International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Associations between Nature Exposure and Health: A Review
of the Evidence
Marcia P. Jimenez 1,2,*,†, Nicole V. DeVille 1,3,*,† , Elise G. Elliott 3,4, Jessica E. Schiff 4 , Grete E. Wilt 4,
Jaime E. Hart 3,4,‡ and Peter James 2,3,4,‡
1 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02215, USA
2 Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA 02215, USA; pjames@hsph.harvard.edu
3 Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA; eelliott@hsph.harvard.edu (E.G.E.);
rejch@channing.harvard.edu (J.E.H.)
4 Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02215, USA;
jschiff@hsph.harvard.edu (J.E.S.); gwilt@g.harvard.edu (G.E.W.)
* Correspondence: mpjimenez@hsph.harvard.edu (M.P.J.); nicole.v.deville@channing.harvard.edu (N.V.D.)
† These authors contributed equally as first authors to this work.
‡ These authors contributed equally as senior authors to this work.
Citation: Jimenez, M.P.; DeVille,
N.V.; Elliott, E.G.; Schiff, J.E.; Wilt,
G.E.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. Associations
between Nature Exposure and
Health: A Review of the Evidence.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,
18, 4790. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph18094790
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Abstract: There is extensive empirical literature on the association between exposure to nature and
health. In this narrative review, we discuss the strength of evidence from recent (i.e., the last decade)
experimental and observational studies on nature exposure and health, highlighting research on
children and youth where possible. We found evidence for associations between nature exposure
and improved cognitive function, brain activity, blood pressure, mental health, physical activity, and
sleep. Results from experimental studies provide evidence of protective effects of exposure to natural
environments on mental health outcomes and cognitive function. Cross-sectional observational
studies provide evidence of positive associations between nature exposure and increased levels
of physical activity and decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, and longitudinal observational
studies are beginning to assess long-term effects of nature exposure on depression, anxiety, cognitive
function, and chronic disease. Limitations of current knowledge include inconsistent measures of
exposure to nature, the impacts of the type and quality of green space, and health effects of duration
and frequency of exposure. Future directions include incorporation of more rigorous study designs,
investigation of the underlying mechanisms of the association between green space and health,
advancement of exposure assessment, and evaluation of sensitive periods in the early life-course.
Received: 19 March 2021
Accepted: 26 April 2021
Published: 30 April 2021
Keywords: health benefits; mental health; nature; greenness; green space
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
The “biophilia hypothesis” posits that humans have evolved with nature to have an
affinity for nature [1]. Building on this concept, two major theories—Attention Restoration
Theory and Stress Reduction Theory—have provided insight into the mechanisms through
which spending time in nature might affect human health. Attention Restoration Theory
(ART) posits that the mental fatigue associated with modern life is associated with a
depleted capacity to direct attention [2]. According to this theory, spending time in natural
environments enables people to overcome this mental fatigue and to restore the capacity to
direct attention [3]. The Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) describes how spending time in
nature might influence feelings or emotions by activating the parasympathetic nervous
system to reduce stress and autonomic arousal because of people’s innate connection to
the natural world [4,5]. Further, proponents of the biophilia hypothesis postulate that
green spaces provide children with opportunities such as discovery, creativity, risk taking,
mastery, and control, which positively influence different aspects of brain development [6].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
2 of 19
Beyond the biophilia hypothesis, there are a number of other pathways through which
nature may affect health, including but not limited to increasing opportunities for social
engagement and space for physical activity, while mitigating harmful environmental
exposures (e.g., air pollution, noise, heat) [7–10]. Though evidence is inconsistent, physical
activity may serve as an important mechanistic pathway to beneficial health outcomes
by providing increased opportunities for outdoor exercise (e.g., walking) and play [7–9].
Facilitation of social contact is a promising mechanism emerging from recent literature,
where natural environments and green space provide an avenue for increased contact with
others and a greater sense of community [9,10]. The mechanism’s underlying associations
between nature exposure and health outcomes are many, not completely understood, and
could act in isolation or synergistically [11].
While the study of exposure to nature and health outcomes has expanded substantially
over recent years, there remain many understudied relationships, mechanisms, and popula-
tions. For instance, there is a much more expansive evidence base for associations between
nature and health, particularly with experimental studies, in adults than in children. This
narrative review synthesizes recent scientific literature on associations between nature
and health, highlighting studies conducted among children and youth where possible,
published throughout August 2020 and based on: (1) randomized experimental studies
of short-term exposure to nature and acute responses; and (2) observational studies of
exposure to nature.
2. Methods
A narrative review synthesizes the results of quantitative studies that employ diverse
methodologies and/or theoretical frameworks without a focus on the statistical significance
of the studies’ results [12,13]. We conducted a keyword search-based review using PubMed
Advanced Search on 31 August 2020 for studies published in the last ten years with titles
or abstracts containing “greenness”, “green space” or “NDVI” (i.e., normalized difference
vegetation index) as the exposure, and “health, “children’s health” or “youth health” as
the outcome (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA). Using World Health
Organization definitions, we categorized a child as a person younger than 10 years and
youth from 10 to 24 years inclusive [14]. We limited this narrative review to research on
human subjects only and included English-language-based, international peer-reviewed
articles (e.g., primary research, reviews), online reports, electronic books, and press releases.
We included both experimental and observational studies and applied snowballing search
methodology using the references cited in the articles identified in the literature search.
Each identified item was assessed for relevance by a member of the study team. This review
is not comprehensive but is intended to summarize recent literature on nature exposure
and health.
3. Results
In retrieving literature on associations of nature and health, we reviewed a range of re-
search from multiple health-related disciplines, geographic regions, and study populations.
Evidence from the experimental and observational studies presented below represents
more recent literature (e.g., the last decade) on nature exposure and health, primarily from
Western countries.
3.1. Experimental Studies
We found a substantial body of research on natural environment interventions to
evaluate the effects of nature on health from an experimental approach. The interventions
consisted of active engagement in the natural environment (e.g., walking, running, or
other activities), passive engagement (e.g., resting outside or living with a view), or virtual
exposure (e.g., watching videos or viewing images of nature) [15,16]. The majority of
experimental studies assessed mental health and neurologic outcomes. Results from
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
3 of 19
experimental studies suggested a protective effect of exposure to natural environments on
mental health outcomes and cognitive function.
3.1.1. Stress
Several experimental studies have examined perceived stress and other subjective
measures of stress, such as sleep quality. A recent systematic review of more than 40 exper-
imental studies indicates that measures of heart rate, blood pressure, and perceived stress
provide the most convincing evidence that exposure to nature or outdoor environments
may reduce the negative effects of stress [17]. The results from perceived or reported
stress after exposure to natural environments were more consistent than findings from
studies using physiological stress measurements (e.g., cortisol levels) among adults. A
recent meta-analysis found evidence suggesting that exposure to natural environments
may reduce cortisol levels, one of the most frequently studied biological markers of stress.
Song et al. [18] reviewed 52 articles from Japan that examined the physiological effects of
nature therapy. There was overwhelming evidence that cortisol levels decreased when
participants were exposed to a natural environment. In numerous studies, salivary cortisol
levels decreased after mild to moderate exercise in a natural environment compared with
an urban environment [18].
Although many studies have observed significant decreases in measured salivary
cortisol levels after exposure to natural environments, others have not observed any
significant differences in salivary cortisol levels before and after exposure to natural en-
vironments [17,19]. However, a key limitation of using cortisol as a biomarker of stress
in experimental studies is the fluctuation of cortisol over a 24-h period. Diurnal cortisol
levels need to be taken into account in order to make a fair comparison, and most of the
literature on exposure to nature and stress have only studied cortisol levels before and after
exposure [17].
Experimental studies focusing on children or youth are sparse [20,21]. One quasi-
experimental study conducted in 10–12 year-olds in a school setting examined the influence
of natural environments on stress response [22]. The researchers observed higher tonic
vagal tone, a measure of heart rate variability, in natural environments but found no
associations with event or phasic vagal tone.
3.1.2. Affective State
Exposure to natural environments has also been studied in relation to the self-reported
affective state, or the underlying experience of feeling, emotion or mood. Although study
measures vary, studies among adults have generally observed relationships between expo-
sure to natural environments and affective state, with positive associations with positive
emotions and negative associations with negative emotions [16,22,23]. A study randomly
assigned sixty adults to a 50-min walk in either a natural or an urban environment in Palo
Alto, California, and found that compared to urban experience, nature experience led to
affective benefits (decreased anxiety, rumination, and negative affect, and preservation of
positive affect) as well as cognitive benefits (increased working memory performance) [23].
In a study investigating forest bathing, or shinrin-yoku, researchers found that time spent
in forests was associated with a reduction in reported feelings of hostility, depression, and
anxiety among adults with acute and chronic stress [24]. Another study examining walking
in different environments observed the largest and most consistent improvements in psy-
chological states associated with forest walks [25]. Forest bathing may play an important
role in health promotion and disease prevention. However, the lack of studies focused on
children or youth limits the generalizability of these findings across a wide age range [26].
3.1.3. Anxiety and Depressive Mood
Exposure to natural environments has been linked with decreases in anxiety and
rumination, which are associated with negative mental health outcomes, such as depression
and anxiety [23,27]. Nature-based health interventions (NBI) are interventions that aim
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
4 of 19
to engage people in nature-based experiences with the goal of improving health and
wellness outcomes [28]. One study evaluated a wetland NBI in Gloucestershire, UK,
that was designed to facilitate engagement with nature as a treatment for individuals
diagnosed with anxiety and/or depression. The study found that the wetland site provided
a sense of escape from participants’ everyday environments, facilitating relaxation and
reductions in stress [27]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found a reduction
in depressive mood following short-term exposure to natural environments [21]. However,
the authors noted that the reviewed studies were generally of low quality due to a lack of
blinding of study participants and a lack of information on randomization quality among
randomized trials.
3.1.4. Cognitive Function
Experimental studies have examined the impact of brief nature experiences and
cognition among adults, investigating cognitive function related to exposure to natural
environments, and are consistent with the results from studies among school-aged children.
A growing number of studies have found that exposure to natural environments compared
with urban environments is associated with improved attention, executive function, and
perceived restorativeness [16,29–37]. These studies have found statistically significant asso-
ciations with positive cognitive outcomes, even after short periods of time spent in natural
environments. Additionally, an emerging area of research is virtual reality (VR), using
eye-tracking and wearable biomonitoring sensors to measure short-term physiological
and cognitive responses to different biophilic indoor environments. These studies have
found consistent physiological and cognitive benefits in indoor environments with diverse
biophilic design features [38,39].
3.1.5. Brain Activity
Exposure to nature has been associated with alterations in brain activity in the pre-
frontal cortex, an area of the brain that plays an important role in emotional regula-
tion [18,19]. One experimental study among female university students in Japan investi-
gated physiological and psychological responses to looking at real plants compared with
images of the same plants [40]. Although participants reported feelings of comfort and
relaxation after seeing either real plants or images of the same plants, a physiological
response was observed only after seeing real plants. Seeing real plants was associated
with increased oxy-hemoglobin concentrations in the prefrontal cortex, suggesting that real
plants may have physiological benefits for brain activity not replicated by images of plants.
3.1.6. Blood Pressure
Two meta-analyses [18,41] found evidence suggesting that exposure to a natural en-
vironment reduced blood pressure. Song et al. [18] reviewed the research in Japan from
52 studies on the physiological effects of nature therapy and found overwhelming evi-
dence that blood pressure levels decreased when participants were exposed to a natural
environment. Decreases in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were observed
across young healthy populations, as well as populations with hypertension. This suggests
that forest walking may lead to a state of physiological relaxation [18]. Ideno et al. [41]
conducted another systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the effects of for-
est bathing on blood pressure, including 20 trials involving 732 participants including
high-school and college-aged youth. The authors found that both systolic and diastolic
blood pressure taken in the forest environment were significantly lower than in non-forest
environments [41].
3.1.7. Immune Function
In Japan, forest bathing has been positively associated with human immune func-
tion [42]. A study was conducted in which subjects experienced a 3-day/2-night bathing
trip to forest areas, and blood and urine were sampled on days 2 and 3 of the trip. On
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
5 of 19
days 7 and 30 after the trip, it was found that the mean values of natural killer (NK) cells
(which play a major role in the immune system) and NK activity were higher on forest
bathing days compared with control days [43]. This effect persisted for 30 days after the
trip. A potential pathway for improved immune function is exposure to phytoncides (a
substance emitted by plants and trees to protect themselves from harmful insects and
germs), which could decrease stress hormones in the human body and increase NK cell
activity. Additionally, the findings indicated that a day trip to a forest park also increased
the levels of intracellular anti-cancer proteins [43].
3.1.8. Postoperative Recovery
While there is limited research on the effect of nature on postoperative recovery, a
seminal study by Ulrich [4] investigated recovery after a cholecystectomy on patients with
and without a room with a window view of a natural setting. Patients with a view of a
natural setting had shorter hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments
in the nurse’s notes section of their charts, and took fewer potent analgesics (e.g., opiates)
than those patients whose windows faced a brick building wall [4]. More recent research
has successfully replicated the concept that plants and foliage in the hospital environment
may have beneficial impacts on surgical recovery in randomized trials [44,45].
3.2. Observational Studies
Cross-sectional observational studies have shown evidence of positive associations
between exposure to nature, higher levels of physical activity, and lower levels of cardio-
vascular disease. Increasingly, longitudinal observational studies have started to examine
the long-term effects of exposure to nature on depression, anxiety, cognitive function, and
chronic disease. Below, we summarize the key findings on mental health, physical activity,
obesity, sleep, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, mortality, birth outcomes, asthma
and allergies, and immune function.
3.2.1. Mental Health
A recent systematic review found limited evidence suggesting a beneficial associ-
ation with mental well-being in children and depressive symptoms in adolescents and
young adults [21]. However, access to green space has been linked with improved mental
well-being, overall health, cognitive development in children [46], and lower psychologi-
cal distress in teens [47]. A study that examined the restorative benefits associated with
frequency of use of different types of green space among US-based students found that
students who engaged with green spaces in active ways ≥15 min four or more times per
week reported a higher quality of life, better overall mood, and lower perceived stress [48].
Research in the U.S.-based Growing Up Today Study (GUTS) found that increased expo-
sure to greenness measured around the home was associated with a lower risk of high
depressive symptoms cross-sectionally (as measured with the McKnight Risk Factor Sur-
vey) and a lower incidence of depression longitudinally [49]. The investigators observed
stronger associations in more densely populated areas and among younger adolescents [49].
Similarly, a study in four European cities (Barcelona, Spain; Doetinchem, The Netherlands;
Kaunas, Lithuania; and Stoke-on-Trent, UK) that evaluated childhood nature exposure
and mental health in adulthood showed that adults with low levels of childhood nature
exposure had, when compared with adults with high levels of childhood nature exposure,
significantly worse mental health, assessed through self-reports of nervousness or depres-
sion [50]. Another study of approximately one million Danes over 28 years of follow-up
found that high levels of continuous green space presence during childhood were associ-
ated with lower risk of a wide spectrum of psychiatric disorders later in life [51]. A study
based in the UK tracked individuals’ residential trajectories for five consecutive years and
showed that individuals who moved to greener areas had better mental health than before
moving [52]. Collectively, these studies suggest that implementation of environmental
policies to increase urban green space may have sustainable public health benefits.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
6 of 19
Novel research has examined green outdoor settings as potential treatment for mental
and behavioral disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One
study demonstrated associations between green space exposure and improvement in
behaviors and symptoms of ADHD and higher standardized test scores [46]. A recent
systematic review found significant evidence for an inverse relationship between green
space exposure and emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents [21].
Research has also shown that more and better quality residential green spaces are favorable
for children’s well-being [53] and health-related quality of life [54]. Furthermore, the quality
of green space appears to be more important as children age, as associations between green
space quality and well-being are stronger in 12–13 year-olds compared with 4–5 year-
olds [53]. In addition, natural features near schools, including forests, grasslands, and tree
canopies, are associated with early childhood development, preschoolers’ improvement in
socio-emotional competencies [55], and a decrease in autism prevalence [56].
Exposure to nature during adulthood also appears to be important for mental health.
A study of 94,879 UK adults indicated a consistent protective effect of greenness on de-
pression risk that was more pronounced among women, participants younger than 60
years, and participants residing in areas with low neighborhood socioeconomic status or
high urbanicity [57]. Other innovative studies are starting to examine quantifiable time of
exposure to evaluate the duration of time spent in nature that is associated with mental
health benefits. For example, using a nationally representative sample of American adults,
Beyer et al. [58] found that individuals who spent 5–6 or 6–8 h outdoors during weekends
had lower odds of being at least mildly depressed, compared with individuals who spent
less than 30 min outdoors on weekends. Another study from the UK suggested that lower
levels of depression were associated with spending five hours or more weekly in a private
garden [59]. Other studies are focused on uncovering which characteristics of green space
are the determinants of mental health benefits. A UK study examined neighborhood bird
abundance during the day and found inverse associations with prevalence of depression,
anxiety, and stress [60].
The collective results from these studies suggest that nearby nature is associated
with quantifiable mental health benefits, with the potential for lowering the physical and
financial costs related to poor mental health. Most of these studies are cross-sectional,
and reverse causation is possible. However, researchers are employing novel designs to
examine the relationship between green space and mental health. For example, in a study
of twins enrolled in the University of Washington Twin Registry, increased greenness was
associated with decreased risk of self-reported depression, stress, or anxiety; however,
only the results for depression were robust in within-twin pair analyses, suggesting the
effect of green space on depression cannot be explained by genetics alone [61]. Finally,
it is important to note that technological advancements have yielded improvements in
assessments of exposure to nature and mental health. For instance, one study among adults
18–75 years of age used smartphones equipped with ecological momentary assessment
applications to track location, physical activity, and mood for consecutive days, and found
positive associations with feeling happy and restored or relaxed within 10 min of exposure
to natural outdoor environments [62]. More novel studies such as these will bolster the
evidence behind exposure to nature and mental health among children and/or youth.
3.2.2. Physical Activity
An extensive body of literature documents the impacts of access to green spaces or
surrounding greenness on physical activity in children and adults. Proximity to green
spaces may promote physical activity by providing a space for walking, running, cycling,
and other activities. Although the bulk of the literature is cross-sectional, most studies (in
both children and adults) have observed higher levels of physical activity in areas with
more access to green space. For example, a study in Bristol, UK, evaluated associations
between accessibility to green space and the odds of respondents achieving a recommended
30 min or more of moderate activity five times a week; respondents who lived closest to
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
7 of 19
the type of green space classified as a formal park were more likely to achieve the physical
activity recommendation [63]. Another study of adults in the UK found that people living
in greenest compared with least-green areas were more likely to meet recommended
daily physical activity guidelines [64]. However, another UK-based study did not find
associations between road distance to nearest green space, number of green spaces, area
of green space within a 2-km radius of residence, or green space quality and physical
activity [65].
Almanza et al. [66] used GPS and accelerometry data among 208 children in California
and found that greenness was associated with higher odds of moderate to vigorous physical
activity, when comparing those in the 90th and 10th percentiles of greenness. Additionally,
they found that children with >20 min daily green space exposure had nearly 5 times
the daily rate of moderate to vigorous physical activity compared with those with nearly
zero daily exposure [66]. Another study of Australian children illustrated that time spent
outdoors at baseline positively predicted the amount of physical activity three years
later [67]. In a review of youth health outcomes related to exercising in nature (i.e., “green
exercise”), the results of fourteen studies (5 in the UK, 5 in the U.S., 2 in Australia, and
1 in Japan) indicated little evidence that green exercise is more beneficial than physical
activity conducted in other locations, although any physical activity was beneficial across
settings [68].
More recent studies have employed more sophisticated study designs to determine
whether exposure to greenness increases physical activity. In studies that objectively
assessed physical activity via accelerometers, individuals exposed to more greenness
tended to be more physically active. For example, in a study of 15-year-olds in Germany,
increases in greenness around the home address were associated with increased moderate-
to-vigorous physical activity among youth in rural, but not urban, areas [69]. Another study
of children in the UK evaluated momentary green space exposure based on GPS-derived
location and contemporaneous physical activity measured by an accelerometer and found
higher odds of physical activity in green space (versus outdoor non-green space) for boys
but not girls [70].
3.2.3. Obesity
Green space may influence overweight or obesity through a physical activity path-
way [71]. Some studies have shown that exposure to green space is associated with lower
rates of obesity in children [67] and adults [72]; however, the results are conflicting. As
with physical activity, many early studies were cross-sectional, and findings were more
mixed for children than for adults. Some studies reported U-shaped associations with
obesity [73], while other studies reported no association after adjustment for respondent
characteristics [63] or neighborhood socioeconomic status [74]. Some studies demonstrate
effect modification by gender [72]. Further, one cross-sectional UK-based study found that
living in the greenest areas was associated with an increase in risk of being overweight and
obese [75].
In one study of U.S. children, increasing greenness was associated with lower BMI
z-scores and lower odds of increasing BMI z-scores between two follow-up times [76].
Another study of schoolchildren in Spain found that greenness and forest proximity were
associated with lower prevalence of being overweight or obese [77]. One study found that
street tree density was associated with lower obesity prevalence in New York City (U.S.)
children; however, no association was found with park areas [78]. In an Australian study,
the prevalence of being overweight was 27–41% lower in girls and boys who spent more
time outdoors at the study baseline than those who spent less time outdoors [67]. Another
study found that greenness was associated with decreased risk of being overweight but
only among those in areas with a greater population density [79].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
8 of 19
3.2.4. Sleep
Exposure to green space may influence sleep duration and quality. For instance,
surrounding greenness may serve as a buffer for noise, which would disturb sleep. To
date, only a handful of studies have examined these associations, and to our knowledge,
even fewer have explored this association in children. A recent systematic review provided
evidence of an association between green space exposure and improved sleep quality
among adults [80]. A study of Australian adults who lived in areas with greater than
80% green space demonstrated lower risk of short sleep duration, even after adjustment
for other predictors of sleep [81]. Among U.S. adults participating in the Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, natural amenities (e.g., green space, lakes, and
oceans) were associated with lower reporting of insufficient sleep, and greenness was
especially protective among men and individuals over 65 years of age [82]. In the Survey
of Health in Wisconsin Study, increased tree canopy at the Census block group level
was associated with lower odds of short sleep duration on weekdays and suggestive
of an association with lower odds of short sleep duration on weekends, although there
was no association between tree canopy and self-reported sleep quality [83]. A nationally
representative study of Australian and German children and adolescents found no evidence
of significant associations between residential green space and insufficient sleep or poor
sleep quality [84].
3.2.5. Cardiovascular Disease
Exposure to green space may affect levels of physical activity, stress, and high blood
pressure that drive cardiovascular disease risk. Recent reviews have found consistent evi-
dence that exposure to residential green space is associated with decreased cardiovascular
disease incidence [85,86]. Participants living in areas with lower greenness have higher
levels of mortality following a stroke [87], higher cardiovascular disease mortality [88,89],
and higher coronary heart disease [90]. A study from the UK found that associations
between exposure to nature and cardiovascular outcomes differed by gender, where male
cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease mortality rates decreased with increasing
green space, and no associations were found for women [88]. Furthermore, the relation-
ships between exposure to greenspace and cardiovascular outcomes may be modified
by urbanicity. A recent Australian study showed significantly lower odds of high blood
pressure among adults in an urban population when reported green space visits were an
average of 30 min or more [91].
3.2.6. Diabetes
Although limited, evidence regarding the association between green space and type
2 diabetes highlights green space as a possible route for diabetes prevention. There are
a few cross-sectional studies that have reported that green space is inversely related to
type 2 diabetes among adults [92,93]. Few studies have examined the relationship between
green space and diabetes in children. Cross-sectional studies of children found inverse
associations between time spent in green spaces and fasting blood glucose levels [77] and
insulin resistance [94]. A recent longitudinal study conducted on US children found no
associations between residential exposure to green space and insulin resistance [95].
3.2.7. Cancer
Research on the link between green space and cancer is limited and may vary depend-
ing on the type of cancer. A recent case-control study examined whether residential green
space exposure was related to prostate cancer incidence and found that higher residential
greenness was associated with lower risk of prostate cancer [96], and a separate study of
U.S. men demonstrated inverse associations between neighborhood greenness and lethal
prostate cancer [97]. Another study examined the association between green space and
several cancer types and found that green space was protective for mouth, throat, and non-
melanoma skin cancers but was not associated with colorectal cancer [98]. A U.S.-based
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
9 of 19
nationwide study of nurses found that residential greenness was inversely associated with
breast cancer mortality [99]. Conversely, another systematic review that evaluated evidence
on the association between residential green spaces and lung cancer mortality found no
benefits of residential greenness [85].
3.2.8. Mortality
Many early mortality studies relied on cross-sectional data and could not estimate
nature exposure over time [100], whereas others could not account for important potential
confounding by race/ethnicity, individual-level smoking, and area-level socioeconomic
factors, such as median home value [101,102]. A UK-wide ecological study found that
all-cause mortality was higher in greener cities [89]. An analysis of greenness and mortality
in male and female stroke survivors living in Boston (U.S.) found that greater exposure to
greenness was associated with higher survival rates [87]. Another U.S.-based nationwide
study of nurses found a consistent protective relationship between residential greenness
and non-accidental mortality [103]. The greenness–mortality relationship was explained
primarily by a mental health pathway, and the relationship was strongest among those
who had high levels of physical activity [103]. A study of 4.2 million adults in the Swiss
National Cohort assessed the relationship between residential greenness and mortality,
while mutually considering socioeconomic status, air pollution, and transportation noise
exposure, and found that higher exposure to green space was associated with lower
rates of death from natural causes, respiratory disease, and cardiovascular disease [104].
Protective effects were stronger in younger individuals and in women and, for most
outcomes, in urban (versus rural) and in the highest (versus lowest) socioeconomic quartile.
Effect estimates did not change after adjustment for air pollution and transportation noise,
suggesting that the protective effect of exposure to nature persists in the absence of pollution
sources. Finally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on green space
and mortality assessed findings from nine studies, comprising 8.3 million individuals from
seven countries across the globe [105]. Seven of the nine studies demonstrated an inverse
relationship between green space exposure and mortality, and the authors recommended
wide-scale interventions to increase and manage green spaces in order to improve public
health outcomes.
3.2.9. Birth Outcomes
The relationship between exposure to nature and birth outcomes has been studied
extensively in analyses across multiple countries. Findings of positive associations between
greenness and birth weight and decreased risk of low birth weight are consistent, with
stronger associations observed among those of a lower socioeconomic status [106]. Banay
et al. [107] reviewed studies that examined the association between greenness and maternal
or infant health. While the majority of studies were cross-sectional, many studies found
evidence for positive associations between greenness and birth weight. Fewer studies
demonstrated consistent evidence for an association between greenness and gestational
age, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes. These studies also found that effects were
stronger among those of a lower socioeconomic status. A more recent review highlighted
the evolving literature showing that higher levels of residential greenness were associated
with lower risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small gestational-age babies [108].
Akaraci et al. [109] conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 studies on resi-
dential green and blue spaces and pregnancy outcomes. Increases in residential greenness
were associated with higher birthweight and lower odds of being small for gestational age;
however, no significant associations between residential blue spaces and birth outcomes
were found.
3.2.10. Asthma/Allergies
Several studies have examined the relationship between greenspace and atopic out-
comes, including asthma and allergies. Mechanistically, trees and plants are a source of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
10 of 19
allergens and respiratory irritants [110]. However, the biodiversity created by green space
could be protective against inflammatory conditions [111,112]. The literature reflects these
contrasting hypotheses with mixed findings. Some studies have shown no association
between the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) or tree canopy cover and
asthma [113], while other studies have shown that living close to forests and parks was
positively associated with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma [77]. Another study of
greenspace and allergies in Germany demonstrated positive associations in urban areas
and negative associations in rural areas [114]. The same investigators examined data from
seven birth cohorts across Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany and
found that the relationship between residential NDVI and allergic disease was positive
in some countries and negative in others [115]. A study in Spain found proximity to
residential greenness to be protective of bronchitis in the Mediterranean region of Spain
and protective of wheezing for children in the Euro-Siberian region of Spain [116]. One
study conducted in China examined the relationship between exposure to greenness and
parks and asthma and allergies among middle-school-aged children [117]. The researchers
observed no associations between residential greenness exposure and self-reported doctor-
diagnosed asthma, pneumonia, rhinitis, and eczema; however, living farther away from
a park was associated with decreased odds of currently or ever having asthma. In sum,
the relationship between exposure to nature and asthma and allergies is inconsistent, with
associations varying in magnitude and direction by geography. One review of fourteen
studies suggested an association between early life exposure to urban greenness and aller-
gic respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma, bronchitis, allergic symptoms) in childhood; however,
there were inconsistencies among study results, likely due to variability in study design,
exposure assessment, outcome ascertainment, and geographic region [118].
3.3. Natural Experiments/Randomized Controlled Trials of Chronic Outcomes
Beyond smaller experimental studies of short-term outcomes and observational epi-
demiologic studies of chronic outcomes, there are a few natural experiments and random-
ized controlled trials that add substantial evidence to the relationship between exposure to
nature and health. These quasi-experimental and randomized trials have lower potential
for confounding bias to explain observed associations between nature and health. One im-
portant study capitalized on a natural experiment when an invasive tree pest, the emerald
ash borer, killed over 100 million ash trees in the Midwestern United States [119]. The in-
vestigators found that living in a county infested with the emerald ash borer was associated
with a 41% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and these results were only consistent
when looking in metropolitan areas where they could adjust for socioeconomic status.
Another innovative study examined the greening of vacant lots in Philadelphia [120]. This
citywide study used a three-arm randomized trial approach to randomize 110 vacant lots
to either no intervention, cleaning but no greening, or cleaning and greening. The study
found that those living around lots that were greened had substantial decreases in reports
of depression, poor mental health, and feelings of worthlessness compared with lots that
had no intervention. Those living around lots that were cleaned but not greened showed no
difference compared with no intervention. Another ongoing longitudinal study in Sydney,
Australia, is evaluating the effects of large-scale investment in green space (e.g., public
access points, advertising billboards, walking and cycle tracks, BBQ stations, and children’s
playgrounds) on physical activity, mental health, and cardiometabolic outcomes [121]. This
natural experiment utilizes proximity to different areas of the Western Sydney Parklands
to define treatment and control groups.
Looking to the future, there are a few randomized trials in progress that will provide
fundamental evidence to understand whether adding green pace to cities benefits health.
The Green Heart Project in Louisville, Kentucky, will assess risk of diabetes and heart
disease, stress levels, and the strength of social ties in 700 participants [122]. The team will
take baseline measurements of air pollution levels and will plant as many as 8000 trees,
plants, and shrubs throughout Louisville neighborhoods to create an urban ecosystem that
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
11 of 19
promotes physical activity while simultaneously decreasing noise, stress, and air pollution.
During five years of follow-up, participants will receive annual check-ups to evaluate
how the increasing greenery has affected their physical and mental health and social
ties. A second randomized trial is the ‘Productive Green Infrastructure for Post-industrial
Urban Regeneration’ or ProGIreg, a multi-city study examining the potential effects of
green infrastructure [123]. This project is based in Dortmund (Germany), Turin (Italy),
Zagreb (Croatia) and Ningbo (China) where Living Labs are hosted and nature-based
solutions are developed, tested, and implemented. Although health is not the main focus
of this study, researchers are hoping to incorporate health metrics into the study design to
examine pre- and post-intervention outcome data. Collectively, these randomized trials,
natural experiments, and pre-post study designs will establish crucial data on whether
interventions to incorporate nature into cities can measurably improve health.
3.4. Effect Modification/Susceptible Populations
Inequitable distribution of green spaces could exacerbate health inequalities if people
who are already at greater health risks (e.g., people with lower socioeconomic status)
have limited access. Many studies have indicated that disadvantaged populations have de-
creased access to nature and greenspace [124–132]. At the same time, evidence suggests that
exposure to nature disproportionately benefits disadvantaged populations, a phenomenon
known as the equigenic effect of green space, which upends the expected association
between lower socioeconomic status and greater risk of poor health outcomes [133]. Based
on the theory of equigenic environments, one study showed that populations exposed
to the greenest environments also had the lowest levels of health inequality related to
income deprivation, suggesting that green space might be an important factor in reducing
socioeconomic health disparities [89]. A review of 90 studies on green space and health
outcomes demonstrated that individuals of lower socioeconomic status showed more ben-
eficial effects than those of higher socioeconomic status; the authors found no significant
differences in the protective effects of green space on health outcomes among different
racial/ethnic groups [134]. The evidence is inconsistent, and more work is needed to
elucidate potential mechanisms.
Conversely, improvements in access to green space may lead to “green gentrification,”
an increase in property values that displaces low-income residents from their neighbor-
hoods [129,135–137]. This process needs to be studied and understood so that its adverse
effects can be prevented. Other cultural and contextual factors may affect nature prefer-
ences and experience of nature. For instance, there is evidence that the legacy of forced
labor, lynching, and other violence may evoke deeply disturbing associations with trees,
fields, and forests among some African Americans [138,139]. Similarly, some people may
prefer open fields for sports, while others prefer picnic facilities for socializing.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize recent experimental and
observational literature on associations between nature exposure and health in adults
and children/youth. While some associations between nature and health outcomes are
well-studied, our review highlights the lack of studies, particularly experimental, among
child/youth and other susceptible populations. We found evidence for associations be-
tween exposure to nature and improved cognitive function, brain activity, blood pressure,
mental health, physical activity, and sleep. Results from experimental studies indicated pro-
tective effects of nature exposure on mental health and cognitive function. Cross-sectional
observational studies provide evidence of positive associations between nature exposure,
higher levels of physical activity and lower levels of cardiovascular disease. Observational
studies, natural experiments, and randomized controlled trials are starting to assess the
longitudinal effects of exposure to nature on depression, anxiety, cognitive function, chronic
disease, and other health outcomes. Our review synthesizes recent literature, primarily
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
12 of 19
from Western countries; thus, a limitation of this review is that we may not have captured
all relevant literature from outside our publication range or across all geographic regions.
4.1. Data Gaps and Limitations
There are several limitations in the literature on exposure to nature and health. First,
definitions of nature are inconsistent across studies. Further, the impacts of the quality
of green space, duration of exposure to nature, frequency of exposure, or type of nature
exposure on health outcomes are not well understood. Second, methods for measuring
exposure to nature (e.g., percentage of residential greenness versus distance to the closest
park) or defining the relevant geographic area of exposure (e.g., 500 m away from our
home versus 1 km or 10 km) are inconsistent [140,141]. We must also develop methods to
elucidate thresholds for dose and duration of nature exposure to achieve a given health
effect. Although some studies have determined potential estimates of relevant doses [142],
this area of research is nascent. In addition, standard approaches towards nature exposure
assessment do not capture the variations in how people experience nature differentially
(e.g., smell, touch, etc.) and have low reproducibility across studies (e.g., inconsistent land-
use measures). Third, critical time windows of exposure during the life course that might
have the greatest impact on health are also understudied (e.g., early life exposure, child-
hood exposure). Fourth, mechanistic pathways are understudied. Further, the dynamic
relationship between green space, air pollution, noise, temperature, and neighborhood
walkability also warrant further exploration, as these factors could be both mediators
or moderators of the nature–health relationship [143,144]. We also know little about the
potential harms of exposure to nature, most commonly observed in studies of asthma
and allergies.
4.2. Future Directions
There are ample promising future directions for nature and health research. First,
future research should employ rigorous study designs (e.g., longitudinal studies, random-
ized controlled trials) and investigate the underlying mechanisms of observed associations
between exposure to nature and health outcomes. Although cross-sectional studies domi-
nate the literature, there is increasing evidence emerging from prospective studies, which
are essential to investigating causal relationships [108]. Novel designs, such as quasi-
experimental studies and randomized trials, will provide further detail on how nature
influences health [119]. Furthermore, studies should thoroughly evaluate potential biases,
such as confounding by socioeconomic status, that may threaten the validity of studies on
nature and health. Researchers should rigorously examine factors that may modify the
effects of exposure to nature (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, or race) to determine the
subpopulations that might benefit most from exposure to nature. A life-course approach to
examining associations between green space and health is also essential. We need to better
understand vulnerable time windows in the early life-course where access or exposure to
nature may have stronger impacts on health than in other time periods. Similarly, addi-
tional research assessing dose-response relationships (e.g., duration of time in nature or
quantity of vegetation) is crucial to determine the minimum amount of exposure to green
space needed to yield health benefits or if the relevant dosage varies across the life-course
or across different countries/settings [142].
Second, future studies should make use of novel datasets and computational ap-
proaches that may provide rapid advances in exposure assessment. Emergence of ad-
vanced satellite and aerial photos combined with machine learning to develop tree canopy
measures and other more specific metrics of nature provide information on specific species
on the ground. Google Street View and other ubiquitous geocoded imagery, when com-
bined with machine learning, also provide scalable approaches to estimate specific natural
features from the on the ground perspective as human beings experience them [145]. Com-
bined with geocoded residential addresses or GPS data and health or behavioral data, these
approaches may unveil novel insights on how nature exposure affects health. Leveraging
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
13 of 19
smartphones with GPS and accelerometry enable fine-scale information on exposure and
physical activity. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) or micro-surveys administered
through smartphones can be used to ask about processes for how and why people interact
with nature [62]. EMA can also be applied to estimate mental health outcomes in real
time, and these responses can be geo-tagged and linked to spatial measures of natural
environments. In addition, consumer wearable devices (e.g., FitBit) provide objective
information on physical activity patterns, heart rate, sleep, and other biometrics down to
the second level [146]. These data will prove crucial to better understand the behavioral
mechanisms through which nature exposure impacts health. We should also capitalize
on geo-located social media data (Flickr, Twitter, Facebook) and other data sources to
understand exposure to nature [147]. Innovative metrics of mental health, such as skin
conductivity, cortisol (stress), heart rate variability, brain activity through EEG, and func-
tional MRI, can also provide information on stress processes when individuals encounter
natural environments [148]. Such measures of nature exposure and time spent in nature
should be incorporated into large federal data collection efforts, such as the Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States or the
Health Survey for England (HSE) in the United Kingdom. These recommendations cannot
be accomplished without also considering the impacts climate change is currently having
and will have on exposures to nature, and how climate change may alter the relationship
individuals have with nature.
Third, future studies on nature and mental health should focus more on positive
health—happiness, purpose, flourishing—instead of just the absence of negative mental
health outcomes. Further, more research is required on natural water features, or blue
space [149], as well as other natural environments.
Fourth, the overwhelming majority of research on nature and health is on urban study
populations in North America, Europe, and Australia. Researchers should also focus on
different geographic areas, low-income and middle-income settings, and vulnerable or
historically marginalized populations where nature benefits might be greatest. Researchers
should also work together with communities as they conduct their research to ensure their
work addresses the needs of community members.
Finally, we must also recognize the potential unintended consequences of adding
green infrastructure in cities. Adding green amenities to cities may entice high-income
populations, and the resulting increased property values shape a new conundrum, embod-
ied in the exclusion and displacement associated with so-called green gentrification [135].
Results from this type of research should also be considered for policies, urban planning,
and designing cities.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this review was to examine recent literature on exposure to nature
and health, highlighting studies on children and youth where possible. We assessed the
strength of evidence from experimental and observational studies and found evidence for
associations between exposure to nature and improved cognitive function, brain activity,
blood pressure, mental health, physical activity, and sleep. Evidence from experimental
studies suggested protective effects of exposure to natural environments on mental health
outcomes and cognitive function. Cross-sectional observational studies provide evidence
of positive associations between exposure to nature, higher levels of physical activity and
lower levels of cardiovascular disease. Longitudinal observational studies are starting to
assess the long-term effects of exposure to nature on depression, anxiety, cognitive function,
and chronic disease. Limitations and gaps in studies of nature exposure and health include
inconsistent measures of exposure to nature, knowledge of the impacts of the type and qual-
ity of green space, and the health effects of the duration and frequency of exposure among
different populations (e.g., adults, children, historically marginalized). Future research
should incorporate more rigorous study designs, investigate the underlying mechanisms
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
14 of 19
of the association between green space and health, advance exposure assessment, and
evaluate sensitive periods throughout the life-course.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.P.J., N.V.D., J.E.H. and P.J.; methodology, M.P.J., N.V.D.,
J.E.H. and P.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.J., N.V.D., E.G.E., J.E.S., G.E.W., J.E.H. and P.J.;
writing—review and editing, M.P.J., N.V.D., E.G.E., J.E.S., G.E.W., J.E.H. and P.J.; supervision, J.E.H.
and P.J.; project administration, N.V.D.; funding acquisition, P.J. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by The National Geographic Society, and NIH grants R00
CA201542, R01 HL150119, T32 ES007069, K99 AG066949, R01 ES028712 and P30 ES000002.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kellert, S.R.; Wilson, E.O. The Biophilia Hypothesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-1-59726-906-3.
2. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA;
New York, NY, USA, 1989.
3. Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [CrossRef]
4. Ulrich, R.S. View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [CrossRef]
5. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban
Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [CrossRef]
6. Kahn, P.H.; Kellert, S.R. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-262-25012-2.
7. Biddle, S.J.H.; Asare, M. Physical Activity and Mental Health in Children and Adolescents: A Review of Reviews. Br. J. Sports
Med. 2011, 45, 886–895. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Warburton, D.E.R.; Bredin, S.S.D. Health Benefits of Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of Current Systematic Reviews. Curr.
Opin. Cardiol. 2017, 32, 541–556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Dadvand, P. Fifty Shades of Green: Pathway to Healthy Urban
Living. Epidemiology 2017, 28, 63–71. [CrossRef]
10. Kelly, M.E.; Duff, H.; Kelly, S.; McHugh Power, J.E.; Brennan, S.; Lawlor, B.A.; Loughrey, D.G. The Impact of Social Activities,
Social Networks, Social Support and Social Relationships on the Cognitive Functioning of Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic
Review. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 259. [CrossRef]
11. Kruize, H.; van Kamp, I.; van den Berg, M.; van Kempen, E.; Wendel-Vos, W.; Ruijsbroek, A.; Swart, W.; Maas, J.; Gidlow, C.;
Smith, G.; et al. Exploring Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship between the Natural Outdoor Environment and Health and
Well-Being–Results from the PHENOTYPE Project. Environ. Int. 2019, 105173. [CrossRef]
12. Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. Writing Narrative Literature Reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1997, 1, 311–320. [CrossRef]
13. Siddaway, A.P.; Wood, A.M.; Hedges, L.V. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting
Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 747–770. [CrossRef]
14. World Health Organization Adolescent Health. Available online: https://www.who.int/southeastasia/health-topics/adolescent-
health (accessed on 13 April 2021).
15. Depledge, M.H.; Stone, R.J.; Bird, W.J. Can Natural and Virtual Environments Be Used To Promote Improved Human Health and
Wellbeing? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 4660–4665. [CrossRef]
16. Ohly, H.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Bethel, A.; Ukoumunne, O.C.; Nikolaou, V.; Garside, R. Attention Restoration Theory: A
Systematic Review of the Attention Restoration Potential of Exposure to Natural Environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit.
Rev. 2016, 19, 305–343. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Kondo, M.C.; Jacoby, S.F.; South, E.C. Does Spending Time Outdoors Reduce Stress? A Review of Real-Time Stress Response to
Outdoor Environments. Health Place 2018, 51, 136–150. [CrossRef]
18. Song, C.; Ikei, H.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological Effects of Nature Therapy: A Review of the Research in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2016, 13, 781. [CrossRef]
19. Hansen, M.M.; Jones, R.; Tocchini, K. Shinrin-Yoku (Forest Bathing) and Nature Therapy: A State-of-the-Art Review. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 851. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Tillmann, S.; Tobin, D.; Avison, W.; Gilliland, J. Mental Health Benefits of Interactions with Nature in Children and Teenagers: A
Systematic Review. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2018, 72, 958–966. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Vanaken, G.-J.; Danckaerts, M. Impact of Green Space Exposure on Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental Health: A Systematic
Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2668. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
15 of 19
22. Mygind, L.; Stevenson, M.P.; Liebst, L.S.; Konvalinka, I.; Bentsen, P. Stress Response and Cognitive Performance Modulation in
Classroom versus Natural Environments: A Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study with Children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2018, 15, 1098. [CrossRef]
23. Bratman, G.N.; Daily, G.C.; Levy, B.J.; Gross, J.J. The Benefits of Nature Experience: Improved Affect and Cognition. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 41–50. [CrossRef]
24. Morita, E.; Fukuda, S.; Nagano, J.; Hamajima, N.; Yamamoto, H.; Iwai, Y.; Nakashima, T.; Ohira, H.; Shirakawa, T. Psychological
Effects of Forest Environments on Healthy Adults: Shinrin-Yoku (Forest-Air Bathing, Walking) as a Possible Method of Stress
Reduction. Public Health 2007, 121, 54–63. [CrossRef]
25. Koselka, E.P.D.; Weidner, L.C.; Minasov, A.; Berman, M.G.; Leonard, W.R.; Santoso, M.V.; de Brito, J.N.; Pope, Z.C.; Pereira, M.A.;
Horton, T.H. Walking Green: Developing an Evidence Base for Nature Prescriptions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,
16, 4338. [CrossRef]
26. Oh, B.; Lee, K.J.; Zaslawski, C.; Yeung, A.; Rosenthal, D.; Larkey, L.; Back, M. Health and Well-Being Benefits of Spending Time in
Forests: Systematic Review. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2017, 22, 71. [CrossRef]
27. Maund, P.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Reeves, J.; Strong, E.; Cromie, R.; Dallimer, M.; Davies, Z.G. Wetlands for Wellbeing: Piloting a
Nature-Based Health Intervention for the Management of Anxiety and Depression. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,
16, 4413. [CrossRef]
28. Shanahan, D.F.; Astell-Burt, T.; Barber, E.A.; Brymer, E.; Cox, D.T.C.; Dean, J.; Depledge, M.; Fuller, R.A.; Hartig, T.; Irvine, K.N.;
et al. Nature–Based Interventions for Improving Health and Wellbeing: The Purpose, the People and the Outcomes. Sports 2019,
7, 141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Berto, R. The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. Behav. Sci.
Basel Switz. 2014, 4, 394–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 1207–1212.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Bourrier, S.C.; Berman, M.G.; Enns, J.T. Cognitive Strategies and Natural Environments Interact in Influencing Executive Function.
Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Pasanen, T.; Johnson, K.; Lee, K.; Korpela, K. Can Nature Walks With Psychological Tasks Improve Mood, Self-Reported
Restoration, and Sustained Attention? Results From Two Experimental Field Studies. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2057. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
33. Stenfors, C.U.D.; Van Hedger, S.C.; Schertz, K.E.; Meyer, F.A.C.; Smith, K.E.L.; Norman, G.J.; Bourrier, S.C.; Enns, J.T.; Kardan, O.;
Jonides, J.; et al. Positive Effects of Nature on Cognitive Performance Across Multiple Experiments: Test Order but Not Affect
Modulates the Cognitive Effects. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Stevenson, M.P.; Dewhurst, R.; Schilhab, T.; Bentsen, P. Cognitive Restoration in Children Following Exposure to Nature: Evidence
from the Attention Network Task and Mobile Eye Tracking. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 42. [CrossRef]
35. Weber, A.M.; Trojan, J. The Restorative Value of the Urban Environment: A Systematic Review of the Existing Literature. Environ.
Health Insights 2018, 12, 1178630218812805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Amicone, G.; Petruccelli, I.; De Dominicis, S.; Gherardini, A.; Costantino, V.; Perucchini, P.; Bonaiuto, M. Green Breaks: The
Restorative Effect of the School Environment’s Green Areas on Children’s Cognitive Performance. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1579.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Stevenson, M.P.; Schilhab, T.; Bentsen, P. Attention Restoration Theory II: A Systematic Review to Clarify Attention Processes
Affected by Exposure to Natural Environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2018, 21, 227–268. [CrossRef]
38. Yin, J.; Zhu, S.; MacNaughton, P.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Physiological and Cognitive Performance of Exposure to Biophilic
Indoor Environment. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 255–262. [CrossRef]
39. Yin, J.; Arfaei, N.; MacNaughton, P.; Catalano, P.J.; Allen, J.G.; Spengler, J.D. Effects of Biophilic Interventions in Office on Stress
Reaction and Cognitive Function: A Randomized Crossover Study in Virtual Reality. Indoor Air 2019, 29, 1028–1039. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
40. Igarashi, M.; Song, C.; Ikei, H.; Miyazaki, Y. Effect of Stimulation by Foliage Plant Display Images on Prefrontal Cortex Activity:
A Comparison with Stimulation Using Actual Foliage Plants. J. Neuroimaging Off. J. Am. Soc. Neuroimaging 2015, 25, 127–130.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Ideno, Y.; Hayashi, K.; Abe, Y.; Ueda, K.; Iso, H.; Noda, M.; Lee, J.-S.; Suzuki, S. Blood Pressure-Lowering Effect of Shinrin-Yoku
(Forest Bathing): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 409. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Wen, Y.; Yan, Q.; Pan, Y.; Gu, X.; Liu, Y. Medical Empirical Research on Forest Bathing (Shinrin-Yoku): A Systematic Review.
Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2019, 24, 70. [CrossRef]
43. Li, Q.; Morimoto, K.; Nakadai, A.; Inagaki, H.; Katsumata, M.; Shimizu, T.; Hirata, Y.; Hirata, K.; Suzuki, H.; Miyazaki, Y.; et al.
Forest Bathing Enhances Human Natural Killer Activity and Expression of Anti-Cancer Proteins. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol.
2007, 20, 3–8. [CrossRef]
44. Raanaas, R.K.; Patil, G.G.; Hartig, T. Health Benefits of a View of Nature through the Window: A Quasi-Experimental Study of
Patients in a Residential Rehabilitation Center. Clin. Rehabil. 2012, 26, 21–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Park, S.-H.; Mattson, R.H. Therapeutic Influences of Plants in Hospital Rooms on Surgical Recovery. HortScience 2009, 44, 102–105.
[CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
16 of 19
46. McCormick, R. Does Access to Green Space Impact the Mental Well-Being of Children: A Systematic Review. J. Pediatr. Nurs.
2017, 37, 3–7. [CrossRef]
47. Wang, P.; Meng, Y.-Y.; Lam, V.; Ponce, N. Green Space and Serious Psychological Distress among Adults and Teens: A Population-
Based Study in California. Health Place 2019, 56, 184–190. [CrossRef]
48. Holt, E.W.; Lombard, Q.K.; Best, N.; Smiley-Smith, S.; Quinn, J.E. Active and Passive Use of Green Space, Health, and Well-Being
amongst University Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 424. [CrossRef]
49. Bezold, C.P.; Banay, R.F.; Coull, B.A.; Hart, J.E.; James, P.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Missmer, S.A.; Laden, F. The Association Between
Natural Environments and Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents Living in the United States. J. Adolesc. Health Off. Publ. Soc.
Adolesc. Med. 2018, 62, 488–495. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Preuß, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Marquez, S.; Cirach, M.; Dadvand, P.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gidlow, C.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Kruize,
H.; Zijlema, W. Low Childhood Nature Exposure Is Associated with Worse Mental Health in Adulthood. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2019, 16, 1809. [CrossRef]
51. Engemann, K.; Pedersen, C.B.; Arge, L.; Tsirogiannis, C.; Mortensen, P.B.; Svenning, J.-C. Residential Green Space in Childhood Is
Associated with Lower Risk of Psychiatric Disorders from Adolescence into Adulthood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116,
5188–5193. [CrossRef]
52. Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.; Depledge, M.H. Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener
and Less Green Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1247–1255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Feng, X.; Astell-Burt, T. Residential Green Space Quantity and Quality and Child Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study. Am. J. Prev.
Med. 2017, 53, 616–624. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Tillmann, S.; Clark, A.F.; Gilliland, J.A. Children and Nature: Linking Accessibility of Natural Environments and Children’s
Health-Related Quality of Life. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1072. [CrossRef]
55. Scott, J.T.; Kilmer, R.P.; Wang, C.; Cook, J.R.; Haber, M.G. Natural Environments Near Schools: Potential Benefits for Socio-
Emotional and Behavioral Development in Early Childhood. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2018, 62, 419–432. [CrossRef]
56. Wu, J.; Jackson, L. Inverse Relationship between Urban Green Space and Childhood Autism in California Elementary School
Districts. Environ. Int. 2017, 107, 140–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Sarkar, C.; Webster, C.; Gallacher, J. Residential Greenness and Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorders: A Cross-Sectional,
Observational, Associational Study of 94 879 Adult UK Biobank Participants. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, e162–e173. [CrossRef]
58. Beyer, K.M.; Szabo, A.; Nattinger, A.B. Time Spent Outdoors, Depressive Symptoms, and Variation by Race and Ethnicity. Am. J.
Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 281–290. [CrossRef]
59. Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J. Doses of Nearby Nature
Simultaneously Associated with Multiple Health Benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Plummer, K.E.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J.
Doses of Neighborhood Nature: The Benefits for Mental Health of Living with Nature. BioScience 2017, 67, 147–155. [CrossRef]
61. Cohen-Cline, H.; Turkheimer, E.; Duncan, G.E. Access to Green Space, Physical Activity and Mental Health: A Twin Study. J.
Epidemiol. Community Health 2015, 69, 523–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Kondo, M.C.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Seto, E.; Valentín, A.; Hurst, G.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Masterson, D.;
Ambròs, A.; Ellis, N.; et al. Momentary Mood Response to Natural Outdoor Environments in Four European Cities. Environ. Int.
2019, 134, 105237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Coombes, E.; Jones, A.P.; Hillsdon, M. The Relationship of Physical Activity and Overweight to Objectively Measured Green
Space Accessibility and Use. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 816–822. [CrossRef]
64. Mytton, O.T.; Townsend, N.; Rutter, H.; Foster, C. Green Space and Physical Activity: An Observational Study Using Health
Survey for England Data. Health Place 2012, 18, 1034–1041. [CrossRef]
65. Hillsdon, M.; Panter, J.; Foster, C.; Jones, A. The Relationship between Access and Quality of Urban Green Space with Population
Physical Activity. Public Health 2006, 120, 1127–1132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Almanza, E.; Jerrett, M.; Dunton, G.; Seto, E.; Pentz, M.A. A Study of Community Design, Greenness, and Physical Activity in
Children Using Satellite, GPS and Accelerometer Data. Health Place 2012, 18, 46–54. [CrossRef]
67. Cleland, V.; Crawford, D.; Baur, L.A.; Hume, C.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J. A Prospective Examination of Children’s Time Spent
Outdoors, Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Overweight. Int. J. Obes. 2008, 32, 1685–1693. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Mnich, C.; Weyland, S.; Jekauc, D.; Schipperijn, J. Psychosocial and Physiological Health Outcomes of Green Exercise in Children
and Adolescents—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4266. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Markevych, I.; Smith, M.P.; Jochner, S.; Standl, M.; Brüske, I.; von Berg, A.; Bauer, C.-P.; Fuks, K.; Koletzko, S.; Berdel, D.; et al.
Neighbourhood and Physical Activity in German Adolescents: GINIplus and LISAplus. Environ. Res. 2016, 147, 284–293.
[CrossRef]
70. Wheeler, B.W.; Cooper, A.R.; Page, A.S.; Jago, R. Greenspace and Children’s Physical Activity: A GPS/GIS Analysis of the PEACH
Project. Prev. Med. 2010, 51, 148–152. [CrossRef]
71. Beyer, K.M.M.; Szabo, A.; Hoormann, K.; Stolley, M. Time Spent Outdoors, Activity Levels, and Chronic Disease among American
Adults. J. Behav. Med. N. Y. 2018, 41, 494–503. [CrossRef]
72. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Greener Neighborhoods, Slimmer People? Evidence from 246 920 Australians. Int. J. Obes.
Lond. 2014, 38, 156–159. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
17 of 19
73. Dempsey, S.; Lyons, S.; Nolan, A. Urban Green Space and Obesity in Older Adults: Evidence from Ireland. SSM Popul. Health
2018, 4, 206–215. [CrossRef]
74. Mowafi, M.; Khadr, Z.; Bennett, G.; Hill, A.; Kawachi, I.; Subramanian, S.V. Is Access to Neighborhood Green Space Associated
with BMI among Egyptians? A Multilevel Study of Cairo Neighborhoods. Health Place 2012, 18, 385–390. [CrossRef]
75. Cummins, S.; Fagg, J. Does Greener Mean Thinner? Associations between Neighbourhood Greenspace and Weight Status among
Adults in England. Int. J. Obes. 2012, 36, 1108–1113. [CrossRef]
76. Bell, J.F.; Wilson, J.S.; Liu, G.C. Neighborhood Greenness and 2-Year Changes in Body Mass Index of Children and Youth. Am. J.
Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 547–553. [CrossRef]
77. Dadvand, P.; Villanueva, C.M.; Font-Ribera, L.; Martinez, D.; Basagaña, X.; Belmonte, J.; Vrijheid, M.; Gražulevicˇiene˙ , R.;
Kogevinas, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Risks and Benefits of Green Spaces for Children: A Cross-Sectional Study of Associations
with Sedentary Behavior, Obesity, Asthma, and Allergy. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 1329–1335. [CrossRef]
78. Lovasi, G.S.; Schwartz-Soicher, O.; Quinn, J.W.; Berger, D.K.; Neckerman, K.M.; Jaslow, R.; Lee, K.K.; Rundle, A. Neighborhood
Safety and Green Space as Predictors of Obesity among Preschool Children from Low-Income Families in New York City. Prev.
Med. 2013, 57, 189–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Liu, G.C.; Wilson, J.S.; Qi, R.; Ying, J. Green Neighborhoods, Food Retail and Childhood Overweight: Differences by Population
Density. Am. J. Health Promot. AJHP 2007, 21, 317–325. [CrossRef]
80. Shin, J.C.; Parab, K.V.; An, R.; Grigsby-Toussaint, D.S. Greenspace Exposure and Sleep: A Systematic Review. Environ. Res. 2020,
182, 109081. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Does Access to Neighbourhood Green Space Promote a Healthy Duration of Sleep? Novel
Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study of 259 319 Australians. BMJ Open 2013, 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Grigsby-Toussaint, D.S.; Turi, K.N.; Krupa, M.; Williams, N.J.; Pandi-Perumal, S.R.; Jean-Louis, G. Sleep Insufficiency and the
Natural Environment: Results from the US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Prev. Med. 2015, 78, 78–84.
[CrossRef]
83. Johnson, B.S.; Malecki, K.M.; Peppard, P.E.; Beyer, K.M.M. Exposure to Neighborhood Green Space and Sleep: Evidence from the
Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. Sleep Health 2018, 4, 413–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Feng, X.; Flexeder, C.; Markevych, I.; Standl, M.; Heinrich, J.; Schikowski, T.; Koletzko, S.; Herberth, G.; Bauer, C.-P.; von Berg, A.;
et al. Impact of Residential Green Space on Sleep Quality and Sufficiency in Children and Adolescents Residing in Australia and
Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4894. [CrossRef]
85. Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Residential Green
Spaces and Mortality: A Systematic Review. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 60–67. [CrossRef]
86. Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The Health Benefits of the Great Outdoors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Greenspace
Exposure and Health Outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [CrossRef]
87. Wilker, E.H.; Wu, C.D.; McNeely, E.; Mostofsky, E.; Spengler, J.; Wellenius, G.A.; Mittleman, M.A. Green Space and Mortality
Following Ischemic Stroke. Environ. Res. 2014, 133, 42–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R. Gender Differences in Relationships between Urban Green Space and Health in the United Kingdom.
Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 568–575. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population Study.
Lancet Lond. Engl. 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [CrossRef]
90. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity Is Related to a Green Living
Environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend
on Dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–10. [CrossRef]
92. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Is Neighborhood Green Space Associated With a Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Evidence
From 267,072 Australians. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 197–201. [CrossRef]
93. Bodicoat, D.H.; O’Donovan, G.; Dalton, A.M.; Gray, L.J.; Yates, T.; Edwardson, C.; Hill, S.; Webb, D.R.; Khunti, K.; Davies, M.J.;
et al. The Association between Neighbourhood Greenspace and Type 2 Diabetes in a Large Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2014,
4, e006076. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Thiering, E.; Markevych, I.; Brüske, I.; Fuertes, E.; Kratzsch, J.; Sugiri, D.; Hoffmann, B.; von Berg, A.; Bauer, C.-P.; Koletzko, S.;
et al. Associations of Residential Long-Term Air Pollution Exposures and Satellite-Derived Greenness with Insulin Resistance in
German Adolescents. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 1291–1298. [CrossRef]
95. Jimenez, M.P.; Oken, E.; Gold, D.R.; Luttmann-Gibson, H.; Requia, W.J.; Rifas-Shiman, S.L.; Gingras, V.; Hivert, M.-F.; Rimm, E.B.;
James, P. Early Life Exposure to Green Space and Insulin Resistance: An Assessment from Infancy to Early Adolescence. Environ.
Int. 2020, 142, 105849. [CrossRef]
96. Demoury, C.; Thierry, B.; Richard, H.; Sigler, B.; Kestens, Y.; Parent, M.-E. Residential Greenness and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A
Case-Control Study in Montreal, Canada. Environ. Int. 2017, 98, 129–136. [CrossRef]
97. Iyer, H.S.; James, P.; Valeri, L.; Hart, J.E.; Pernar, C.H.; Mucci, L.A.; Holmes, M.D.; Laden, F.; Rebbeck, T.R. The Association
between Neighborhood Greenness and Incidence of Lethal Prostate Cancer. Environ. Epidemiol. Phila. Pa 2020, 4. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
18 of 19
98. Datzmann, T.; Markevych, I.; Trautmann, F.; Heinrich, J.; Schmitt, J.; Tesch, F. Outdoor Air Pollution, Green Space, and Cancer
Incidence in Saxony: A Semi-Individual Cohort Study. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 715. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. James, P.; Hart, J.E.; Bertrand, K.; Bezold, C.P.; VoPham, T.; Tamimi, R.; Laden, F. Greenness and Breast Cancer in a US-Based
Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study. In Proceedings of the ISEE Abstracts; Environmental Health Perspectives, Sydney,
Australia, 24–28 September 2017.
100. Hu, Z.; Liebens, J.; Rao, K.R. Linking Stroke Mortality with Air Pollution, Income, and Greenness in Northwest Florida: An
Ecological Geographical Study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2008, 7, 20. [CrossRef]
101. Takano, T.; Nakamura, K.; Watanabe, M. Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens’ Longevity in Megacity Areas: The
Importance of Walkable Green Spaces. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2002, 56, 913–918. [CrossRef]
102. Villeneuve, P.J.; Jerrett, M.; Su, J.G.; Burnett, R.T.; Chen, H.; Wheeler, A.J.; Goldberg, M.S. A Cohort Study Relating Urban Green
Space with Mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Res. 2012, 115, 51–58. [CrossRef]
103. James, P.; Hart, J.E.; Banay, R.F.; Laden, F. Exposure to Greenness and Mortality in a Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study of
Women. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 1344–1352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Vienneau, D.; de Hoogh, K.; Faeh, D.; Kaufmann, M.; Wunderli, J.M.; Röösli, M. SNC Study Group More than Clean Air
and Tranquillity: Residential Green Is Independently Associated with Decreasing Mortality. Environ. Int. 2017, 108, 176–184.
[CrossRef]
105. Rojas-Rueda, D.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Gascon, M.; Perez-Leon, D.; Mudu, P. Green Spaces and Mortality: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lancet Planet. Health 2019, 3, e469–e477. [CrossRef]
106. Agay-Shay, K.; Peled, A.; Crespo, A.V.; Peretz, C.; Amitai, Y.; Linn, S.; Friger, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Green Spaces and Adverse
Pregnancy Outcomes. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 71, 562–569. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107. Banay, R.F.; Bezold, C.P.; James, P.; Hart, J.E.; Laden, F. Residential Greenness: Current Perspectives on Its Impact on Maternal
Health and Pregnancy Outcomes. Int. J. Womens Health 2017, 9, 133–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Fong, K.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. A Review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated Literature through 2017.
Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 77–87. [CrossRef]
109. Akaraci, S.; Feng, X.; Suesse, T.; Jalaludin, B.; Astell-Burt, T. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Associations between
Green and Blue Spaces and Birth Outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2949. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Lovasi, G.S.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M.; Lu, J.W.T.; Sheehan, D.; Perzanowski, M.S.; MacFaden, S.W.; King, K.L.; Matte, T.; Miller, R.L.;
Hoepner, L.A.; et al. Urban Tree Canopy and Asthma, Wheeze, Rhinitis, and Allergic Sensitization to Tree Pollen in a New York
City Birth Cohort. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013, 121, 494–500. [CrossRef]
111. Hanski, I.; von Hertzen, L.; Fyhrquist, N.; Koskinen, K.; Torppa, K.; Laatikainen, T.; Karisola, P.; Auvinen, P.; Paulin, L.; Mäkelä,
M.J.; et al. Environmental Biodiversity, Human Microbiota, and Allergy Are Interrelated. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109,
8334–8339. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Ruokolainen, L.; von Hertzen, L.; Fyhrquist, N.; Laatikainen, T.; Lehtomäki, J.; Auvinen, P.; Karvonen, A.M.; Hyvärinen, A.;
Tillmann, V.; Niemelä, O.; et al. Green Areas around Homes Reduce Atopic Sensitization in Children. Allergy 2015, 70, 195–202.
[CrossRef]
113. Pilat, M.A.; McFarland, A.; Snelgrove, A.; Collins, K.; Waliczek, T.M.; Zajicek, J. The Effect of Tree Cover and Vegetation on
Incidence of Childhood Asthma in Metropolitan Statistical Areas of Texas. HortTechnology 2012, 22, 631–637. [CrossRef]
114. Fuertes, E.; Markevych, I.; von Berg, A.; Bauer, C.P.; Berdel, D.; Koletzko, S.; Sugiri, D.; Heinrich, J. Greenness and Allergies:
Evidence of Differential Associations in Two Areas in Germany. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 787–790. [CrossRef]
115. Fuertes, E.; Markevych, I.; Bowatte, G.; Gruzieva, O.; Gehring, U.; Becker, A.; Berdel, D.; von Berg, A.; Bergström, A.; Brauer, M.;
et al. Residential Greenness Is Differentially Associated with Childhood Allergic Rhinitis and Aeroallergen Sensitization in Seven
Birth Cohorts. Allergy 2016, 71, 1461–1471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116. Tischer, C.; Gascon, M.; Fernández-Somoano, A.; Tardón, A.; Lertxundi Materola, A.; Ibarluzea, J.; Ferrero, A.; Estarlich, M.;
Cirach, M.; Vrijheid, M.; et al. Urban Green and Grey Space in Relation to Respiratory Health in Children. Eur. Respir. J. 2017, 49.
[CrossRef]
117. Li, L.; Hart, J.E.; Coull, B.A.; Cao, S.; Spengler, J.D.; Adamkiewicz, G. Effect of Residential Greenness and Nearby Parks on
Respiratory and Allergic Diseases among Middle School Adolescents in a Chinese City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,
16, 991. [CrossRef]
118. Ferrante, G.; Asta, F.; Cilluffo, G.; De Sario, M.; Michelozzi, P.; La Grutta, S. The Effect of Residential Urban Greenness on Allergic
Respiratory Diseases in Youth: A Narrative Review. World Allergy Organ. J. 2020, 13, 100096. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
119. Donovan, G.H. Is Tree Loss Associated with Cardiovascular-Disease Risk in the Women’s Health Initiative? A Natural Experiment.
Health Place 2015, 7. [CrossRef]
120. South, E.C.; Hohl, B.C.; Kondo, M.C.; MacDonald, J.M.; Branas, C.C. Effect of Greening Vacant Land on Mental Health of
Community-Dwelling Adults: A Cluster Randomized Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e180298. [CrossRef]
121. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Large-Scale Investment in Green Space as an Intervention for Physical Activity, Mental and
Cardiometabolic Health: Study Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of a Natural Experiment. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e009803.
[CrossRef]
122. Green Heart. Available online: https://greenheartlouisville.com/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
123. ProGIreg. Available online: https://progireg.eu/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790
19 of 19
124. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Mavoa, S.; Badland, H.M.; Giles-Corti, B. Do Low-Income Neighbourhoods Have the Least Green Space?
A Cross-Sectional Study of Australia’s Most Populous Cities. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Dai, D. Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Urban Green Space Accessibility: Where to Intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan.
2011, 102, 234–244. [CrossRef]
126. Dahmann, N.; Wolch, J.; Joassart-Marcelli, P.; Reynolds, K.; Jerrett, M. The Active City? Disparities in Provision of Urban Public
Recreation Resources. Health Place 2010, 16, 431–445. [CrossRef]
127. Heckert, M. Access and Equity in Greenspace Provision: A Comparison of Methods to Assess the Impacts of Greening Vacant
Land. Trans. GIS 2013, 17, 808–827. [CrossRef]
128. Heynen, N.; Perkins, H.A.; Roy, P. The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race
and Ethnicity in Producing Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 42, 3–25. [CrossRef]
129. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities
‘Just Green Enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
130. Jennings, V.; Baptiste, A.K.; Osborne Jelks, N.; Skeete, R. Urban Green Space and the Pursuit of Health Equity in Parts of the
United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1432. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131. Jennings, V.; Gaither, C.J. Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and Green Spaces: An Ecosystem Services Perspective.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 1952–1968. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Boone, C.G.; Buckley, G.L.; Grove, J.M.; Sister, C. Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland.
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2009, 99, 767–787. [CrossRef]
133. Mitchell, R.J.; Richardson, E.A.; Shortt, N.K.; Pearce, J.R. Neighborhood Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental
Well-Being. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, 80–84. [CrossRef]
134. Rigolon, A.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; McAnirlin, O.; Yoon, H. (Violet) Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the
Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2563. [CrossRef]
135. Anguelovski, I.; Cole, H.; Connolly, J.; Triguero-Mas, M. Do Green Neighbourhoods Promote Urban Health Justice? Lancet Public
Health 2018, 3, e270. [CrossRef]
136. Gould, K.A.; Lewis, T.L. From Green Gentrification to Resilience Gentrification: An Example from Brooklyn1. City Community
2018, 17, 12–15. [CrossRef]
137. Miller, J.T. Is Urban Greening for Everyone? Social Inclusion and Exclusion along the Gowanus Canal. Urban For. Urban Green.
2016, 19, 285–294. [CrossRef]
138. Johnson, C.Y.; Horan, P.M.; Pepper, W. Race, Rural Residence, and Wildland Visitation: Examining the Influence of Sociocultural
Meaning1. Rural Sociol. 1997, 62, 89–110. [CrossRef]
139. Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K. Outdoor Recreation Constraints: An Examination of Race, Gender, and Rural Dwelling.
South. Rural Sociol. 2001, 17, 111–133.
140. Kwan, M.-P. The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2012, 102, 958–968. [CrossRef]
141. Labib, S.M.; Lindley, S.; Huck, J.J. Scale Effects in Remotely Sensed Greenspace Metrics and How to Mitigate Them for Environ-
mental Health Exposure Assessment. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020, 82, 101501. [CrossRef]
142. White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.W.; Hartig, T.; Warber, S.L.; Bone, A.; Depledge, M.H.; Fleming, L.E. Spending at
Least 120 Minutes a Week in Nature Is Associated with Good Health and Wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730. [CrossRef]
143. James, P.; Hart, J.E.; Hipp, J.A.; Mitchell, J.A.; Kerr, J.; Hurvitz, P.M.; Glanz, K.; Laden, F. GPS-Based Exposure to Greenness and
Walkability and Accelerometry-Based Physical Activity. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. Publ. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Cosponsored
Am. Soc. Prev. Oncol. 2017, 26, 525–532. [CrossRef]
144. Klompmaker, J.O.; Hoek, G.; Bloemsma, L.D.; Marra, M.; Wijga, A.H.; van den Brink, C.; Brunekreef, B.; Lebret, E.; Gehring, U.;
Janssen, N.A.H. Surrounding Green, Air Pollution, Traffic Noise Exposure and Non-Accidental and Cause-Specific Mortality.
Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105341. [CrossRef]
145. Larkin, A.; Hystad, P. Evaluating Street View Exposure Measures of Visible Green Space for Health Research. J. Expo. Sci. Environ.
Epidemiol. 2018, 29, 447–456. [CrossRef]
146. Fore, R.; Hart, J.E.; Choirat, C.; Thompson, J.W.; Lynch, K.; Laden, F.; Chavarro, J.E.; James, P. Embedding Mobile Health
Technology into the Nurses’ Health Study 3 to Study Behavioral Risk Factors for Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. Publ.
Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Cosponsored Am. Soc. Prev. Oncol. 2020, 29, 736–743. [CrossRef]
147. Schwartz, A.J.; Dodds, P.S.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M.; Danforth, C.M.; Ricketts, T.H. Visitors to Urban Greenspace Have Higher
Sentiment and Lower Negativity on Twitter. People Nat. 2019, 1, 476–485. [CrossRef]
148. Dadvand, P.; Pujol, J.; Macià, D.; Martínez-Vilavella, G.; Blanco-Hinojo, L.; Mortamais, M.; Alvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Fenoll, R.;
Esnaola, M.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; et al. The Association between Lifelong Greenspace Exposure and 3-Dimensional Brain Magnetic
Resonance Imaging in Barcelona Schoolchildren. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018, 126, 027012. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149. Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martinez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Forns, J.; Plasencia, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Mental Health Benefits
of Long-Term Exposure to Residential Green and Blue Spaces: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12,
4354–4379. [CrossRef] [PubMed]