We provide consensus on the benefits of nature experience for mental health, and a model for integrating them into urban design.

Nature underpins human well-being in critical ways, especially in health. Nature provides pollination of nutritious crops, purification of drinking water, protection from floods, and climate security, among other well-studied health benefits. A crucial, yet challenging, research frontier is clarifying how nature promotes physical activity for its many mental and physical health benefits, particularly in densely populated cities with scarce and dwindling access to nature. Here we frame this frontier by conceptually developing a spatial decision-support tool that shows where, how, and for whom urban nature promotes physical activity, to inform urban greening efforts and broader health assessments. We synthesize what is known, present a model framework, and detail the model steps and data needs that can yield generalizable spatial models and an effective tool for assessing the urban nature–physical activity relationship. Current knowledge supports an initial model that can distinguish broad trends and enrich urban planning, spatial policy, and public health decisions. New, iterative research and application will reveal the importance of different types of urban nature, the different subpopulations who will benefit from it, and nature’s potential contribution to creating more equitable, green, livable cities with active inhabitants.

Mounting evidence demonstrates that nature exposure can have affective benefits. These include behavioral and psychophysiological responses consistent with (a) decreases in stress and negative affect; and (b) increases in subjective well‐being and positive affect. What is less clear, however, is what mechanisms are responsible for these effects. In this article, we examine the evidence for affective impacts of nature exposure, consider underlying mechanisms (with a focus on affect regulation), and discuss what might moderate these effects at the individual and population level. We end by pointing to future research directions and practical applications. This includes investigations into the range of effects and duration of their impact, harnessing knowledge about temporal dynamics for insights into causal mechanisms, broadening the discussions around moderators and effect modifications to include diverse perspectives on the relationship between nature exposure and psychological well‐being, and integrating findings into existing frameworks from public health.

The world is undergoing massive atmospheric and ecological change, driving unprecedented challenges to human well-being. Olfaction is a key sensory system through which these impacts occur. The sense of smell influences quality of and satisfaction with life, emotion, emotion regulation, cognitive function, social interactions, dietary choices, stress, and depressive symptoms. Exposures via the olfactory pathway can also lead to (anti-)inflammatory outcomes. Increased understanding is needed regarding the ways in which odorants generated by nature (i.e., natural olfactory environments) affect human well-being. With perspectives from a range of health, social, and natural sciences, we provide an overview of this unique sensory system, four consensus statements regarding olfaction and the environment, and a conceptual framework that integrates the olfactory pathway into an understanding of the effects of natural environments on human well-being. We then discuss how this framework can contribute to better accounting of the impacts of policy and land-use decision-making on natural olfactory environments and, in turn, on planetary health.

Rates of living alone, especially in more urbanised areas, are increasing across many industrialised countries, with associated increases in feelings of loneliness and poorer mental health. Recent studies have suggested that access to nature (e.g. parks and green spaces) can reduce the stressors associated with loneliness, partly through providing opportunities to nurture personal relationships (relational restoration) and engage in normative community activities (collective restoration). Such associations might vary across different household compositions and socio-demographic or geographical characteristics, but these have not been thoroughly tested. Using data collected across 18 countries/territories in 2017-2018, we grouped urban respondents into those living alone (n = 2062) and those living with a partner (n = 6218). Using multigroup path modelling, we tested whether the associations between neighbourhood greenspace coverage (1-km-buffer from home) and mental health are sequentially mediated by: (a) visits to greenspace; and subsequently (b) relationship and/or community satisfaction, as operationalisations of relational and collective restoration, respectively. We also tested whether any indirect associations varied among subgroups of respondents living alone. Analyses showed that visiting green space was associated with greater mental well-being and marginally lower odds of using anxiety/depression medication use indirectly, mediated via both relationship and community satisfaction. These indirect associations were equally strong among respondents living alone and those living with a partner. Neighbourhood green space was, additionally, associated with more visits among respondents living with a partner, whereas among those living alone, this was sensitive to the green space metric. Within subgroups of people living alone, few overall differences were found. Some indirect pathways were, nevertheless, stronger in males, under 60-year-olds, those with no financial strain, and residents in warmer climates. In conclusion, supporting those living alone, as well as those living with a partner, to more frequently access their local greenspaces could help improve mental health via promoting relational and collective restoration.