CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Urban Green Space and HealthRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementOutdoor and Experiential Education

Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well‐being in adults: A review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

Open access
Husk, Kerryn, Lovell, Rebecca, Cooper, Chris, Stahl-Timmins, Will, Garside, Ruth·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010351.pub2PMC PMC6464867
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is growing research and policy interest in the potential for using the natural environment to enhance human health and well-being. This resource may be underused as a health promotion tool to address the increasing burden of common health problems such as increased chronic diseases and mental health concerns. Outdoor environmental enhancement and conservation activities (EECA) (for instance unpaid litter picking, tree planting or path maintenance) offer opportunities for physical activity alongside greater connectedness with local environments, enhanced social connections within communities and improved self-esteem through activities that improve the locality which may, in turn, further improve well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the health and well-being impacts on adults following participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted or searched the websites of more than 250 EECA organisations to identify grey literature. Resource limitations meant the majority of the websites were from UK, USA, Canada and Australia. We searched the following databases (initially in October 2012, updated October 2014, except CAB Direct, OpenGrey, SPORTDiscus, and TRIP Database), using a search strategy developed with our project advisory groups (predominantly leaders of EECA-type activities and methodological experts): ASSIA; BIOSIS; British Education Index; British Nursing Index; CAB Abstracts; Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Public Health Specialized Register; DOPHER; EMBASE; ERIC; Global Health; GreenFILE; HMIC; MEDLINE-in-Process; MEDLINE; OpenGrey; PsychINFO; Social Policy and Practice; SPORTDiscus; TRoPHI; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; The Cochrane Library; TRIP database; and Web of Science. Citation and related article chasing was used. Searches were limited to studies in English published after 1990. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened studies. Included studies examined the impact of EECA on adult health and well-being. Eligible interventions needed to include each of the following: intended to improve the outdoor natural or built environment at either a local or wider level; took place in urban or rural locations in any country; involved active participation; and were NOT experienced through paid employment.We included quantitative and qualitative research. Includable quantitative study designs were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cluster quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted-time-series, cohort studies (prospective or retrospective), case-control studies and uncontrolled before-and-after studies (uBA). We included qualitative research if it used recognised qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data, and another reviewer checked the data. Two review authors independently appraised study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool (for quantitative studies) or Wallace criteria (for qualitative studies). Heterogeneity of outcome measures and poor reporting of intervention specifics prevented meta-analysis so we synthesised the results narratively. We synthesised qualitative research findings using thematic analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Database searches identified 21,420 records, with 21,304 excluded at title/abstract. Grey literature searches identified 211 records. We screened 327 full-text articles from which we included 21 studies (reported in 28 publications): two case-studies (which were not included in the synthesis due to inadequate robustness), one case-control, one retrospective cohort, five uBA, three mixed-method (uBA, qualitative), and nine qualitative studies. The 19 studies included in the synthesis detailed the impacts to a total of 3,603 participants: 647 from quantitative intervention studies and 2630 from a retrospective cohort study; and 326 from qualitative studies (one not reporting sample size).Included studies shared the key elements of EECA defined above, but the range of activities varied considerably. Quantitative evaluation methods were heterogeneous. The designs or reporting of quantitative studies, or both, were rated as 'weak' quality with high risk of bias due to one or more of the following: inadequate study design, intervention detail, participant selection, outcome reporting and blinding.Participants' characteristics were poorly reported; eight studies did not report gender or age and none reported socio-economic status. Three quantitative studies reported that participants were referred through health or social services, or due to mental ill health (five quantitative studies), however participants' engagement routes were often not clear.Whilst the majority of quantitative studies (n = 8) reported no effect on one or more outcomes, positive effects were reported in six quantitative studies relating to short-term physiological, mental/emo

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd010351.pub2

Cites

160 of 160 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women tended to volunteer at a higher rate than men.

    “Our observation that women tended to volunteer at a higher rate than men is consistent with other studies [84,85,86,87,88,89].”

    From Walking Green: Developing an Evidence Base for Nature Prescriptions (2019) · cites this paper as [89]

    The Sample characteristics section reports that one study sample was 57% female, consistent with women outnumbering men in that sample. But another sample was 28% female, and the Participants section says the proportion of women varied widely across studies. The review does not establish that women generally volunteered at a higher rate than men; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Husk, K., Lovell, R., Cooper, C., Stahl-Timmins, W., & Garside, R.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-21
Volume
2016
Issue
5
Pages
CD010351-CD010351
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd010351.pub2
PMC
PMC6464867
OpenAlex
W2406984851
Cited by
128
References
160
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Outdoor and Experiential Education
Keywords
litter picking, tree planting, path maintenance, health promotion, well-being, physical activity, social connectedness, self-esteem, chronic disease, mental health, nature-based interventions, adults, built environment, natural environment, social determinants of health
MeSH terms
Adult, Conservation of Natural Resources, Community Participation, Environment Design, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Health Promotion, Humans, Motor Activity, Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies, Social Environment, Volunteers, Case-Control Studies, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review