Cited by 1,993Urban Green Space and HealthNoise Effects and ManagementPhysical Activity and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

Abstract

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.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • A previous meta-analysis has been published that examined whether exposure to natural environments has a positive impact on health and well-being.

    “Although a previous meta-analysis has been published that examined whether exposure to natural environments has a positive impact on health and well-being (Bowler et al., 2010)”

    From The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Bowler et al., 2010

  • Exposure to natural environments decreases stress, increases happiness, improves mood, and restores attention.

    “For example, exposure to natural environments decreases stress, increases happiness, improves mood, and restores attention (Berto, 2005; Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010; White, Alcock, Wheeler, & Depledge, 2013).”

    From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010

  • Natural spaces have been shown to provide individuals with well-being benefits.

    “Natural spaces have been shown to provide individuals with well-being benefits [47]”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kaplan R, Kaplan S: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. 1989, New York, Cambridge University Press
  2. Scholz U, Krombholz H: A study of the physical performance ability of children from wood kindergartens and from regular kindergartens. Motorik Mar. 2007, 1: 17-22.
  3. Peacock J, Hine R, Pretty J: The mental health benefits of green exercise activities and green care. 2007, Report for MIND

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Pullin, Andrew S
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2010-08-04
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
456-456
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115180584
Cited by
1,993
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 146 · 2024: 206 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 176 · 2021: 184 · 2020: 227 · 2019: 167 · 2018: 138 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 24
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Natural England
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Acoustics and Ultrasonics › Noise Effects and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
natural environment, synthetic environments, built environment, well-being, self-reported emotion, attention, blood pressure, cortisol, walking, running, green spaces, public parks, urban green space, nature exposure
MeSH terms
Health Status, Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Nature

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