated men and women mixing tied to mandatory hijab directly impacts park behavior and interactions, with serious psychological implications noted for both men and women.

That really drives home how cultural context and power structures create specific gendered barriers in public space.

27:50

Powerfully, and these differences start young, Bachsberger and Reimer has found girls use use greenness less than boys.

And that study in Iran by Dadvent.

Also found stronger links between green space and social health, like social contacts for young males versus young females.

28:06

The likely reason?

More freedom for boys to be out independently, girls more reliant on family, parents more worried about their safety.

Tying into that fear of violence against daughters mentioned earlier.

Absolutely.

Parents in one study were more likely to let boys play outside alone than girls.

Being more protective due to safety feels less unsupervised.

28:25

Green time for girls means fewer chances for spontaneous social benefits.

Though maybe things are changing in some places.

The review did mention one study from Shanghai suggesting women were increasingly more likely to visit parks than men over time.

So these dynamics aren't necessarily fixed.

28:41

They can evolve with society.

OK, this has been incredibly rich.

Consistent gender differences mediated by safety, usability, social norms.

Let's get into the reviews discussion section.

How did Fernandez, Nunez and team synthesize all this?

Right.

The discussion pulls it all together.

28:57

They hammer home that core message.

The analysis of sex, gender in these studies was often inadequate, confused.

This obscures understanding.

And the main finding summary.

They recap.

Women might get stronger benefits for some conditions like depression, but they often use parks less.

29:13

Why?

Barriers like safety fears, restrictive norms and designs that don't cater to their needs result unequal distribution of benefits.

And they revisit the binary problem again.

Yes, central to their call for better research, they strongly argue for gender inclusive approaches moving beyond the binary, again pointing to feminist ecology and urbanism for models stressing gender as a spectrum for accuracy and inclusion.

29:38

And a really key concept they push the discussion is.

Intersectionality.

This is maybe the most critical insight from their analysis.

Explain that connection here.

They argue gender differences don't happen in isolation.

They intersect with class, race, socioeconomic status, culture.

And these intersections worsen the inequality in who benefits from green space.

29:58

It's not just about gender alone.

Can you give an example from the studies reviewed?

The Jamaica study by Mullings ET all is powerful.

In informal settlements, men had more green space access, but critically, male social networks offered protection, mobility, recognition, things that buffered the mental health.

30:16

Women focused on survival and unsafe conditions were more vulnerable to depression.

So it wasn't just being a woman, but being a woman in that specific context where gender intersected with poverty and lack of social power.

Exactly.

Gender plus class plus status.

Another example, the Iran studies specific sociocultural and religious norms.

30:36

Shia Islam, hijab rules, gender mixing norms, restricted women's free use of green spaces far more than men's, making it harder for them to get the benefits.

Gender inequality rooted in specific societal power structures impacting park access.

Precisely.

It underlines their point.

30:52

Unequal benefits aren't just about physical distance.

It's about whose needs and experiences shaped by these intersecting structures the spaces are designed for, and how that perpetuates inequality.

Time back to proximity versus actual use.

Yep, they reiterate, Baudiel's finding use is key.

31:09

If women use parks less, as other research suggests they historically have, they logically get fewer benefits.

And safety fears are a prime reason for lower use by women, yet often ignored.

It's a constant refrain.

Safety perceptions shaped by gender relations are a huge barrier.

31:25

Both physical cues, lighting upkeep and social cues influence this differently based on gender.

OK, given all this complexity and the research flaws, what specific recommendations did the authors made for future research?

A clear road map 1st go beyond just reporting differences future studies need to dig into why they exist the societal, cultural, environmental mechanisms understand the.

31:48

Causes, not just the symptoms.

Exactly.

Second, use an intersectional lens.

Explicitly look at how gender interacts with race, class, religion, sexuality, disability.

Get the full picture of who's left out.

Third, use sex and gender terms correctly and consciously.

32:06

Be precise.

And 4th the binary again.

Yes.

Consider gender as a spectrum.

Use inclusive methods that capture non binary experiences accurately.

Move beyond the binary.

So more rigor, more nuance, more inclusivity, more intersectionality.

That's the call to action for the research field.

32:23

And the review reflected on its own strengths and limitations, too.

They did.

Limitations included potentially missing studies due to keyword variations and the big one, excluding non-english papers.

Which skewed the geography.

Heavily missing perspectives from many cultures where gender plays out differently, they also noted the binary focus of the studies they reviewed was itself a limitation they had to work within.

32:44

What strengths do they claim?

Their focus criteria addressed a specific gap, the sex gender dimension.

Using PRISMA ensured rigor and transparency.

Having two reviewers improved quality and focusing on common mental health issues with known disparities, depression, stress, social health makes the findings relevant for policy aiming at HealthEquity.

33:05

So, acknowledging limitations, they felt their systematic approach added valuable insight.

That was their position, yes, OK.

We've really dug deep into this systematic review methodology study details, the mixed findings, the crucial problems with sex, gender, terminology and the binary, the huge role of safety and social norms, intersectionality, and the call for better research.

33:27

And the core message is crystal clear, isn't it?

Urban green spaces great potential for mental health, but the benefits definitely not share equally between women and men.

And it's not biological destiny, it's social factors, safety, design, power structures.

Deeply linked to all of that, which leads directly to the papers conclusions about policy and planning.

33:47

They call for change there too.

A strong call for gendered equity and justice in green space design.

They argue planners must actively involve female residents, including kids, in the design process.

Actually ask the people who are underserved what they need.

Radical idea.

34:04

Seems fundamental, right?

Spaces need features addressing their specific needs, preferences, safety concerns, moving beyond one-size-fits-all.

So intentional inclusive design.

Exactly.

Inclusive programming and planning so everyone, all sexes, all genders feel safe, welcome, represented.

34:22

Addressing physical cues like lighting maintenance.

Addressing social cues in design.

Thinking about practical needs like paths for strollers, playgrounds near benches for caregivers.

Because if those needs aren't met, people can't use the space and no one benefits.

Precisely, and, the paper warns, ignore this gendered intersectional reality and cities risk excluding huge parts of their population, especially women and girls, failing their health needs, undermining the whole green, healthy city vision.

34:50

It really reframes Green City not just as environmental but as social and HealthEquity.

Fundamentally, ensuring nature's benefits are accessible to all by tackling how different people actually experience urban space.

Wow, this deep dive really shows the complexity behind Parks are good for you.

35:07

Understanding why benefits differ means looking way beyond sex or gender categories alone.

It forces us to see the interplay of social roles, gendered safety fears, and the actual physical design choices that include or exclude people.

The call for non binary thinking correct terms in research and inclusive design and practice feels urgent.

35:27

It's a powerful argument for more thoughtful, conscious, and ultimately more just approaches all around.

Which leaves us with a final thought for you, the listener.

As you go about your day in your own city or neighborhood, look at the green spaces you encounter.

Really.

Look who's using them when, Who seems comfortable, who isn't there.

35:45

And think about why.

How might the design itself, the layout, the lighting, the amenities, the upkeeper, the social vibe of the area be shaping those patterns?

How might it make some people feel safer or more welcome than others?

Consider how the physical space connects with those deeper social dynamics, with gender, with other identities, to determine who really gets to enjoy and benefit from the green in our cities.

36:07

This knowledge is a tool really, a tool for seeing your city differently and potentially for helping to change it.

It's been a really insightful deep dive.

I think this document provides such a vital framework, especially for projects like the Feminist Park Project that are trying to build something fundamentally different.

36:24

It shows just how interlinked urban design and social justice are.

It really does, but it also shows the scale of the challenge right?

It requires sustained effort, real commitment and a genuine willingness to shift power dynamics in how cities get made and managed.

Definitely see.

36:40

Think about how we ensure those voices, the ones that have been excluded, are actually heard and centered.

There's another quote from Sarah Ahmed in the Handbook that feels relevant here.

Go on, she says.

If you have to shout to be heard, you are heard as shouting.

36:58

That's powerful.

It makes you ponder, doesn't it?

How can the design of public space itself work differently?

How can it amplify the voices of those who've been historically silenced, ensuring their needs are met without them having to shout just to be noticed?

How can design itself listen?

37:13

That's a really provocative thought to end on.

A lot to think about.

Indeed, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.