Greenery as a Cross-Gender Buffer of Parental Stress in Arab Families: A Multidimensional Ecological, Psychophysiological Analysis

Article Sidebar

PDF

Section

Research Articles

Issue

Volume 1 Issue 1 (2025): In Progress

How to Cite

Saadi, D. (2025). Greenery as a Cross-Gender Buffer of Parental Stress in Arab Families: A Multidimensional Ecological, Psychophysiological Analysis. Urban-Regional Ecology, 1(1), 50-62. https://journals.explorerpress.com/index.php/ure/article/view/67

Main Article Content

Authors

Diana Saadi
Porter School of the Environmental and Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Abstract

Background:Parental stress results from interacting psychological, physiological, emotional, environmental, and sociocultural factors. Although exposure to natural environments is increasingly recognized as a stress-buffering mechanism, little is known about whether these effects differ between mothers and fathers, particularly within minority populations such as Arab families in Israel.Methods:This study examined gender-specific predictors of parental stress among 250 Arab parents (125 mothers, 125 fathers) in northern Israel. A multidimensional ecological–psychophysiological model integrated psychological (Parental Stress Scale; PSS), physiological (heart rate variability; HRV), emotional (Negative Affect; PANAS-NA), and environmental (NDVI) indicators. Residential greenness was measured using Landsat-derived NDVI within a 500 m buffer around each home. Regression models were estimated separately for mothers and fathers.Results:Mothers displayed significantly higher psychological stress (PSS) and physiological stress (HRV) compared with fathers. NDVI emerged as the strongest cross-gender protective factor, with substantial negative associations with PSS in mothers (β = –0.82) and fathers (β = –0.88). Family structure operated differently by gender: number of children predicted stress among fathers only (β = +0.31), while household size predicted stress among mothers only (β = +0.27). Negative affect significantly increased stress in both genders, and income showed modest protective effects.Conclusions:Greenness functions as a powerful ecological buffer of parental stress for both genders, while sociocultural family roles create gendered stress pathways. This study is among the first to integrate psychological, physiological, emotional, and environmental indicators in a Middle Eastern minority context.Significance:Findings highlight environmental-health inequities and underscore the importance of incorporating green infrastructure into planning for minority communities. 

Keywords:
parental stress, Arab families, greenness, NDVI, HRV, PANAS, gender differences, ecological stress model

Article Details

References

[1] Berry JO, Jones WH. The Parental Stress Scale: Initial psychometric evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1995;12(3):463–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595123009

[2] Deater-Deckard K. Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 1998;5(3):314–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1998.tb00152.x

[3] Matud MP. Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences. 2004;37(7):1401–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

[4] Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 1984;224(4647):420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402

[5] Mitchell R, Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X

[6] Fong KC, Hart JE, James P. A review of epidemiologic studies on greenness and health: Updated literature through 2017. Current Environmental Health Reports. 2018;5(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0179-y

[7] Agay-Shay K, Peled A, Crespo AV, Yitshak-Sade M, Friger M. Green spaces and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Environment International. 2019;122:51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.010

[8] Saadi D, Schnell I, Tirosh E, Basagaña X, Agay-Shay K. Parental stress and home environment among Arab and Jewish women in Israel. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2019;41:233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.015

[9] Saadi D, Schnell I, Tirosh E, Basagaña X, Agay-Shay K. Crossing ethnic boundaries in urban parks: Effects on autonomic nervous system balance. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2019;185:79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.01.002

[10] Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Urban and transport planning, environmental exposures and health—New concepts, methods and tools to improve health in cities. Environmental Health. 2018;17(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0367-2

[11] Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Khreis H, Triguero-Mas M, Gascon M, Dadvand P. Fifty shades of green: Pathways to healthy green spaces. Current Environmental Health Reports. 2016;3(3):199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-016-0106-7

[12] Goldie XL, Doyle GJ, Mascaro JS. Built environment and health: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Social Science & Medicine. 2018;217:30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.034

[13] Götschi T, Kahlmeier S, Bradley K, Martin BW. Physical activity in context: The potential for intervention in urban planning and transport. Journal of Transport & Health. 2016;3(3):423–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.07.004

[14] Gong Y, Gallacher J, Marsden T, Truong VD. A systematic review of the relationship between objective neighbourhood built environment attributes and residents’ mental health. Science of the Total Environment. 2016;566–567:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.020

[15] Mancus G, Campbell A. Fear, stress, and violence in marginalized urban communities. Urban Studies. 2018;55(2):391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016645474

[16] Lewin-Epstein N, Cohen Y. Ethnicity and inequality in Israel: A historical overview. Israel Studies Review. 2019;34(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3167/isr.2019.340102

[17] Brasche S, Bischof W. Daily time spent indoors in German homes—Baseline data for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 2005;208(4):247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2005.03.003

[18] Ellsworth-Krebs K, Reid L, Hunter CJ. Home as a haven? Challenges for sustainable heat and energy practices in UK households. Energy Research & Social Science. 2019;51:205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.005

[19] Kondo MC, South EC, Branas CC. Nature-based strategies for improving urban health and safety. JAMA. 2018;320(8):774–775. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10897

[20] Kondo MC, Mueller N, Locke DH, Branas CC. Health benefits of urban green space: A review of epidemiological evidence. Environmental Research. 2018;166:628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030

[21] Wendelboe-Nelson C, Kelly S, Kennedy M, Cherrie JW. A scoping review of green space and health in the UK. Journal of Public Health. 2019;41(1):e38–e51. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy026

[22] Weber AM, Trojan J. The restorative potential of urban public spaces: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2018;28:264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.006

[23] Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, Chudnovsky A, Hystad P, Dzhambov A, et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research. 2017;158:301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028

[24] Stenfors CUD, Van Hedger SC, Schertz KE, Meyer FAC, Smith KEL, Norman GJ, et al. Positive effects of nature: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Environmental Research. 2019;183:109061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.109061

[25] Stevenson MP, Schilhab T, Bentsen P. Attention Restoration Theory II: A systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. 2018;21(4):227–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2018.1505571

[26] Mygind L, Stevenson MP, Liebst LS, Konvalinka I, Bentsen P. Stress response and cognitive performance modulation in natural environments: A systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2019;127(5):057002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3905

[27] Corazon SS, Sidenius U, Poulsen DV, Gramkow MC, Stigsdotter UK. Psycho-physiological stress recovery in outdoor nature-based interventions: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(22):4441. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224441

[28] Twohig-Bennett C, Jones A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research. 2018;166:628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030

[29] Meredith GR, Rakow DA, Eldermire ERB, Madsen CG, Shelley SP, Sachs NA. Minimum time dose in nature to positively impact mental health. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:2942. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02942

[30] Staats H, Jahncke H, Herzog TR, Hartig T. Urban options for psychological restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2010;30(1):122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.005

[31] Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2004;24(4):423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002

[32] Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(6):1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.