Green space and loneliness
The population health researcher Thomas Astell-Burt and Xiaoqi Feng measured loneliness against hours spent in nature, in a nationally representative sample of 3,043 Australians surveyed in October 2020, with 2,421 answering again after four months and 2,123 after sixteen. Among those lonely at the start, 22.4% were no longer lonely at four months and 29.4% at sixteen. For emotional loneliness the figures were 34.2 and 41.2%. 1 to 2 hours a week in nature, against less than 1, went with relief from social loneliness at both follow-ups, and 3 to 4 hours went with relief from emotional loneliness.
Astell-Burt and Feng also report a null: time in nature was not associated with the incidence of loneliness at all. The relief figures apply only to people who were already lonely in October 2020.
The landscape researcher Catharine Ward Thompson surveyed 406 adults in four of the most deprived communities in Scotland and measured the green space around each home objectively rather than by report. 75% of those with a garden or allotment fell into the low-stress group, against 52% of those without, at p below 0.01. The share of green space in the neighbourhood contributed 20% to the model, and the garden itself 5%. But only above 60% green coverage did the neighbourhood share shift people into the lower-stress group at all.
In three of the four communities, social isolation and place belonging predicted stress more strongly than any measure of green space did.
The geographer Yiyi Chen followed 11,718 Chinese adults aged 60 and over across three waves of a national panel between 2011 and 2015. A standard deviation more green cover across a city went with 0.052 units less loneliness in the unadjusted model, at a confidence interval of −0.073 to −0.031. After adjusting for demographics, health and city characteristics it held at between −0.023 and −0.020. Social activity accounted for about 2% of the path, and less where air pollution was higher. Yiyi Chen calls the result modest associative evidence.
The psychologist Tytti Pasanen tested the mechanism across 18 countries in 2017 and 2018, comparing 2,062 urban residents living alone with 6,218 living with a partner. Visiting green space went with better mental wellbeing, and the path ran through satisfaction with relationships and with the community rather than directly. It ran equally strongly for the people living alone.
Only Astell-Burt followed the same people over time with loneliness itself as the outcome. Chen’s is a panel with an exposure measured at city level, Ward Thompson’s a cross-section of 406 people, and Pasanen’s a cross-section of 8,280.

The sources
- 29.4%of 3,043 Australians who were lonely at baseline were no longer lonely 16 months later, and 22.4% at 4 months; for emotional loneliness, 41.2 and 34.2%. Time in nature was not associated with the incidence of loneliness.Thomas Astell-Burt et al., Environmental Research, 2024 · 10.1016/j.envres.2024.120016
- 75% vs 52%in the low-stress group with and without a garden or allotment, among 406 adults in four of the most deprived communities in Scotland (p < 0.01).Catharine Ward Thompson et al., IJERPH, 2016 · 10.3390/ijerph13040440
- −0.052less loneliness per standard deviation of city green cover, on a four-point scale running from rarely to most of the time, among 11,718 Chinese adults aged 60 and over (95% CI −0.073 to −0.031). It fell to between −0.023 and −0.020 once demographics, health and city characteristics were accounted for.Yiyi Chen et al., npj Urban Sustainability, 2026 · 10.1038/s42949-026-00343-y
- Across 18 countries, visits to green space went with better mental wellbeing through satisfaction with relationships and with the community rather than directly, and the path ran equally strongly for the 2,062 urban residents living alone as for the 6,218 living with a partner.Tytti Pasanen et al., Environmental Research, 2023 · 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116324
Findings compiled by The Built Review