Mathew White

Dr. Mathew White


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
5 July 2019 in Science Advances
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GBGreg Bratman
Greg Bratman
CAChristopher Anderson
Christopher Anderson
MBMarc G. Berman
Marc G. Berman
BCBobby Cochran
Bobby Cochran
Sjerp de VriesSjerp de Vries
Sjerp de Vries
GDGretchen C. Daily
Gretchen C. Daily
We provide consensus on the benefits of nature experience for mental health, and a model for integrating them into urban design.

13 June 2019 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MWMathew White
Mathew White
IAIan Alcock
Ian Alcock
JGJames Grellier
James Grellier
BWBenedict Wheeler
Benedict Wheeler
THTerry Hartig
Terry Hartig
LFLora E. Fleming
Lora E. Fleming
Spending time in natural environments can benefit health and well-being, but exposure-response relationships are under-researched. We examined associations between recreational nature contact in the last seven days and self-reported health and well-being. Participants (n = 19,806) were drawn from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (2014/15–2015/16); weighted to be nationally representative. Weekly contact was categorised using 60 min blocks. Analyses controlled for residential greenspace and other neighbourhood and individual factors. Compared to no nature contact last week, the likelihood of reporting good health or high well-being became significantly greater with contact ≥120 mins (e.g. 120–179 mins: ORs [95%CIs]: Health = 1.59 [1.31–1.92]; Well-being = 1.23 [1.08–1.40]). Positive associations peaked between 200–300 mins per week with no further gain. The pattern was consistent across key groups including older adults and those with long-term health issues. It did not matter how 120 mins of contact a week was achieved (e.g. one long vs. several shorter visits/week). Prospective longitudinal and intervention studies are a critical next step in developing possible weekly nature exposure guidelines comparable to those for physical activity.

23 April 2013 in Psychological Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MWMathew White
Mathew White
IAIan Alcock
Ian Alcock
BWBenedict Wheeler
Benedict Wheeler
MDMichael H. Depledge
Michael H. Depledge
Urbanization is a potential threat to mental health and well-being. Cross-sectional evidence suggests that living closer to urban green spaces, such as parks, is associated with lower mental distress. However, earlier research was unable to control for time-invariant heterogeneity (e.g., personality) and focused on indicators of poor psychological health. The current research advances the field by using panel data from over 10,000 individuals to explore the relation between urban green space and well-being (indexed by ratings of life satisfaction) and between urban green space and mental distress (indexed by General Health Questionnaire scores) for the same people over time. Controlling for individual and regional covariates, we found that, on average, individuals have both lower mental distress and higher well-being when living in urban areas with more green space. Although effects at the individual level were small, the potential cumulative benefit at the community level highlights the importance of policies to protect and promote urban green spaces for well-being.

1 December 2020 in Environmental Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MWMathew White
Mathew White
LELewis R. Elliott
Lewis R. Elliott
MGMireia Gascon
Mireia Gascon
BRBethany Roberts
Bethany Roberts
LFLora E. Fleming
Lora E. Fleming
Research into the potential health and well-being benefits from exposure to green spaces such as parks and woodlands has led to the development of several frameworks linking the different strands of evidence. The current paper builds on these to provide a model of how exposure to aquatic environments, or blue spaces such as rivers, lakes and the coast, in particular, may benefit health and well-being. Although green and blue spaces share many commonalities, there are also important differences. Given the breadth of the research, spanning multiple disciplines and research methodologies, a narrative review approach was adopted which aimed to highlight key issues and processes rather than provide a definitive balance of evidence summary. Novel aspects of our framework included the inclusion of outcomes that are only indirectly good for health through being good for the environment, the addition of nature connectedness as both a trait and state, and feedback loops where actions/interventions to increase exposure are implemented. Limitations of the review and areas for future work, including the need to integrate potential benefits with potential risks, are discussed.

30 April 2015 in International Journal of Health Geographics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BWBenedict Wheeler
Benedict Wheeler
RLRebecca Lovell
Rebecca Lovell
SHSahran L Higgins
Sahran L Higgins
MWMathew White
Mathew White
IAIan Alcock
Ian Alcock
MDMichael H Depledge
Michael H Depledge
Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments (‘greenspace’) enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that “greenspace” is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, “broadleaf woodland”, “arable and horticulture”, “improved grassland”, “saltwater” and “coastal”, after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of “saltwater”. Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. The findings indicate that the type, quality and context of ‘greenspace’ should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

1 September 2013 in Health & Place
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MWMathew White
Mathew White
IAIan Alcock
Ian Alcock
BWBenedict Wheeler
Benedict Wheeler
MDMichael H. Depledge
Michael H. Depledge