Cited by 177Urban Green Space and HealthPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management

The affective benefits of nature exposure

Open access
Bratman, Gregory N., Olvera‐Alvarez, Hector A., Gross, James J.·2021·Social and Personality Psychology Compass

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/spc3.12630

Cites

233 of 233 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Affected populations may suffer from the repercussions that are tied to the decreased nature contact that is associated with WFS, through a deprivation of the opportunity to experience the anxiety and rumination reduction, social cohesion, and increases in positive affect that nature contact provides.

    “Additionally, affected populations may suffer from the repercussions that are tied to the decreased nature contact that is associated with WFS, through a deprivation of the opportunity to experience the anxiety and rumination reduction [26–28], social cohesion [29, 30], and increases in positive affect [31–33] that nature contact provides.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 235 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bratman, G. N., Olvera‐Alvarez, H. A., & Gross, J. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • School of Nursing Oregon Health & Science University Portland OR USA
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Bratman, Gregory N.
Venue
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-06-30
Volume
15
Issue
8
ISSN
1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185178841
Cited by
177
References
235
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 6
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Social and Personality Psychology Compass (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Keywords
nature exposure, emotion regulation, stress reduction, negative affect, positive affect, subjective well-being, psychophysiological responses, temporal dynamics, psychological well-being

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