Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
DOI 10.1007/s12199-009-0114-9
SPECIAL FEATURE
The Trends on the Research of Forest Bathing in Japan,
Korea and in the World
Forest experience and psychological health benefits:
the state of the art and future prospect in Korea
Won Sop Shin • Poung Sik Yeoun •
Rhi Wha Yoo • Chang Seob Shin
Received: 6 August 2008 / Accepted: 28 September 2009 / Published online: 21 October 2009
Ó The Japanese Society for Hygiene 2009
Abstract The aims of this study were twofold: to
examine the empirical evidence supporting the positive
contribution that a forest environment can make on human
psychological health and well-being and to describe the
theoretical framework within which the forest environment
has this effect. Our review of the literature provides
empirical evidence that a forest experience can contribute
to improved emotional and cognitive health.This experi-
ence can be through a forest activity program and by
experiencing the social and physical conditions of the
forest environment and the therapeutic elements of the
forest. Visiting or viewing a forest scene has been docu-
mented to have a positive effect on psychological healing
and well-being in terms of recovering from stress,
improving concentration and productivity, improving the
psychological state, particularly for people from urban
environments. Wilderness and related studies clearly
demonstrate that being in a forest environment has a
positive effect on people, while results from other studies
indicate that contacts with forest environments provide
multiple positive physiological and psychological effects
on human health that included decreasing the blood pres-
sure and heart rate and reducing anxiety and stress. There
are several theories explaining the healing effects of the
forest on human beings. Most hypothesize that restorative
environments are settings in which recovery is associated
with the reduction of stress and that the benefits of contact
W. S. Shin (&) Á P. S. Yeoun Á C. S. Shin
School of Forest Resources, Chungbuk National University,
Cheongju 361-763, Korea
e-mail: shinwon@chungbuk.ac.kr
R. W. Yoo
Division of Forest Management, Korea Forest Research,
Seoul 130-702, Korea
with natures include a wide range of positive physiological
and psychological responses. These theories are based on
an evolutionary perspective and share a number of simi-
larities and differences. This article summarizes a number
of these theories of restorative environments as well as
addresses the current status of forest therapy and the
challenges and opportunities for therapeutic effects of the
forest in Korea.
Keywords Forest benefits Á Forest experience Á
Psychological outcomes Á Therapeutic values of forest
Introduction
The world has become an urban society with a vast number
of people becoming alienated from the traditional people–
nature relationship. To combat this problem, many urbanites
have sought out the forest setting to search for a different
perspective from city life. A forest experience is considered
one approach to promoting balance and harmony in the
modern urbanite’s life, and the forest environment has been
described as ‘‘a great health machine’’ [1], with forest
activities cited as providing both preventive and therapeutic
health benefits [2]. Extensive research has provided empir-
ical evidence that a forest experience or the viewing of forest
scenes contributes to reducing stress, promoting more
positive moods and feelings and, possible, may facilitate
recovery from illness [3–8].
The therapeutic effects of a forest can be considered to
be the results of a health treatment in a forest environment.
It is possible that a forest may provide opportunities which
foster the establishment of more efficient and active
behavior, thereby enhancing mental and physical health
and psychological functioning. Most of the studies carried
123
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
39
out to date [3–8] appraised the values of forest-related
clinical programs in improving the effective performance
of delinquents, in- and out-patients of psychiatric institu-
tions, including emotionally disturbed children, alcohol
abusers, or people with other clinical mental health
problems.
Programs that include forest therapy are being increas-
ingly sought out in Korea within the framework of the
trend of Life of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) [52–
54]. To combat this social demand, the Korea Forest Ser-
vice launched the Forest for Human Health project in 2007
(e.g., development of a model forest for human health).
However, there are many questions concerning just which
therapeutic effects occur to an individual during his/her
forest experience of forest and how these effects enrich
individual health. As yet, there have been no attempts to
answer these or similar questions empirically in Korea. The
aims of this study were, therefore, to examine the empirical
evidence for the positive contribution of a forest environ-
ment to an individual’s psychological health and well-
being and to describe the theoretical framework within
which the forest environment has this effect.
Forest experience and psychological health benefits
Based on their analysis of empirical studies on forest use,
Driver et al. [9] and Ewert [1] organized forest benefits into
several categories, including psychological, social, educa-
tional, physical, and intrinsic benefits. The taxonomy of
wildness benefits, according to Driver et al. [9], takes a
broad view, while Ewert [1] focuses more narrowly on the
personal benefits of forest adventure recreation. Ewert’s
use of the words ‘‘potential benefits’’ is similar to the words
of ‘‘probable benefits’’ used by Driver et al. [9]. These two
studies are recognized as the first comprehensive up-to-
date literature review of this topic and includes reviews of
structured and non-structured forest programs. Although
these studies present well-classified categories of forest
benefits based on a review of earlier investigations, the
authors tend not to provide detailed information on each
study in their respective review, such as the purpose of the
study, the population and location of the study, the meth-
odology and assessment instruments used, an overview of
the results, and comments on the weaknesses and strengths
of each study.
The conclusions reached by Ewert [1] are essentially the
same as those reached by Driver et al. [9], even though they
use different terms: (1) tremendous untapped opportunities
for benefits are likely to exist; (2) users’ willingness to pay
(intention to pay more) for forest preservation attest to the
sizable benefits which users believe they derive from the
experience. This is not surprising since many of the studies
reviewed by these researchers came to the same conclu-
sions. Ewert and Driver et al.’s studies suggest the need for
further research aimed at identifying the limitations to the
benefits documented to date. These limitations include: (1)
the as yet unidentified benefits of forest, and (2) the often
experienced impossibility to discern whether the benefits
reported or inferred can be uniquely attributable to the
forest experience [10].
What beneficial psychological gains occur to an indi-
vidual during his or her experience of forest, and how
might this interaction with forest benefit the shaping of a
developing personality? Does an individual’s experience of
forest offer an enriched perspective on life? These and
similar questions have recently been drawing the attention
of many researchers.
Empirical studies on the psychological effects of a forest
cover a variety of uses, subject populations, and outcome
criteria. Studies which perceived changes in the psycho-
logical well-being of forest users can be placed into one of
two categories: studies on participants in sponsored forest
challenge or survival programs, and studies on general
forest users. The results from the former confirm that
changes do actually occur in the psychological well-being
of an individual as a result of a forest experience. However,
most such studies do not reveal anything about how and
why the changes occur. Just how and why does the forest
experience result in various positive personal changes?
In addition, most research has not investigated the
individual–forest relationship itself. Perhaps, paradoxi-
cally, in some of these studies, there has been little sug-
gestion that it is the forest itself that is the essential catalyst
for psychological well-being. Of course, there must be
some outcome from the relationship between man and
forest, but the issue is much more than merely whether the
forest has provided positive benefits or negative benefits.
Instead, Driver et al. [9] pose questions such as: What are
the specific dimensions or nature of forest-related benefits?
Of what extent and magnitude are those benefits? Of what
relative importance are they? Why should we care about
these issues?
How the forest experience shapes
psychological well-being
How, then, does the forest experience shape and develop
psychological well-being? As Peterson [14] and Scherl [10]
stated, there have been very few attempts to explain ‘‘how’’
and ‘‘why’’ a forest experience promotes psychological
well-being. Gibson [15] also concluded from his compre-
hensive literature review on forest therapy that there was
no generally accepted theoretical formulation for how
forest programs bring positive changes in participants’
123
40
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
psychological and social functions. Kaplan [16] and Scott
[17] pointed out that there has been more research on user
characteristics, environmental perception, and types of use,
than on the psychological well-being of forest or what
aspects of the forest environment contribute to the pur-
ported psychological well-being.
Previous studies [18–20] have presented evidence that
there is a great diversity in users’ use patterns, activities,
management preferences, and perceptions toward the for-
est. A basic question is, therefore, how this diversity affects
the user’s experience of the forest and the resultant psy-
chological outcomes. There has been no attempt to relate
this diversity to self-actualization, although previous
studies do confirm that there are some relationships
between self-actualization and forest use. For example,
differences in the user’s attitude to the forest may influence
differentially the user’s psychological outcome from a
forest experience. The experiencing of various environ-
mental conditions is conceptualized not as a static event
but as a dynamic interaction, mediated by differences in
psychological make-up and in how information is pro-
cessed [21, 22]. Based on this conceptualization, it is
possible that different forest settings may provide very
different specific psychological outcomes. Information on
such questions would be very useful to forest managers as
the basis for inventory, planning, and management of dif-
ferent forest environments; in this context, different man-
agement strategies would apply for an old growth forest
versus a forest seashore or a high alpine meadow. In the
discussion which follows, the focus is on the theoretical
frameworks which may provide guidance to a better
understanding of the psychological processes which
underlie the interactions between an individual and a forest
setting.
Forest stimuli
Forest stimuli have been suggested [23] as an explanation
of the role of forest in improving psychological well-being.
Forest stimuli, as opposed to urban stimuli, include a low
density of human population, low levels of noise and
movement, and a slow rate of change. Therefore, according
to Bernstein [23], forest stimuli provide a high degree of
predictability and little that is conflicting or ambiguous.
Lazarus [24] argues that one is often bombarded with
threatening or stressful stimuli in the urban setting. In
contrast, the forest setting tends to evoke coping behavior,
in which one deals with a threatening or stressful stimulus
either by handling it or by avoiding it. The copying
behavior evoked in forest users tends to be such that there
is a potential for positive psychological changes. Coping
has been referred to as strategies for dealing with a threat
[24]. Murphy [25] explained coping in an analysis of how
young children meet some of the demands and crises in
their lives as follows:
‘‘It is possible that by watching children, we may learn
something about how all of us deal with new demands and
established habits of ready-made answers. When responses
are not automatic, when we do not know just what to do,
we have to cope with the situation as best we can, trying to
arrive at a solution that will enable us to get along. Much of
what we call ‘getting experience’ consists of just this, and
out of these efforts to cope with new situations eventually
develops a certain know-how, patterned ways of dealing
with newness itself [25]’’.
Lazarus [24] suggested two general classes of coping
reaction patterns. One consists of ‘‘action tendencies aimed
at elimination or mitigation of the anticipated harmful
confrontation that defines the threats’’. According to Laz-
arus [24], faced with an external danger, an individual can
take steps that reduce the threat by directly influencing the
actual conditions of the threat. On the basis of an appraisal
of the danger, energy is mobilized and mounted against the
threat. If such attempts have failed or have placed the
individual into further danger, a variety of negative con-
sequences may ensue, including depression, fear, guilt,
among others. If the attempts are successful, the threat has
been mastered, thus leading to a positive feeling of
achievement.
The second class of coping proposed by Lazarus [24] is
‘‘defense mechanisms’’. He argued that defenses are psy-
chological maneuvers in which the individual deceives
himself of herself about the actual conditions of the threat.
Defense is conceived as a response to a threat whereby the
individual maintains a sense of a secure self by denying or
distorting the threatening experience [24]. A defensive
reaction does not resolve the threat [26]; the threat may still
be present, although it may be denied or distorted (usually
minimized). Haan [27] felt that coping mechanisms are
healthy while defense mechanisms reflect inadequate or
pathological ways of dealing with a threat. The distinctions
between coping and defense mechanisms are listed in
Table 1.
Defensive relations are common in settings where the
‘‘social environment’’ is dominant. Social environment
includes not only individual and societal expectations and
norms, but anything which tends to remind one of social
constraints, such as buildings [23]. In contrast, in the forest,
no social constraints exist (or at least they are far less
evident). The forest setting, therefore, tends to provide
opportunities for coping behavior instead of defensive
behavior. Of course, the forest itself can be very much a
threat (for survival, for example), but the forest experience
may in fact be sought for, in part because the very exis-
tence of such threats challenge the individual’s coping
123
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
41
Table 1 Analysis of properties of defense and coping mechanisms
Defensive mechanism
Coping mechanism
Behavior is rigid, and stimulus bound
Behavior involves choice and is thus flexible and purposive
Behavior is pushed from the past, and the past compels the needs of the Behavior is directed toward the future and takes account of the
present
needs of the present
Behavior is essentially distorting the present situation
Behavior is oriented to the reality requirements of the present
situation
Behavior involves relatively more primary thinking processes, has
Behavior involves secondary process thinking, conscious and
unconscious elements, and is thus undifferentiated in terms of responses preconscious elements, and is highly differentiated in response
Behavior operates under the assumption that it is possible to remove
disturbing affects magically
Behavior operates within the organism’s necessity of ‘‘metering’’
the experiencing of disturbing affects
Behavior allows impulse gratification by subterfuge
Behavior allows forms of impulse satisfaction in an open, ordered,
and tempered way
ability. Whereas the social environment may place the
individual in an involuntary position where a defensive
reaction may be the reaction to a threat, a forest environ-
ment places the individual in a voluntary position where
the challenge of the forest evokes coping behaviors.
The concept of ‘flow’
Csikszenmihlyi’s ‘‘flow’’ is the central concept of his the-
oretical model for enjoyment. Csikszentmihalyi [28]
described the flow experience as one of the complete
involvement of the actor with his or her activity. In the flow
state, action follows upon action according to an internal
logic that seems to need no conscious intervention by the
actor. Csikszentmihalyi [28] identified a number of ele-
ments that are indicators of the occurrence and intensity
of flow experience: the perception that personal skills and
the challenges provided by an activity are in balance,
concentration of attention, loss of self-consciousness,
unambiguous feedback to a person’s actions, feelings of
control over actions and environment, momentary loss of
anxiety and constraint, and enjoyment or pleasure [28].
According to Csikszenmihlyi [28], ‘‘flow’’ is a peculiar
state of experience in the context of an intrinsically moti-
vating activity. He used the term ‘‘autotelic’’ experience as a
psychological state, based on concrete feedback, which acts
as a reward in that it produces continuing behavior in the
absence of other rewards. ‘‘Flow’’ as a specific state asso-
ciated with ‘‘autotelic’’ activities happens when an organ-
ism’s capabilities match the level of demand of the situation.
When a person believes that his or her opportunities to act
are too demanding for his or her capabilities, the resulting
stress is experienced as anxiety. When the ratio of capabil-
ities is higher, but the challenges are still too demanding for
his skills, the experience is worry. The state of flow is felt
when opportunities for action are in balance with the actor’s
skills. The experience is then autotelic. When skills are
greater than the opportunities for using them, the state of
boredom results. This state again fades into anxiety when the
ration becomes too large. One important aspect of this model
is that either excessive boredom of excessive worry can be
very stressful, leading the individuals to experience anxiety.
In the ‘‘flow’’ state, there exists no worry or boredom, and a
person feels a holistic sensation of acting with the total
environment. One feels in control of one’s actions, and the
distinction between self and the environment is blurred.
Csikszenmihlyi [28] presents four characteristics of the state
of flow: (1) a person in flow has no dualistic perspective, i.e.,
he/she is unaware; (2) attention is focused on a limited
stimulus field; (3) there is a ‘‘loss of ego’’, a ‘‘self-forget-
fulness’’’while in flow; (4) the flow experience needs no
goals or rewards external to itself. These four characteristics
of the flow state can be applied to a person in forest. When a
person is in a forest environment, he or she may possibly be
subjected to ‘‘forest stimuli’’ or be struck by the greatness
and mystery of the forest. When in a state of ‘‘flow’’, he or
she may forget about society and, by means of communing
with nature in the forest, possibly reach a state of inner peace
and serenity, that may resemble some states experienced
during a religious experience.
Allen [29] tried to connect Csikszenmihlyi’s ‘‘flow’’
experience of adventure or risk recreation activities with
Maslow’s ‘‘peak-experience’’ theory (this theory will be
discussed in detail in the following section). Risk recrea-
tion may be defined as recreational or leisure activities that
entail an exposure to danger. A forest experience may take
on the attributes of these risk recreation activities. In fact, a
natural environmental setting is important to the element of
adventure or risk. This natural environmental setting
includes features such as air currents, gravity, mountains,
white water, ice and snow, and forest [29]. It may perhaps
be best exemplified in a forest environment where the
absence of man-made features may be conducive to an
easier, and deeper awareness (and understanding) of the
various features of the natural environment.
123
42
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
Several studies have examined flow or elements of flow
during leisure experiences. Kleiber et al. [30] studied
the experiences associated with the leisure activities of
adolescents. The activities were grouped into three
conventional categories, such as productive activities,
maintenance activities, and leisure activities. These
researchers reported that behavioral activities sampled
during leisure (free) time were indeed experienced as being
more intrinsically motivating and less restrained than those
sampled during productive and maintenance activities; the
former were also associated with more positive feelings.
This study indicates that, for adolescents, leisure is dis-
tinctive in its association with high levels of perceived
freedom, intrinsic motivation, and positive effects. Mannel
et al. [31] carried out a study to determine if a higher level
of flow accompanies activities perceived as freely chosen
and intrinsically motivated. They reported that freely
chosen activities were accompanied by experiences with
higher levels of positive effects, potency, concentration,
and lower levels of tension. Also, personal skills were mere
often perceived to match the challenges provided by the
freely chosen activities.
The forest experience can certainly be characterized as
an activity very likely to produce ‘‘flow’’. It is associated
with high levels of perceived freedom, intrinsic motivation,
and positive affects. The forest experience provides a
specific state of experience that is not accessible in
everyday life. It is typically not boring and does not pro-
duce anxiety, feelings which are often produced in normal,
everyday life. According to Csikszentmihalyi [28], the
clearest sign of flow is the merging of action and aware-
ness. A person in a flow state has no dualistic perspectives:
he/she is aware of his/her actions, but not of the awareness
itself. A forest rock climber may be too involved to think of
anything separate from his/her immediate actions and does
not see him/herself as being separate from the activity.
The main motivations of forest users appear to be
desires to escape from normal life and reduce stress [6].
When in a forest, memory inputs (i.e., stimuli which may
cause us to think about many distracting things) have been
severed. The world seems to be cut off from the forest
visitor, and the forest experience is conducive to thoughts
on the mystery of nature, the beauty and greatness of
nature, and God’s power. Such contemplation may be the
result of the centering of one’s attention on a limited
stimulus field, as when in a state of flow. Applying the
concepts of Maslow [32], the wholeness of a forest expe-
rience is striking in that there is a total focus of attention on
the forest, resulting in the individual being completely
absorbed and possibly entering a self-forgetful state asso-
ciated with an unawareness of time and space. Scott [17]
also suggests that the forest provides opportunities for such
self-forgetful states. During the forest experience, a person
is close to nature and often may feel that he/she has bee cut
off from the human world.
Consequently, the concept of ‘‘flow’’ is helpful to
understand why forest users choose the forest as their
recreational setting, how forest experiences affect the rec-
reational setting, and how forest experiences affect the
psychology of the forest used. However, it falls short of
explaining just how the state of flow is attained. According
to Csikszentmihalyi [28], flow is an explanation of how an
activity may motivate and stimulate an individual, in
contrast to how an activity may be boring or may produce
anxiety. This concept focuses heavily on the relationship
between an individual’s action capability and action
opportunity, i.e., how capable is the individual to carrying
out an activity and to what extent does an activity present
the individual with an opportunity to act-out this capability.
Flow is graphically portrayed as a balance between the
opportunity for action and the personal skills that are called
for in the activity. If a person’s skills are insufficient to
meet the challenge of the situation, worry is produced.
Conversely, if the scope of one’s skills is greater than
opportunities for using them, he or she may experience
boredom.
The ‘‘flow’’ model, however, does not take into account
environmental influences on an individual’s psychological
well-being. According to the flow model, a forest experi-
ence would be considered a challenge, resulting in flow
provided that the individual has the skill (training, educa-
tion, awareness) to cope with the challenge. To the
unskilled, the forest may be highly boring or highly anxi-
ety-producing. One needs ‘‘skill’’ (training, education,
awareness) to appreciate a forest and to be able to be
attuned to a forest. Outward-bound programs stress ‘‘per-
sonal growth through challenge’’ [33] and instill the req-
uisite skills in participants to enable them to achieve
personal growth through the challenge of a forest
experience.
Hendee–Brown model
Hendee and Brown [34] developed a model to help people
understand how to use the forest and other natural envi-
ronments for their own greater inspiration and benefits.
This model is also designed to increase the understanding
of resource managers on how to manage natural environ-
ments so that they can contribute to the development of
human resources. The main question for Hendee and
Brown was ‘‘how does a forest work?’’. They argue that the
probabilities for personal growth from a forest experience
depend on: (1) the participants being in a receptive mood;
(2) the optimal degree of stress from forest activities; (2)
contact with the environment; (4) a forest experience that
123
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
43
provides change and attunement; (5) opportunities which
foster an increase in the awareness of desirable qualities
that can later be applied back home.
Hendee and Brown [34] describe a process, an unfolding
awareness in increasing depth, that can occur through
forest activities. First, forest experiences increase an indi-
vidual’s personal awareness of basic patterns of feelings,
behaviors, values, and beliefs, as the first step toward
personal growth. Second, forest experiences place the
individual at a ‘‘growing edge’’ (i.e., a psychological state
of mind) where these personal qualities can be evaluated,
and change can be initiated. Third, forest experiences in
groups provide social interaction at a basic human level. In
a forest, enhanced trust among interdependent companions
can reduce the risk of self disclosure, and patterns of social
interaction that are functional, effective and inspired can be
developed and shared [34]. Lastly, the bumbling primal
influences of a forest foster a sense of humility in relation
to the natural world.
Hendee and Brown [34] argue that their model is a
valuable road map for the designers of forest programs in
that it would increase the understanding of forest managers
so that they can better protect and foster opportunities for
the effective use of the forest for the personal growth of
participants in the forest programs and for the development
of human potential.
The theory of Hendee and Brown takes into account
broad aspects of nature–individual interactions, including
natural environment influences and social interactions
among the group participants. However, their postulates
and hypotheses are mostly based on speculations, perhaps
derived from their professional experience with forest
users. Although their theory is quite convincing, further
empirical study is needed to better support their
hypotheses.
The model of crowding and privacy
Almost all studies on the motivation(s) of forest users
mention the desire for a reduction of urban stress as a
reason for a forest trip. Driver [35] states that forest areas
provide opportunities for coping with crowding. He pos-
tulates that crowding contributes to the environmental
stress felt in everyday urban living and that forest experi-
ences become an important means of temporary escape and
recovery for people under stress. He reported that about
50–70% of forest users generally mentioned ‘‘peace and
tranquility’’, ‘‘getting away from city’’ or ‘‘from it all’’’ and
a ‘‘change from routine’’ as reasons for visiting forest
areas. In other studies, forest users used different terms to
describe their motivation(s), such as ‘‘solitude’’ [36, 37],
‘‘get away from the crowds and congestion of the city’’
[38], ‘‘escape from frustrating or boring work’’ [6], and
‘‘escape from routine, the familiar, and urban stress’’ [39],
but all of these findings were highly consistent and seemed
to support Driver’s idea about the stress-mediating or
psychological value of the forest.
Crowding is a concept closely related to privacy.
Crowding is felt when the privacy-controlling mechanisms
fail, resulting in more social interaction than is desired
[40]. The terms ‘‘density’’ and ‘‘crowding’’ are two dif-
ferent things, with density referring to a number of people
per unit, while crowding is a psychological concept since it
is personally experienced. Thus, the concept of ‘‘density’’
regards people simply as a number in relation to an area
and does not consider subjective reactions to the presence
of others. The point at which a specific level of density is
considered to constitute crowding is both culturally and
individually determined.
Hammitt and Brown [41] proposed a theoretical model
of crowding. According to this model, a person combines
influences of personal factors, interpersonal forces, and
situational conditions. The individual then attempts to
achieve the desired degree of privacy through various
privacy-controlling mechanisms. Following these efforts,
he/she then evaluates the effectiveness of these mecha-
nisms and decides whether the achieved privacy equals the
desired privacy. If what is achieved is less than what was
desired, crowding occurs; however, if what is achieved is
much more than what was desired, a feeling of social
isolation may result.
The forest is an environment that is particularly valued
for the solitude and privacy it offers. The U.S. Forest Act
states that opportunities for solitude are an important
characteristic of a forest. Hammitt and Brown [41] argue
that forest solitude is generally recognized to include
realms of privacy other than just being alone. These
researchers did [41] acknowledge that privacy is a broadly
defined terms and suggested that solitude, intimacy, ano-
nymity, and reserve are four basic dimensions of privacy.
Solitude refers to the complete isolation of an individual in
which the latter is separated from the group and freed from
the observation of others. Intimacy is a dimension of pri-
vacy and refers to the individual acting as part of a small
unit, seeking to achieve a close, personal relationship with
one or more selected members of this group. Anonymity
refers to the individual in a public setting but still seeking
and achieving freedom from identification, surveillance,
and social roles. Finally, reserve refers to the individual
keeping a mental distance, creating a psychological barrier
against unwanted intrusion and reserving the right not to
reveal certain aspects him/herself.
These four dimensions of privacy result in four func-
tions, which are defined as personal autonomy, emotional
release, self-evaluation, and limited and protected
123
44
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
communication [41]. Personal autonomy is the need to
avoid being manipulated or dominated wholly by others, or
to safeguard one’s sacred individuality. Emotional release
provides for a respite from the psychological tensions and
stresses of social roles in every-day society. Self-evaluation
refers to the need to integrate one’s experiences into a
meaningful pattern in relation to external events. Limited
and protected communication provides the opportunities
needed for sharing confidences and intimacies with those
trusted, and it serves to set necessary boundaries of mental
distance in interpersonal situations.
Hammitt [41] and Hammitt and Brown [37] examined
the theoretical model for its utility in gaining an under-
standing of the functions of privacy in forest settings. Their
findings indicated that forest environments and privacy
were particularly important for ‘‘resting the mind from
anxiety and mental fatigue’’ and for promoting a sense of
‘‘tranquility and peacefulness’’. Privacy in the forest allows
for emotional release and for resting the mind from anxiety
and mental fatigue. Privacy frees the mind of routine
events and allows an attentional state to develop where
reflective thought, self-evaluation, and the integration of
events take on importance.
From the theoretical perspective, there are a number of
profound complexities in these underlying processes that
illustrate the large number of factors and dimensions which
could be taken into consideration when studying forest
experiences. It is important to note that a basic information
processing paradigm is implicit in most of the theoretical
models relating to interactions between an individual and
his/her setting (environment) [10]. The experiences
encountered in everyday life contrasts with the experience
in a forest environment. In a forest situation, the individual
experiences unambiguous feelings and has a very clear set
of ‘‘challenges’’ which require a single-minded investment
of energy and attention [1]. There is a directness and
frankness associated with the feedback from a forest, which
results from individual–environmental transactions in a
forest situation [10].
The theories reviewed here have primarily emphasized
mechanisms between an individual and his/her environ-
ment or those mechanisms for coping with stress. The
theory of ‘‘forest stimuli’’ by Bernstein [23] focuses on the
interactions between the individual and the extraordinary
effects of forest environments. In the ‘‘Flow’’ model [28],
specific characteristics of the activities are considered to be
the most important factor. In the theory of ‘Flow’, other
factors, such as environmental effects, which influence
psychological well-being, should also be taken into con-
sideration. The Hendee and Brown [34] model arguably is
the most comprehensive model designed to date that
explains how a forest experience actually improves per-
sonal growth. In this model, various factors are taken into
account, including the individual’s receptive mood prior to
the forest trip or prior to taking part in a forest program, the
primal influences of nature, and the social interactions with
other participants. The Hendee and Brown [34] model is
very broad and consists essentially of postulates and
hypotheses based on the experiences reported by forest
users. The model needs to be tested under actual field
conditions.
The concepts of solitude and privacy further complicate
our understanding of how a forest may influence the indi-
vidual. However, the issue of solitude and privacy in a
forest setting should not be considered to be very different
from that of solitude and privacy in general, such as in an
urban setting. Although the motivation of many forest users
is to seek ‘‘opportunities for solitude’’, the uniqueness of
forest experiences calls for a more forest-specific theory of
solitude, perhaps even to give it a different label. One can
find solitude in one’s house, but in terms of solitude, this is
absolutely not the equivalent of forest solitude; perhaps
solitude in forest may more appropriately be referred to as
serenity.
This section has presented a review of selected social
and environmental psychological concepts and theories
which may facilitate an understanding and conceptualiza-
tion of the forest experience. Theoretical frameworks
which look at the nature of forest experiences in an all-
encompassing way are nearly non-existent, and perhaps
even impossible to construct. The most crucial conclusion
that can be drawn from these diverse concepts and theories
is that they are not significantly different from one another
in terms of their applicability to understanding the forest
experience. Quite to the contrary, a duplication and repe-
tition of themes (albeit using different terms) seem to be
the main characteristic of all these theories and concepts.
Attention restoration theory
Attention restoration theory (ART) [2] proposes that
exposure to nature, such as a forest, reduces mental fatigue
or, more precisely, directed attention fatigue. A theory
attempting to explain these effects was proposed by Kaplan
[2]. According to Kaplan’s ART, prolonged use of directed
attention leads to the fatigue of neural mechanisms. The
Recovery of effective functioning is enabled by settings
that have certain key properties, such as ‘‘being away’’,
‘‘extent’’, ‘‘fascination’’, and ‘‘compatibility’’. These
components refer to those key properties of forests that
trigger mental processes or states contributing to restor-
ative experiences [42].
An extensive number of studies have been performed to
provide evidence for and support of ART. These studies
include those of Kaplan [43], Korpela et al. [44], Kuo et al.
123
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
45
[45], Kuo and Sillivan [46], and Taylor et al. [47]. Some of
the most compelling studies have linked the beneficial
effects of forest with its effects on attentional capacity [48,
49] and on its mediating role for directed attention in the
relation between forest settings and beneficial outcomes
[46, 50]. An understanding of restorative person–forest
transactions can be useful in environmental design, plan-
ning, policy, and management. The measurement of
restorative qualities of person–forest transactions can also
help in applying such understanding [51]. In summary,
ART provides a set of potentially useful constructs for
understanding various restorative outcomes realized by
purposive individuals acting in forest settings.
Growing importance of forest psychological
benefits in Korea
Like many modern societies, Korean society has urbanized
rapidly during the last three decades. According to current
statistics, more than 87% of the Korean population resides
in urban environments. As society becomes urbanized, the
forest becomes an important resource for the millions of
urbanites seeking more quality in their life. Forests provide
opportunities for active outdoor recreation as well as for
quiet relaxation and an escape from daily urban stress [38].
Although evidence-based research has been conducted in
recent years, Korea has a long history of forest use for human
health purposes. Approximately 65% of Korea is forested
land; therefore, people use the forest to promote and main-
tain their health. Herbal remedies, exercise, meditation,
green forest showers, among others are traditional health-
related activities in forests in Korea. The results of a recent
national outdoor recreation survey indicated that more than
80% of forest recreationists in Korea mentioned ‘‘promotion
and maintenance of health’’ were the main motivations for
their visiting a forest [13]. Natural-being and well-being
with nature are emerging issues in Korea. To combat the
increasing demand of forest use for human health, research
in forestry has recently become a major issue.
Research
Since the early 2000s, several researchers have published
books dealing with the health benefits of forests, including
include Therapeutic Forest [52], Health Travel to Forests
[53], Green Shower for Health in Forests’’ [54]; papers/
technical reports have also appeared on this topic . One of
the most significant events in the forest and human health
area in Korea was the establishment of an interdisciplinary
research group in 2005 named the ‘‘Forest and Health
Forum.’’ The main objective of this Forum is to research
evidence-based health benefits of forest and release the
results to the public. To date, there are 200 researchers in
forestry, medical sciences, sports sciences, among others
involved in the Forum.
Empirical studies on ‘‘forest experience and psycho-
logical health’’ also have been actively conducted. Since
the 1990s, studies on various samples of the general pop-
ulation have been published in forestry journals; these have
included such topics as forest campers and their self-
actualization increase [5], forest experience and alcoholics’
depression [7], forest program and college students’
depression [8], campers in a national park and their place
bonding [7], forest view from the window and office
workers’ job satisfaction [53], and the urban forest user and
psycho-social outcomes [38]. Most of the studies have
reported that the people who participated in a forest pro-
gram or interacted with a forest environment recognized
positive changes in their psychological well-being.
Several evidence-based studies have been conducted as
degree theses in the field of forestry. Lee [55] investigated
the relationship between types of forests and people’s psy-
cho-physiological responses. Her study indicated that a
forest with water environment is the most favorite type of
landscape and one that produces most positive psychologi-
cal and physiological outcome (i.e., mood and feeling, alpha
brain wave, blood pressure, etc.). Song [56] also conducted a
thesis project involving 60 unmarried women in which she
investigated the influence of a 3-month forest therapeutic
program on depression and self-esteem among unmarried
women. Using the experimental design of a treatment and
control group, her results revealed that unmarried women
who participated the program showed significant improve-
ment in terms of their depression and self-esteem levels.
According to a published literature review, there are
very few studies dealing with subjects who participated in
non-structured forest programs. It is also important to note
that no studies have as yet investigated the benefits related
to off-site users or vicarious users. While some of the
empirical studies were of questionable validity due to
methodological shortcomings, such as a small sample size,
it is clear that a forest can indeed provide opportunities for
positive changes in the psychological outcomes. As several
researchers [1, 9] have claimed, ‘‘we have discovered a
black box; we know something works but we don’t know
why or how’’ [1]. With further research, the forest as a
unique natural setting in modern society will become better
understood and better appreciated.
Current status
There are no statistics of the numbers of practitioners
employing forest therapy due to the current absence of
123
46
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
professional organization. However, the Korea Forest
Service recognizes the importance of the therapeutic values
of the forest environment and is conducting long-term
research projects with foresters, medical doctors, and pro-
fessionals in related fields, such as landscape architecture,
psychology, among others. The main purpose of these
projects is to investigate the relationship between the forest
and human health outcomes and, if there are positive
relationships, the mechanism of this therapeutic function of
the forest. The Korea Forest Service is also studying the
development of practical forest therapeutic programs for
clinical purposes.
psychological health benefits is at an early stage of
development in Korea as well as the rest of the world.
There can be little question that the priority and resources
accorded to the forest in the future will be largely shaped
by the extent to which sound research demonstrates that the
forest environment can improve health outcomes.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Korea Forest
Service Research Grant (Research on Development of Human Health
Program Using Forest Resources).
References
Future
The forest as a resource of human health, especially psy-
chological health, has faced and will face large challenges
in the future. Korean society once placed its hope in forest
therapy as an effective way of improving the quality of life.
Although several new opportunities for such therapy have
developed, the initial expectation has not been entirely
borne out over time. Evidence-based tools and programs
are urgently needed.
Conclusion
The results reported in this article offer considerable sup-
port for the importance of forest in psychological well-
being. We have briefly reviews the literature on the field
and demonstrated that forest environments not only are
more desirable than urban scenes [43] but that they can also
enhance stress recovery and restoration in a way in which
urban scenes cannot [44–46]. Forest environments are not
the only kind of restorative environment, but they seem to
have numerous advantages over many other settings, and
there is substantial support for forest settings being pre-
ferred as well as restorative [43, 51]. It also appears that
even a very short opportunity to experience a forest setting
can serve a restorative function [11, 12]. Thus, a forest
experience provides a restorative experience, one that
provides a brief respite to one’s fatigue and stress.
The use of forests is becoming more complex, and the
outcomes are becoming more significant to people, espe-
cially to urbanites. Psychological health benefits from
forest use and experiences are important issues in Korea
because the psychological strains in daily life are particu-
larly serious at the present time, with major economic and
cultural changes. Korea has undergone a enormous finan-
cial crisis during the past 10 years; furthermore, its cultural
patterns are being rapidly Westernized. It is clear from our
literature review that research on the forest experience and
1. Ewert A. Values, benefits and consequences in outdoor adventure
recreation. In: A literature review: President’s Commission on
American Outdoors. Washington D.C.: Gov. Printing; 1986. pp.
71–80.
2. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative
framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15:169–82.
3. Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery from
surgery. Sciences. 1984;224:420–1.
4. Cimprich B. Development of an intervention to restore attention
in cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 1993;16:83–92.
5. Shin WS. The understanding of forest campers’ attitudes and
their self-actualization (in Korean). J Korean For Soc. 1993;
82:107–21.
6. Shin WS. The influence of forest view through a window on job
satisfaction and job stress. Scand J For Res. 2007;22:248–53.
7. Shin WS, Kim SK. The influence of forest experience on alco-
holics’ depression levels (in Korean). J Korean For Soc. 2007;
96:203–7.
8. Shin WS, Oh HK. The influence of forest program on depression
levels (in Korean). J Korean For Soc. 1996;85:586–95.
9. Driver BL, Peterson GL, Easley AT. Benefits perceived by past
participants in NOLS. In: Easley AT, Driver BL, editors. The use of
wilderness for personal growth, therapy and education. GTR RM-
193. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service; 1990. pp. 30–48.
10. Scherl LM. Constructions of a wilderness experience. Aust Psy-
chol. 1988;23:225–42.
11. Hartig T. Nature experience in transactional perspectives. Landsc
Urban Plan. 1993;25:17–36.
12. Herzog TR, Chen HC, Primeau JS. Perception of the restorative
potential of natural and other settings. J Environ Psychol. 2002;
22:295–306.
13. Shin WS. The influence of forest view through a window on job
satisfaction and job stress. J Scand For Res. 2007;22:248–53.
14. Peterson GL. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environ-
ment: congruence between perception and aspiration. Environ
Behav. 1974;6:160–93.
15. Gibson PM. Therapeutic aspects of wilderness programs: a
comprehensive literature review. Ther Recreation J. 1979; 2nd
Quater:21–33.
16. Kaplan R. Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: and
analysis of a continuing program. Leis Sci. 1984;6(3):271–90.
17. Scott N. Toward a psychology of wilderness experience. Nat
Resour J. 1974;14:231–7.
18. Lucas RC. A look at wilderness use and users in transition. Nat
Resour J. 1989;29(1):41–55.
19. Roggenbuck JW, Watson AE. Wilderness recreation use: the
current situation. In: Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Pro-
ceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum, USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report SE-52; 1989.
123
Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:38–47
47
20. Stankey GH, Lucas RC. Shifting trends in backcountry and wil-
derness use. In: Lee, Marty, Brown, Perry J, editors. Recreation
and Park Management. Paper from the First National Symposium
on Social Science in Resource Management. Corvallis, OR:
College of Forestry, Oregon State University; 1989.
21. Tart CT. States of consciousness. New York: EP Dutton; 1975.
22. Ittelson WH. Environmental perception and urban experience.
Environ Behav. 1978;10(2):193–213.
23. Bernstein A. Wilderness as a therapeutic behavior setting. Ther
Recreation J. 1972;Fourth Quater:161–165, 185.
24. Lazarus RS. Psychological stress and the coping process. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1966.
25. Murphy LB. The widening world of childhood: paths toward
mastery. New York: Basic Book; 1962.
26. Hogan RA. A theory of threat and defense. J Consult Psychol.
1952;16:417–24.
27. Haan N. Proposed model of ego functioning: coping and defense
mechanisms in relationship to IQ change. Psychol Monogr.
1963;77:1–13.
28. Csikszentmihalyi M. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass; 1975.
29. Allen S. Risk recreation: a literature review and model. In: Meier
J, Morash T, Welton G, editors. High adventure outdoor purists.
Salt Lake City: Brighton Publishing; 1980.
30. Kleiber D, Larson R, Csikszentmihalyi M. The experience of
leisure in adolescence. J Leis Res. 1986;18:169–76.
31. Mannel RC, Juzanek J, Larson R. Leisure state and ‘‘flow’’
experience. J Leis Res. 1988;20(4):289–304.
32. Maslow AH. Motivation and personality. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper & Row; 1970.
33. Easley AT. The personality traits of wilderness leadership
instructors at NOLS. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Blackberg,
VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 1985.
34. Hendee JC, Brown M. How wilderness experience programs
facilitate personal growth: a guide for program leaders and
resource managers. Renew Resour J. 1988;6(2):9–16.
35. Driver BL. Potential contributions of psychology to recreation
resource management. In: Wohlwill JF, Carson DH, editors.
Environment and social science: perspectives and application.
Washington: American Psychological Association; 1972.
36. Stankey GH. Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying
capacity. USDA Forest Service Res; 1973 (Paper INT-142).
37. Hammitt WE, Brown GF. Functions of privacy in wilderness
environments. Leis Sci. 1984;6:151–66.
38. Shin WS, Kwon HK, Hammitt WE, Kim BS. Urban park use and
psychosocial outcome. Scand J For Res. 2005;20:441–9.
39. Hollender JW. Motivational dimensions of the camping experi-
ence. J Leis Res. 1977;9:133–41.
40. Iso-Ahola SE. The social psychology of leisure and recreation.
Dubuque, IA: WmC Brown; 1980.
41. Hammitt WE. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude.
Environ Behav. 1982;14:478–93.
42. Laumann K, Garling T, Stormark KM. Rating scale measures of
restorative components of environment. J Environ Psychol. 2001;
21:31–44.
43. Kaplan R. The nature of the view from home: psychological
benefits. Environ Behav. 2001;33:507–42.
44. Korpela KM, Hartig T, Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U. Restorative expe-
rience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environ Behav.
2001;33:572–89.
45. Kuo FE, Bacaicoa M, Sullivan WC. Transforming inner-city
landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environ Behav.
1998;30:28–59.
46. Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Environment and crime in the inner city:
does vegetation reduce crime? Environ Behav. 2001;33:343–67.
47. Taylor AF, Wiley A, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Growing up in the
inner city: green spaces as places to grow. Environ Behav.
1998;30:3–27.
48. Wells NM. At home with nature: effects of greenness on chil-
dren’s cognitive functioning. Environ Behav. 2000;32:775–95.
49. Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Coping with ADD: the sur-
prising connection to green play setting. Environ Behav.
2001;33:54–77.
50. Kuo FE. Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and
attention in the inner city. Environ Behav. 2001;33:5–34.
51. Hartig T, Korpela KM, Evans GW, Garling T. Validation of a
measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Goteborg
psychological reports 26: Goteborg, Sweden: Gothenburg,
Gotenborg University; 1996. p. 7.
52. Shin WS. Therapeutic forest [in Korean]. Seoul: Jisungsa; 2005.
53. Shin WS. Health travel to forests [in Korean]. Seoul: Jisungsa;
2007.
54. Park BJ. Green shower for health in forests (in Korean). Seoul:
Nexus Book; 2006.
55. Lee JH. The influence of forest types on psycho-physiological
responses (in Korean). Unpublished MSc thesis. Cheongju,
Korea: Chungbuk National University, 2008.
56. Song JH. The influence of forest therapeutic program on
unmarried mother’s depression and self-esteem (in Korean).
Unpublished MSc thesis. Cheongju, Korea: Chungbuk National
University; 2008.
123