# Debate: Urban versus rural environments – which is better for mental health? Beyond the urban and rural dichotomy, a call to consider quality, typology and space in greenspace strategies for mental health

## TL;DR

This paper argues that both urban and rural greenspaces benefit mental health, but emphasizes the need to focus on quality and context rather than just location.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a nuanced perspective on greenspace strategies for mental health, moving beyond the urban–rural dichotomy.

## Key findings

- Access to greenspaces reduces stress and improves mental wellbeing in both urban and rural areas.
- The quality and typology of greenspaces are crucial for mental health outcomes.
- Urban planning should prioritize greenspace quality as fundamental public health infrastructure.

## Abstract

There is growing evidence about the positive impact of greenspaces on mental health and wellbeing. In their various forms, greenspaces such as parks, gardens, sports fields, and open spaces serve as crucial public amenities. This paper contributes to current debates on the mental health benefits of rural and urban environments by arguing for a nuanced and contextual understanding that goes beyond the urban–rural dichotomy, as access to these spaces has been shown to reduce stress and significantly improve mental wellbeing in both urban and rural settings. Through a critical examination of the literature, we focus on specific characteristics of greenspaces connected to mental health benefits. We then explore the ways in which specific urban environments and their qualities play crucial roles in mental health outcomes. The paper discusses the unique challenges and benefits of urban and rural greenspaces, emphasising the need for context‐specific strategies. We argue that urban planning and policy must prioritise the quality of greenspaces, particularly in urban environments, to recognise them as fundamental public health infrastructure and maximise their mental health benefits.