A growing body of empirical evidence is revealing the value of nature experience for mental health. With rapid urbanization and declines in human contact with nature globally, crucial decisions must be made about how to preserve and enhance opportunities for nature experience. Here, we first provide points of consensus across the natural, social, and health sciences on the impacts of nature experience on cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, and other dimensions of mental health. We then show how ecosystem service assessments can be expanded to include mental health, and provide a heuristic, conceptual model for doing so.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionProximity and access to water have long been central to human culture and accordingly deliver countless societal benefits. Over 200 million people live on Europe’s coastline, and aquatic environments are the top recreational destination in the region. In terms of public health, interactions with ‘blue space’ (eg, coasts, rivers, lakes) are often considered solely in terms of risk (eg, drowning, microbial pollution). Exposure to blue space can, however, promote health and well-being and prevent disease, although underlying mechanisms are poorly understood.Aims and methodsThe BlueHealth project aims to understand the relationships between exposure to blue space and health and well-being, to map and quantify the public health impacts of changes to both natural blue spaces and associated urban infrastructure in Europe, and to provide evidence-based information to policymakers on how to maximise health benefits associated with interventions in and around aquatic environments. To achieve these aims, an evidence base will be created through systematic reviews, analyses of secondary data sets and analyses of new data collected through a bespoke international survey and a wide range of community-level interventions. We will also explore how to deliver the benefits associated with blue spaces to those without direct access through the use of virtual reality. Scenarios will be developed that allow the evaluation of health impacts in plausible future societal contexts and changing environments. BlueHealth will develop key inputs into policymaking and land/water-use planning towards more salutogenic and sustainable uses of blue space, particularly in urban areas.Ethics and disseminationThroughout the BlueHealth project, ethics review and approval are obtained for all relevant aspects of the study by the local ethics committees prior to any work being initiated and an ethics expert has been appointed to the project advisory board. So far, ethical approval has been obtained for the BlueHealth International Survey and for community-level interventions taking place in Spain, Italy and the UK. Engagement of stakeholders, including the public, involves citizens in many aspects of the project. Results of all individual studies within the BlueHealth project will be published with open access. After full anonymisation and application of any measures necessary to prevent disclosure, data generated in the project will be deposited into open data repositories of the partner institutions, in line with a formal data management plan. Other knowledge and tools developed in the project will be made available via the project website (www.bluehealth2020.eu). Project results will ultimately provide key inputs to planning and policy relating to blue space, further stimulating the integration of environmental and health considerations into decision-making, such that blue infrastructure is developed across Europe with both public health and the environment in mind.

The urban forest is a green infrastructure system that delivers multiple environmental, economic, social and health services, and functions in cities. Environmental benefits of urban trees are well understood, but no review to date has examined how urban trees affect human health. This review provides a comprehensive summary of existing literature on the health impacts of urban trees that can inform future research, policy, and nature-based public health interventions. A systematic search used keywords representing human health, environmental health, and urban forestry. Following screening and appraisal of several thousand articles, 201 studies were conceptually sorted into a three-part framework. Reducing Harm, representing 41% of studies, includes topics such as air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, heat exposure, and pollen. Restoring Capacities, at 31%, includes attention restoration, mental health, stress reduction, and clinical outcomes. Building Capacities, at 28%, includes topics such as birth outcomes, active living, and weight status. The studies that were reviewed show substantial heterogeneity in purpose and method yet indicate important health outcomes associated with people’s exposure to trees. This review will help inform future research and practice, and demonstrates why urban forest planning and management should strategically promote trees as a social determinant of public health.

Mental health and well-being are consistently influenced—directly or indirectly—by multiple environmental exposures. In this review, we have attempted to address some of the most common exposures of the biophysical environment, with a goal of demonstrating how those factors interact with central structures and functions of the brain and thus influence the neurobiology of depression. We emphasize biochemical mechanisms, observational evidence, and areas for future research. Finally, we include aspects of contextual environments—city living, nature, natural disasters, and climate change—and call for improved integration of environmental issues in public health science, policies, and activities. This integration is necessary for reducing the global pandemic of depression.

Living near, recreating in, and feeling psychologically connected to, the natural world are all associated with better mental health, but many exposure-related questions remain. Using data from an 18-country survey (n = 16,307) we explored associations between multiple measures of mental health (positive well-being, mental distress, depression/anxiety medication use) and: (a) exposures (residential/recreational visits) to different natural settings (green/inland-blue/coastal-blue spaces); and (b) nature connectedness, across season and country. People who lived in greener/coastal neighbourhoods reported higher positive well-being, but this association largely disappeared when recreational visits were controlled for. Frequency of recreational visits to green, inland-blue, and coastal-blue spaces in the last 4 weeks were all positively associated with positive well-being and negatively associated with mental distress. Associations with green space visits were relatively consistent across seasons and countries but associations with blue space visits showed greater heterogeneity. Nature connectedness was also positively associated with positive well-being and negatively associated with mental distress and was, along with green space visits, associated with a lower likelihood of using medication for depression. By contrast inland-blue space visits were associated with a greater likelihood of using anxiety medication. Results highlight the benefits of multi-exposure, multi-response, multi-country studies in exploring complexity in nature-health associations.