Effects of tree canopy on psychological distress: A repeated cross-sectional study before and during the COVID-19...

During the COVID-19 epidemic period, people showed a stronger connection to the environment within their communities. Although tree canopy in residential areas has been shown to positively affect psychological distress, it is not clear whether the COVID-19 epidemic played a role in this process. Elucidation of the relationship between tree canopy and the impact on psychological distress during the COVID-19 epidemic could provide valuable information as to the best methods to help individuals cope with urban mental stress events.

A total of 15 randomly selected residential areas of Beijing were enrolled in this repeated cross-sectional study. A total of 900 residents were included in the two-waves of the investigation (450 residents per wave) before and during the COVID-19 epidemic (i.e., May 2019 and May 2020). Psychological distress was estimated using the 12-question General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Tree canopy coverage (TCC) was measured through visual interpretation based on the 2013 data sources (World View 2 satellite imagery of Beijing urban areas with a resolution of 0.5 m). The demographic characteristics, distance to the nearest surrounding green or blue space, residential area house price, household density, and construction year were also collected in this study. A multivariate logistic regression, relative risk due to interaction (RERI), and synergy index (SI) were used to explore the relationships among tree canopy, COVID-19, and psychological distress.

The negative impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on mental health was significant, with the prevalence of psychological distress increased 7.84 times (aOR = 7.84, 95% CI = 4.67-13.95) during the COVID-19 epidemic period. Tree canopy coverage in the group without psychological distress was significantly higher than that of the psychologically distressed group (31.07 ± 11.38% vs. 27.87 ± 12.97%, P = 0.005). An increase in 1% of TCC, was related to a 5% decrease in the prevalence of psychological distress (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93-0.98). An antagonism joint action between tree canopy and the COVID-19 epidemic existed (RERI = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.72-1.47; SI = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.05-0.52), and persisted enhancing only in medium (26.45%-33.21%) and above TCC level. Correlation of GHQ items and TCC significantly differed between the COVID-19 non-epidemic and epidemic periods, with the effects of tree canopy on GHQ-12 items covering topics, such as social function and depression, presumably absent because of epidemic limitations.

This study indicates that the COVID-19 epidemic harmed mental health and verified the positive effects of residential tree canopy on psychological distress in Beijing. We suggest paying more attention to residents in areas of low TCC and dealing with psychological distress caused by public health stress events based on tree canopy strategies.