Nature prescriptions: a scoping review with a nested meta-analysis
==================================================================

* Phi-Yen Nguyen
* Hania Rahimi-Ardabili
* Xiaoqi Feng
* Thomas Astell-Burt

## Summary

**Background** “Nature prescriptions” are gaining popularity as a form of social prescribing and in response to calls for sustainable healthcare. Our review and meta-analysis appraised evidence of effectiveness of nature prescriptions on various health outcomes. In doing so, we sought to determine the factors that are critical for the success of nature prescriptions, based on Social Cognitive Theory.

**Methods** This is a scoping review with a nested meta-analysis for a subset of outcomes. Five databases were searched up to July 25, 2021. Randomised and non-randomised controlled studies featuring a nature prescription (i.e. an instruction or organised programme, by a health or social provider, to promote spending time in nature) are included. All health outcomes are eligible, but only key pre-specified outcomes are qualified for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently conducted all steps of study selection; one reviewer conducted data collection and risk of bias assessment. Summary data was extracted from published reports for analysis. Random-effect models for meta-analysis were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1.

**Findings** We identified 86 unique studies (116 reports), of which 26 studies contributed data to meta-analysis. Compared to control, nature prescription programmes resulted in a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure (MD = -4·9mmHg [-9·6 to -0·1], I2=65%) and diastolic blood pressure (MD = -3·6mmHg [-7·4 to 0·1], I2=67%). They also had a moderate-to-large effect on depression scores (SMD=0·5 [0·2 to 0·8], I2=79%) and anxiety score (SMD=0·6 [0·1 to 1·2], I2=90%). Lastly, they resulted in a greater increase in daily step counts (MD = 900 steps [790-1010], I2=0%), but did not improve weekly time of moderate physical activities (MD = 25·9 minutes [-10·3 to 62·1], I2=53%). Most studies have moderate to high risk of bias, principally due to non-blinding nature of the interventions, small sample size and lack of analysis plan to rule out risks of bias.

**Interpretation** Nature prescription programmes may provide cardiometabolic and mental health benefits and increase physical activity. Effective nature prescription programmes can select from a range of natural settings, activities and might be implemented via social and community channels, besides health providers. The Social Cognition Theory is useful in designing future nature prescription programmes.

**Funding** This work was supported by the Hort Frontiers Green Cities Fund, part of the Hort Frontiers strategic partnership initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from the University of Wollongong (UOW) Faculty of Social Sciences, the UOW Global Challenges initiative and contributions from the Australian Government (project number #GC15005). T.A-B. was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Boosting Dementia Research Leader Fellowship (#1140317). X.F. was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (#1148792).

**Panel: Research in context**

#### Evidence before this study

**Evidence before this study** Extensive evidence indicates contact with nature is associated with social, mental and physical health. However, little evidence exists on the effectiveness of nature prescriptions, which involve a health provider (e.g. general practitioner) recommending a patient to spend a fixed amount of time a week in a natural setting (e.g. a park). Other studies have attempted to evaluate the benefits of food prescription or green prescription programmes, which do not necessarily involve nature exposure. Only one systematic review on nature prescriptions has been conducted to date, which is a qualitative review without meta-analysis. The review concluded that the evidence (studies up to June 2019) was too sparse to discern any clear evidence of health impacts. There was insufficient information to assess the risk of bias or quality of evidence in the review. Moreover, the review included only nature prescriptions dispensed in outpatient settings, which left out prescription programmes implemented by other institutions, such as welfare centres, social services, universities or workplaces.

#### Added value of this study

**Added value of this study** Our review is the first to provide comprehensive appraisal including meta-analysis of the effectiveness of nature prescription programs on multiple health outcomes. The scoping review identified a range of promising nature-based interventions that were dispensed outside the clinic setting and did not self-label as a nature prescription, but would be effective as one. The nested meta-analyses on key outcomes demonstrated positive benefits on blood pressure, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and physical activity levels.

#### Implications of all the available evidence

**Implications of all the available evidence** Our findings suggest that an effective nature prescription programme can select from a range of natural settings, activities and can be implemented via social and community channels, in addition to health providers. In addition, we also demonstrated that the Social Cognition Theory framework is useful in designing future nature prescription programmes.

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Extensive evidence indicates contact with nature is associated with social, mental and physical health 1–3. These potential benefits include favourable pregnancy outcomes 4 through to reduced risks of cardiometabolic 5,6 and neurodegenerative diseases 7,8 in older adults. While addressing the well-documented inequities in green space 9 are warranted, improving provision will be insufficient to ensure everyone benefits 10.

Nature prescriptions have emerged as a potential solution to enable and empower people to spend more time in nature where that was not previously the case. Nature prescriptions are an adjunct to conventional healthcare, such as the educational and pharmaceutical treatment of non-communicable diseases. A nature prescription typically involves a health provider (e.g. general practitioner) recommending a patient to spend a fixed amount of time a week in a natural setting, such as a park. It is widely considered that the benefits of nature prescribing will reach far beyond health, such as increasing social connectedness 11 and pro-environmental behaviours 12.

To our knowledge, only one systematic review has been conducted on nature prescription to date. This qualitative review by Kondo and colleagues identified eleven nature prescription studies published up to June 2019 13 and concluded that the evidence was too sparse to discern any clear evidence of health impacts. Another study adopted a survey approach to investigate the benefits of green space programmes for mental health 14. From 2020 onwards, we noted a substantial upswing in interest and publication of new nature prescription studies. This raises the potential for meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the importance of personal/cognitive, behavioural and environmental factors to the success of these intervention programmes using Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) 15.

Accordingly, the objective of this review is to identify evidence for effective nature prescriptions and to determine the factors which are critical for their success. We pose the following questions:

1.  To what extent can nature prescriptions improve social, mental and physical health?

2.  What are the design characteristics of nature prescriptions with demonstrated health benefits?

3.  What are potential channels to dispense a nature prescription beside a clinic or hospital?

## 2. METHODS

Reporting of this review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 16. This review was not registered *a priori*.

### 2.1. Search strategy

We searched the following databases for articles from inception up to July 25, 2021: MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, PsycINFO via Ovid, CINALH via EBSCO and CENTRAL via Cochrane Library. The search was supplemented by manual search of reference list from relevant systematic reviews. The search strategy is available in Supplementary file S1.

### 2.2. Study selection

Two reviewers (PN and HA) independently screened all titles and abstracts in duplicate and excluded studies that did not meet inclusion criteria (Table 1). Full texts of selected articles were reviewed by one reviewer (PN) and checked by a second reviewer (H-RA). Disagreement was resolved by discussion with senior reviewers (XF and TA-B). All stages of study screening were conducted using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Australia). We excluded interventions with a dietary focus as these have been previously investigated 17.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/T1)

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for study selection

### 2.3 Data collection

One reviewer (PN) extracted data using a standardised extraction form. Data extracted included characteristics of studies, participants, interventions and outcomes. Study characteristics included study design, sample size and location. Participant characteristics included social background, pre-existing medical conditions and age groups, as defined in the eligibility criteria. Interventions were characterised based on the nature setting where the intervention took place, types of activities undertaken by participants, whether the nature setting was indoor or outdoor, and the institutions who introduced the participants to the intervention (‘referring institutions’). The referring institutions must be have an established medical or social connection to the patients, such as treating hospitals, social services, welfare centres, etc. We recorded “None” if the participants were recruited through standard trial recruitment methods, such as mass emails, academic recruiters or public bulletins. We categorised the outcomes measured as physical, psychological/cognitive or behavioural outcomes. Biomarkers were recorded separately. We also recorded specific outcomes where a positive benefit was reported based on 95% confidence intervals or p-value <0·05 (if 95% confidence intervals were not available), and recorded whether the findings were based on within-group (pre-vs post-intervention) comparisons or between-group (intervention vs control group) comparisons.

We planned to conduct a nested systematic review and meta-analysis for the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), depression, anxiety, step counts and time spent on physical activities. Therefore, for studies that reported these outcomes, we additionally recorded the means and standard deviations for both groups, either as changes from baseline or post-intervention measurements, whichever available. If not provided, standard deviations (SD) were calculated from standard errors or 95% confidence intervals of the mean 18. If an outcome was measured at multiple follow-ups, we selected the time point most often reported amongst all studies, to make results more comparable amongst studies. If an outcome was measured using multiple scales, we record the scale most often reported amongst all studies. In one study, metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes were converted to minutes spent doing moderate physical activities by dividing means and SD by a factor of four 19. Mean changes from baseline and post-intervention means were synthesised separately in subgroup meta-analyses, and their results were pooled together in the final meta-analysis. Studies that provided no extractable data or no data to calculate SD were excluded from meta-analysis and presented narratively.

### 2.4. Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias assessment was conducted by one reviewer (PN) for studies included in the nested meta-analysis, using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies and the ROB 2.0 tool for randomised trials.

### 2.5. Statistical analysis

We performed descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) of intervention characteristics, including participant age groups, settings and activity types, as well as the referring institutions.

We assume the true treatment effects would likely differ among studies due to heterogeneity in age groups, pre-existing health conditions and intervention characteristics. Hence, we used DerSimonian-Laird random-effect models for meta-analysis of all outcomes. Standardised mean differences were used in meta-analysis of depression and anxiety, which were measured using various scales, and interpreted based on rule of thumb (0.2 as small effect, 0.5 as moderate effect, 0.8 as large effect). For other outcomes, mean differences were used. If both mean changes from baseline and post-intervention means were reported, post-intervention means were used. All analyses were conducted in Review Manager 5.4.1.

### 2.6. Role of the funding source

The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All aspects related to the conduct of this study including the views stated and the decision to publish the findings are those of the authors only.

## 3. RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 5,115 records from 5 databases, with an additional of 6 studies from backward/forward citation checking during screening. The final sample consisted of 86 unique studies (116 reports). The study selection process is summarised in Figure 1. The list of excluded full texts with reasons is in Supplementary File S3.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F1)

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of record retrieval and selection

### 3.1. Study & participant characteristics

The included studies ranged from 1999 to 2021, with a significant drop in publication in 2019, possibly due to influences of the COVID-19 pandemic (Supplementary Figure S1). Most included studies are randomised controlled trials (n=67, 73%). Most studies are concentrated in high-income countries (Supplementary Figure S2). Countries where most interventions took place were South Korea (n=18, 20%), the United States (US) (n=16, 17%) and Japan (n=10, 11%). The studies examined a diverse range of age groups, mainly adults (n=59, 64%) or elderly (n=25, 27%). Only 11 studies (12%) involved participants under the age of 18. Eleven studies (12%) specifically recruited participants with socioeconomically-disadvantaged backgrounds, such as low-income families or minor ethnic groups. The most common pre-existing conditions are psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, ADHD, etc.) (n=13, 14%), cardiovascular disorders (e.g. post-stroke, congestive heart failure, etc.) (n=12, 13%) and musculoskeletal disorders (fibromyalgia, history of falls or balancing issues, etc.) (n=6, 7%).

Risk-of-bias assessments are available in Supplementary File S2. The most important concerns for risk of bias were missing outcome data (due to high rates of dropouts without explicit reasons) and bias from measurement of outcomes (due to non-blinding nature of the intervention and the subjective nature of psychological assessment scales used).

### 3.2. Intervention characteristics

All included studies feature aspects of a nature prescription i.e. instructing the participants to spend time engaging with nature at various capacities. Only four studies, however, identified themselves as a nature or park prescription intervention 20–23. The most common settings for such nature-based therapy are forests and nature reserves (n=32, 35%), parks (n=26, 28%), small community or home gardens (n=15, 16%), or botanical gardens/allotments (n=10, 11%). Two studies (2%) also featured blue spaces such as beaches. The most common activities recommended to participants were walking in nature (n=42, 46%), farming or gardening (n=27, 29%) and mindfulness exercises (e.g. meditation, breathing exercises) (n=27, 29%), among a range of other activities (e.g. art and craft, group sports, reading or listening to music, etc.). Seven studies (8%) allowed participants to freely choose their activities 20–26.

Participants were commonly introduced to the trials by their health providers (n=23, 24%) or community service providers (n=24, 26%). The community service providers were diverse in nature, and tended to be associated with pre-existing conditions of the participants (e.g. day care services or senior centres for elderly in long-term care, job rehabilitation centres for people on extended sick leave or welfare centres for low-income families). The health providers were also varied, ranging from general practitioner (GP) clinics, family health centres, post-stroke rehabilitation centres to hospitals.

We evaluated the design of all interventions to see if they demonstrate aspects of the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) framework for behavioural change i.e. an increased engagement with nature. All studies featured behavioural factors such as selecting activities that participants can easily carry out on their own (n=61, 66%), or providing training (n=46, 50%) or tools (n=37, 40%) to assist with the activities e.g. gardening equipment, exercise equipment or maps of walking paths. Most studies (n=77, 84%) featured environmental factors such as conducting activities in group for peer support (n=52, 57%), selecting nature sites within the proximity of participants’ home, their regular health providers’ or community service providers’ offices (n=38, 41%). In twelve studies (13%), the authors mentioned providing measures to enable access such as transportation or free tickets for gym entry. However, the third aspect of the SCT, cognitive factors, were only featured in a third of studies (n=26, 28%) such as educating participants on the benefits of nature exposure (n=18, 20%) and setting goals to motivate participants (n=17, 18%).

Table 2 provides summary statistics for all included studies. Intervention characteristics and evaluation of programmes based on SCT framework are available in Supplementary File S4.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/T2)

Table 2. Study characteristics

### 3.3. Health outcomes

Thirty-nine studies (42%) reported benefits on outcomes related to physical health. Outcomes measured tended to be specific to the pre-existing health conditions. For example, interventions addressing cardiovascular disorders reported benefits on cardiometabolic indicators such as blood pressures, heart rates, aerobic fitness and body weight. Interventions for musculoskeletal and neurological disorders reported benefits on pain and various gross motor function tests such as Timed Sit-to-Stand or Timed Up-and-Go.

Two-third of studies (n=62, 67%) reported benefits on psychological or cognitive outcomes. A diverse range of measurement scales were used, mainly to assess moods (e.g. Profile of Mood States), depression (e.g. Beck’s Depression Inventory), stress (e.g. Perceived Stress Scale), anxiety (e.g. State-Trait Anxiety Scale) and quality of life (e.g. 36-item Short-Form Survey).

Twenty-three studies (25%) reported improved behavioural outcomes, mainly time spent outdoor, time spent on moderate-vigorous physical activities and step counts via pedometers. Eleven of these studies (58%) featured all three components of the SCT framework.

Twenty studies (22%) measured various biomarkers, mainly indicators of stress (e.g. salivary cortisol) and inflammatory responses (e.g. cytokines) and components of the haemodynamic control system (e.g. endothelin-1, AT1 receptors).

Table 3 provides a summary of findings for all included studies.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/T3)

Table 3: Summary of study designs and findings

#### 3.3.1. Blood pressures

Five RCTs and two non-randomised studies (NRSs) contributed data to the meta-analysis (Figures 2A-B). The follow-up time ranged from 1 week to 12 weeks from baseline, except for one study 27 which conducted baseline and follow-up measurements within the same day. Compared to control, nature prescription programmes resulted in a greater reduction in SBP (MD = -4·9mmHg, 95% CI -9·6 to -0·1, I2=65%) and DBP (MD = -3·6mmHg, 95% CI -7·4 to 0·1, I2=67%).

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-10.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-10)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-11.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-11)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-12.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/27/2022.03.23.22272674/F2/graphic-12)

Figure 2. Forest plots of health outcomes

Seven other studies, comprising five RCTs and two NRSs, were not included in the meta-analysis because of insufficient data or reasons related to study design (see Supplementary File S4). One study evaluated a clinic-community programme of organised games and sports at urban parks for obese children. The study reported a significant decrease in percentage of children classified as high or borderline blood pressure after 6 months, but no significant improvements in actual SBP or DBP percentile 28. Other studies reported that walking in forests or parks was linked to a higher decrease in SBP and DBP compared to control among elderly with hypertensions 29–31 and healthy adults 31,32. A cross-over trial reported improved blood pressure outcomes after walking in a green environment, but the improvement was not different from walking in a suburban environment 33.

#### 3.3.2. Depression and anxiety

Eleven RCTs and four NRSs contributed data to the meta-analysis (Figure 2C-D). The follow-up time ranged from 2 weeks to 1 year from baseline, except for one study 34 which followed up within 2 days from baseline. Compared to control, nature prescription programmes had a moderate-to-large effect on depression scores (SMD=0·5, 95% CI 0·2 to 0·8, I2=79%) and anxiety score (SMD=0·6, 95% CI 0·1 to 1·2, I2=90%). The most frequently-used tools were Beck Depression Inventory (n=5) for depression, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (n=4) or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (n=4) for anxiety.

Five other studies, comprising four RCTs and one NRS, were not included in the meta-analysis because insufficient data was provided in the articles. All five studies evaluated horticulture therapies, and all reported that horticulture or gardening activities improved depression and anxiety symptoms among the elderly 35, stroke survivors 36 or military veterans 37 compared to baseline, but not significantly better than control. For psychiatric patients, Vujcic and colleagues 38 reported that horticulture therapy relieved stress but not depression nor anxiety.

#### 3.3.3. Physical activity levels

Seven RCTs and three NRSs contributed data to the meta-analysis (Figure 2E-F). The follow-up time ranged from 10 weeks to 1 year from baseline. Compared to control, nature prescription programmes resulted in a greater increase in daily step counts (MD = 900 steps, 95% CI 790-1010, I2=0%), but did not improve weekly time of moderate physical activities (MD = 25·9 minutes, 95% CI -10·3 to 62·1, I2=53%).

Six other studies, comprising three RCTs and three NRSs, were not included in the meta-analysis because of insufficient data or reasons related to study design (see Supplementary File S4). One study showed that officer workers taking lunch walks in a natural environment was more likely to achieve target step counts that those in a built environment 39. Similar benefits were observed in community gardening programme for obese adults 40 or farm-based day care for patients with dementia 41. In a study of cancer survivors, however, outdoor exercises did not have greater impact on long-term physical activities than indoor exercises 42. Among school students, nature-based activities did not increase moderate physical activity during play time more than playground sports 43. Razani and colleagues 23 reported that compared to park prescription alone, addition support in forms of text reminders and invitation to group nature outings resulted in a significant increase in park visits, but not levels of moderate physical activities.

## 4. DISCUSSION

The rising popularity of nature prescription programmes is a response to assumptions in healthcare challenged by COVID-19 and our ongoing climate crisis 44,45. Our scoping review identified a range of promising nature-based interventions that can be implemented as nature prescriptions. These interventions were demonstrated to be effective for various age groups, including children and the elderly, and targeted various health conditions, such as cardiovascular conditions, musculoskeletal disorders and psychiatric disorders. In addition, the nested meta-analyses on key outcomes demonstrated positive benefits on blood pressure, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and physical activity levels. This aligns with findings from studies on the effects of the nature environment on cardiometabolic health 5 and mental health 14.

The following key observations were made after examining the characteristics of these interventions, which can inform design of future nature prescription programmes. Firstly, these nature prescription programmes took place across diverse nature settings, including both green spaces and blue spaces. Green spaces can be urban landscape such as parks, botanic gardens, or nature environments tailored to the activities such as farms and gardens for horticulture, or forests for forest bathing. Secondly, nature prescription programmes can utilise a range of different activities suitable to the health conditions of the participants. Many of the included studies included multimodal interventions which incorporated a vigorous physical activity (e.g. walking, gardening) with a mindfulness-based activity (e.g. meditation, relaxation). Thirdly, beside health providers, social and community services were also effective channels to introduce participants to the intervention. Some studies were implemented as workplace programmes for knowledge-intensive or office workers. These institutions should be tapped on when designing future nature prescription programmes to maximise outreach and recruitment. Lastly, most of the included studies that reported positive impact on behavioural changes also demonstrated all three aspects of the SCT framework. This suggests the usefulness of the SC to guide the design of future prescription programmes.

Our review complements previous findings on nature prescriptions, which was limited to prescriptions dispensed in an outpatient setting 13. By using a broad scope, our review captured nature-based interventions that were dispensed outside the clinic setting and did not self-label as nature prescriptions, but nonetheless would be effective as one. Moreover, we conducted meta-analysis to quantify effectiveness of these interventions across physical, psychological and behavioural outcomes, demonstrating the holistic nature of nature prescription programmes in health promotion.

Our study was not without limitations. Since our primary aim is to conduct a scoping review on all potential nature-based interventions, our search strategy was designed to be generic. Therefore, we may miss some studies that feature unconventional nature-based therapies. In addition, as we only included studies reported in English, we may exclude relevant studies reported in other languages and introduce bias due to missing data, especially considering many studies are from East Asian countries (e.g. South Korea or Japan). Our data collection and risk-of-bias assessment was not conducted in duplicate, which potentially introduces some subjectivity.

Heterogeneity statistics from our meta-analysis suggests high degree of heterogeneity in true effects among our included studies, possibly due to different target populations, nature settings and activities featured in the intervention. Future studies are required to examine the varying effectiveness of nature-based prescriptions based on these factors. Moreover, a comparison of effectiveness on increasing physical activity levels based on different elements of the SCT will help identify factors that make a behavioural change programme successful. Most studies have moderate to high risk of bias, principally due to non-blinding nature of the interventions, small sample size and a lack of published documentations to rule out bias, such as an a priori analysis plan or protocol. This calls for future efforts to enhance the standards of reporting and conduct of trials in this area of research to improve the overall quality of evidence.

## 5. CONCLUSION

Nature prescription programmes are increasing in popularity around the world. A key impetus is for nature prescription programs to supplement health practitioner focus on biomedical options by attending to health and social needs that standard care cannot reach. Our review and meta-analysis concludes that present evidence indicates nature prescriptions can provide positive benefits on blood pressure, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and physical activity levels. Nature prescriptions should incorporate nature-based interventions, which can feature a range of natural settings and activities. Social and community channels should be utilised for outreach, in addition to health providers. The Social Cognitive Theory framework can be used to guide the design of an effective nature prescription programme.

## Supporting information

Supplementary File S1: Search strategy [[supplements/272674_file04.docx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary File S2: Risk of bias assessments [[supplements/272674_file05.xlsx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary File S3: Excluded studies with reasons [[supplements/272674_file06.docx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary File S4: Summary of intervention characteristics [[supplements/272674_file07.docx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary File S5: PRISMA checklist [[supplements/272674_file08.docx]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure S1: Distribution by year [[supplements/272674_file09.jpg]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Figure S2: Distribution by location [[supplements/272674_file10.jpg]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data and materials used to generate the results are available in the manuscript and Supplementary Files, which can be accessed at doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DKSJ9.

[https://osf.io/dksj9/](https://osf.io/dksj9/) 

## Contributor

P-Y.N: data curation (database search), formal analysis (study selection & data collection, ROB assessment, meta-analysis), writing - original draft

H.R-A: formal analysis (study selection & data collection)

X.F.: conceptualisation, funding acquisition, supervision, writing - review & editing

T.A-B: conceptualisation, funding acquisition, supervision, writing - review & editing

All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

More than one author has directly accessed and verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript.

## Declaration of interests

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

## Data availability statement

All data and materials used to generate the results are available in the manuscript and Supplementary Files.

## Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Hort Frontiers Green Cities Fund, part of the Hort Frontiers strategic partnership initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from the University of Wollongong (UOW) Faculty of Social Sciences, the UOW Global Challenges initiative and contributions from the Australian Government (project number #GC15005). T.A-B. was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Boosting Dementia Research Leader Fellowship (#1140317). X.F. was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (#1148792).

*   Received March 23, 2022.
*   Revision received March 23, 2022.
*   Accepted March 27, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## REFERENCE

1.  Markevych I, Schoierer J, Hartig T, et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017; 158: 301–17.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28672128&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

2.  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: 628–37.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29982151&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

3.  Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv 2019; 5: 903–27.
    
    

4.  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.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

5.  Astell-Burt T, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: A multilevel longitudinal study of 46 786 Australians. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49: 926–33.
    
    

6.  Seo S, Choi S, Kim K, Kim SM, Park SM. Association between urban green space and the risk of cardiovascular disease: A longitudinal study in seven Korean metropolitan areas. Environ Int 2019; 125: 51–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

7.  Paul LA, Hystad P, Burnett RT, et al. Urban green space and the risks of dementia and stroke. Environ Res 2020; 186. DOI:10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109520.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/J.ENVRES.2020.109520&link_type=DOI) 

8.  Astell-Burt T, Navakatikyan MA, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and 11-year risk of dementia in a cohort of 109,688 Australians. Environ Int 2020; 145: 106102.
    
    

9.  Rigolon A. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 2016; 153: 160–9.
    
    

10. Astell-Burt T, Feng X. Paths through the woods. Int J Epidemiol 2021; published online Dec 9. DOI:10.1093/IJE/DYAB233.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/IJE/DYAB233&link_type=DOI) 

11. Leavell MA, Leiferman JA, Gascon M, Braddick F, Gonzalez JC, Litt JS. Nature-Based Social Prescribing in Urban Settings to Improve Social Connectedness and Mental Well-being: a Review. Curr Environ Heal reports 2019; 6: 297–308.
    
    

12. Martin L, White MP, Hunt A, Richardson M, Pahl S, Burt J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol 2020; 68: 101389.
    
    

13. Kondo MC, Oyekanmi KO, Gibson A, South EC, Bocarro J, Hipp JA. Nature Prescriptions for Health: A Review of Evidence and Research Opportunities. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 2020, Vol 17, Page 4213 2020; 17: 4213.
    
    

14. Masterton W, Park K, Carver H, Parkes T. Greenspace programmes for mental health: A survey study to test what works, for whom, and in what circumstances. Health Place 2021; 72: 102669.
    
    

15. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 1–26.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11148297&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167463100003&link_type=ISI) 

16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372. DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIzNzIvbWFyMjlfMi9uNzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMy8yNy8yMDIyLjAzLjIzLjIyMjcyNjc0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

17. Bhat S, Coyle DH, Trieu K, et al. Healthy Food Prescription Programs and their Impact on Dietary Behavior and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv Nutr 2021; 12: 1944–56.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

18. 1.  Higgins J, 
    2.  Thomas J, 
    3.  Chandler J, et al.
    
    Higgins JP, Li T, Deeks JJ. Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 6.2. Cochrane: 2021.
    
    

19. Bang K-S, Lee I, Kim S, et al. The Effects of a Campus Forest-Walking Program on Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Physical and Psychological Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14: 728.
    
    

20. McEwan K, Richardson M, Sheffield D, Ferguson FJ, Brindley P. A Smartphone App for Improving Mental Health through Connecting with Urban Nature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16. DOI:[https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183373](https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183373).
    
    

21. Müller-Riemenschneider F, Petrunoff N, Yao J, et al. Effectiveness of prescribing physical activity in parks to improve health and wellbeing - the park prescription randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020; 17: 42.
    
    

22. Payne EA, Loi NM, Thorsteinsson EB. The Restorative Effect of the Natural Environment on University Students’ Psychological Health. J Environ Public Health 2020; 2020: 4210285.
    
    

23. Razani N, Morshed S, Kohn MA, et al. Effect of park prescriptions with and without group visits to parks on stress reduction in low-income parents: SHINE randomized trial. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0192921–e0192921.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal/pone.0192921&link_type=DOI) 

24. Morris SL, Newhouse I, Larocque T, Gillis K-J, Smith L, Nisbet EK. Becoming One with Nature: A Nature Intervention for Individuals Living with Cancer Participating in a Ten-Week Group Exercise and Wellness Program. Int J Exerc Sci 2021; 14: 498–518.
    
    

25. South EC, Lee K, Oyekanmi K, et al. Nurtured in Nature: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Time in Greenspace among Urban-Dwelling Postpartum Women. J Urban Heal 2021. DOI:10.1007/s11524-021-00544-z.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11524-021-00544-z&link_type=DOI) 

26. Wexler N, Fan Y, Das K V, French S. Randomized Informational Intervention and Adult Park Use and Park-Based Physical Activity in Low-Income, Racially Diverse Urban Neighborhoods. J Phys Act Heal 2021; 18: 920–8.
    
    

27. Grazuleviciene R, Vencloviene J, Kubilius R, et al. The Effect of Park and Urban Environments on Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Randomized Trial. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 403012.
    
    

28. Hoffman J, Frerichs L, Story M, et al. An Integrated Clinic-Community Partnership for Child Obesity Treatment: A Randomized Pilot Trial. Obes. Stigma, Trends, Interv. 2018; : 103–16.
    
    

29. Mao G-X, Cao Y-B, Lan X-G, et al. Therapeutic effect of forest bathing on human hypertension in the elderly. J Cardiol 2012; 60: 495–502.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jjcc.2012.08.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22948092&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000312480200028&link_type=ISI) 

30. Wu Q, Ye B, Lv X, et al. Adjunctive Therapeutic Effects of Cinnamomum Camphora Forest Environment on Elderly Patients with Hypertension | International Journal of Gerontology. Int J Gerontol 2020; 14: 327–31.
    
    

31. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. The physiological effects of Shinrinyoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ Health Prev Med 2010; 15: 18–26.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19568835&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

32. Song C, Ikei H, Lee J, Park B-J, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. Individual differences in the physiological effects of forest therapy based on Type A and Type B behavior patterns. J Physiol Anthropol 2013; 32: 14.
    
    

33. de Brito JN, Pope ZC, Mitchell NR, et al. The effect of green walking on heart rate variability: A pilot crossover study. Environ Res 2020; 185: 109408.
    
    

34. Han J-W, Choi H, Jeon Y-H, Yoon C-H, Woo J-M, Kim W. The Effects of Forest Therapy on Coping with Chronic Widespread Pain: Physiological and Psychological Differences between Participants in a Forest Therapy Program and a Control Group. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13. DOI:[https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030255](https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030255).
    
    

35. Ng KST, Sia A, Ng MKW, et al. Effects of Horticultural Therapy on Asian Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 1705.
    
    

36. Pálsdóttir AM, Stigmar K, Norrving B, et al. The Nature stroke study; NASTRU - A randomised controlled trial of nature-based post-stroke fatigue rehabilitation. 2019. DOI:10.21203/rs.2.461/v1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21203/rs.2.461/v1&link_type=DOI) 

37. Detweiler MB, Self JA, Lane S, et al. Horticultural therapy: a pilot study on modulating cortisol levels and indices of substance craving, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and quality of life in veterans. Altern Ther Health Med 2015; 21: 36–41.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

38. Vujcic M, Tomicevic-Dubljevic J, Grbic M, Lecic-Tosevski D, Vukovic O, Toskovic O. Nature based solution for improving mental health and well-being in urban areas. Environ Res 2017; 158: 385–92.
    
    

39. Brown DK, Barton JL, Pretty J, Gladwell VF. Walks4Work: Assessing the role of the natural environment in a workplace physical activity intervention. Scand J Work Environ Health 2014; 40: 390–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5271/sjweh.3421&link_type=DOI) 

40. Mohamed W, Azlan A, Talib RABD. Benefits of Community Gardening Activity in Obesity Intervention: Findings from F.E.A.T. Programme. Curr Res Nutr Food Sci J 2018; 6: 700–10.
    
    

41. Finnanger Garshol B, Ellingsen-Dalskau LH, Pedersen I. Physical activity in people with dementia attending farm-based dementia day care - a comparative actigraphy study. BMC Geriatr 2020; 20: 219.
    
    

42. Miller JM, Sadak KT, Shahriar AA, et al. Cancer survivors exercise at higher intensity in outdoor settings: The GECCOS trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020; 68. DOI:10.1002/pbc.28850.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pbc.28850&link_type=DOI) 

43. Barton J, Sandercock G, Pretty J, Wood C. The effect of playground-and nature-based playtime interventions on physical activity and self-esteem in UK school children. Int J Environ Health Res 2015; 25: 196–206.
    
    

44. Davidson PM, Padula W V, Daly J, Jackson D. Moral outrage in COVID19—Understandable but not a strategy. J Clin Nurs 2020. DOI:10.1111/jocn.15318.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jocn.15318&link_type=DOI) 

45. Zhang Y, Beggs PJ, McGushin A, et al. The 2020 special report of the MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: lessons learnt from Australia’s “Black Summer”. Med J Aust 2020; 213: 490.
    
    

46. Dagistan Akgöz A, Gözüm S. Effectiveness of a nurse-led physical activity intervention to decrease cardiovascular disease risk in middle-aged adults: A pilot randomized controlled study. J Vasc Nurs 2020; 38: 140–8.
    
    

47. Ameli R, Skeath P, Abraham PA, et al. A nature-based health intervention at a military healthcare center: a randomized, controlled, cross-over study. PeerJ 2021; 9: e10519–e10519.
    
    

48. Arbillaga-Etxarri A, Gimeno-Santos E, Barberan-Garcia A, et al. Long-term efficacy and effectiveness of a behavioural and community-based exercise intervention (Urban Training) to increase physical activity in patients with COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800063.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiI1Mi80LzE4MDAwNjMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMy8yNy8yMDIyLjAzLjIzLjIyMjcyNjc0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

49. Baba Y, Ooyama C, Tazawa Y, Kohzuki M. Effects of Adachi Rehabilitation Programme on older adults under long-term care: A multi-centre controlled trial. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0245646–e0245646.
    
    

50. Ballew MT, Omoto AM. Absorption: How Nature Experiences Promote Awe and Other Positive Emotions. Ecopsychology 2018; 10: 26–35.
    
    

51. Bang K-S, Kim S, Song MK, Kang KI, Jeong Y. The Effects of a Health Promotion Program Using Urban Forests and Nursing Student Mentors on the Perceived and Psychological Health of Elementary School Children in Vulnerable Populations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 1977.
    
    

52. Barton J, Griffin M, Pretty J. Exercise-, nature-and socially interactive-based initiatives improve mood and self-esteem in the clinical population. Perspect Public Health 2011; 132: 89–96.
    
    

53. Bielinis E, Janeczko E, Takayama N, et al. The effects of viewing a winter forest landscape with the ground and trees covered in snow on the psychological relaxation of young Finnish adults: A pilot study. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0244799–e0244799.
    
    

54. de Bloom J, Sianoja M, Korpela K, et al. Effects of park walks and relaxation exercises during lunch breaks on recovery from job stress: Two randomized controlled trials. J Environ Psychol 2017; 51: 14–30.
    
    

55. Calogiuri G, Evensen K, Weydahl A, et al. Green exercise as a workplace intervention to reduce job stress. Results from a pilot study. Work 2016; 53: 99–111.
    
    

56. Chun MH, Chang MC, Lee SJ. The effects of forest therapy on depression and anxiety in patients with chronic stroke. Int J Neurosci 2017; 127: 199–203.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/00207454.2016.1170015&link_type=DOI) 

57. Cimprich B, Ronis DL. An Environmental Intervention to Restore Attention in Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Cancer Nurs 2003; 26: 284–92.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00002820-200308000-00005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12886119&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184622800005&link_type=ISI) 

58. Clutterbuck GL, Auld ML, Johnston LM. SPORTS STARS: a practitioner-led, peer-group sports intervention for ambulant children with cerebral palsy. Activity and participation outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil 2020; : 1–9.
    
    

59. Cohen DA, Han B, Derose KP, et al. Promoting physical activity in high-poverty neighborhood parks: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Soc Sci Med 2017; 186: 130–8.
    
    

60. Corazon SS, Sidenius U, Vammen KS, Klinker SE, Stigsdotter UK, Poulsen DV. The Tree Is My Anchor: A Pilot Study on the Treatment of BED through Nature-Based Therapy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 2486.
    
    

61. Demark-Wahnefried W, Cases MG, Cantor AB, et al. Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Home Vegetable Gardening Intervention among Older Cancer Survivors Shows Feasibility, Satisfaction, and Promise in Improving Vegetable and Fruit Consumption, Reassurance of Worth, and the Trajectory of Central Adipos. J Acad Nutr Diet 2018; 118: 689–704.
    
    

62. Djernis D, O’Toole MS, Fjorback LO, et al. A Short Mindfulness Retreat for Students to Reduce Stress and Promote Self-Compassion: Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial Exploring Both an Indoor and a Natural Outdoor Retreat Setting. Healthc (Basel, Switzerland) 2021; 9: 910.
    
    

63. Elsey H, Farragher T, Tubeuf S, et al. Assessing the impact of care farms on quality of life and offending: a pilot study among probation service users in England. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019296–e019296.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOC8zL2UwMTkyOTYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMy8yNy8yMDIyLjAzLjIzLjIyMjcyNjc0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

64. Finkelstein EA, Tan Y-T, Malhotra R, Lee C-F, Goh S-S, Saw S-M. A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Incentive-Based Outdoor Physical Activity Program. J Pediatr 2013; 163: 167–172.e1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23415616&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

65. Flowers EP, Freeman P, Gladwell VF. Enhancing the acute psychological benefits of green exercise: An investigation of expectancy effects. Psychol Sport Exerc 2018; 39: 213–21.
    
    

66. Frühauf A, Niedermeier M, Elliott LR, Ledochowski L, Marksteiner J, Kopp M. Acute effects of outdoor physical activity on affect and psychological well-being in depressed patients – A preliminary study. Ment Health Phys Act 2016; 10: 4–9.
    
    

67. Gascon M, Harrall KK, Beavers AW, et al. Feasibility of collection and analysis of microbiome data in a longitudinal randomized trial of community gardening. Future Microbiol 2020; 15: 633–48.
    
    

68. Gladwell VF, Kuoppa P, Tarvainen MP, Rogerson M. A Lunchtime Walk in Nature Enhances Restoration of Autonomic Control during Night-Time Sleep: Results from a Preliminary Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13: 280.
    
    

69. Han A-R, Park S-A, Ahn B-E. Reduced stress and improved physical functional ability in elderly with mental health problems following a horticultural therapy program. Complement Ther Med 2018; 38: 19–23.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

70. Heilmayr D, Friedman HS. Cultivating healthy trajectories: An experimental study of community gardening and health. J Health Psychol 2018; 25: 2418–27.
    
    

71. Jeon JY, Kim IO, Yeon P-S, Shin WS. The Physio-Psychological Effect of Forest Therapy Programs on Juvenile Probationers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 5467.
    
    

72. Kam MCY, Siu AMH. Evaluation of a Horticultural Activity Programme for Persons with Psychiatric Illness. Hong Kong J Occup Ther 2010; 20: 80–6.
    
    

73. Kang S-J, Kim H-S, Baek K-H. Effects of Nature-Based Group Art Therapy Programs on Stress, Self-Esteem and Changes in Electroencephalogram (EEG) in Non-Disabled Siblings of Children with Disabilities. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 5912.
    
    

74. Kim K-H, Park S-A. Horticultural therapy program for middle-aged women’s depression, anxiety, and self-identify. Complement Ther Med 2018; 39: 154–9.
    
    

75. Kim JG, Jeon J, Shin WS. The Influence of Forest Activities in a University Campus Forest on Student’s Psychological Effects. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 2457.
    
    

76. Kobayashi H, Song C, Ikei H, et al. Forest Walking Affects Autonomic Nervous Activity: A Population-Based Study. Front public Heal 2018; 6: 278.
    
    

77. Koselka EPD, Weidner LC, Minasov A, et al. Walking Green: Developing an Evidence Base for Nature Prescriptions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 4338.
    
    

78. Lacharité-Lemieux M, Brunelle JP, Dionne IJ. Adherence to exercise and affective responses: comparison between outdoor and indoor training. Menopause 2015; 22: 731–40.
    
    

79. Lee J-Y, Lee D-C. Cardiac and pulmonary benefits of forest walking versus city walking in elderly women: A randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Eur J Integr Med 2014; 6: 5–11.
    
    

80. Leiros-Rodríguez R, García-Soidan JL. Balance Training in Elderly Women Using Public Parks. J Women Aging 2014; 26: 207–18.
    
    

81. Li Q, Kobayashi M, Kumeda S, et al. Effects of Forest Bathing on Cardiovascular and Metabolic Parameters in Middle-Aged Males. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2016; 2016: 2587381.
    
    

82. Liu Y-C, Yang W-W, Fang I-Y,  Pan HL-L, Chen W-H, Liu C. Training Program With Outdoor Fitness Equipment in Parks Offers No Substantial Benefits for Functional Fitness in Active Seniors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Aging Phys Act 2020; 28: 828–35.
    
    

83. Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Doi T, et al. Exercise and Horticultural Programs for Older Adults with Depressive Symptoms and Memory Problems: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 99.
    
    

84. Mao GX, Lan XG, Cao YB, et al. Effects of short-term forest bathing on human health in a broad-leaved evergreen forest in Zhejiang Province, China. Biomed Environ Sci 2012; 25: 317–24.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22840583&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

85. Mao G, Cao Y, Wang B, et al. The Salutary Influence of Forest Bathing on Elderly Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14: 368.
    
    

86. Ngo CS, Pan C-W, Finkelstein EA, et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating an incentive-based outdoor physical activity programme to increase outdoor time and prevent myopia in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014; 34: 362–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

87. Oh Y-A, Park S-A, Ahn B-E. Assessment of the psychopathological effects of a horticultural therapy program in patients with schizophrenia. Complement Ther Med 2018; 36: 54–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

88. Park B-J, Shin C-S, Shin W-S, et al. Effects of Forest Therapy on Health Promotion among Middle-Aged Women: Focusing on Physiological Indicators. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 4348.
    
    

89. Park S-A, Son SY, Lee A-Y, Park H-G, Lee W-L, Lee CH. Metabolite Profiling Revealed That a Gardening Activity Program Improves Cognitive Ability Correlated with BDNF Levels and Serotonin Metabolism in the Elderly. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 541.
    
    

90. Plotnikoff RC, Wilczynska M, Cohen KE, Smith JJ, Lubans DR. Integrating smartphone technology, social support and the outdoor physical environment to improve fitness among adults at risk of, or diagnosed with, Type 2 Diabetes: Findings from the ‘eCoFit’ randomized controlled trial. Prev Med (Baltim) 2017; 105: 404–11.
    
    

91. Ryu J, Jung JH, Kim J, et al. Outdoor cycling improves clinical symptoms, cognition and objectively measured physical activity in patients with schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial. J Psychiatr Res 2020; 120: 144–53.
    
    

92. Sales M, Polman R, Hill KD, Levinger P. A Novel Exercise Initiative for Seniors to Improve Balance and Physical Function. J Aging Health 2017; 29: 1424–43.
    
    

93. Serrat M, Almirall M, Musté M, et al. Effectiveness of a Multicomponent Treatment for Fibromyalgia Based on Pain Neuroscience Education, Exercise Therapy, Psychological Support, and Nature Exposure (NAT-FM): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 3348.
    
    

94. Shin Y. The Effects of a Walking Exercise Program on Physical Function and Emotional State of Elderly Korean Women. Public Health Nurs 1999; 16: 146–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1525-1446.1999.00146.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10319666&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000079978500011&link_type=ISI) 

95. Siu AMH, Kam M, Mok I. Horticultural Therapy Program for People with Mental Illness: A Mixed-Method Evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 711.
    
    

96. Song C, Ikei H, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. Effects of Walking in a Forest on Young Women. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 229.
    
    

97. Stigsdotter UK, Corazon SS, Sidenius U, Nyed PK, Larsen HB, Fjorback LO. Efficacy of nature-based therapy for individuals with stress-related illnesses: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2018; 213: 404–11.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

98. Sung J, Woo J-M, Kim W, Lim S-K, Chung E-J. The Effect of Cognitive Behavior Therapy-Based “Forest Therapy” Program on Blood Pressure, Salivary Cortisol Level, and Quality of Life in Elderly Hypertensive Patients. Clin Exp Hypertens 2012; 34: 1–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22007608&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

99. Takayama N, Korpela K, Lee J, et al. Emotional, restorative and vitalizing effects of forest and urban environments at four sites in Japan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11: 7207–30.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph110707207&link_type=DOI) 

100.Tharrey M, Sachs A, Perignon M, et al. Improving lifestyles sustainability through community gardening: results and lessons learnt from the JArDinS quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health 2020; 20: 1798.
    
    

101.Turner TL, Stevinson C. Affective outcomes during and after high-intensity exercise in outdoor green and indoor gym settings. Int J Environ Health Res 2017; 27: 106–16.
    
    

102.Ura C, Okamura T, Yamazaki S, et al. Rice farming care as a novel method of green care farm in East Asian context: an implementation research. 2020. DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-42692/v2.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21203/rs.3.rs-42692/v2&link_type=DOI) 

103.Van Den Berg AE, Custers MHG. Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine and Affective Restoration from Stress. J Health Psychol 2010; 16: 3–11.
    
    

104.van den Berg AE, van den Berg CG. A comparison of children with ADHD in a natural and built setting. Child Care Health Dev 2010; 37: 430–9.
    
    

105.Verra Martin L, Angst F, Beck T, et al. Horticultural therapy for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: results of a pilot study. Altern Ther Health Med 2012; 18: 44–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22894890&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

106.Wang D-H, Yamada A, Miyanaga M. Changes in Urinary Hydrogen Peroxide and 8-Hydroxy-2’-Deoxyguanosine Levels after a Forest Walk: A Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 1871.
    
    

107.Wichrowski M, Whiteson J, Haas F, Mola A, Rey MJ. Effects of Horticultural Therapy on Mood and Heart Rate in Patients Participating in an Inpatient Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Program. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2005; 25: 270–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00008483-200509000-00008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16217230&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

108.Willert MV, Wieclaw J, Thulstrup AM. Rehabilitation of individuals on long-term sick leave due to sustained stress-related symptoms: A comparative follow-up study. Scand J Public Health 2014; 42: 719–27.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/1403494814551859&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25351769&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F03%2F27%2F2022.03.23.22272674.atom) 

109.Wong GCL, Ng TKS,  Lee J Le, et al. Horticultural Therapy Reduces Biomarkers of Immunosenescence and Inflammaging in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Feasibility Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2021; 76: 307–17.
    
    

110.Yi J, Kim SG, Khil T, et al. Psycho-Electrophysiological Benefits of Forest Therapies Focused on Qigong and Walking with Elderly Individuals. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 3004.
    
    

111.Zhu S, Wan H, Lu Z, et al. Treatment Effect of Antipsychotics in Combination with Horticultural Therapy on Patients with Schizophrenia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study. Shanghai Arch psychiatry 2016; 28: 195–203.