Cited by 1,237Urban Green Space and HealthEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesClimate Change and Health Impacts

Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda

Open access
Frumkin, Howard, Bratman, Gregory N., Breslow, Sara Jo, Cochran, Bobby, Kahn Jr, Peter H., Lawler, Joshua J., Levin, Phillip S., Tandon, Pooja S. +3 more·2017·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Background: At a time of increasing disconnectedness from nature, scientific interest in the potential health benefits of nature contact has grown. Research in recent decades has yielded substantial evidence, but large gaps remain in our understanding. Objectives: We propose a research agenda on nature contact and health, identifying principal domains of research and key questions that, if answered, would provide the basis for evidence-based public health interventions. Discussion: We identify research questions in seven domains: a) mechanistic biomedical studies; b) exposure science; c) epidemiology of health benefits; d) diversity and equity considerations; e) technological nature; f) economic and policy studies; and g) implementation science. Conclusions: Nature contact may offer a range of human health benefits. Although much evidence is already available, much remains unknown. A robust research effort, guided by a focus on key unanswered questions, has the potential to yield high-impact, consequential public health insights. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663

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 · 10.1289/ehp1663

Cites

358 of 358 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?

  • 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.”

    From What can we do when the smoke rolls in? An exploratory qualitative analysis of the impacts of rural wildfire smoke on mental health and wellbeing, and opportunities for adaptation (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nature immersion promotes calmness, lowering cortisol, and improving immune function.

    “Like many of the evolved nest components, nature immersion promotes calmness, lowering cortisol, improving immune function (Frumkin et al., 2017; Bratman et al., 2019).”

    From The evolved nest, oxytocin functioning, and prosocial development (2023) · cites this paper as Frumkin et al., 2017

    The Psychological Pathways section reports that nature contact reduces stress, consistent with promoting calmness, and identifies salivary cortisol as a measure used in relevant experiments. It does not explicitly say that nature contact lowers cortisol. The Enhanced Immune Function section says nature contact may enhance immune function and links some short-term exposures to improved natural killer cell activity, so the claim states that benefit more definitively than the paper does. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence documenting the specific health conditions that would benefit from the appropriate "dose" of nature and how different populations may respond to Nature Rx is lacking.

    “However, evidence documenting the specific health conditions that would benefit from the appropriate “dose” of nature and how different populations may respond to Nature Rx is lacking [17,18,19,20].”
  • Greenspace exposure has unique characteristics that may confer added health benefits via multiple pathways for those completing physical activity in a green environment.

    “Thus, while numerous studies have long indicated that light-to-moderate physical activity has a strong positive association with health and well-being [40,41,42,43], greenspace exposure has unique characteristics that may confer added health benefits via multiple pathways for those completing physical activity in a green environment.”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 359 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Berzuini C, Dawid P, Bernardinelli L, Berzuini C 2012 Causality: Statistical Perspectives and Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  2. Hester RE, Harrison RM 2010 Ecosystem Services. Cambridge, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry.
  3. Kaplan R, Kaplan S 1989 The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  4. WHO (World Health Organization). 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. 26180873
  5. Wilson EO 1984 Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L., & Wood, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Willamette Partnership, Portland, Oregon, USA
  • School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
Corresponding author
Frumkin, Howard
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2017-07-24
Volume
125
Issue
7
Pages
075001-075001
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2743768722
Cited by
1,237
References
359
Citations by year
2026: 116 · 2025: 177 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 170 · 2022: 161 · 2021: 176 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 5
FWCI
41.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Climate Change and Health Impacts
Keywords
nature contact, human health benefits, research agenda, public health interventions, exposure science, mechanistic studies, diversity and equity, nature-based interventions, implementation science, health policy
MeSH terms
Environmental Health, Humans, Public Health, Research, 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