+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          We provide consensus on the benefits of nature experience for mental health, and a model for integrating them into urban design.


          A growing body of empirical evidence is revealing the value of nature experience for mental health. With rapid urbanization and declines in human contact with nature globally, crucial decisions must be made about how to preserve and enhance opportunities for nature experience. Here, we first provide points of consensus across the natural, social, and health sciences on the impacts of nature experience on cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, and other dimensions of mental health. We then show how ecosystem service assessments can be expanded to include mental health, and provide a heuristic, conceptual model for doing so.

          Related collections

          Most cited references208

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants.

          Because human activities impact the timing, location, and degree of pollutant exposure, they play a key role in explaining exposure variation. This fact has motivated the collection of activity pattern data for their specific use in exposure assessments. The largest of these recent efforts is the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), a 2-year probability-based telephone survey (n=9386) of exposure-related human activities in the United States (U.S.) sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The primary purpose of NHAPS was to provide comprehensive and current exposure information over broad geographical and temporal scales, particularly for use in probabilistic population exposure models. NHAPS was conducted on a virtually daily basis from late September 1992 through September 1994 by the University of Maryland's Survey Research Center using a computer-assisted telephone interview instrument (CATI) to collect 24-h retrospective diaries and answers to a number of personal and exposure-related questions from each respondent. The resulting diary records contain beginning and ending times for each distinct combination of location and activity occurring on the diary day (i.e., each microenvironment). Between 340 and 1713 respondents of all ages were interviewed in each of the 10 EPA regions across the 48 contiguous states. Interviews were completed in 63% of the households contacted. NHAPS respondents reported spending an average of 87% of their time in enclosed buildings and about 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles. These proportions are fairly constant across the various regions of the U.S. and Canada and for the California population between the late 1980s, when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sponsored a state-wide activity pattern study, and the mid-1990s, when NHAPS was conducted. However, the number of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in California seems to have decreased over the same time period, where exposure is determined by the reported time spent with a smoker. In both California and the entire nation, the most time spent exposed to ETS was reported to take place in residential locations.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

              Background There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes. Results Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies. Conclusions Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

                Author and article information

                Sci Adv
                Sci Adv
                Science Advances
                American Association for the Advancement of Science
                July 2019
                24 July 2019
                : 5
                : 7
                : eaax0903
                [1 ]School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
                [2 ]Center for Creative Conservation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
                [3 ]Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
                [4 ]The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
                [5 ]Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
                [6 ]Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
                [7 ]Grossman Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology, and Human Behavior, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
                [8 ]Willamette Partnership, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
                [9 ]Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
                [10 ]School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
                [11 ]Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX 78746, USA.
                [12 ]Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
                [13 ]Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
                [14 ]Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
                [15 ]Wellcome Trust, London, UK.
                [16 ]School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
                [17 ]Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
                [18 ]Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
                [19 ]Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
                [20 ]Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
                [21 ]Landscape and Human Health Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
                [22 ]The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.
                [23 ]Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
                [24 ]Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
                [25 ]State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
                [26 ]Center for Design and Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
                [27 ]The Nature Conservancy, Fairfax, VA 22203, USA.
                [28 ]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
                [29 ]Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
                [30 ]College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
                [31 ]Stanford Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Email: bratman@ 123456uw.edu (G.N.B.); gdaily@ 123456stanford.edu (G.C.D.)
                Author information
                Copyright © 2019 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

                : 20 February 2019
                : 20 June 2019
                Funded by: doi http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011898, Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation;
                SciAdv reviews
                Social Sciences
                Social Sciences
                Custom metadata
                Ariel Francis Banag


                Comment on this article