Cited by 36Urban Green Space and HealthVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Psychological effects of green experiences in a virtual environment: a systematic review

Open access
Lee, Mijin, Kim, Eunsoo, Choe, Jiwon, Choi, Seonhye, Ha, Siyeon, Kim, Geonwoo·2022·Forests

Abstract

As mental health issues increase worldwide, nature-based experiences are being recognized as alternative treatments for improving health and well-being. Increasing urbanization precludes many people from accessing green spaces owing to time or physical limitations. Therefore, opportunities to connect with nature through virtual technology is being encouraged. We conducted a systematic review of studies on the psychological effects of experiencing nature using virtual technology. We searched the academic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for relevant studies and assessed their quality using Cochrane’s RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. Twenty-one studies were included and the psychological outcomes were negatively synthesized by the intervention characteristics (duration, observation position of the landscape, interaction, environment description, and sensory type). Psychological outcomes were classified into emotional recovery, cognitive recovery, stress reduction, and other indicators. Emotional recovery was most consistently presented, and virtual natural contact alleviated negative emotions more than it elicited positive emotions. Additionally, virtual nature interventions lasting more than 10 min showed more consistent effects than those of less than 10 min. Moreover, an open field of view led to significant emotional recovery and an in-forest view led to significant cognitive recovery. Despite some limitations, our findings will contribute to the development of virtual forest experiences to improve human well-being.

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 · 10.3390/f13101625

Cites

76 of 76 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?

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

1 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, M., Kim, E., Choe, J., Choi, S., Ha, S., & Kim, G.
Affiliations
National Institute of Forestry Science (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Geonwoo
Venue
Forests
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-10-03
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
1625
ISSN
1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4303644997
Cited by
36
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
virtual reality, green space access, nature-based interventions, psychological well-being, emotional recovery, cognitive recovery, stress reduction, virtual forest, field of view, urbanization, mental health

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