Ecological footprint dimensions and mental health: asymmetric evidence across environmental pressures

Abstract

Abstract Background/objectives Environmental degradation and mental health are increasingly interconnected challenges with implications for both environmental sustainability and public health. Although previous studies have documented associations between environmental conditions and mental health, evidence remains limited on how distinct components of ecological pressure relate to mental health and whether these relationships differ between positive and negative shocks. This gap is particularly relevant for European Union countries, where environmental and public health objectives are increasingly pursued within integrated policy frameworks. This study examines the associations and asymmetric relationships between ecological footprint indicators and mental health outcomes in 22 European Union countries over the period 1996–2019. Methods Driscoll–Kraay panel regression was employed to estimate the associations between the overall ecological footprint, its six components—cropland, grazing land, forest footprint, fishing grounds, built-up land, and carbon footprint—and the Mental Health Index. To complement the panel regression analysis, an asymmetric bootstrap panel causality approach was used to examine bidirectional relationships between positive and negative shocks in ecological footprint indicators and five mental health indicators: schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, bipolar disorder, and eating disorders. Results The results indicate positive and statistically significant associations between the overall ecological footprint and each of its six components and the Mental Health Index, suggesting that greater ecological pressures are associated with poorer mental health outcomes. The asymmetric analysis further shows that the relationships differ between positive and negative shocks and vary across ecological footprint components, mental health indicators, and the direction of the relationships. Carbon footprint exhibits particularly widespread relationships under positive environmental shocks, while schizophrenia frequently appears in the reverse relationships from mental health indicators to ecological footprint components. Conclusions The findings suggest that the environmental–mental health nexus is multidimensional and asymmetric and may therefore be inadequately represented by aggregate environmental indicators or symmetric analytical approaches alone. The results support greater consideration of specific ecological pressures and the direction of environmental changes in environmental and public health strategies. In particular, the prominence of carbon footprint supports continued attention to carbon-related pressures, while the component-specific findings also indicate the relevance of sustainable land and resource management. Integrating environmental and mental health indicators into monitoring frameworks and accounting for potentially asymmetric relationships may contribute to more coordinated and context-sensitive environmental and public health policies.