Despite extensive evidence of the restorative effects of nature, the potential vitalizing effects of connecting with nature are yet understudied, particularly in higher education settings. University students face high levels of stress and anxiety, and may benefit from nature-based interventions that enhance positive states such as vitality. Using preliminary data from a pilot randomized controlled study with qualitative interviews, we explored the psychological experiences associated with a brief walk either in nature or an urban environment in a sample of 13 university students. The qualitative thematic analysis revealed that walking in nature was a more energizing and vitalizing experience than the urban walk. The nature walk was also found to have both affective and cognitive enhancing effects on participants. Our study highlights the usefulness of exploring subjective psychological experiences of interacting with nature, as well as supporting its restorative potential. Implications for further research and interventions are discussed.

Several systematic reviews support nature-based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This can only limit the development of interventions to support personal and planetary wellbeing, potentially resulting in ineffective and ill-targeted investment decisions. These concerns have hindered the translation of research evidence into practice and guidelines are urgently required to assist researchers, practitioners and policymakers in developing interventions to promote environmental stewardship and meet the health needs of diverse communities. A higher-order or meta-level synthesis is required to make sense of this evidence. This umbrella review synthesises evidence on the barriers and enablers to nature-based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar was performed. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis were included. 64 systematic reviews were included in the synthesis. The descriptive data, extracted from each study, forms an overview of the characteristics of available evidence on nature-based interventions. A narrative synthesis is used to present the potential factors influencing the outcomes of NBIs. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews was assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Directions for future research, potential quality needs and recommendations for future research, policymaking, and practice are discusssed.

Several systematic reviews support the use of nature–based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This mixed method umbrella review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of nature–based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar will be performed from inception to present. The search strategy will aim to find published systematic reviews of nature–based interventions (NBIs) where improving health and wellbeing is an explicit goal. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis will be considered. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. The individual qualitative and quantitative syntheses will be conducted in parallel and combined in an overarching narrative synthesis. The quantitative evidence will be used to assess the strength and direction of the effect of nature–based interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Evidence drawn from qualitative studies will be analysed and synthesised to understand the various pathways to engagement, involvement process and experiential factors that may mediate experiences. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews will be assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Trail registration: This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022329179).

Several systematic reviews support the use of nature–based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. The aim of this mixed method umbrella review is to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of nature–based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Center and Google Scholar will be performed from inception to May 2022. The search strategy will aim to find published systematic reviews of nature–based interventions (NBIs) where improving health and wellbeing is an explicit goal. This is a mixed method review and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis will be considered. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. The individual qualitative and quantitative syntheses will be conducted in parallel and then combined in an overarching narrative synthesis. The quantitative evidence will be used to assess the strength and direction of effect of nature–based interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Evidence drawn from qualitative studies will be analysed and synthesised to understand the various pathways to engagement, process of involvement and experiential factors which may mediate experiences. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews will be assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022329179).