BackgroundThere is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes.ResultsTwenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies.ConclusionsOverall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Practical conservation activity is increasing globally and is being undertaken by many different government and nongovernmental organizations. In the majority of cases, justification for proposed actions is experience-based rather than evidence-based, action is often taken without monitoring or evaluation of effectiveness, and results are rarely widely disseminated. Conservation has been compared with medicine as a crisis discipline in which action is often required urgently in the absence of good information. The practice of medicine has recently gone through an effectiveness revolution that has improved the criteria upon which treatment strategies are based by progressing from reliance on personal experience to reliance on scientific evidence. We draw parallels between medicine and conservation and present a practical framework to encourage evidence-based conservation action. Our rationale is that conservation actions for which scarce resources are sought should be justified by good scientific evidence. In our view this will also encourage more research addressing practical issues in conservation management. Efectividad de la Conservación Práctica: Indicadores de Medicina y Salud PúblicaResumen: La actividad de la conservación práctica está incrementando mundialmente y está siendo emprendida por muchas organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales. En la mayoría de los casos la justificación de acciones propuestas está basada en la experiencia y no en evidencias, la acción es frecuentemente tomada sin monitoreo o evaluación de la efectividad y los resultados son rara vez diseminados ampliamente. La conservación ha sido comparada con la medicina como disciplinas críticas donde la acción es frecuentemente requerida con urgencia en ausencia de buena información. Recientemente la práctica de la medicina ha atravesado una revolución de efectividad que ha mejorado los criterios sobre los cuales se basaban las estrategias progresando de la confianza en la experiencia personal a la confianza en la evidencia científica. Nosotros trazamos paralelos entre la medicina y la conservación y presentamos un marco de trabajo práctico para alentar acciones de conservación basadas en evidencias. Nuestro razonamiento es que las acciones de conservación para los cuales se buscan escasos recursos deberían ser justificadas por buenas evidencias científicas. En nuestra visión esto también alentaría más la investigación enfocada en asuntos prácticos de manejo conservacionista.