We aimed to examine the evidence for the proposed additive effect of exercise in the presence of nature (green exercise) by systematically reviewing studies that investigated the effects of outdoor or virtual green exercise compared with indoor exercise. Our review updates an earlier review, whose searches were conducted in April 2010. Trials were eligible if: (a) participants in an outdoor or virtual exercise condition were exposed to views of nature (green exercise); (b) green exercise was compared with indoor exercise with no exposure to nature; (c) included an outcome related to physical or mental health; (d) used comparative or crossover trial design. We searched the following databases from 1st January 2010 to 28th June 2018: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, GreenFile, and Sports DISCUS. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. Where possible we conducted a meta-analysis using the inverse variance random-effects method, and where this approach was not possible we presented the results qualitatively and in harvest plots. We identified 28 eligible trials. In a meta-analysis of just three longitudinal trials, the only statistical finding was slightly lower post-intervention perceived exertion with green versus indoor exercise (mean difference: −1.02; 95% confidence intervals: −1.88, −0.16). Compared with indoor exercise, acute bouts of outdoor green exercise may favorably influence affective valence and enjoyment, but not emotion, perceived exertion, exercise intensity, and biological markers. No other consistent statistical differences were observed, apart from a higher enjoyment of outdoor green versus virtual green exercise. We found a high risk of bias across trials and an overall low quality of evidence. In conclusion, there was limited evidence to support the view that green exercise offers superior benefits to exercise without exposure to nature. The low quality of evidence prohibits clear interpretation of trial findings. Future robust and rigorously designed trials are needed to evaluate the effects of long-term and multiple-bout exposure to nature during exercise compared with exercise indoors.

The importance of natural environments in supporting health and wellbeing has been well evidenced in supporting positive mental and physical health outcomes, including during periods of crisis and stress. Given the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been greatest for those who are most vulnerable, understanding the role of natural environment and alternative forms of nature engagement in supporting health and wellbeing for vulnerable groups is important. This study explored how nature engagement supported health and wellbeing in those with a pre-existing health condition during the first UK lockdown. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 adults with a pre-existing health condition and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four themes were identified: COVID-19 versus nature; Nature as an extension and replacement; Nature connectedness; and Therapeutic nature. The findings show the importance of nature in supporting health and wellbeing in those with a pre-existing health condition through engagement with private and public natural environments, micro-restorative opportunities, nature connection as an important pathway, and the therapeutic benefits of nature engagement. The present research extends the evidence-base beyond patterns of nature engagement to a deeper understanding of how those with existing health conditions perceived and interacted with nature in relation to their health and wellbeing during the first UK lockdown. Findings are discussed in relation to health supporting environments, micro-restorative opportunities, and policy implications.

No abstract

No abstract