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.

1 INTRODUCTION

Affective science involves the examination of emotions, moods, and stress responses, all of which provide information about whether something is beneficial or harmful (Gross, 2015). Affective responses arise in many ways, including thoughts about the past or future, and perceptions of current states of the body, social interactions, or the environment. It is this last category of environmental factors that we consider here. Previous work in psychology supports this consideration, with an emphasis on responses to the ways in which the environment aligns with well-being and survival (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Schwarz & Clore, 1983), and the degree to which the processing of this information is “inextricably linked” to emotions (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2009).

Our particular focus is a specific set of environments: natural ones. We define nature as “encompassing elements and phenomena of Earth's lands, waters, and biodiversity, across spatial scales and degrees of human influence, from a potted plant or a small urban creek or park to expansive, ‘pristine’ wilderness with its dynamics of fire, weather, geology, and other forces” (Bratman et al., 2019, p. 2). Here, we review the affective benefits of exposure to nature, describe the evidence for a variety of potential mechanisms (with a focus on affect regulation), and consider moderators and effect modifiers on the individual and population levels. We conclude by considering future research directions, and addressing the importance of integrating these results into broader public health frameworks centered on social and environmental determinants of health.

2 OVERVIEW

Mounting evidence from a variety of disciplines suggests that exposure to natural environments is associated with affective benefits (Bowler et al., 2010; Bragg & Atkins, 2016; Bratman et al., 2012, 2019; Britton et al., 2020; Frumkin et al., 2017; Hartig & Kahn, 2016; Keniger et al., 2013; Kondo, Fluehr, et al., 2018; White et al., 2017). Documented effects of nature exposure include a reduction of negative outcomes (a “buffering against harm pathway”) and contributions to resilience and positive psychological functioning (a “promotion of positive pathway”) (Bratman et al., 2019; Cleary et al., 2017; Dzhambov et al., 2019; Markevych et al., 2017; McMahan & Estes, 2015). The first pathway includes lower levels of stress and negative affect (Bratman, Daily, et al., 2015; Hartig et al., 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991), and a decrease in the risk of mental health disorders and depressive symptoms (Bezold et al., 2018; for reviews see: Gascon et al., 2015; Kondo, Fluehr, et al., 2018; Roe, 2016; van den Berg et al., 2015). The second pathway includes higher levels of subjective well-being and positive affect (Berman et al., 2012; Hartig et al., 2003; Park et al., 2008; Passmore & Holder, 2017; White et al., 2013, 2021).

These results have been demonstrated using a wide range of study designs, from cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort approaches (Mitchell et al., 2015; van den Berg et al., 2016; Wheeler et al., 2015; White et al., 2013), to natural experiments (Kondo, MacDonald, et al., 2018) and controlled field and laboratory experiments (Aspinall et al., 2015; Berman et al., 2008; Hartig et al., 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991). Benefits have been tied to different forms of nature exposure, including viewing nature images (Ulrich et al., 1991), immersion in virtual reality (Browning et al., 2020; McMahan & Estes, 2015), or being physically present within a range of natural versus urban environments (Berman et al., 2008, 2012; Bratman, Daily, et al., 2015; Hartig et al., 2003; Roe & Aspinall, 2011). The benefits have been assessed through self-report as well as psychophysiological measures (Annerstedt et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2013; Gladwell et al., 2012; Kasetani et al., 2009; Shuda et al., 2020), biomarkers of stress and inflammation, and brain responses (Bratman, Hamilton, et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2020; Cho et al., 2017; Hunter et al., 2019; Roe et al., 2013).

The affective impacts of nature exposure vary in terms of magnitude as well as duration. They range from short, state-level changes in emotion, to longer-lasting shifts in patterns of mood and thought, to changes in prevalence of mental health disorders (Bratman et al., 2019). Evidence increasingly supports the notion that affective impacts of nature exposure also vary by characteristics of the exposure, including duration and frequency of visits (Shanahan et al., 2016; White et al., 2017, 2019) and patterns of human-nature interaction (Kahn et al., 2010; Kahn et al., 2018), as well as the characteristics of the environments, including biodiversity (Cameron et al., 2020; Marselle et al., 2021), landscape type (Wheeler et al., 2015), tree canopy density (Jiang et al., 2014), quality and location (Wyles et al., 2019), and other factors (Barnes et al., 2019).

3 MECHANISMS

A variety of posited pathways from nature exposure to affective responses have motivated the experimental designs and cross-sectional analytic approaches of studies in the field. Here, we discuss how these pathways relate to outcomes most relevant to (a) buffering against harm, or (b) promotion of well-being. It is important to note that these categorizations are not definitive or mutually exclusive. For example, as we describe below, stress reduction does not exclude increased positive affect, and in fact may rely on this response as an initial factor in a posited mechanistic pathway.

3.1 Decreased stress and negative affect

Stress Reduction Theory is grounded in the psycho-evolutionary notion that human beings share an innate affinity for nature (the “biophilia hypothesis”) (Kellert & Wilson, 1995; Ulrich, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1993). The primary outcomes predicted by this theory often center on the reduction of stress and negative affect. However, two points are key to note: (a) the affective processes underlying these effects are posited to involve initial, pre-cognitive, positive reactions to natural environments that are tied to corresponding autonomic nervous system responses and stress reduction; and (b) this reduction of stress and negative affect is based upon “antecedent states” in which respondents enter into an exposure with a baseline level of heightened stress and anxiety that is subsequently reduced.

Green, savanna-like environments are postulated to be the most impactful on this front, due to the fact that these environments have been most advantageous to human survival through evolutionary history (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992) via the provision of prospect and refuge (e.g., large, climbable canopy) (Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2006), views of water sources and green natural elements (Appleton, 1984; Dosen & Ostwald, 2016; Falk & Balling, 2010; Herzog, 1992; Lohr, 2007; Myers, 1996), and the cues for safety and sustenance that they contain. The theory identifies related aesthetic factors of natural environments that are typically preferred by humans, including: coherence, unity, surface texture, depth, mystery, and complexity (Falk & Balling, 2010; Ulrich, 1977) or ideal levels of density (Jiang et al., 2014, 2015). These primarily visual aesthetic characteristics are inherent in habitats that are most suitable for human survival and ideal levels of arousal—and this is the foundation upon which they are restorative, preferred, and rated as less stressful than other environments (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010).

As in Zajonc's work on the “minimal mental work” necessary for appraisal of safety, the initial affective responses to natural stimuli may bypass conscious recognition (Kaplan, 1987; Zajonc, 1968, 1984). These responses may be followed by more explicit and conscious appraisals of safety and preference, which in turn lead to further affective responses, including stress reduction (Ratcliffe & Korpela, 2016; Ulrich, 1983). In this way, responses to nature may involve more than just a biophilic, evolutionary-programmed affinity—they may also be learned through experience, associations, and increased familiarity with specific natural environments over time (Ulrich, 1983). This learning may be “biologically prepared” through genetic predisposition or based predominantly on lived experiences. For example, a recent study found that children preferred urban environments over natural ones (in contrast to adults), but that they demonstrated greater preference for nature scenes with older age, supporting the notion that this preference was learned over time (Meidenbauer et al., 2019). Balling and Falk (1982) support this possibility, with their finding that increasing age predicted a preference shift from savanna to hardwood forest in young participants whose living location resulted in them being more familiar with the latter environment through experience. And other research has found that biome preference was predicted by familiarity, as determined by social and demographic characteristics of respondents instead of psycho-evolutionary factors (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2010; Lyons, 1983).

Stress Reduction Theory posits that a change in affective and cognitive state occurs via nature exposure. Relatedly, the Generalized Unsafety Theory of Stress posits that by default people consider environments to be unsafe unless and until cues of safety are recognized (Brosschot et al., 2018). With this perspective, green environments may provide contexts in which the default state of scanning for threats can be eased via a “letting down of one's guard” due to our increased capacity to assess cues of safety in these environments (Browning & Olvera-Alvarez, 2020). As with aesthetic preference, this reaction could be tied to genetic predisposition, or to lived experiences and conscious preferences for natural environments based on experiences of safety—independent of whether they fit the archetypical, biophilic landscape of the green savanna.

3.2 Increased subjective well-being and positive affect

Studies using measures such as the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (Berto, 2005; Hartig et al., 1997; Korpela & Hartig, 1996) posit that natural environments are explicitly preferred due to an acknowledgment of their restorative qualities (Hartig & Staats, 2006; Schebella et al., 2017), and research has found significant correlations between this stated preference and positive affect (van den Berg et al., 2003; White et al., 2010). Over time, a formation of pleasant and restorative memories within specific natural spaces can evolve to a connection to these places that is over and above familiarity. This attachment and identification includes cultural and traditional connections with these environments that can lead to psychological well-being through inspiration, spiritual experiences, positive memories, and an emotional bond with and sense of attachment to a specific place (Díaz et al., 2018; Halpenny, 2010; Lewicka, 2014; Scannell & Gifford, 2017).

In addition to familiarity and attachment to specific places, some researchers have posited that feelings of connectedness and relatedness to the natural world may fulfill primary psychological needs of inclusion and belonginess (Baxter & Pelletier, 2019; Perrin & Benassi, 2009). In support of this, increased levels of psychological connectedness to nature have been shown to predict increased subjective well-being in general (Capaldi et al., 2014; Capaldi et al., 2015; White et al., 2021; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014), or immediately after nature exposure (Mayer et al., 2009). Increased eudaimonic (and to a lesser extent, hedonic) well-being has been found to be associated with connectedness to nature in a recent meta-analysis (Pritchard et al., 2020), as well as cross-sectional studies with adults (Martin et al., 2020) and children (Barrera-Hernández et al., 2020). This connectedness can extend to posited pathways from nature contact to subjective well-being through feelings of awe or savoring that accompanies nature experiences, which in turn increases positive affect and prosocial tendencies (Anderson et al., 2018; Kahn & Hasbach, 2012; Richardson & Sheffield, 2017; Sato et al., 2018).

3.3 Regulating affect

Thus far, we have considered nature exposure either as leading to decreased stress and negative affect or increased subjective well-being and positive affect. These impacts suggest the possibility that individuals might seek out natural environments in order to regulate their affective states. This brings us to a discussion of the process model of emotion regulation and its relevance to nature exposure (Bratman, Daily, et al., 2015; Bratman et al., 2012; Korpela et al., 2020; Richardson, 2019). Here, we refer to the ways in which individuals change the timing, duration and nature of their affective responses (Gross, 1998b, 2015). This includes conscious and unconscious processes and strategies that up- or down-regulate momentary emotions, short-lived environmental reactions, and general levels of mood (Braunstein et al., 2017; Gross, 1998b; Koole et al., 2015; McRae & Gross, 2020; Quoidbach et al., 2015). Natural environments may aid or hinder affect regulation processes through an increase in adaptive processes or a decrease in maladaptive ones (Bratman, Daily, et al., 2015; Johnsen & Rydstedt, 2013; Korpela et al., 2018; Mueller & Flouri, 2020; Richardson, 2019; Tost et al., 2019; Weeland et al., 2019).

The process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 2015) provides one helpful way to understand the ways in which natural environments play a relevant role in encouraging or discouraging some of these regulation strategies (see Figure 1). Although the focus of this model has historically been on emotions, it is as applicable to other affective states (Gross et al., 2019). This framework describes five families of emotion regulation processes, each of which we briefly describe as relevant to understanding the affective impacts of nature exposure.

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Nature contact and the process model of emotion regulation. We describe the ways in which these five family of strategies may be influenced by natural environmental factors, which in turn leads to affective benefits. Figure icon made by eucalyp from www.flaticon.com

Situation selection describes a circumstance in which an individual chooses a situation based upon a consideration of its emotional impact (Gross, 2015). It typically occurs either through the avoidance of settings in which undesirable emotions arise, or through choosing situations in which desirable ones are typically experienced—including natural environments (Johnsen & Rydstedt, 2013; Korpela et al., 2001, 2018). Korpela et al. (2018) note that individuals may seek out and select natural environments that are favorite places as a form of situation selection, and that they prefer to visit natural areas because they acknowledge that these are places that help them to “self regulate” (Hartig et al., 2007; Korpela et al., 2018; Korpela et al., 2001; Korpela, 2009; Roe et al., 2017). Situation modification refers to an alteration of a situation that changes its emotional impact (Gross, 2015). This family of strategies is relevant to nature exposure insofar as people often choose to move to nearby nature or seek to bring natural elements such as indoor plants into office buildings through biophilic design (Kellert, 2018).

Attentional deployment refers to the processes underlying allocation of an individual's attention and the repercussions that this has for emotions. It includes both distraction and rumination strategies (McRae & Gross, 2020). Emerging research has posited that some aspects of natural environments provide greater affordances for “positive distraction” away from the self, due to pleasant, novel, or other preferred characteristics they contain (Jiang et al., 2019; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008; Roelofs et al., 2009). This distraction may provide affective benefits due to a shift in focus to positive, external elements of the environment and away from repetitive and negative self-referential thought, known as rumination (Aldao & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2010; Genet & Siemer, 2012; Joormann & Gotlib, 2010; Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008). In support of this, recent research has found that nature exposure may reduce a tendency to engage in this maladaptive form of attention allocation (Bratman, Daily, et al., 2015; Bratman, Hamilton, et al., 2015, Bratman et al., 2021; Lopes et al., 2020).

Cognitive change is a family of strategies that can up- or down-regulate emotions through the interpretation and framing of stimuli within a situation. It includes reappraisal through a reinterpretation of circumstances, or reevaluation of goals (McRae & Gross, 2020; Uusberg et al., 2019) and is typically considered an adaptive family of strategies insofar as it often results in positive emotional and affective outcomes (Gross, 1998a, 2015; Gross & John, 2003). Previous work in emotion regulation supports the notion that reappraisal is impacted by the environment (McRae et al., 2017). The potential for engagement in cognitive reappraisal can be influenced by the characteristics of a stimulus (Suri et al., 2018; Young & Suri, 2020), as well as the concurrent affective experiences and underlying levels of stress that are occurring at the time (Colombo et al., 2020; Raio et al., 2013)—factors that are relevant to specific stimuli or emotional states that accompany nature exposure. Specifically, affordances for reappraisal may be influenced through different associations one might have with people or objects one encounters in given environmental settings. For example, a person who seems upset as he approaches on a path might at first seem threatening, but in natural settings it may be easier to reappraise this stimulus, given the affordances and associations one has to people in nature (e.g., the person could be stressed by work and seeking relief in nature). Additionally, lowered tension or stress levels that occur with nature exposure can also allow for more successful reappraisal capability (Sheppes et al., 2011). And in support of the repeated use of nature exposure for reappraisal, environmental cues may influence “action readiness”—a tendency to engage in behavior that is primed or influenced by having previously engaged in it in similar contexts (Ghafur et al., 2018).

Last, response modulation refers to directly modifying aspects of an emotional response after it has begun (Gross, 2015). This family of strategies includes expressive suppression (i.e., the obstruction of noticeable signs of emotion; Richards & Gross, 2006). Individuals may choose natural environments as spaces in which they feel more able to express these previously inhibited responses, thereby decreasing chronic levels of suppression. For example, nature exposure can alter affordances for suppression through decreasing the probability of needing to suppress for social reasons (e.g., one can cry freely while in nature in a way one may not in a city). Additionally, the physiological relaxation that has been demonstrated to result from nature exposure is in line with effects from decreased suppression (Butler et al., 2003; Gross, 1998a).

3.4 Other pathways

Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) rests upon an understanding of directed attention as a resource that can be depleted, and then replenished, through the engagement of “soft fascination” during nature contact (Basu et al., 2019; Berto, 2005; Kaplan, 1995; Ohly et al., 2016; Schertz & Berman, 2019). A separate but related notion, known as the Perceptual Fluency Account (Joye et al., 2016; Joye & van den Berg, 2011), posits a bottom-up pathway—one in which the perceptual properties of components within natural environments are more easily processed by the human visual system. The results of these restorative processes on cognitive functioning are beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important to note that these theories do posit that affective consequences may stem from directed attention replenishment or a decrease in cognitive load that results from low-level feature processing (Kardan, Demiralp, et al., 2015; Schertz et al., 2018; Ulrich et al., 1991). Some have found support that mid- to high-spatial frequencies of nature scenes may be tied specifically to affective responses (Valtchanov & Ellard, 2015), while others have found that low-level properties alone are less consistently associated with mood (Menzel & Reese, 2021).

Many of the causal mechanisms and associated affective outcomes described above focus predominantly on the visual pathway. However, it is important to consider other sensory stimuli as well, including the benefits of multi-modal experiences (Annerstedt et al., 2013; Franco et al., 2017; Hedblom et al., 2019). Natural sounds have been shown to be preferred over urban sounds (De Coensel et al., 2011; Irvine et al., 2009), contribute to mood recovery after a stressor (Benfield et al., 2014), and reduce anxiety and stress (Aghaie et al., 2014; Buxton et al., 2021; Jo et al., 2019), sometimes even independent of the visual pathway (Hedblom et al., 2019). The affective impacts of sounds and smells may operate through psychophysiological pathways that involve stress reduction (Alvarsson et al., 2010; Francis et al., 2017; Weber & Heuberger, 2008) or the triggering of memories or attachment to place that can have affective consequences (Ehrlichman & Halpern, 1988; Franco et al., 2017; Ratcliffe et al., 2013, 2016; Schloss et al., 2015).

There are other potential affective mechanisms specific to these sensory modalities as well, including potential bottom-up pathways that bypass awareness. In support of this, research in shinrin-yoku (known in North America as “forest bathing”) from East Asia has demonstrated the ways in which inhalation of a specific class of volatile organic compounds (i.e., terpenes) from forest species may act directly on our limbic and inflammatory systems in ways that have affective consequences (Cho et al., 2017; Li et al., 2016; Rufino et al., 2014; Wen et al., 2019).

4 MODERATORS AND EFFECT MODIFIERS

It is crucial to consider the ways in which nature exposure impacts different people differently (Bratman et al., 2019). Effect modifiers exist at the individual level (e.g., how a person reacts to and interacts with an environment) (Kahn et al., 2010; Kahn & Weiss, 2017; White et al., 2020), and sociocultural factors can impact the characteristics of nature experience as well (e.g., experiencing discrimination within urban greenspace) (Roberts, 2021). We have described above the manner in which lived experience, memory, and familiarity interacts with preference, perceived restorativeness, sense of place and connection to nature at the individual level in ways that may moderate the affective impacts of nature exposure. Personality, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and other additional, relevant factors are important to consider here as well—both with respect to the moderation of affective effects themselves, as well as the way in which these factors are associated with access to nature and the amount of exposure (and subsequent familiarity) that is available.

Emerging work supports the notion that personality may moderate the effects of nature contact (Astell-Burt & Feng, 2020). In cross-sectional work, Ambrey & Cartlidge (2017) found evidence that lower levels of neuroticism were associated with increased psychological well-being when living in proximity to greenspace. These approaches are not able to measure actual nature exposure, however (Ekkel & de Vries, 2017; Jarvis, Gergel, et al., 2020), and differences in association could be due to a relatively greater tendency for individuals with lower levels of neuroticism or other personality characteristics to venture outside and come into more frequent contact with nearby greenspace (Ambrey & Cartlidge, 2017; Matz & Harari, 2020), instead of an effect modification of nature contact that is tied to this facet of personality. In innovative neuroimaging work, Tost et al. (2019) found that the individuals who benefited most from greenspace contact had reduced prefrontal regulatory capacity, a characteristic that correlates with trait anxiety (Pezawas et al., 2005). These findings support the notion that nature contact addressed the disadvantage that was most pronounced for these highly anxious individuals, acting as an additional “external” emotion regulation resource for the people who needed it most.

Age and gender have been found to moderate associations of well-being with residential proximity to nature at the city and regional level (Astell-Burt, Mitchell, & Hartig, 2014; Jarvis, Koehoorn, et al., 2020; Lee & Lee, 2019). These differences may be due to differences in individual-level physiological and affective reactivity to the natural environments that covary with age and gender (Bangasser et al., 2019; Beil & Hanes, 2013), or they may be due to differences in access and feelings of safety that influence total amount of exposure to this nearby nature (Richardson & Mitchell, 2010; Roe et al., 2017; Wright Wendel et al., 2012). Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status are also critical factors to consider—effects of which may vary depending on specific sociocultural and demographic contexts—as they may be associated with preference for varying types of nature and recreation activities (Buijs et al., 2009; Gentin, 2011). With respect to amount of nature exposure, substantial inequities in nature access exist for under-resourced and socially disadvantaged communities (Astell-Burt, Feng, et al., 2014; Dahmann et al., 2010; Jarvis, Gergel, et al., 2020; Li et al., 2016; Rigolon, 2016; Rigolon et al., 2018; Schwarz et al., 2015; Wüstemann et al., 2017). Some cross-sectional work suggests that nature exposure may result in greater mental health benefits for lower-income versus higher-income populations (Garrett et al., 2019; McEachan et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2015). Questions about psychological mechanism remain here as well, however, as most of these findings are confined to cross-sectional studies of regional and population-level effect modifications (Browning & Rigolon, 2018), and may be due to different amounts of nature exposure versus moderation of affective effects on the individual level.

5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A great deal of research on the relationship between nature exposure and affect remains to be done. This includes future investigations into affective impacts and causal mechanisms, moderators and effect modifiers, and practical applications. We broadly lay out proposed approaches for these directions below.

5.1 Clarifying affective impacts and causal mechanisms

Detailed knowledge is needed on the temporal characteristics of the affective impacts of nature exposure, and the dynamic ways in which multiple mechanisms interact through time. This spatio-temporal understanding will provide insight into the inter-related affective, regulatory, and relevant cognitive processes that take place in response to nature contact. For example, future investigations can determine whether pre-cognitive, positive affective responses precede subsequent processes related to stress reduction. They could also illuminate the interplay between affective states and regulation, capturing the feedback loops and continuous cycles between momentary emotion and regulation strategy (Colombo et al., 2020).

Progress on this front hinges on the increased utilization of methodologies that capture real-time reactions to the environment, as well as detailed information on the characteristics of the environment itself. This will allow for researchers to assess detailed, momentary changes in affect that come from exposure to specific environmental factors. To measure individuals' reactions in real-time, ecological momentary assessment surveys can be administered via smartphones, along with mobile psychophysiology, electroencephalography (mobile EEG) (Chen et al., 2020; Neale et al., 2017, 2020), and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (FNIRS) equipment to monitor real-time changes in body and brain activity as they relate to changes in environmental exposure. To more specifically measure the characteristics of the environment, utilization of tools such as Street View software (Liu et al., 2020) and sophisticated satellite data can provide high-resolution imagery of natural structure. All of these approaches can then be integrated together, along with global positioning systems (GPS), to provide granular information about affective processes as they change in conjunction with exposure to specific environmental factors (Cameron et al., 2020; Kondo et al., 2020; Reichert et al., 2020; Tost et al., 2019).

With respect to affect regulation, utilizing these approaches will allow for future experimental designs that provide ecologically valid insight into specific reasons and motivations for situation selection, aspects of the environment that capture attention (e.g., through use of mobile eye-tracking technology), and components of reappraisal and reevaluation that occur more significantly in certain environmental contexts. In addition to outdoor environments, real-time assessments can take place in laboratory settings, using virtual reality or indoor natural elements as an exposure, and continuous psychophysiological, neuroimaging, and self-report measures (e.g., affect rating dials). These conditions allow for controlled experiments that tease apart the “active ingredients” of sensory stimuli. Moving forward, there is great promise for insights that can come from closely coordinating different types of lab and field studies for these purposes (Reichert et al., 2020), as well as expanding to include qualitative and ethnographic work to better understand perspectives outside of those typically captured within Western psychology.

5.2 Elucidating moderators and effect modifiers

Future work should also seek to further understand moderators and effect modifications at the individual and population level. This includes investigations into the relevance of individual differences such as connectedness to nature, familiarity with environments, personality, and other characteristics. It also includes factors affecting nature experiences among marginalized populations due to exclusionary histories and practices in these spaces (Finney, 2014). It is critical to document and address the racism, discrimination, and lack of safety that individuals experience within urban greenspace and natural areas (Byrne, 2012; Hoover & Lim, 2020; Roberts, 2021), and the negative associations with these spaces that exist for some Black Americans due to collective memories of traumatic events and acts of violence against past generations that have occurred in similar environments (Johnson & Bowker, 2004; Johnson et al., 1997). Also crucially important for this field will be an integration of the deep understandings that come from the interactions and relationships of Indigenous peoples with nature (Díaz et al., 2015; Hatala et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2020). These traditional and cultural practices embody fundamentally different ways of knowing and relating with the natural world than the more use-based perspective embodied in most of the research contained in this paper (Chan et al., 2012; Díaz et al., 2018; Gould et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2020; Ives et al., 2017; Sangha et al., 2018; Varanasi, 2020).

5.3 Practical applications

Effective interventions at the individual and population levels are most informed when they account for the multiple environmental exposures that interact in direct and indirect ways to impact psychological well-being (Kabisch et al., 2017; Olvera-Alvarez, Appleton, et al., 2018; van den Bosch & Ode, 2017; van den Bosch & Meyer-Lindenberg, 2019). At the individual level, knowledge about the affective benefits of nature exposure can inform complementary strategies that accompany clinical therapies for conditions such as depression or PTSD (Gelkopf et al., 2013; Gonzalez et al., 2010; Poulsen et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2019), individuals with limited mobility (e.g., nursing home residents) (Dahlkvist et al., 2016), or others who experience high levels of stress and risk in their daily lives and occupations. A “dose-response” perspective in these contexts will be most effective if it incorporates important details about the individuals (Hunter et al., 2019; Neill et al., 2018; Shanahan et al., 2016). For example, recent work has shown that explicit instructions given through “green prescriptions” and other avenues of social pressure to visit greenspace may be counterproductive for those with anxiety or depressive disorders, if they perceive their time in nature as being due to social pressure (Tester-Jones et al., 2020).

At the population level, urban planning and decision-making can take green infrastructure and natural elements into account when considering the equitable impacts of the built environment on health (Hendricks & Van Zandt, 2021; Jennings et al., 2017; Kardan, Gozdyra, et al., 2015), and the barriers that exist for nature access. Attention should be paid to local contexts with these considerations, including the lower quality of the natural spaces that can occur in underprivileged neighborhoods (Wolch et al., 2014) and the fewer benefits that therefore may be experienced in them (Wyles et al., 2019). This knowledge can inform policy-level interventions through urban planning that focuses on provision and access to urban greenspaces as critical infrastructure (Hendricks & Van Zandt, 2021), and include community input on the planning level as well (Carmichael & McDonough, 2019).

In these and other ways, public health efforts can be informed by knowledge of the ways in which nature exposure within urban environments helps to counteract the negative impacts of other environmental exposures, such as air pollution (Olvera-Alvarez, Kubzansky, et al., 2018). As the body of empirical evidence grows, it can be integrated into predictive models of psychological well-being that account for the repercussions of landscape change on affect, and consider how these impacts differ across populations and environmental contexts.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Mechanisms underlying affective benefits from nature experience occur through unconscious and lower-level, bottom-up processes; top-down emotion regulation pathways; and conscious and deliberate appraisals of preference and attachment. Impacts range from the direct, pre-cognitive effects of the environment on affect, to the ways in which thoughts and emotions are experienced and regulated differently, depending on cues and characteristics of environmental context. Integrating the use of multiple methods to measure change in real time—from qualitative interviews to self-report measures to psychophysiological and neuroimmunological assessments—will provide much-needed understanding across all of these domains as the research continues to evolve. This includes increased comprehension of specific affective benefits, the extent to which experiences and preferences for nature differ across the lifespan, and how different people experience different types of nature differently. This knowledge can be employed in practical ways to contribute to the psychological well-being and mental health of people around the globe, as many aspects of their environments rapidly change around them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Gregory N. Bratman appreciates support from the Doug Walker Endowed Professorship, Craig McKibben and Sarah Merner, John Miller, and discussions with members of the UW Nature and Health group, as well as the Environment and Well-Being Lab. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by grants from the JPB Environmental Health Fellowship (to Gregory N. Bratman and Hector A. Olvera-Alvarez).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Biographies

Gregory N. Bratman is Assistant Professor of Nature, Health, and Recreation, in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington, where he directs the Environment and Well-Being Lab. Gregory earned a BA in philosophy from Princeton University, a Masters in Environmental Science and Management from the Bren School, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a PhD in environment and resources from Stanford University, where he also conducted research as a postdoctoral researcher. His research takes place at the nexus of psychology, public health, and ecology, and is focused on investigating the ways in which the environment is associated with human well-being. He takes both empirical and theoretical approaches to understand how nature experience impacts human mental well-being, specifically cognitive function, mood, and emotion regulation, with an emphasis on people living in urban environments. He is also working to inform the ways that the mental health effects of nature can be incorporated into ecosystem service studies, and in efforts to address health inequities. Gregory is a Harvard JPB Environmental Health Fellow and the Doug Walker Endowed Professor.
Hector A. Olvera-Alvarez is an associate professor, and Sr. Associate Dean for Research at Oregon Health and Science University School of Nursing and the director of the Total Environment and Wellness laboratory. He is also a Senior Fellow of JPB Environmental Health Fellowship administered by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Hector earned his BS in civil engineering from the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and an MS in environmental engineering and a PhD in environmental science and engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso. He received post-doctoral training at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque NM, and attained graduate certification in epidemiology from the University of Michigan. His research focuses on the role of stress in the environment-health pathway.
James Gross is a Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, where he directs the Stanford Psychophysiology Laboratory (https://spl.stanford.edu/). James earned his BA in philosophy from Yale University and his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of California, Berkeley. His research focuses on emotion regulation, and he has received a number of teaching awards, including the Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching, the Phi Beta Kappa Teaching Prize, the Stanford Postdoctoral Mentoring Award (twice), and Stanford's highest teaching award, the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching. James also has received research awards from the American Psychological Association, the Society for Psychophysiological Research, and the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society, as well as an Honorary Doctorate from UC Louvain, Belgium. James has over 475 publications, which have been cited over 145,000 times. James is founding President for the Society for Affective Science, Editor-in-Chief of Affective Science, and a Fellow in the Association for Psychological Science and the American Psychological Association.

REFERENCES

Aghaie, B., Rejeh, N., Heravi-Karimooi, M., Ebadi, A., Moradian, S. T., Vaismoradi, M., & Jasper, M. (2014). Effect of nature-based sound therapy on agitation and anxiety in coronary artery bypass graft patients during the weaning of mechanical ventilation: A randomised clinical trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(4), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.08.003
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.08.003
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2010). Specificity of cognitive emotion regulation strategies: A transdiagnostic examination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(10), 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.002
10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.002
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036–1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7031036
10.3390/ijerph7031036
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ambrey, C. L., & Cartlidge, N. (2017). Do the psychological benefits of greenspace depend on one's personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.001
10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Anderson, C. L., Monroy, M., & Keltner, D. (2018). Awe in nature heals: Evidence from military veterans, at-risk youth, and college students. Emotion, 18(8), 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000442
10.1037/emo0000442
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Annerstedt, M., Jonsson, P., Wallergard, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., Hansen, A. M., & Wahrborg, P. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest--results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023
10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Appleton, J. (1984). Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landscape Journal, 3(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.3.2.91
10.3368/lj.3.2.91
Google Scholar
Aspinall, P., Mavros, P., Coyne, R., & Roe, J. J. (2015). The urban brain: Analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(4), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091877
10.1136/bjsports-2012-091877
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Astell-Burt, T., & Feng, X. (2020). Greener neighbourhoods, better memory? A longitudinal study. Health & Place, 65, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102393
10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102393
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Astell-Burt, T., Feng, X., Mavoa, S., Badland, H. M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia's most populous cities. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-292
10.1186/1471-2458-14-292
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Astell-Burt, T., Mitchell, R., & Hartig, T. (2014). The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 68(6), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203767
10.1136/jech-2013-203767
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916582141001
10.1177/0013916582141001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bangasser, D. A., Eck, S. R., & Ordoñes Sanchez, E. (2019). Sex differences in stress reactivity in arousal and attention systems. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-018-0137-2
10.1038/s41386-018-0137-2
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Barnes, M. R., Donahue, M. L., Keeler, B. L., Shorb, C. M., Mohtadi, T. Z., & Shelby, L. J. (2019). Characterizing nature and participant experience in studies of nature exposure for positive mental health: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02617
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02617
CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Barrera-Hernández, L. F., Sotelo-Castillo, M. A., Echeverría-Castro, S. B., & Tapia-Fonllem, C. O. (2020). Connectedness to nature: Its impact on sustainable behaviors and happiness in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 276. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00276
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00276
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Basu, A., Duvall, J., & Kaplan, R. (2019). Attention Restoration Theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51(9–10), 1055–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518774400
10.1177/0013916518774400
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Baxter, D. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Canadian Psychology, 60(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000145
10.1037/cap0000145
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Beil, K., & Hanes, D. (2013). The influence of urban natural and built environments on physiological and psychological measures of stress- A pilot study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(4), 1250–1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10041250
10.3390/ijerph10041250
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Benfield, J. A., Taff, B. D., Newman, P., & Smyth, J. (2014). Natural sound facilitates mood recovery. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0028
Google Scholar
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., Kaplan, S., Sherdell, L., Gotlib, I. H., & Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bezold, C. P., Banay, R. F., Coull, B. A., Hart, J. E., James, P., Kubzansky, L. D., Missmer, S. A., & Laden, F. (2018). The Association between natural environments and depressive symptoms in adolescents living in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(4), 488–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.10.008
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.10.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bragg, R., & Atkins, G. (2016). A Review of Nature-Based Interventions for Mental Health Care. Natural England Commissioned Reports.
Google Scholar
Bratman, G. N., Anderson, C. B., Berman, M. G., Cochran, B., de Vries, S., Flanders, J., Folke, C., Frumkin, H., Gross, J. J., Hartig, T., Kahn, P. H., Kuo, M., Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Lindahl, T., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Mitchell, R., Ouyang, Z., Roe, J., … Daily, G. C. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0903
10.1126/sciadv.aax0903
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bratman, G. N., Daily, G. C., Levy, B. J., & Gross, J. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hahn, K. S., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(28), 8567–8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112
10.1073/pnas.1510459112
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Bratman, G. N., Young, G., Mehta, A., Lee Babineaux, I., Daily, G. C., & Gross, J. J. (2021). Affective benefits of nature contact: The role of rumination. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 643866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643866
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643866
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Braunstein, L. M., Gross, J. J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2017). Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A multi-level framework. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(10), 1545–1557. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx096
10.1093/scan/nsx096
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Britton, E., Kindermann, G., Domegan, C., & Carlin, C. (2020). Blue care: A systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing. Health Promotion International, 35(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day103
10.1093/heapro/day103
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Brosschot, J. F., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2018). Generalized unsafety theory of stress: Unsafe environments and conditions, and the default stress response. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030464
10.3390/ijerph15030464
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Brown, D. K., Barton, J. L., & Gladwell, V. F. (2013). Viewing nature scenes positively affects recovery of autonomic function following acute-mental stress. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(11), 5562–5569. https://doi.org/10.1021/es305019p
10.1021/es305019p
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Browning, M. H. E. M., & Olvera-Alvarez, H. A. (2020). Editorial commentary: Scanning for threats and natural environments giving our reptilian brains a break. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, 30(4), 247–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2019.07.006
10.1016/j.tcm.2019.07.006
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Browning, M. H. E. M., & Rigolon, A. (2018). Do income, race and ethnicity, and sprawl influence the greenspace-human health link in city-level analyses? Findings from 496 cities in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071541
10.3390/ijerph15071541
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Browning, M. H. E. M., Shipley, N., McAnirlin, O., Becker, D., Yu, C. P., Hartig, T., & Dzhambov, A. M. (2020). An actual natural setting improves mood better than its virtual counterpart: A meta-analysis of experimental data. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02200
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02200
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113–123.
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.48
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Buxton, R. T., Pearson, A. L., Allou, C., Fristrup, K., & Wittemyer, G. (2021). A synthesis of health benefits of natural sounds and their distribution in national parks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(14), e2013097118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013097118
10.1073/pnas.2013097118
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Byrne, J. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43(3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002
10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Cameron, R. W. F., Brindley, P., Mears, M., McEwan, K., Ferguson, F., Sheffield, D., Jorgensen, A., Riley, J., Goodrick, J., Ballard, L., & Richardson, M. (2020). Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosystems, 23(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00929-z
10.1007/s11252-020-00929-z
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Dopko, R. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229
10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449
Google Scholar
Carmichael, C. E., & McDonough, M. H. (2019). Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Society & Natural Resources, 32(5), 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229
10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Chang, D. H. F., Jiang, B., Wong, N. H. L., Wong, J. J., Webster, C., Lee, T. M. C., & Webster, C. (2020). The human posterior cingulate and the stress-response benefits of viewing green urban landscapes. NeuroImage, 226, 117555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117555
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117555
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Chen, Z., He, Y., & Yu, Y. (2020). Attention restoration during environmental exposure via alpha-theta oscillations and synchronization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101406
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101406
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Cho, K. S., Lim, Y. R., Lee, K., Lee, J., Lee, J. H., & Lee, I. S. (2017). Terpenes from forests and human health. Toxicological Research, 33(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2017.33.2.097
10.5487/TR.2017.33.2.097
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Cleary, A., Fielding, K. S., Bell, S. L., Murray, Z., & Roiko, A. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Colombo, D., Fernández-Álvarez, J., Suso-Ribera, C., Cipresso, P., Valev, H., Leufkens, T., Sas, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., Riva, G., & Botella, C. (2020). The need for change: Understanding emotion regulation antecedents and consequences using ecological momentary assessment. Emotion, 20(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000671
10.1037/emo0000671
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dahlkvist, E., Hartig, T., Nilsson, A., Högberg, H., Skovdahl, K., & Engström, M. (2016). Garden greenery and the health of older people in residential care facilities: A multi-level cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(9), 2065–2076. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12968
10.1111/jan.12968
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dahmann, N., Wolch, J., Joassart-Marcelli, P., Reynolds, K., & Jerrett, M. (2010). The active city? Disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health & Place, 16(3), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.11.005
10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.11.005
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
De Coensel, B., Vanwetswinkel, S., & Botteldooren, D. (2011). Effects of natural sounds on the perception of road traffic noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(4), EL148–EL153. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3567073
10.1121/1.3567073
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., … Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
10.1126/science.aap8826
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Dosen, A. S., & Ostwald, M. J. (2016). Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: A meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City, Territory and Architecture, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1
10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1
Google Scholar
Dzhambov, A. M., Hartig, T., Tilov, B., Atanasova, V., Makakova, D. R., & Dimitrova, D. D. (2019). Residential greenspace is associated with mental health via intertwined capacity-building and capacity-restoring pathways. Environmental Research, 178, 108708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108708
10.1016/j.envres.2019.108708
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ehrlichman, H., & Halpern, J. N. (1988). Affect and memory: Effects of pleasant and unpleasant odors on retrieval of happy and unhappy memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.769
10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.769
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ekkel, E. D., & de Vries, S. (2017). Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.008
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509341244
10.1177/0013916509341244
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Finney, C. (2014). Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African Americans to the great outdoors. University NC Press.
10.5149/northcarolina/9781469614489.001.0001
Google Scholar
Francis, C. D., Newman, P., Taff, B. D., White, C., Monz, C. A., Levenhagen, M., Petrelli, A. R., Abbott, L. C., Newton, J., Burson, S., Cooper, C. B., Fristrup, K. M., McClure, C. J. W., Mennitt, D., Giamellaro, M., & Barber, J. R. (2017). Acoustic environments matter: Synergistic benefits to humans and ecological communities. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.041
10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.041
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Franco, L. S., Shanahan, D. F., & Fuller, R. A. (2017). A review of the benefits of nature experiences: More than meets the eye. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080864
10.3390/ijerph14080864
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge University Press.
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn, P. H., Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L., & Wood, S. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663
10.1289/EHP1663
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Garrett, J. K., Clitherow, T. J., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Coastal proximity and mental health among urban adults in England: The moderating effect of household income. Health & Place, 59, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102200
10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102200
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(4), 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354
10.3390/ijerph120404354
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gelkopf, M., Hasson-Ohayon, I., Bikman, M., & Kravetz, S. (2013). Nature adventure rehabilitation for combat-related posttraumatic chronic stress disorder: A randomized control trial. Psychiatry Research, 209(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSYCHRES.2013.01.026
10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.026
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Genet, J. J., & Siemer, M. (2012). Rumination moderates the effects of daily events on negative mood: Results from a diary study. Emotion, 12(6), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028070
10.1037/a0028070
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gentin, S. (2011). Outdoor recreation and ethnicity in Europe-A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.002
10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Ghafur, R. D., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation choice: The role of orienting attention and action readiness. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.016
10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.016
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Gladwell, V. F., Brown, D. K., Barton, J. L., Tarvainen, M. P., Kuoppa, P., Pretty, J., Suddaby, J. M., & Sandercock, G. R. H. (2012). The effects of views of nature on autonomic control. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(9), 3379–3386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-012-2318-8
10.1007/s00421-012-2318-8
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gonzalez, M. T., Hartig, T., Patil, G. G., Martinsen, E. W., & Kirkevold, M. (2010). Therapeutic horticulture in clinical depression: A prospective study of active components. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(9), 2002–2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05383.x
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05383.x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gould, R. K., Klain, S. C., Ardoin, N. M., Satterfield, T., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Daily, G. C., & Chan, K. M. (2015). A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12407
10.1111/cobi.12407
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Google Scholar
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., Uusberg, H., & Uusberg, A. (2019). Mental illness and well-being: An affect regulation perspective. World Psychiatry, 18(2), 130–139.
10.1002/wps.20618
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006
10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hartig, T., & Kahn, P. H. J. (2016). Living in cities, naturally. Science, 352(6288), 938–940. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3759
10.1126/science.aaf3759
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental Conservation, 34(04), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892907004250
10.1017/S0376892907004250
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435
10.1080/02815739708730435
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.007
10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.007
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2010). Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.001
10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hatala, A. R., Morton, D., Njeze, C., Bird-Naytowhow, K., & Pearl, T. (2019). Re-imagining miyo-wicehtowin: Human-nature relations, land-making, and wellness among Indigenous youth in a Canadian urban context. Social Science & Medicine, 230, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.012
10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.012
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hedblom, M., Gunnarsson, B., Iravani, B., Knez, I., Schaefer, M., Thorsson, P., & Lundström, J. N. (2019). Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7
10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Hendricks, M. D., & Van Zandt, S. (2021). Unequal protection revisited: Planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environmental Justice, 14(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2020.0054
10.1089/env.2020.0054
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80138-0
10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80138-0
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., … Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006
10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hoover, F.-A., & Lim, T. C. (2020). Examining privilege and power in US urban parks and open space during the double crises of antiblack racism and COVID-19. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3, 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00070-3
Google Scholar
Hunter, M. C. R., Gillespie, B. W., & Chen, S. Y. P. (2019). Urban nature experiences reduce stress in the context of daily life based on salivary biomarkers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 722. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00722
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00722
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Payne, S. R., Fuller, R. A., Painter, B., & Gaston, K. J. (2009). Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: An interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environment, 14(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830802522061
10.1080/13549830802522061
Google Scholar
Ives, C. D., Giusti, M., Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Klaniecki, K., Dorninger, C., Laudan, J., Barthel, S., Abernethy, P., Martín-López, B., Raymond, C. M., Kendal, D., & von Wehrden, H. (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26(27), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005.
10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jarvis, I., Gergel, S., Koehoorn, M., & van den Bosch, M. (2020). Greenspace access does not correspond to nature exposure: Measures of urban natural space with implications for health research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 194, 103686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103686
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103686
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jarvis, I., Koehoorn, M., Gergel, S. E., & van den Bosch, M. (2020). Different types of urban natural environments influence various dimensions of self-reported health. Environmental Research, 186, 109614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109614
10.1016/j.envres.2020.109614
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Jennings, V., Baptiste, A. K., Osborne Jelks, N., & Skeete, R. (2017). Urban green space and the pursuit of health equity in parts of the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1432. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111432
10.3390/ijerph14111432
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jiang, B., Li, D., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2014). A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environment and Behavior, 48(4), 607–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514552321
10.1177/0013916514552321
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jiang, B., Wang, H., Larsen, L., Bao, F., Li, Z., & Pryor, M. (2019). Quality of sweatshop factory outdoor environments matters for workers’ stress and anxiety: A participatory smartphone-photography survey. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101336
10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101336
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jo, H., Song, C., Ikei, H., Enomoto, S., Kobayashi, H., & Miyazaki, Y. (2019). Physiological and psychological effects of forest and urban sounds using high-resolution sound sources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152649
10.3390/ijerph16152649
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. Å. K., & Rydstedt, L. W. (2013). Active use of the natural environment for emotion regulation. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 798–819. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v9i4.633
10.5964/ejop.v9i4.633
Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Y., & Bowker, J. M. (2004). African-American wildland memories. Environmental Ethics, 26(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics200426141
10.5840/enviroethics200426141
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Y., Horan, P. M., & Pepper, W. (1997). Race, rural residence, and wildland visitation: Examining the influence of sociocultural meaning. Rural Sociology, 62(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1997.tb00646.x
10.1111/j.1549-0831.1997.tb00646.x
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Joormann, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2010). Emotion regulation in depression: Relation to cognitive inhibition. Cognition & Emotion, 24(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903407948
10.1080/02699930903407948
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Joye, Y., Steg, L., U, A. B., & Pals, R. (2016). When complex is easy on the mind: Internal repetition of visual information in complex objects is a source of perceptual fluency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(1), 103–114.
10.1037/xhp0000105
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Joye, Y., & van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10(4), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kabisch, N., van den Bosch, M., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly – a systematic review. Environmental Research, 159, 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.004
10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.004
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Hasbach, P. H. (2012). Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-4131
Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H. Jr., Ruckert, J. H., Severson, R. L., Reichert, A. L., & Fowler, E. (2010). A nature language: An agenda to catalog, save, and recover patterns of human–nature interaction. Ecopsychology, 2(2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0047
10.1089/eco.2009.0047
Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Weiss, T. (2017). The importance of children interacting with big nature. Children, Youth, and Environments, 27(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.27.2.0007
10.7721/chilyoutenvi.27.2.0007
Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H. Jr., Weiss, T., & Harrington, K. (2018). Modeling child–nature interaction in a nature preschool: A proof of concept. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 835.
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00835
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Manuscript, University of Nevada, Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001
10.1177/0013916587191001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.005
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.005
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kardan, O., Demiralp, E., Hout, M. C., Hunter, M. R., Karimi, H., Hanayik, T., Yourganov, G., Jonides, J., & Berman, M. G. (2015). Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom-up processing of the visual features of nature? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00471
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00471
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kardan, O., Gozdyra, P., Misic, B., Moola, F., Palmer, L. J., Paus, T., & Berman, M. G. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports, 5, 11610. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11610
10.1038/srep11610
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., Miyazaki, Y., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Park, B. J. (2009). The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
Google Scholar
Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
Google Scholar
Keniger, L., Gaston, K., Irvine, K., & Fuller, R. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(3), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913
10.3390/ijerph10030913
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kondo, M. C., Fluehr, J. M., McKeon, T., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Urban green space and its impact on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030445
10.3390/ijerph15030445
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kondo, M. C., MacDonald, J. M., Branas, C. C., Hohl, B. C., & South, E. C. (2018). Effect of greening vacant land on mental health of community-dwelling adults. JAMA Network Open, 1(3), e180298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0298
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0298
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Kondo, M. C., Triguero-Mas, M., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Seto, E., Valentín, A., Hurst, G., Carrasco-Turigas, G., Masterson, D., Ambròs, A., Ellis, N., Swart, W., Davis, N., Maas, J., Jerrett, M., Gidlow, C. J., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). Momentary mood response to natural outdoor environments in four European cities. Environment International, 134, 105237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105237
10.1016/j.envint.2019.105237
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Koole, S. L., Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. L. (2015). Implicit emotion regulation: Feeling better without knowing why. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.027
10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.027
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0018
10.1006/jevp.1996.0018
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Korpela, K. M. (2009). Negative mood and adult place preference. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251442
10.1177/0013916503035003002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973133
10.1177/00139160121973133
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Korpela, K. M., Korhonen, M., Nummi, T., Martos, T., & Sallay, V. (2020). Environmental self-regulation in favourite places of Finnish and Hungarian adults. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67, 101384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101384
10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101384
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Korpela, K. M., Pasanen, T., Repo, V., Hartig, T., Staats, H., Mason, M., Alves, S., Fornara, F., Marks, T., Saini, S., Scopelliti, M., Soares, A. L., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Thompson, C. W. (2018). Environmental strategies of affect regulation and their associations with subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00562
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00562
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00183.x
Google Scholar
Lee, H. J., & Lee, D. K. (2019). Do sociodemographic factors and urban green space affect mental health outcomes among the urban elderly population? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050789
10.3390/ijerph16050789
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Lewicka, M. (2014). In search of roots: Memory as enabler of place attachment. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 49–60). Routledge.
Google Scholar
Li, X. J., Yang, Y. J., Li, Y. S., Zhang, W. K., & Tang, H. B. (2016). α-Pinene, linalool, and 1-octanol contribute to the topical anti-inflammatory and analgesic activities of frankincense by inhibiting COX-2. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 179, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2015.12.039
10.1016/j.jep.2015.12.039
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Wang, R., Lu, Y., Li, Z., Chen, H., Cao, M., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2020). Natural outdoor environment, neighbourhood social cohesion and mental health: Using multilevel structural equation modelling, streetscape and remote-sensing metrics. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 48, 126576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126576
10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126576
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Lohr, V. I. (2007). Benefits of nature: What we are learning about why people respond to nature. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 26(2), 83–85. https://doi.org/10.2114/jpa2.26.83
10.2114/jpa2.26.83
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506287355
10.1177/0013916506287355
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Lopes, S., Lima, M., & Silva, K. (2020). Nature can get it out of your mind: The rumination reducing effects of contact with nature and the mediating role of awe and mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101489
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101489
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(4), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583154005
10.1177/0013916583154005
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., de Vries, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Brauer, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Lupp, G., Richardson, E. A., Astell-Burt, T., Dimitrova, D., Feng, X., Sadeh, M., Standl, M., Heinrich, J., & Fuertes, E. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028
10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Marselle, M. R., Hartig, T., Cox, D. T. C., de Bell, S., Knapp, S., Lindley, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Böhning-Gaese, K., Braubach, M., Cook, P. A., de Vries, S., Heintz-Buschart, A., Hofmann, M., Irvine, K. N., Kabisch, N., Kolek, F., Kraemer, R., Markevych, I., Martens, D., & Bonn, A. (2021). Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environment International, 150, 106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420
10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Matz, S. C., & Harari, G. M. (2020). Personality–place transactions: Mapping the relationships between Big Five personality traits, states, and daily places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000297
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
10.1177/0013916508319745
Web of Science®Google Scholar
McEachan, R. R. C., Prady, S. L., Smith, G., Fairley, L., Cabieses, B., Gidlow, C., Wright, J., Dadvand, P., van Gent, D., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016). The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: Moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 70(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205954
10.1136/jech-2015-205954
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224
10.1080/17439760.2014.994224
Web of Science®Google Scholar
McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Emotion regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000703.supp
10.1037/emo0000703
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
McRae, K., Rhee, S. H., Gatt, J. M., Godinez, D., Williams, L. M., & Gross, J. J. (2017). Genetic and environmental influences on emotion regulation: A twin study of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. Emotion, 17(5), 772–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000300
10.1037/emo0000300
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Meidenbauer, K. L., Stenfors, C. U. D., Young, J., Layden, E. A., Schertz, K. E., Kardan, O., Decety, J., & Berman, M. G. (2019). The gradual development of the preference for natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101328
10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101328
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Menzel, C., & Reese, G. (2021). Implicit associations with nature and urban environments: Effects of lower-level processed image properties. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.591403
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.591403
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J., Richardson, E. A., Shortt, N. K., & Pearce, J. R. (2015). Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(1), 80–84. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379715000410
10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.017
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Mueller, M. A. E., & Flouri, E. (2020). Neighbourhood greenspace and children's trajectories of self-regulation: Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101472
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101472
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Myers, O. G. (1996). The biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Ethics, 18(3), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics199618323
10.5840/enviroethics199618323
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Neale, C., Aspinall, P., Roe, J. J., Tilley, S., Mavros, P., Cinderby, S., Coyne, R., Thin, N., Bennett, G., & Thompson, C. W. (2017). The aging urban brain: Analyzing outdoor physical activity using the Emotiv Affectiv Suite in older people. Journal of Urban Health, 94(6), 869–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0191-9
10.1007/s11524-017-0191-9
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Neale, C., Aspinall, P., Roe, J. J., Tilley, S., Mavros, P., Cinderby, S., Coyne, R., Thin, N., & Thompson, C. W. (2020). The impact of walking in different urban environments on brain activity in older people. Cities & Health, 4(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1619893
10.1080/23748834.2019.1619893
Google Scholar
Neill, C., Gerard, J., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2018). Nature contact and mood benefits: Contact duration and mood type. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(6), 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1557242
10.1080/17439760.2018.1557242
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x
10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ohly, H., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Bethel, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Nikolaou, V., & Garside, R. (2016). Attention restoration theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, 19(7), 305–343. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155
10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Olvera-Alvarez, H. A., Appleton, A. A., Fuller, C. H., Belcourt, A., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2018). An integrated socio-environmental model of health and well-being: A conceptual framework exploring the joint contribution of environmental and social exposures to health and disease over the life span. Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0191-2
10.1007/s40572-018-0191-2
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Olvera-Alvarez, H. A., Kubzansky, L. D., Campen, M. J., & Slavich, G. M. (2018). Early life stress, air pollution, inflammation, and disease: An integrative review and immunologic model of social-environmental adversity and lifespan health. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.002
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.002
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555–579). Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oso/9780195060232.003.0016
Google Scholar
Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Ishii, H., Furuhashi, S., Hirano, H., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2008). Physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) in a mixed forest in Shinano Town, Japan. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(3), 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580802055978
10.1080/02827580802055978
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2017). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221126
10.1080/17439760.2016.1221126
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003
10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Pezawas, L., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Drabant, E. M., Verchinski, B. A., Munoz, K. E., Kolachana, B. S., Egan, M. F., Mattay, V. S., Hariri, A. R., & Weinberger, D. R. (2005). 5-HTTLPR polymorphism impacts human cingulate-amygdala interactions: A genetic susceptibility mechanism for depression. Nature Neuroscience, 8(6), 828–834. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1463
10.1038/nn1463
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Poulsen, D. V., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Refshage, A. D. (2015). Whatever happened to the soldiers? Nature-assisted therapies for veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder: A literature review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(2), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.03.009
10.1016/j.ufug.2015.03.009
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1145–1167.
10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Positive interventions: An emotion regulation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 655–693. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.1996.4.8.437
10.1037/a0038648
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Raio, C. M., Orederu, T. A., Palazzolo, L., Shurick, A. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2013). Cognitive emotion regulation fails the stress test. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(37), 15139–15144. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305706110
10.1073/pnas.1305706110
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004
10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2016). Associations with bird sounds: How do they relate to perceived restorative potential? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.009
10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.009
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, E., & Korpela, K. M. (2016). Memory and place attachment as predictors of imagined restorative perceptions of favourite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.005
10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.005
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Reichert, M., Braun, U., Lautenbach, S., Zipf, A., Ebner-Priemer, U., Tost, H., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2020). Studying the impact of built environments on human mental health in everyday life: Methodological developments, state-of-the-art and technological frontiers. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.026
10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.026
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Personality and emotional memory: How regulating emotion impairs memory for emotional events. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 631–651.
10.1016/j.jrp.2005.07.002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Richardson, E. A., & Mitchell, R. (2010). Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 71(3), 568–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.015
10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.015
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2019). Beyond restoration: Considering emotion regulation in natural well-being. Ecopsychology, 11(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0012
10.1089/eco.2019.0012
Google Scholar
Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Three good things in nature: Noticing nearby nature brings sustained increases in connection with nature. Psyecology, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1267136
10.1080/21711976.2016.1267136
CASGoogle Scholar
Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Rigolon, A., Browning, M., Lee, K., & Shin, S. (2018). Access to urban green space in cities of the global south: A systematic literature review. Urban Science, 2(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067
10.3390/urbansci2030067
Google Scholar
Roberts, H., van Lissa, C., Hagedoorn, P., Kellar, I., & Helbich, M. (2019). The effect of short-term exposure to the natural environment on depressive mood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Research, 177, 108606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108606
10.1016/j.envres.2019.108606
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Roberts, J. D. (2021). Central Park: Black bodies green spaces, white minds. Accessed 21 May 2021. https://medium.com/@ActiveRoberts/central-park-black-bodies-green-spaces-white-minds-3efebde69077
Google Scholar
Roe, J. J. (2016). Cities, green space, and mental well-being. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science (Oxford University Press).
Google Scholar
Roe, J. J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The restorative benefits of walking in urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor mental health. Health & Place, 17(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.09.003
10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.09.003
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Roe, J. J., Aspinall, P. A., & Thompson, C. W. (2017). Coping with stress in deprived urban neighborhoods: What is the role of green space according to life stage? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1760. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01760
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01760
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Roe, J. J., Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., Brewer, M., Duff, E., Miller, D., Mitchell, R., & Clow, A. (2013). Green space and stress: Evidence from cortisol measures in deprived urban communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(9), 4086–4103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10094086
10.3390/ijerph10094086
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Roelofs, J., Rood, L., Meesters, C., te Dorsthorst, V., Bögels, S., Alloy, L. B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2009). The influence of rumination and distraction on depressed and anxious mood: A prospective examination of the response styles theory in children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(10), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0026-7
10.1007/s00787-009-0026-7
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Rufino, A. T., Ribeiro, M., Judas, F., Salgueiro, L., Lopes, M. C., Cavaleiro, C., & Mendes, A. F. (2014). Anti-inflammatory and chondroprotective activity of (+)-α-pinene: Structural and enantiomeric selectivity. Journal of Natural Products, 77(2), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1021/np400828x
10.1021/np400828x
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Sangha, K. K., Preece, L., Villarreal-Rosas, J., Kegamba, J. J., Paudyal, K., Warmenhoven, T., & RamaKrishnan, P. S. (2018). An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosystem Services, 31, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017
10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Sato, I., Jose, P. E., & Conner, T. S. (2018). Savoring mediates the effect of nature on positive affect. International Journal of Wellbeing, 8(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v8i1.621
10.5502/ijw.v8i1.621
Google Scholar
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516637648
10.1177/0013916516637648
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Lindsey, K., & Daniels, C. B. (2017). For the love of nature: Exploring the importance of species diversity and micro-variables associated with favorite outdoor places. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02094
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02094
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schertz, K. E., & Berman, M. G. (2019). Understanding nature and its cognitive benefits. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854100
10.1177/0963721419854100
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Schertz, K. E., Sachdeva, S., Kardan, O., Kotabe, H. P., Wolf, K. L., & Berman, M. G. (2018). A thought in the park: The influence of naturalness and low-level visual features on expressed thoughts. Cognition, 174, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.01.011
10.1016/j.cognition.2018.01.011
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schloss, K. B., Goldberger, C. S., Palmer, S. E., & Levitan, C. A. (2015). What's that smell? An ecological approach to understanding preferences for familiar odors. Perception, 44(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7807
10.1068/p7807
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C. G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J. M., O'Neil-Dunne, J., McFadden, J. P., Buckley, G. L., Childers, D., Ogden, L., Pincetl, S., Pataki, D., Whitmer, A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2015). Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PloS One, 10(4), e0122051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Shanahan, D. F., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., Lin, B. B., Dean, J., Barber, E., & Fuller, R. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28551. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28551
10.1038/srep28551
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-regulation choice. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1391–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611418350
10.1177/0956797611418350
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Shuda, Q., Bougoulias, M. E., & Kass, R. (2020). Effect of nature exposure on perceived and physiologic stress: A systematic review. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 53, 102514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102514
10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102514
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Suri, G., Sheppes, G., Young, G., Abraham, D., McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation choice: The role of environmental affordances. Cognition & Emotion, 32(5), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1371003
10.1080/02699931.2017.1371003
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Tester-Jones, M., White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Weinstein, N., Grellier, J., Economou, T., Bratman, G. N., Cleary, A., Gascon, M., Korpela, K. M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., O'Connor, A., Ojala, A., van den Bosch, M., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Results from an 18 country cross-sectional study examining experiences of nature for people with common mental health disorders. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75825-9
10.1038/s41598-020-75825-9
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Tost, H., Reichert, M., Braun, U., Reinhard, I., Peters, R., Lautenbach, S., Hoell, A., Schwarz, E., Ebner-Priemer, U., Zipf, A., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2019). Neural correlates of individual differences in affective benefit of real-life urban green space exposure. Nature Neuroscience, 22(9), 1389–1393. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0451-y
10.1038/s41593-019-0451-y
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 7(5), 279–293. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-31072-001
Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research, 4(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397908705892
10.1080/01426397908705892
Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). Springer US.
10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (Issue November). Island Press
Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Uusberg, A., Taxer, J. L., Yih, J., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Reappraising reappraisal. Emotion Review, 11(4), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919862617
10.1177/1754073919862617
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Valtchanov, D., & Ellard, C. G. (2015). Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.001
10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.001
Web of Science®Google Scholar
van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
Web of Science®Google Scholar
van den Berg, M., van Poppel, M., van Kamp, I., Andrusaityte, S., Balseviciene, B., Cirach, M., Danileviciute, A., Ellis, N., Hurst, G., Masterson, D., Smith, G., Triguero-Mas, M., Uzdanaviciute, I., de Wit, P., van Mechelen, W., Gidlow, C., Grazuleviciene, R., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Kruize, H., & Maas, J. (2016). Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four european cities. Health & Place, 38, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.01.003
10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.01.003
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., Van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van Mechelen, W., & Maas, J. (2015). Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(4), 806–816.
10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008
Web of Science®Google Scholar
van den Bosch, M., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2019). Environmental exposures and depression: Biological mechanisms and epidemiological evidence. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(1), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044106
10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044106
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
van den Bosch, M., & Ode, S. (2017). Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health – a systematic review of reviews. Environmental Research, 158, 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040
10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Varanasi, U. (2020). Focusing attention on reciprocity between nature and humans can be the key to reinvigorating planetary health. Ecopsychology, 12(3), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2020.0011
10.1089/eco.2020.0011
Google Scholar
Weber, S. T., & Heuberger, E. (2008). The impact of natural odors on affective states in humans. Chemical Senses, 33(5), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjn011
10.1093/chemse/bjn011
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Weeland, J., Moens, M. A., Beute, F., Assink, M., Staaks, J. P. C., & Overbeek, G. (2019). A dose of nature: Two three-level meta-analyses of the beneficial effects of exposure to nature on Children's self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101326
10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101326
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Wen, Y., Yan, Q., Pan, Y., Gu, X., & Liu, Y. (2019). Medical empirical research on forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku): A systematic review. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-019-0822-8
10.1186/s12199-019-0822-8
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Wheeler, B. W., Lovell, R., Higgins, S. L., White, M. P., Alcock, I., Osborne, N. J., Husk, K., Sabel, C. E., & Depledge, M. H. (2015). Beyond greenspace: An ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality. International Journal of Health Geographics, 14, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-015-0009-5
10.1186/s12942-015-0009-5
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3
10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. W., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24(6), 920–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464659
10.1177/0956797612464659
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Blue space, health and well-being: A narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. Environmental Research, 191, 110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169
10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Grellier, J., Economou, T., Bell, S., Bratman, G. N., Cirach, M., Gascon, M., Lima, M. L., Lõhmus, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Ojala, A., Roiko, A., Schultz, P. W., van den Bosch, M., & Fleming, L. E. (2021). Associations between green/blue spaces and mental health across 18 countries. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 8903. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87675-0
10.1038/s41598-021-87675-0
CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B. W., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2017). Natural environments and subjective wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of wellbeing. Health & Place, 45, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008
10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
White, M. P., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Wright Wendel, H. E., Zarger, R. K., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Wüstemann, H., Kalisch, D., & Kolbe, J. (2017). Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.002
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.002
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Wyles, K. J., White, M. P., Hattam, C., Pahl, S., King, H., & Austen, M. (2019). Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior, 51(2), 111–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738312
10.1177/0013916517738312
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Young, G., & Suri, G. (2020). Emotion regulation choice: A broad examination of external factors. Cognition & Emotion, 34(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1611544
10.1080/02699931.2019.1611544
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
10.1037/h0025848
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.117
10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.117
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512451901
10.1177/0013916512451901
Web of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume15, Issue8

August 2021

e12630

The affective benefits of nature exposure

Abstract