Nature and Health: Perspectives and Pathways

Citation

Bratman, G. N., & Olvera Alvarez, H. A. (2022). Nature and Health: Perspectives and Pathways. Ecopsychology, 14(3), 133-136. doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.29007.editorial

Link to file

In recent years, research on the benefits of spending time in nature has grown rapidly. Scholars from psychology, epidemiology, sociology, urban design, and other fields have all contributed to a clearer picture of what nature does for human health.

Studies have shown that the health benefits of nature aren’t the same for everyone. They can vary depending on things like a person’s socioeconomic status, their baseline mental health, and even the type of nature they’re interacting with. A walk through a city park, for example, may affect someone differently than time spent in a desert or among street trees.

The evidence also highlights an important point: how researchers define and measure “nature” matters. Some studies use satellite imagery to calculate vegetation density, while others rely on people’s own reports of where they go and how often. The level of detail — whether someone visited a green space once a week or once a year — can also shape the results.

Taken together, this growing body of work makes clear that understanding nature’s impact on health requires careful attention to who people are, what kind of nature they’re exposed to, and how that exposure is measured.

Abstract

As many scholars have noted, research and publications on the benefits of nature experience have grown substantially over recent years. Progress has been made on empirical fronts based on perspectives from psychology, epidemiology, sociology, exposure science, urban design, and other disciplines. Studies have revealed ways in which health outcomes differ by population characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status), individual differences (e.g., states of baseline mental health), and interactions with different types of nature (e.g., street trees vs. large parks vs. deserts) (Barnes et al., 2019; Mitchell & Popham, 2008; Mitchell, Richardson, & Shortt, 2015; Olvera-Alvarez, Browning, Neophytou, & Bratman, 2021; Tester-Jones et al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2015; Yin, Bratman, Browning, Spengler, & Olvera-Alvarez, 2022). Together, the evidence also illustrates the importance of accounting for different ways of “operationalizing nature” (e.g., Normalized Difference Vegetation Index [NDVI]), and methods of measuring exposure (e.g., subjective vs. objective), as well as the granularity in assessments of frequency and duration (Ekkel & de Vries, 2017; Shanahan et al., 2016).