What is it? Places and spaces interventions make changes to the environments in which students study, live and socialise in order to boost mental health and foster a sense of belonging.

Evidence? Our review did not identify any studies measuring the effectiveness of place or space based interventions on student mental health. To develop the evidence base on places and spaces on student mental health, more UK longitudinal research is needed.

An intervention that makes use of spaces in order to improve the mental health of people using them are referred to under the places and spaces category. Most often this is in reference to shared spaces where people meet to socialise, work or engage in leisure activities. This may include interventions that look at building use or infrastructural or landscape design to affect how people feel in the space. An example of this may be making aesthetic changes or engaging the community to use it in new or different ways. This intervention usually benefits the whole population though it may also be targeted if it is designed with the aim of supporting certain student groups in a particular space in the case of interventions that improve accessibility for disabled students, for example.

Due to the lack of evidence for this sort of intervention within the student population, it is difficult to reliably conclude on its effectiveness.

However, there is some wider literature which can be used to inform efforts to improve mental health in HE. For example, there has been a review of systematic reviews on the effects of the built environment on mental health (Núñez-González et al., 2020). The study identified that there was insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on the effects of built environment interventions on mental health outcomes (wellbeing, depression and stress, and psychological distress) with the interventions and outcomes differing widely. However, other reviews provide more positive evidence of effective approaches; for example, Smith et al. (2021) conduct a quantitative synthesis of the health impacts of urban blue spaces (defined as all forms of natural and manmade surface water). Based on 14 studies, they found a beneficial association between urban blue space and obesity, mortality, general health and self-reported mental health and wellbeing, with small overall effect sizes. In a review based on 50 studies, Coventry et al. (2021) also find evidence in support of natural environments in improving mental health. They find that interventions which support people to engage with nature in a structured way are effective for improving depressive mood, reducing anxiety and improving mood overall. Although this study focuses on the activities undertaken in outdoor green and blue spaces rather than nature itself as an intervention, such spaces are required to facilitate these activities.

Our evidence review found no studies demonstrating the effectiveness of places and spaces interventions to support student mental health, either in the UK or worldwide.

It is important to note that this does not mean that this intervention does not work, nor that it is not being implemented. Furthermore, in being an intervention that affects a student’s surroundings, it may be more difficult to establish a causal link between the intervention and student mental health. To develop the evidence base on places and spaces, more UK longitudinal research is needed.

The lack of evidence is a strong indicator that the current research in student mental health does not map exactly across current practices and rapid developments in student mental health. To develop the evidence base on settings-based interventions, more UK longitudinal research is needed.

Our evidence review uncovered no strong studies which evaluate the impact of places and spaces interventions, meaning we cannot highlight any examples of good practice. We also cannot identify common evaluation pitfalls, as we have for other pages in this Toolkit.

Developing better evaluations of places and spaces interventions is a key priority for  the HE sector, and we are keen to hear from anyone conducting research or evaluation on this topic.

General guidance on evaluating interventions to improve mental health apply to this intervention and can be accessed on the evaluation guidance webpage.

Those looking to evaluate this sort of intervention may also find the TASO resources on quasi-experimental designs and evaluating complex interventions using randomised controlled trials (RCTs) particularly useful.

  • University of Central Lancashire redesigned their Student Centre and the University Square in front of it with the aim of holding wellbeing and community at the centre of the design. The Student Centre is now the central place to access all types of student support. For more information on the project, please click here.
  • Cardiff University redesigned their Centre for Student Life, a building designed to improve access to all student support services and provide quicker triaging. This was tied to their South East Wales Mental Health Partnership project, integrating on campus support with the NHS. For more information on the building redesign, please click here.
  • For guidance from the Mental Health Charter, please follow the links below:

The evidence in the Toolkit was gathered via an evidence review undertaken as part of the Student Mental Health Project. For full details of this review, please see our Methodology document.

It is important to note that our review, and therefore this Toolkit, only relates to student mental health. The review did not cover other populations (e.g. school children, other adult populations) or non-HE settings. The review was also subject to other inclusion/exclusion criteria, outlined in the Methodology document. However, we have flagged some additional links to the wider literature where appropriate and included them under ‘other references’ below.

Please also note that the Toolkit pages only include Type 3 (causal) studies which have been rated as providing medium/high-quality evidence according to our evidence strength ratings. A full list of studies collated via our evidence review, including Type 1/Type 2 studies, and those rated as providing weak/emerging evidence, can be found in our Evidence Review Spreadsheet. A breakdown of these studies by type and strength of evidence is available to download.

Other references

Coventry, P.A., Brown, JenniferV.E., Pervin, J., Brabyn, S., Pateman, R., Breedvelt, J., Gilbody, S., Stancliffe, R., McEachan, R. & White, PiranC.L. (2021) Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM – Population Health. 16, 100934. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934

Núñez-González, S., Delgado-Ron, J.A., Gault, C., Lara-Vinueza, A., Calle-Celi, D., Porreca, R. & Simancas-Racines, D. (2020) Overview of “Systematic Reviews” of the Built Environment’s Effects on Mental Health. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2020, 1–10. doi:10.1155/2020/9523127

Smith, N., Georgiou, M., King, A.C., Tieges, Z., Webb, S. & Chastin, S. (2021) Urban blue spaces and human health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. Cities. 119, 103413. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103413