Nature exposure in virtual reality (VR) can provide emotional well-being benefits for people who cannot access the outdoors. Little is known about how these simulated experiences compare with real outdoor experiences. We conduct an experiment with healthy undergraduate students that tests the effects of 6 min of outdoor nature exposure with 6 min of exposure to a 360-degree VR nature video, which is recorded at the outdoor nature exposure location. Skin conductivity, restorativeness, and mood before and after exposure are measured. We find that both types of nature exposure increase physiological arousal, benefit positive mood levels, and are restorative compared to an indoor setting without nature; however, for outdoor exposure, positive mood levels increase and for virtual nature, they stay the same. The nature-based experience shows benefits above and beyond the variance explained by participants' preferences, nature and VR experiences, and demographic characteristics. Settings where people have limited access to nature might consider using VR nature experiences to promote mental health.

No abstract

Background Living in the time of the COVID-19 means experiencing not only a global health emergency but also extreme psychological stress with potential emotional side effects such as sadness, grief, irritability, and mood swings. Crucially, lockdown and confinement measures isolate people who become the first and the only ones in charge of their own mental health: people are left alone facing a novel and potentially lethal situation, and, at the same time, they need to develop adaptive strategies to face it, at home. In this view, easy-to-use, inexpensive, and scientifically validated self-help solutions aiming to reduce the psychological burden of coronavirus are extremely necessary. Aims This pragmatic trial aims to provide the evidence that a weekly self-help virtual reality (VR) protocol can help overcome the psychological burden of the Coronavirus by relieving anxiety, improving well-being, and reinforcing social connectedness. The protocol will be based on the “Secret Garden” 360 VR video online ( ) which simulates a natural environment aiming to promote relaxation and self-reflection. Three hundred sixty–degree or spherical videos allow the user to control the viewing direction. In this way, the user can explore the content from any angle like a panorama and experience presence and immersion. The “Secret Garden” video is combined with daily exercises that are designed to be experienced with another person (not necessarily physically together), to facilitate a process of critical examination and eventual revision of core assumptions and beliefs related to personal identity, relationships, and goals. Methods This is a multicentric, pragmatic pilot randomized controlled trial involving individuals who experienced the COVID-19 pandemic and underwent a lockdown and quarantine procedures. The trial is approved by the Ethics Committee of the Istituto Auxologico Italiano. Each research group in all the countries joining the pragmatic trial, aims at enrolling at least 30 individuals in the experimental group experiencing the self-help protocol, and 30 in the control group, over a period of 3 months to verify the feasibility of the intervention. Conclusion The goal of this protocol is for VR to become the “surgical mask” of mental health treatment. Although surgical masks do not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection against the coronavirus compared with FFP2 or FFP3 masks, surgical masks are very effective in protecting others from the wearer’s respiratory emissions. The goal of the VR protocol is the same: not necessarily to solve complex mental health problems but rather to improve well-being and preserve social connectedness through the beneficial social effects generated by positive emotions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected many people's psychological health. Impacts may be particularly severe among socially vulnerable populations such as college students, a group predisposed to mental health problems. Outdoor recreation and visits to greenspaces such as parks offer promising pathways for addressing the mental health challenges associated with COVID-19. During the early stages of the pandemic (March–May 2020), we surveyed 1280 college students at four large public universities across the United States (U.S.) to assess how, and why, outdoor recreation and park use changed since the emergence of COVID-19. We also measured students' self-reported levels of emotional distress (a proxy for psychological health) and assessed potential demographic and contextual correlates of distress, including county-level per capita park area and greenness, using generalized linear models. We found that 67% of students reported limiting outdoor activities and 54% reported reducing park use during the pandemic. Students who reduced their use of outdoor spaces cited structural reasons (e.g., lockdowns), concerns about viral transmission, and negative emotions that obstructed active lifestyles. Students who maintained pre-pandemic park use levels expressed a desire to be outdoors in nature, often with the explicit goal of improving mental and physical health. Emotional distress among students was widespread. Models showed higher levels of emotional distress were associated with reducing park use during the pandemic and residing in counties with a smaller area of parks per capita. This study of U.S. college students supports the value of park-based recreation as a health promotion strategy for diverse populations of young adults during a time of crisis.

No abstract

No abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that simulated natural settings can engage mechanisms that promote health. Simulations offer alternatives to actual natural settings for populations unable to travel outdoors safely; however, few studies have contrasted the effects of simulations of natural settings to their actual outdoor counterparts. We compared the impacts of simulated and actual natural settings on positive and negative affect (mood) levels using a pooled sample of participants enrolled in extant experimental studies. Relevant articles were identified from a review of research published/in press by March 2020 and updated during the peer review of the current study. Of 16 articles identified, 6 met the inclusion criteria and administered a single cross-cutting, standardized instrument [the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)] before and after exposure. Random effects meta-analysis of pooled effects showed that positive affect increased in the actual settings but not in their simulated counterparts (Hedge's g = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.54, 1.20). We observed little difference in effects on negative affect change scores (g = −0.28; 95% CI, −0.62, 0.06), with studies generally showing reductions in negative affect in both settings. Further research with additional populations, settings, antecedent conditions, and durations would provide a more robust understanding of differences in effects between these two ways to enhance mood by viewing nature.

No abstract