Background: In modern, urban daily life, natural environments are increasingly recognized as an important resource for stress recovery and general well-being. Aim: the present review aims to provide an overview and synthesis of the past eight years’ research into the psycho-physiological effects of outdoor nature-based interventions, related to stress recovery. Method: a structured search was performed in seven databases, returning 5618 articles. Removal of duplicates and initial screening gave a total of 95 studies. After full text reading, 36 studies were included in the assessment. Results: most of the psychological outcomes were related to different emotional measures. The synthesis of the results points towards outdoor, nature-based exposure having a positive effect on different emotional parameters, related to stress relief. The studies into physiological measures showed more equivocal results. Conclusion: the research, conducted over the past eight years, into outdoor, nature-based exposure has now attained a sound evidence base for psychological and especially emotional effects, but the evidence base for physiological effects within this timeframe shows a great degree of heterogeneity. Limitations: interpretation of the results is limited by the review only covering the past eight years’ research on the subject.

Today, urbanization presents a challenge to urban planning with regard to creating healthy living environments. The aim of this research is to gain further knowledge of the restorativeness of a best case urban and natural environment: that is a historic down town urban environment and forest environment located in an arboretum. The study has a cross-over design where 51 (N) female university students are exposed to the two environments through both seated viewing and walking. A mixed method approach is used with both physiological measurements of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate variability (HRV) and psychological measurements of mood change and perceived restorativeness. The HRV results show no significant differences between the two environments, and both environments are found to be more physiologically restorative than being at the office or on the minibus. The results of the psychological measures indicate that the forest walk has a positive effect on mood, while the walk in the urban environment has no effect. The forest environment is also rated more highly with regard to perceived restorativeness than the urban environment. The results support the current research that shows natural environments as more restorative than urban environments. The study also adds to the ongoing debate on healthy urban planning by indicating that architectural and historical qualities may be associated with the physiological well-being of citizens.

Given the drastic changes in our lifestyles and ecosystems worldwide, the potential health effects of natural environments have grown into a highly pervasive topic. Recent scientific findings suggest beneficial effects from nature exposure on human immune responses. This review aims at providing a comprehensive overview of literature published on immunomodulatory effects of nature exposure by inhalation of natural substances. A systematic database search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed. The quality and potential bias of included studies (n = 33) were assessed by applying the EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool for human studies and the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) and SYRCLE (Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation) tools for animal studies. The synthesis of reviewed studies points to positive effects of nature exposure on immunological health parameters; such as anti-inflammatory, anti-allergic, anti-asthmatic effects or increased NK (natural killer) cell activity. Decreased expression of pro-inflammatory molecules, infiltration of leukocytes and release of cytotoxic mediators are outcomes that may serve as a baseline for further studies. However, partially weak study designs evoked uncertainties about outcome reproducibility and key questions remain open concerning effect sizes, duration of exposure and contributions of specific vegetation or ecosystem types.

This study systematically evaluated the scientific evidence for health benefits of natural environments for people with mobility impairments. Literature searches based on five categories of terms—target group, nature type, health-related impacts, nature-related activities and accessibility issues—were conducted in four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, CAB ABSTRACT and Medline). Twenty-seven articles from 4196 hits were included in the systematic reviews. We concluded that people with mobility disabilities could gain different health benefits, including physical health benefits, mental health benefits and social health benefits from nature in different kinds of nature contacts ranging from passive contact, active involvement to rehabilitative interventions. Several issues related to the accessibility and use of nature for people with mobility impairments need attention from professionals such as landscape architects, rehabilitative therapists, caregivers and policy makers. The overall quality of methodology of the included studies is not high based on assessment of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Moreover, more randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies that focus specifically on evidence-based health design of nature for people with mobility impairments in the future are needed.