Abstract
Purpose To guide the effective use of nature-based approaches, we aimed to determine current practice, challenges and proposed solutions concerning the use of these approaches by allied health professionals (AHPs). We also investigated the signs, symptoms and conditions AHPs believe nature-based approaches may prevent and/or manage, as well as the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Materials and methods Allied health professionals who used or wanted to use in nature-based approaches in Australia were invited to complete an online questionnaire. Qualitative data were analysed through inductive coding and categorisation, while descriptive statistics were reported for the quantitative data.
Results Allied health professionals indicated that exposure to nature could prevent and/or manage a range of physical and mental health, social and developmental outcomes. Perceived challenges were identified, related to the patients/clients, AHPs themselves, and external factors. Recommended solutions included increasing education for AHPs and the general public, advancing more research, implementing changes to governance, and legitimisation of nature-based approaches as part of allied health practice.
Conclusions Increasing awareness and evidence of the use of nature-based approaches among the AHPs and across sectors – particularly with policy, education, funding, and health management– will support their legitimacy and potential benefit a range of populations.
Allied health professionals reported that nature-based approaches may help to prevent and/or manage a range of physical, mental, social and developmental health outcomes.
Challenges to implementing nature-based approaches included patient/ client, allied health professional, and external factors.
To address these challenges, legitimisation of nature-based approaches is key, which may be driven predominantly by research and education.
Background
There is increasing evidence that supports the health benefits of exposure to nature [1–13], and engaging in nature-based activities [14–28]. Allied health professionals (AHPs) can play an important role in improving people’s access to and use of nature, by working with individual patients/clients, communities and from a broader public health perspective, including advocacy for and input into the design of public natural environments. Yet, few studies to date have explored AHP perceptions of the use and benefits of nature-based approaches (NBAs); nor collected data around their experiences of doing so, including the challenges encountered and changes suggested to overcome these challenges. We fill this research gap in an Australian context.
Exposure to nature is important for human health and wellbeing [29,30]. Humans have evolved as part of natural ecosystems, yet urbanisation and industrialisation limit our exposure to nature, and may be contributing to the increases in a range of adverse health outcomes, including non-communicable conditions [31]. While healthcare was often provided in natural environments in Western countries in the 19th and 20th centuries – e.g. asylums and rehabilitation hospitals were often located within large green spaces [32–34] – newer healthcare settings are often in highly urbanised areas or there has been urban infill of the greenspaces surrounding these locations. People who are most vulnerable (e.g. people living with disabilities, older people) often cannot access natural spaces without assistance [35].
While there has been a shift away from healthcare settings in nature, there has been an increase in research into the benefits of exposure to nature (e.g. green [1–13] and blue spaces [2,10,13]), and nature-based activities to improve health and wellbeing [14–28]. Allied health professionals are well placed to integrate NBAs – by encompassing outdoor and indoor nature-based activities which may be recommended or directly engaged in with the patient/ client, and advocacy for or the provision of improvements to natural spaces – into their practice. Allied health professionals already use models that integrate the environment (e.g. the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [36]) with the importance of the natural environment discussed as early as 2012 [37]), supporting people to engage in desired or necessary activities and environments, and working within interdisciplinary teams drawing upon the expertise of others to reduce barriers to exposure. Some of these activities may include those that enhance the environment (e.g. ecosystem conservation and restoration) potentially assisting in reducing eco-despair. Emerging evidence shows NBAs may be used to prevent and manage a range of health and wellbeing outcomes that AHPs are experts in (e.g. anxiety [2,15], depression [2,15], cardiometabolic [15], cardiovascular [5] and respiratory conditions [38], pain [39] and loneliness [8]).
Although research has been conducted regarding the use NBAs amongst by AHPs [17,27,40–53], to our knowledge only three studies have examined AHPs use of these NBAs outside of a research setting [34,54,55]. Those three studies examined occupational therapists and physiotherapists engaging in nature-based rehabilitation with people with acquired brain injuries [34], social workers using NBAs with children and parents living in shelters [54], and occupational therapists using gardening or garden-related activities [55]. Other studies have investigated broader groups of health professionals in mental health [56] and the use of outdoor talk therapies (not specific to natural settings) by psychologists [57,58]. No broad study of how AHPs use NBAs has been undertaken, which limits knowledge about their experiences and views – including which signs, symptoms, and conditions AHPs believe that can be prevented and/or managed through exposure to nature – as well as challenges and potential solutions to doing so.
Objectives
Despite the potential role of NBAs in allied health practice, we know little about how and why AHPs integrate NBAs into their practice – and what the perceived benefits of doing so are. The objectives of this study were to determine 1) what signs, symptoms, and conditions AHPs believe NBAs may prevent/manage, 2) what types of NBAs AHPs engaged with and wanted to engage with, 3) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AHPs engagement with NBAs, and 4) the challenges and solutions proposed by AHPs regarding NBAs. The AHPs involved in the study were exercise physiologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists, social workers, and speech pathologists registered or certified to work in Australia. The broader project also sought to determine what features AHPs think are important in outdoor natural environments; detail which is available elsewhere [59].
Methods
The study had approval from The University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-2021-174). This study was conducted in two cross-sectional stages due to challenges with recruitment in Stage 1 leading to a reframing of the study (Stage 2).
Stage 1 recruitment
This study was conducted in two cross-sectional stages due to challenges with recruitment in Stage 1 leading to study reframing (Stage 2). In addition to the aims outlined above, our original intention was also to understand the proportion of AHPs in Australia who were engaging in NBAs, and what factors were associated with such engagement (Stage 1). To be eligible for inclusion, AHPs had to be registered or certified to practice within Australia. To avoid sampling bias, Stage 1 was initially advertised as relating to contemporary approaches to allied health, rather than specifically nature-based allied health. Recruitment was conducted via advertisements (e.g. newsletter, social media, website) through Occupational Therapy Australia and Speech Pathology Australia, and was supplemented via advertisements on the investigators social media pages (e.g. LinkedIn, Twitter). After recruiting occupational therapists and speech pathologists (October 2021-January 2022), it became apparent that the sample size would be too low to determine the proportion of AHPs using NBAs and the factors associated with such engagement; hence these objectives were removed from the study. Consequently, questions were removed that were no longer relevant, and some additional questions were added (e.g. the age group the AHP predominantly works with). The project was relaunched following amendment approval from the HREC, and was advertised as relating to targeting those who currently use or want to use nature-based approaches. The data from Stage 1 was used where appropriate, as outlined below.
Stage 2 recruitment
Stage 2 recruitment was conducted in May-December 2022. Recruitment was conducted through the same procedure as Stage 1, however we advertised to all six allied health disciplines, through their professional organisations (Exercise and Sports Science Australia, Occupational Therapy Australia, Australian Physiotherapy Association, Australian Psychological Society, Australian Association of Social Workers, and Speech Pathology Australia), and supplemented with advertisements on the social media pages of the investigators. Allied health professionals were eligible to participate if they were registered/ certified to practice in Australia, and were engaging with or interested in engaging with nature-based allied health. Respondents were asked if they had participated in the Stage 1 study and sent to an exit page if they indicated yes. Demographic data were cross-checked between respondents in Stages 1 and 2 to confirm whether any AHP participated in both stages – with no duplication detected.
Data collection
Interested AHPs were invited to follow a web link to the online questionnaire (via Survey MonkeyTM) used for data collection (Supplementary Material 1). In short, we asked AHPs for demographic information, the signs, symptoms or conditions they felt could be prevented and/or managed by spending time in outdoor natural environments and through indoor nature-based exposures (open response), the activities in outdoor natural environments and indoor nature-based exposures they had either recommended to patients/ clients or directly engaged in with patients/ clients in the last 12 months (from a list of activities, with an open response ‘other’ option), the spaces they recommended or directly engaged in for outdoor NBAs (from a list of spaces, with an open response ‘other’ option), the outdoor and indoor NBAs they would like to have engaged in, any services they referred patients/ clients to assist in engaging with NBAs, any advocacy or provision of additional natural spaces or improvements to these spaces in the last 12 months in their professional or personal lives (from a list of natural spaces), the impact COVID-19 had on their engagement in each type of activity (e.g. indoor nature-based exposure recommendations, by indicating increase, decrease or no change), and the challenges encountered in engaging with each type of activity (e.g. recommending indoor nature-based exposures) and solutions they would like to see implemented (open response). Examples provided of outdoor natural environments were parks, gardens, farms, lakes or the ocean, while the examples of indoor nature-based exposures were nature pictures, sounds, scents, virtual reality and driving through natural environments.
Data analysis
Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to analyse the data. Where appropriate, percentages of respondents were also reported. Owing to differences in the recruitment and inclusion criteria for the two stages of the project, all percentages reported are from to Stage 2, except where specifically indicated, as the Stage 1 respondents were not necessarily using or want to use NBAs. No discipline-specific percentages are reported, due to the small sample sizes from each discipline (n=1-22). Nonetheless, the discipline-specific percentages are reported in the Supplementary Material 2 for interested readers, as are results related to the type of practice the AHPs engaged in (e.g. aged care, mental health, rehabilitation).
Qualitative analysis was conducted through a general inductive approach [60], where categories were developed from the qualitative data with no a priori expectations [60]. Insights from this inductive analysis were discussed by the two data analysts, to refine potential interpretations and how it might augment or confer/contrast with findings from the quantitative data analysis. This process followed the logic of retroductive inference [61], borrowing from a critical realist approach where data and analysis from epistemologically distinct approaches can be mediated and synthesised to develop more robust understandings of a particular phenomenon [62].
The analyses were primarily conducted by an occupational therapist (KF – qualitative) and a physiotherapist (JS – quantitative). Input was sought from all co-authors (across the six allied health disciplines and public health), to refine the results and interpretations arising from the data collected.
Results
There were 77 respondents across the two stages. In Stage 1, there were 16 respondents who were occupational therapists (n=4) or speech pathologists (n=12) who were not necessarily using or wanting to use NBAs, but responded to at least one of the survey items about nature-based therapies (Table 1 for demographics). A further 61 respondents were included from Stage 2 (22 psychologists, 15 social workers, 10 physiotherapists, nine occupational therapists, four speech pathologists, and one exercise physiologist). Stage 2 respondents were predominantly women (85%), with 38% aged 20-39 years (Table 1).
The majority (91%) of respondents worked with patients/ clients, as opposed to those who worked in other allied health roles (e.g. public health). Of the 86% who worked with patients/ clients and did not solely conduct home visits, the majority of AHP had grass/lawn (75%), garden (75%) and trees (81%) in the 50m around their main practice setting, while 29% had a waterbody within the same radius.
The signs, symptoms and conditions that may be prevented and/or managed through exposure to nature
Almost all AHPs respondents from Stage 2 identified people could benefit from spending time in outdoor natural environments (97%) and having indoor nature-based exposures (94%). Respondents reported a broad range of signs, symptoms, and conditions which they felt could be improved with NBAs in various contexts (e.g. rehabilitation) and settings (e.g. aged care) were further reported (see Table 2; Stages 1-2). The survey responses regarding signs, symptoms and conditions were classified as physical and mental health, and social and developmental outcomes, with a general category for broader statements such as chronic conditions and “most presentations”.
Several respondents reported there would be greater benefits related to outdoor nature exposures, compared with indoors. One respondent reported no expectation of benefits from indoor exposures, while another noted that indoors was safer and could still provide some of the nature exposure. Notable differences in the signs, symptoms and conditions reported for both indoor and outdoor NBAs are shown within Table 2 – suggesting that AHPs perceive outdoor NBAs to have a greater effect.
The nature-based activities allied health professionals are engaging with
Overall, 94% of respondents engaging with patients/clients reported having recommended outdoor NBAs in the 12 months prior to data collection, with most respondents reporting land-based gross motor activities, gardening, engaging with animals, mindfulness/ meditation/ relaxation, and social activities in outdoor natural spaces. Most respondents (83%) reported that they had recommended time in outdoor natural spaces with no specific activity recommended (Table 3). In considering the responses for ‘other’ outdoor NBAs, respondents from Stages 1-2 also reported they had directly engaged with patients/clients in reading, art, community cultural development and speech/ language/ communication therapy. The majority of respondents (Stage 2) reported recommending these activities be performed in private gardens (75%), public parks (75%), spaces near water (65%), and in national parks (52%; Table 3).
Respondents were also asked whether they had referred patients/ clients to other services (including other health professionals) in enacting their recommendations for spending time in outdoor natural spaces, with 40% respondents indicating that they had. The services reported (from Stages 1 and 2) were equine therapy and “equine mentoring”, community gardens, walking groups, sporting groups, support groups, and events, nature play, nature craft, beautification projects, tai chi, meditation, neighbourhood centres, the council, neighbourhood houses, activities in the park program, workplaces, occupational therapy, other allied health professionals, personal trainers, general practitioners, mentors, and support workers. This elucidates the broad scope of NBAs utilised by AHPs.
Direct engagement in outdoor nature-based activities with patients/ clients was less common than recommendations (82%). The most reported activity was mindfulness/ meditation/ relaxation (55%), while no specific activity was also frequent (53%). Again, the dominant spaces were public parks (53%), private gardens (33%), and spaces near water (31%). Two respondents (one each from Stages 1 and 2) reported additional activities they had directly engaged in with patients/ clients: wildlife cruises and conducting speech/ language/ communication therapy in parks. One respondent (Stage 2) reported using a carpark with garden supplies (presumably to engage in gardening activities), which could not be classified into the existing categories.
For indoor NBAs, the percentage of respondents reporting recommendations (75%) was similar to that for direct engagement (74%). The most commonly reported activities were nature sounds (44% recommended, 38% directly engaged), indoor plants (42% recommended, 55% directly engaged), views of nature (42% recommended, 43% directly engaged), and opening windows (42% recommended, 34% directly engaged). Other activities recommended by respondents (Stage 1 n=1, Stage 2 n=6) that did not fit into the existing categories were videos/ documentaries of nature, sharing photos, discussions about nature, using natural items, sand trays, cut flowers, sharing pot plants with the local café, “sleep stories”, and visiting animals, public libraries, museums, galleries and archives. Respondents (Stage 1 n=1, Stage 2 n=5) reported directly engaging with respondents in watching nature videos/ documentaries, using salt lamps, cut flowers, discussions about nature, metaphors related to nature, guided imagery, visiting animals, using natural items, making art, gardening, community cultural development, and visiting public libraries, archives, galleries, and museums.
Overall, 73% of respondents (Stage 2) were involved in advocacy for the provision or improvement to natural environments; most commonly care gardens (37%), nature elements in non-care environments (35%), and community gardens (33%) (Table 4), with others also mentioning national/coastal parks and street trees. These advocacy activities included those in both their professional and personal lives. We did not ask specifically which improvements were advocated for (rather than which spaces) however one respondent reported table tennis and another bush regeneration (Stage 2). A respondent from Stage 1 also reported advocating for their organisation to move to a building with outdoor spaces, and another reported blogging about the therapeutic aspects of such spaces as well as the installation of disability playgrounds as a form of advocacy for who should be able to access, use and benefit from public spaces.
Just over half of respondents (55%) were also engaged directly in the provision of natural, public spaces, with community gardens and nature elements in non-care environments the most commonly reported (25% for both), in their personal or professional lives (Table 4). One respondent (Stage 2) reported consulting on an Aboriginal outdoor space in a hospital, and another involved in an urban tree canopy campaign. Respondents reported direct engagement with collecting rubbish, land care and planting activities (Stage 2), while another reported assisting others in engaging with the community garden by providing transport (Stage 1).
The impact of COVID-19 pandemic
Decreased engagement with NBAs was reported during the pandemic, particularly direct engagement in outdoor NBAs (18%). However, overall there was a net increase in recommendations for outdoor nature-based approaches (see Figure 1). One respondent reported how “Covid-19 has highlighted the success of flexible working from home arrangements, reducing workers [sic] commute/travel time and allowing people to spend more time in outdoor natural environment [sic]. However, in recent months there has been push/pressure from organisations to get workers back into the workplace setting, reducing workers [sic] ability to spend time in natural environment [sic] to support work-life balance” indicating that there may have been an increase in engagement earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, which has since waned.
Note: Findings were taken from Stage 2 only.
The nature-based approaches allied health professionals would like to have engaged in but did not
Several respondents reported NBAs they would have liked to engage with in the 12 months prior, with respect to recommendations for both outdoor (14%) and indoor (15%) activities, and directly engaging in these activities with patients/ clients (36% and 21% for outdoors and indoors, respectively), with specific activities reported in Table 5. Respondents also reported wanting to do more, particularly with regards to nature play, walking, and time doing sessions outdoors. There appeared to be a drive to do more, with one respondent indicating that this was a “new era”, and they would like to learn more about what they could be doing, while another stated that they would “like to have a specified work role associated with nature-based therapy”, indicating the value they place on these forms of therapy.
Several respondents also reported activities related to advocating for improvements to outdoor natural environments (31%) and for engaging in the provision of such improvements (24%; Table 6). These included advocacy for and the provision of nature spaces (e.g. therapeutic gardens, community gardens), and enhancements to spaces (e.g. increased biodiversity, native planting, mindfulness and meditation spaces, disability playgrounds, transport to the community garden, therapeutic landscapes). Respondents made general statements like “lots”, “any of the above” and “all of them”. In addition to the results listed in Table 6, respondents reported the desire to have been involved more in decision-making regarding the improvement to or provision of natural environments. Two respondents also reported advocacy activities they would have liked to have engaged with to increase the use of outdoor nature spaces; one reported a desire to ban electric scooters on university campuses to increase active transport, the other a wish to offer outdoor classes at university. Finally, one respondent reported blogging regarding the benefits of exposure to nature.
Challenges related to nature-based activities
The challenges related NBAs were broadly categorised as challenges associated with the patients/ clients, with the AHPs, and external factors (e.g. weather, governance; Table 7). Patient/ client factors related to time, motivation, understanding the value to their health and wellbeing, concerns about judgement from others, COVID, safety and privacy, and patient/ client capacity. The challenges relating to the AHP included time, funding, expectations of others (e.g. does it align with AHP roles), confidence, and concerns regarding risk management and ethics. Finally, external factors included a lack of appropriate space, funding, administrative barriers, logistics and the weather.
Concerns regarding NBA as a scope of practice within AHP were exemplified by one of the respondents from Stage 1 who, in response to being asked about the challenges related to recommending indoor nature-based exposures stated “This is not a speech pathologist’s responsibility nor area of professional practice. Your questioning is misguided. The challenge in doing it would be any SP [speech pathologist] would then be over-stepping the mark”, and went on to write (in response to the question about solutions to the challenge) “Get back within your professional boundaries as a SP, and refresh your ethical responsibilities”. Despite this strong opinion, the respondent recommended to patients/ clients that they should be opening windows and having views of nature from indoors, as well as engaging directly in “speech/ language/ communication therapy in parks”. The same respondent stated that both indoor and outdoor nature exposures could benefit general health and wellbeing.
In addition to the responses outlined in Table 7, several respondents indicated elsewhere in the questionnaire other challenges related to NBAs. The need for a patient-centred approach was indicated by one respondent who stated recommendations for NBAs depend “on the client’s individual needs and preferences and capacity”, while another respondent indicated that clinicians may have different views regarding the use of NBAs. The latter stated that when working with social work students, they are “sometimes restrained in recommending [the] value of nature. It’s my lens but I need to let others explore/ develop their own worldviews”. Other challenges reported elsewhere in the questionnaire related to advocacy and provision of improvements to natural spaces, including: such advocacy being of low priority traditionally and not emphasised in training; local community gardens having a wait list; and finding out about relevant community events on social media following the fact.
Proposed solutions to challenges of engaging with nature-based activities
Solutions to the abovementioned challenges proposed by the AHPs, broadly related to the research evidence, education, governance, support from professional bodies, access to nature-based activities, access to nature and COVID-19 restrictions, and the need for legitimisation of NBAs as part of AHP practice (Table 8). Some respondents did not propose solutions, with one highlighting the complexity of integrating NBAs, while maintaining a patient-centred approach, and stating “I want to be able to meet people where they are at and I don’t want to impact engagement by having them feel like they are being forced into an environment that makes them uncomfortable”. The statement indicates that a NBA approach might not always be appropriate.
Awareness of possible approaches appeared important. It was reported in response to other questions that completing the survey had given the AHPs additional ideas about what they would now like to engage with, and another stating that they had not really thought about the benefit of recommending indoor nature-based activities. Additionally, one respondent indicated they will add information regarding the value of nature to their wellbeing kits. Another respondent stated they have lots of ideas for “future” work, including visiting botanic gardens, a small wildlife sanctuary, pet friendly venues and overnight stays, however it is unclear whether these were also activities they had wanted to engage with in the previous 12 months.
Discussion
Our study is the first to explore the perspectives of AHPs on how nature exposure and NBAs can address various health concerns, alongside the challenges and proposed solutions in implementing NBAs. Crucially, the findings substantiate the legitimacy of NBAs within allied health practices, demonstrating that AHPs not only employ a diverse array of NBAs but also recognize their efficacy in managing and enhancing physical and mental, and social and developmental outcomes. This substantiation of NBAs by AHPs underscores the necessity for further research to deepen the evidence base regarding NBAs’ effectiveness. Such research could reinforce the established legitimacy of NBAs, addressing ancillary issues like funding and accessibility. Our study thus marks a significant step towards integrating NBAs into standard allied health practices, backed by AHPs’ firsthand experiences and the positive health outcomes observed through NBA interventions.
Benefits of exposure to nature
Allied health professionals highlighted the important role that exposure to nature may prevent and/or manage a range of physical and mental health, and social and developmental outcomes, with mental health outcomes dominating the responses. The emphasis on mental health, as reflected by our findings, underscores AHPs recognition of nature’s benefits to humans. This focus aligns with a substantial body of evidence supporting nature exposure [1–3] and NBAs [14–16,19–24,26,27] in the prevention and/or management of mental health concerns. Our sample comprised predominantly of psychologists (29%), social workers (25%) and occupational therapists (17%) who often work in mental health settings; hence, the bias in our sample may have led to the dominance of mental health outcomes. Although research on physical health [5,11,13–15,18,20,23,38,63,64], social [8,23] and developmental outcomes [7,10] is still emerging, it shows promising growth.
Our study also revealed a preference among AHPs for outdoor nature exposures over indoor alternatives. These greater benefits may relate to the diverse and sensory-rich experiences associated with outdoor nature environments. Outdoor settings have been described previously as offering a unique, “invigorating” experience that can enhance health outcomes [65], contrasting with the more controlled and less varied indoor settings. While indoor nature exposure can serve as an accessible introduction to nature’s benefits, especially for vulnerable groups with limited access to outdoor nature [35], the dynamic and immersive outdoor environment may hold the greatest value for health.
Nature-based activities used by allied health professionals
Our findings reveal that AHPs are involved in a broad spectrum of both outdoor and indoor NBAs, encompassing traditional clinical activities adapted to outdoor natural settings (e.g. motor activities, mindfulness), initiatives promoting direct nature engagement (e.g. ecological conservation), and modifications to indoor environments for nature exposure (e.g. indoor plants, nature sounds). There are multiple mechanisms through which exposure to nature may influence health outcomes, including exposure to environmental microbiota, biogenic volatile organic compounds and negative air ions, the sights and sounds of nature and sunlight exposure [39]. However, the integration of allied health approaches with nature exposures provides additional opportunities. For example, the use of nature provides a naturalistic milieu to promote speech development using incidental teaching [66], and building functional skills and confidence in real-world settings, including outdoor environments may assist in overcoming disparities in exposure to nature, where those who are more vulnerable likely have less access to nature [35]. Some of these activities could be integrated into prevocational training, with for example, prevocational farm activities [67] and horticulture programs [68], improving health and wellbeing, and a potential role for environmental enhancement (e.g. ecological restoration) activities having been recently highlighted [69]. The diverse engagement in NBAs not only showcases the versatility of NBAs, but also underscores their recognised legitimacy within the scope of AHP practice.
A large percentage of our respondents engaged in advocacy (73%) and the provision (55%) of or improvements to outdoor natural spaces, reflecting an inherent understanding of public health’s integral role within AHP responsibilities. This advocacy, whether professional or personal, is a new finding and illustrates the commitment of AHPs to integrate NBAs more fully into health practices.
Engaging in environmental enhancement activities, like gardening, ecological conservation and restoration, offers AHPs a unique opportunity to adopt a relational approach to the environment; one that transcends conventional AHP training and emphasises healing interactions with nature. This relational approach is deeply rooted in Indigenous practice, where the focus in not merely on the utility of nature, but on fostering a reciprocal relationship that nurtures both human and ecosystem health. Timler and Sandy’s [70] work with Indigenous communities in Canada highlights this perspective, revealing how gardening activities can shift from a focus on harvesting to a deeper engagement with caring for plants, understanding the intricate dynamics of ecosystems, and advocating for the preservation of nature for future generations’ health and wellbeing. Similarly, in Australia, such engagements offer pathways to (re)connect with the land, or ‘Country’, and embrace Indigenous insights into living in harmony with nature, thereby enriching AHP’s practices with a holistic and healing approach to environmental interactions. Through such a lens, the environment is seen not just as a setting but as an integral part of health and wellbeing, where caring for the land reciprocally supports human health, and nurtures social, cultural and spiritual connections [71].
Activities related to environmental enhancement (e.g. gardening, ecological conservation and restoration) as well as animal care, which are typically beyond the realm of AHP education, may provide an opportunity for AHPs to learn alongside and potentially from their patients/ clients. This learning may also relate to the sharing of Indigenous knowledge and approaches to environmental enhancement. For example, Timler and Sandy [70] explored working with Indigenous people in Canada in gardening activities, where different perspectives were elucidated, around shifting the focus away from harvesting towards caring for the plant, understanding the complexity of the environment (e.g. seasonality, weather, plants and animals), and the need to protect nature for the health and wellbeing of future generations. In Australia, such activities may include opportunities to reconnect with Country and related Indigenous knowledge. Engaging in NBAs or facilitating such engagement may allow people of all backgrounds to reconnect with places and activities of significance to themselves, their families and cultures, but AHPs need to be mindful of understanding and integrating different perspectives.
Impact of COVID-19
During the COVID-19 pandemic, our respondents largely increased their engagement with NBAs, including heightened advocacy for and enhancements to natural outdoor spaces. This trend aligns with findings from other studies, indicating a rise in outdoor therapeutic practices, including psychologists, conducting more outdoor talk therapy sessions [57], and a general increase in time spent by Australian in green and blue spaces [72]. The pandemic-induced restrictions likely played a role in this shift, compelling AHPs to explore alternative, outdoor settings for therapy and activities to navigate the constraints posed by lockdown and indoor gathering restrictions. Additionally, the increased indoor confinement may have heightened the collective awareness of nature’s intrinsic value and its impact on health, potentially influencing AHPs decisions to incorporate more NBAs into their practice. Our findings suggest that the pandemic may have catalysed an expansion on the way in which AHPs utilise NBAs, recognising their potential as fundamental components of health promotion and care.
Recommendations to overcome challenges in using nature-based activities
Regarding the use of NBAs, we identified that challenges pertaining to the AHP themselves, the patient/ client, and external factors (e.g. related to the patient/ client and/or their family, organisational governance, insurance). We argue there is a need to establish a framework for legitimising NBAs, which entails building research evidence and providing education (including entry level and professional development for AHPs, as well the general public). This framework should garner support from professional bodies, AHP networks, funders, insurers and employers, thereby mitigating the obstacles to integrating NBAs into allied health practice (Figure 2).
Conceptual framework for overcoming the challenges of using nature-based approaches
The connections are bidirectional, with the left-to-right direction being dominant
To effectively integrate NBAs into allied health practice, a key challenge pertains to translating research into practical, evidence-grounded strategies for AHPs. The rich body of existing research [1–28] highlights the health and wellbeing benefits of engaging with nature. However, the gap between this knowledge and its application in day-to-date practice remains. Bridging this gap requires targeted translational research that not only reaffirms the value of NBAs but also provides APHs with clear, actionable guidance on incorporating these practices in a manner that is rooted in evidence.
Education of health professionals and the general public was also highlighted as a solution to overcoming some of the current challenges. Strategies to increase the accessibility of evidence and to education clinicians and the general public may include the use of non-traditional dissemination with links to the full publications (e.g. blog posts), having collections of research evidence, providing professional development opportunities for integrating NBAs into rehabilitation practice, and support for educators to integrate this content into their teaching. These strategies are starting to be integrated in allied health, for example through the Environmental Physiotherapy Association [73,74], as well as through university programs [74,75].
Furthermore, addressing the accessibility of natural spaces – both in terms of physical accessibility and the perception of these spaces as suitable therapeutic settings – is imperative. As highlighted in previous research [57,58], suggested enhancements include facilitating easy access, promoting public transport options, establishing community gardens, providing seating and incorporating fenced areas [59]. Given the anticipated challenges posed by climate change [76]; it is crucial to design these spaces to remain cool and shaded. Improving the accessibility of natural spaces involves not only infrastructural improvements and the provision of appropriate mobility aids, but also to normalise the use of natural spaces for therapeutic purposes. By making nature-based approaches commonplace for AHPs and their patients/ clients, we can ensure that these spaces are readily accessible and beneficial to all.
Ensuring natural spaces are welcoming and accessible is crucial in extending an open invitation for NBAs. To truly integrate NBAs into allied health practice, environments must be adapted to be inclusive of all individuals, including those with disabilities and older adults. This adaptation involves not just physical modifications for accessibility, but also a broader cultural shift towards embracing nature as a therapeutic ally. Key to this transformation is the design of natural spaces with features such as easy access paths, ample and appropriate seating, sheltered areas, fencing, and clear signage, ensuring they cater to diverse needs [59]. Additionally, the provision of ‘grab and go’ therapeutic kits and adaptive equipment like the TrailRider (a mobility device designed for adaptive hiking) [77] can enable AHPs to conduct sessions seamlessly in these settings, regardless of weather conditions.
Beyond physical adaptations, fostering a societal mindset that values and prioritises accessibility in nature is essential. This mindset involves educational initiatives for the public, and support for AHPs in articulating the benefits of NBAs, thereby enhancing motivation for outdoor activities over screen time. Through such comprehensive strategies, we can create an environment that not only supports, but actively encourages NBAs for everyone.
Lastly, the broader societal perspective on NBAs and technology use needs to evolve to accommodate and value NBAs. By advocating for a more balanced approach to technology use and nature engagement, we can create an environment that supports and validates the use of NBAs in allied health practice. Indeed, targeted technology use can be used to encourage people to engage with nature [78,79]. In essence, the journey toward fully integrating NBAs into allied health practice is not just about accumulating more evidence, but about translating the existing evidence into practical, tangible practices that AHPs can confidently adopt, knowing their work is consistent with evidence-based practice.
Recommendations for future research
Future research should prioritise the co-design of NBAs with AHPs and their patients/ clients, collaboration based on the insights provided in our study, including the proposed solutions to overcome the challenges experienced by AHPs. This collaborative approach could serve as a cornerstone for developing robust, evidence-based practices that resonate with both AHPs and those they work with. Additionally, filling the current evidence gaps regarding the impact of exposure to diverse natural environments and elements on health outcomes is essential. These gaps include exploring the effects of various types of nature (e.g. different levels of biodiversity), natural elements (e.g. environmental microbiota, natural sounds), and specific NBAs (e.g. gardening, ecological conservation and restoration) on different demographic groups, and health outcomes. Understanding the mechanisms behind nature’s health benefits, and how to optimise these interactions is crucial for refining NBAs.
Furthermore, extending this research internationally and exploring the motivations driving AHPs’ use of NBAs can provide valuable insights into global practices and identify potential barriers to NBA integration, along with potential solutions to address challenges and improve practice. This deeper understanding, acquired through co-design methodologies, can guide the development of strategies aimed at enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of NBAs in allied health disciplines worldwide.
Conclusion
A wide variety of NBAs are being used by AHPs in Australia. While NBAs are being embraced for their multifaceted benefits across physical and mental health, social and developmental health outcomes, challenges persist. These challenges include issues related to patient/ client engagement, AHP readiness, and external factors, like the weather and institutional constraints. Addressing these challenges calls for a collective effort to further legitimise NBAs, linking closely with the need for more targeted research, improved education and training, enhancing access to natural spaces and supportive governance structures.
Future research should aim to deepen the evidence base on NBAs’ safety and efficacy, explore their use beyond Australian borders, and engage more in nuanced investigations on how to enact innovative approaches suggested by the respondents in this study through methodologies like co-design. By tackling these challenges and building on the strong foundation of existing practices, we can expand the research and impact of NBAs, benefiting a wider array of patients/ clients, and the broader community.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Funding
This work was supported by a School of Allied Health Science and Practice Research Support Grant, The University of Adelaide.
Jessica Stanhope is supported with a Research Fellowship from the Ecological Health Network.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Filip Maric, Adam Toner, Abby Tabor and Kexun Kenneth Chen for their feedback on the questionnaire, and the Australian Physiotherapy Association, Occupational Therapy Australia, Speech Pathology Australia, Australian Psychological Society, Exercise & Sports Science Australia, and the Australian Association of Social Workers for their assistance with participant recruitment.
References
- [1].↵
- [2].↵
- [3].↵
- [4].
- [5].↵
- [6].
- [7].↵
- [8].↵
- [9].
- [10].↵
- [11].↵
- [12].
- [13].↵
- [14].↵
- [15].↵
- [16].↵
- [17].↵
- [18].↵
- [19].↵
- [20].↵
- [21].
- [22].
- [23].↵
- [24].↵
- [25].
- [26].↵
- [27].↵
- [28].↵
- [29].↵
- [30].↵
- [31].↵
- [32].↵
- [33].
- [34].↵
- [35].↵
- [36].↵
- [37].↵
- [38].↵
- [39].↵
- [40].↵
- [41].
- [42].
- [43].
- [44].
- [45].
- [46].
- [47].
- [48].
- [49].
- [50].
- [51].
- [52].
- [53].↵
- [54].↵
- [55].↵
- [56].↵
- [57].↵
- [58].↵
- [59].↵
- [60].↵
- [61].↵
- [62].↵
- [63].↵
- [64].↵
- [65].↵
- [66].↵
- [67].↵
- [68].↵
- [69].↵
- [70].↵
- [71].↵
- [72].↵
- [73].↵
- [74].↵
- [75].↵
- [76].↵
- [77].↵
- [78].↵
- [79].↵
