Research Highlights: This review gives an overview of existing literature on the emerging topic of human wellbeing-forest contact nexus and provides a preliminary framework linking forests to wellbeing by highlighting key variables affecting this relationship. Background and Objectives: Existing literature reveals the psychological, physiological and social wellbeing benefits of contact with forest ecosystems; however, the role of forests in this relationship remains largely unexplored. The objectives of this review are twofold: (i) to provide an overview of the contributions of forest experiences to human wellbeing and the related interplay with forest ecosystems and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research and systematize information available for forest managers and planners to support the development of effective forest-based initiatives. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was performed with a five-phase method integrating a systematic approach on Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases and snowball search. Studies were analyzed using a descriptive-analytical method. Results: Overall, 93 papers were included in the review. These are mainly from health-related sciences providing limited information for forest managers, planners and practitioners. Four main underlying variables of the forest-wellbeing relationship are identified: interaction, forest features, sensorial dimension of the forest and individual traits and reactions. Conclusions: Forest-based initiatives provide good opportunities for supporting public health and time spent in contact with forests seems to have a “health-bonus”. Whether and to what extent forest management can contribute to this is still poorly investigated. There is the need to better study causal relationships between specific forest features, type of interactions, frequency and “dose” of experiences, individual reactions and needs and wellbeing effects to maximize benefits from forest-based initiatives.

The EU rural development policy has addressed challenges related to climate change in agriculture by introducing public voluntary schemes, which financially support the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Several factors, most of which are non-financial ones, drive adoption and continuation of these schemes by farmers. Despite the importance of these factors, only a few studies explore their role in the European context. This paper contributes to filling this gap from a twofold perspective. First, it investigates the role of the farming factors, technology accessibility, environmental features, policy design and social expertise at the territorial level on early adoption. Second, it sheds light on farmers' attitudes and motivations and on social pressure on their decision to continue or discontinue the practices, by surveying a sample of early adopters. Three schemes for the Veneto region rural development programme are considered: no-tillage, fertiliser reduction, and water and fertiliser reduction. The results highlight that non-financial factors should be considered in order to design more effective schemes to prompt farmers to adopt and continue such practices over the long run. The paper also stresses the need to complement financial support with proactive information-based instruments.

Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices (EFFPs) are tools aimed at providing ecosystem services or mitigating the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture. A large literature has explored the factors affecting the adoption of EFFPs by farmers. However, opposite effects of several factors on uptake have often emerged. We carried out a qualitative meta-analysis of the literature seeking to identify some geographical and temporal trends that can provide a rationale to explain these opposite results. To reach this goal, we analysed the literature and classified the following factors affecting farmers’ behaviour according to the theory of reasoned action and planned behaviour: farm, farmer, informational, and social factors. Our perspective in exploring the existing literature shows that the geographical context and the temporal period under analysis, considered as different adopters’ cohorts, can explain most of the opposite effects. For example, while the different effects of farm structural factors show specific geographical patterns, those of the management and economic factors follow temporal trends. The impact of some farmers’ socio-demographical characteristics and some social factors can be explained in terms of both geographical context and time. The broad trends we found cast light on the importance of further research adopting the same methodological approach in different geographical contexts and under a temporal perspective.