Evidence Statement on the links between natural

environments and human health

March 2017

Introduction and scope

This evidence statement provides a broad overview of evidence on the links between natural
environments and human health. It summarises global, landscape scale and other indirect
links between natural environments and human health before considering direct benefits in
more detail. The review focuses predominantly on direct benefits to health and wellbeing at
the individual and population level which result from use of or exposure to natural
environments. It acknowledges but does not focus on environmental threats and stressors
such as poor air quality or diseases that can be passed from wildlife to humans.

The evidence statement makes use of higher order evidence such as peer-reviewed
systematic reviews and other robust forms of evidence where possible, but is not itself
systematic. A summary of the nature of the evidence used for each section is shown in the
technical appendix. Evidence is used which is relevant to the environment and population of
the United Kingdom.

Findings
Global ecosystem services, landscape scale and other indirect links between
natural environments and human health

 Global ecosystem services, biodiversity and health: Human health and wellbeing
depends on air, food, shelter and water, all partly or fully derived from the natural
environment. Evidence indicates that biodiversity is critical to underpin ecosystem
functioning and the delivery of goods and services that are essential to human health and
wellbeing.
 Landscape, ecosystem and city scale linkages: At an intermediary level there is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the interlinkages between landscape scale
processes and human health outcomes. At catchment level, new analyses are showing
how upstream processes, such as water retention in upland peat, can have significant
implications for the health of downstream communities, for instance through the
avoidance of flooding and improved water quality. Bunch et al. (2014; 240) state that
health and wellbeing are products of inter-related social and biophysical processes and
that effective watershed management therefore needs to move beyond ‘typical
reductionist approaches toward more holistic methods’. Green infrastructure within urban
areas offers a range of health related services including reductions to noise, ozone
levels, personal exposure to particulates, and mitigation of some of the harmful effects of
air pollution, as well as opportunities for direct exposure to nature (Pretty et al. 2011;
James et al. 2015).

1
Direct links between natural environments and human health at the individual
and population level

 An extensive and robust body of evidence suggests that living in greener environments
(e.g. greater percentage of natural features around the residence) is associated with
reduced mortality. Reduced rates of mortality have been found for specific population
groups including men, infants and lower socio-economic groups. There is evidence to
suggest that health inequalities in mortality may be reduced by greener living
environments.
 Several studies have shown positive associations between self-rated health and natural
environments. Self-rated health has also been shown to be higher in those living in
places with a greater proportion of good quality natural environments (indicators included
bird species richness and percentage of protected and designated landcover).
 There is relatively strong and consistent evidence for mental health and wellbeing
benefits arising from exposure to natural environments, including reductions in stress,
fatigue, anxiety and depression, together with evidence that these benefits may be most
significant for marginalised groups. Socioeconomic inequality in mental wellbeing has
been shown to be 40% narrower among those who report good access to
green/recreational areas, compared with those with poorer access. Although many
studies assessed short term outcomes, the use of longitudinal data and stronger study
designs have resulted in more robust evidence and indications of a causal relationship.
 There is consistent evidence from birth cohort studies which shows exposure to green
space during pregnancy is associated with fetal growth and higher birth weight.
 Some of the strongest evidence concerns the importance of direct contact with nature to
the development of a healthy microbiome. The human microbiome, the consortium of
microorganisms that cohabit the human body, typically consists of around 10,000 species
with eight million protein-coding genes (Bernstein 2014). Human babies are born
essentially sterile (Hough 2014) and studies have determined that exposure to diverse
natural habitats is critical for development of a healthy microbiome. Following this,
evidence suggests an unambiguous causal relationship between exposure to natural
environments and the maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of
inflammatory-based diseases such as asthma (Sandifer et al. 2015). This is a major
beneficial effect of green space and neglected ecosystem service.
 There is evidence to suggest that rates of obesity tend to be lower in populations living in
greener environments. Across eight European cities, people were 40% less likely to be
obese in the greenest areas, after controlling for a range of relevant factors.
 Exposure to natural environments has been linked with more favourable: heart rate;
blood pressure; vitamin D levels; recuperation rates; and cortisol levels.
Greenspace may also help to reduce the prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Pathways and influencing factors

 Natural environments are associated with and may support higher levels of physical
activity and therefore physical health. Studies have found that specific natural
environments such as woodlands, gardens, parks, grassland and farmland, are
supportive of vigorous activity.
 Positive relationships have been found between social contact and community
cohesion and natural environments.

2
 The impacts of exposure to natural environments and direct use of green space often
differ between social and demographic groups. Variation has been found in health
outcomes associated with exposure, between physical and psychological perceptions of
accessibility, and in motivations for use of natural environments. Although lower socio-
economic groups are thought to disproportionately benefit from natural environments they
often face the greatest barriers to use.
 The quality of the environment may influence health outcomes; biodiverse natural
environments and those that are well maintained (e.g. free from litter and in which people
feel safe) are associated with good health and wellbeing.
 Although much of the evidence relates to urban greenspace there is evidence to suggest
that exposure to other types of natural environment (broadleaf woodland, arable and
horticulture, improved grassland, saltwater and coastal) result in greater health gain.
 There is a significant volume of evidence showing that a greater quantity and proximity
of the natural environment (mainly in relation to living environment) is consistently
positively associated with health outcomes. Understanding of a potential dose-response
relationship is limited but growing.

The monetary value of benefits

A range of figures have been calculated to illustrate the value of health and wellbeing
benefits derived from the natural environment.

Natural England (2009) estimate that £2.1 billion would be saved annually through averted
health costs if everyone in England had equal good perceived and/or actual access to green
space. A view of green space from home is estimated to have a health value of £135-452 per
person per year, and the health benefits of having your own garden are estimated to have a
value of £171-575 per person per year (Mourato et al. 2010 cited in Bateman et al. 2011).
White et al. (2016) found that the annual physically active visits to the natural environment
were associated with an estimated 109,164 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an
annual value of approximately £2.18 billion. However it is important to note that this is a
developing area and reliable values are limited.

Further valuation evidence is needed, including work to understand health values associated
with the natural environment and the benefits and cost effectiveness of different policy and
intervention options.

Policy and delivery

There is growing recognition of the links between natural environments and health and
wellbeing. However, the evidence highlights a need for more integrated policy and delivery
across the health and natural environment sectors at a wide range of spatial scales
(Convention on Biological Diversity and World Health Organization 2015).

Integrated policy and delivery is also required to help recognise and take account of multiple
benefits. Even if the health benefits of a particular form of contact with nature are small,
public investment may still be justified if there are benefits across a wide range of other
policy domains (Hartig et al. 2014).

There is a need to learn lessons from other sectors and wider evidence on influencing
behaviours and securing transitions across systems. Policy and delivery should aim to

3
encourage and enable people and organisations to behave differently to improve health
outcomes and benefit the natural environment.

The evidence supports the following priority actions (Allen and Balfour 2014):

 Improving coordination and integration of policy and delivery;

 Ensuring interventions are user-led;
 Increasing the quality, quantity and use of natural environment assets that equitably
benefit people’s health and help prevent ill health;
 Ensuring sustainable delivery of services that use the natural environment.

Key evidence gaps

There is a need to improve understanding of causal links between the natural environment
and human health (Hartig et al. 2014; Hough 2014) using robust study designs, and to
develop interdisciplinary evidence across the natural and social sciences. There is a lack of
evidence specifically designed to inform the development of policy and interventions,
including evaluation demonstrating which interventions work, for whom, in what
circumstances, and why. There are also significant opportunities to take advantage of
technological developments and make greater use of existing data.

Some evidence suggests that the key requirement for further research on the natural
environment and health may not be to improve understanding of the health benefits which
can be derived from increased contact with nature, but how to increase the number of people
who choose to engage with nature.

Conclusions
In summary:

 Particularly strong links are found in relation to: mental health and wellbeing;
development and maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of
inflammatory-based diseases; and in relation to variation between social and
demographic groups;
 Generally positive associations are found concerning: landscape, ecosystem and city
scale linkages; perceived health status; mortality; maternal health, pregnancy outcomes
and children’s cognitive development; other physiological outcomes; physical activity (in
selected groups); and social contact and community cohesion;
 The evidence is mixed or unclear in relation to: global ecosystem services, biodiversity
and health; obesity; physical activity (at population level); environmental quality; the type
of natural environment; exposure mode, duration and a dose-response relationship; the
monetary value of benefits; and the effectiveness of policy and interventions.

This review assesses the nature of evidence used in relation to each of these topics. It
highlights the following four areas where there is high quality evidence of strong links or
generally positive associations, which may provide a useful focus for future policy and
delivery:

 Mental health and wellbeing;

4
 Development and maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of
inflammatory-based diseases;
 Landscape, ecosystem and city scale linkages;
 Physical activity (in selected groups).

Overall, evidence indicates that that exposure to, contact with, and use of the natural world
can bring a range of health and wellbeing benefits. Further benefits should be gained through
more integrated policy and delivery across the health, natural environment and other sectors
at a range of spatial scales. It may be helpful to focus future efforts in a small number of pilot
areas, because of the potential for integrating across a range of policy areas as part of place
based approaches at local and regional scales.

5
Evidence Statement on the links between natural
environments and human health - Technical
Appendix

1 Introduction and background

The evidence statement and this technical appendix provide an overview of the evidence on
the ways in which the natural environment supports human health and wellbeing.

The environment, whether social, built or natural, is recognised as a determinant of health

(World Health Organisation 2014). The natural environment influences our health through a
number of direct and indirect pathways operating at a range of scales as shown in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conceptual framework (MEA 2005) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conceptual In the last 20 years there has
framework (MEA, 2005) been a significant shift in
environmental policy and related
evidence agendas towards an
Ecosystem Approach and in
particular towards greater
understanding of ecosystem
services, the benefits human
society receives from the natural
world. Human health and
wellbeing is in many respects
the ultimate or cumulative
ecosystem service (Sandifer et
al. 2015). Despite this, the links
between health and
environments have received
relatively little explicit attention.

We are experiencing major

losses of biodiversity, climate
change and shifts in the use of
natural resources yet we have
limited understanding of the
consequences for future human
health and wellbeing. At the
same time, there is major
demographic change with, for example, aging populations as well as increasing urbanisation.
The key health challenges in developed societies are shifting, and now include non-
communicable diseases and other conditions linked to urban and more sedentary lifestyles,
including obesity, depression and inflammatory diseases such as allergies and asthma
(Beaglehole et al. 2011). As a result health systems are facing increasing demands on finite
resources. There is, therefore, a need to consider the multiple, inter-related and often
upstream determinants of health, to think creatively about alternative cost-effective
approaches to health promotion, and to ensure that all environmental decision making with
the potential to influence health recognises these links in order to contribute to reduced
demand on primary health care systems.

6
The interlinkages between these factors are complex, and there are still major gaps in
understanding. However, the evidence base has developed significantly in the last ten years
and suggests that the environment should be recognised as both a potential stressor and,
importantly, a resource for the maintenance and promotion of good health. This review
outlines some of the key insights as well as some of the issues requiring further research.

The structure of the technical appendix is:

 Section 2 outlines the scope and provides a brief overview of methods;

 Section 3 presents findings in relation to global ecosystem services, landscape scale and
other indirect links between natural environments and human health, direct links between
natural environments and human health at the individual and population level, and
pathways and influencing factors. This section also outlines the monetary value of
benefits, presents findings in relation to policy and delivery, and identifies key evidence
gaps;
 Section 4 provides conclusions.

2 Scope and brief overview of methods

This review provides a broad overview of evidence on the links between natural
environments and human health. The ‘natural environment’ is taken to be the whole of our
physical and biological world, excluding spaces where the key components are non-living
built structures created by humans but including urban green space, parks and gardens. It is
recognised that most, if not all, ‘natural environments’ in the UK are to some extent ‘man-
made’. The review adopts a similarly broad definition of human health, which is ‘a state of
complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity’ (WHO 1946). This definition of health was adopted by WHO in 1946, entered into
force in 1948 and has not been amended since.

The review summarises global, landscape scale and other indirect links between natural
environments and human health before considering direct benefits in more detail. It focuses
predominantly on direct benefits to health and wellbeing at the individual and population level
which result from use of or exposure to natural environments. It is recognised that these
linkages interact and that to some degree an arbitrary distinction has been drawn. The
review acknowledges but does not focus on environmental threats and stressors such as
poor air quality or zoonotic diseases that can be passed from wildlife to humans, e.g., Lyme
disease.

The evidence statement and technical appendix make use of higher order evidence such as
peer-reviewed systematic reviews and other robust forms of evidence where possible, but
are not themselves systematic. Recent evidence is used which is relevant to the
environment, population, health and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. However, no specific
geographic or date limits were set.

Assessment of evidence quality

All individual pieces of evidence used have been categorised using the descriptions in Table
1. The approach is intended to provide an indication of the nature and to some extent the
reliability of the evidence used. The categories are not intended to be strictly hierarchical;
however they do reflect the overall importance attached to a systematic approach and to the
established peer review process. The code for each individual journal article, report or other

7
piece of evidence is shown in square brackets throughout the text in the core ‘Findings’
section of the technical appendix and also in the list of references.

The overall nature of the body of evidence used for each ‘Findings’ section is outlined using
a narrative summary and an evidence quality code at the beginning of each section using the
descriptions in Table 2. Our assessment reflects the amount of evidence we identified and
the types of studies (e.g. considering factors such as peer review and whether a review was
systematic or not). As above, the categories are descriptive and not necessarily hierarchical.

The approach draws on methods used in restatements of natural science evidence (Godfray
et al. 2013; 2014). However, since the evidence statement and technical appendix are
neither systematic nor exhaustive, the assessment of the evidence used for each section
should be interpreted cautiously.

Table 1 Descriptions of evidence quality used for individual journal articles, reports and other
pieces of evidence

Description Evidence quality code

1
Peer reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis [1]
Peer reviewed non-systematic review or meta-analysis [2]
Other peer reviewed journal article or peer reviewed report [3]
Other (including non-peer reviewed reports etc.) [4]
Not applicable [5]

Table 2 Descriptions of the overall quality of the body of evidence used for each section

Description Evidence quality code

Evidence drawn from a range of peer-reviewed systematic reviews [A]
or meta-analyses, together with other supporting evidence
Evidence drawn largely from peer-reviewed non-systematic reviews [B]
or meta-analyses, together with other supporting evidence
Mixed evidence sources, including systematic and/or other reviews, [C]
individual journal articles or peer reviewed reports, and/or sources
that have not been peer reviewed
Evidence drawn largely from individual peer-reviewed journal [D]
articles or peer reviewed reports, or sources that have not been
peer reviewed

The evidence statement uses a plurality of terms for different types, features and locations of
natural environments, and concepts such as ‘exposure’ and ‘access’ to these environments.
This reflects the diversity of terms within the existing literature and that there are often no
common definitions. The language used to report findings in relation to environment types,
features and locations and terms such as ‘exposure’ and ‘access’ follows the original studies.

1
Where the methods used to identify, select and quality appraise evidence are systematic and
transparent, thereby reducing potential for multiple forms of bias.

8
3 Findings
3.1 Global ecosystem services, landscape scale and other indirect
links between natural environments and human health
This section considers the indirect linkages between natural environments and human
health; first in relation to global ecosystem services, biodiversity and health, and second at
landscape, ecosystem and city scales.

Global ecosystem services, biodiversity and health

The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-
analyses which are not systematic. The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed
systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and some evidence from reports and other sources
which have not been peer-reviewed [B]

At a global level, humans clearly depend on the natural environment for air, food, shelter and
water. Bernstein (2014) [2] states that functioning ecosystems and biodiversity underlie much
of what keeps people healthy. In a comprehensive review, the Convention on Biological
Diversity and World Health Organization (CBD and WHO 2015 [2]) outline a range of key
linkages between the natural environment and human health in relation to water; air quality;
biodiversity, food and nutrition; infectious diseases; medicines, including pharmaceuticals
and traditional medicine; spiritual and cultural values; climate change and disaster risk
reduction; and sustainable consumption and production.

It is also clear that human health and wellbeing is often increased as a result of
anthropogenic activity that depletes the natural environment, for example economic
development might simultaneously threaten species and increase human life expectancy
(Hough 2014 [1]). Hough notes that while human wellbeing has steadily increased at global
scale, approximately 60% of ecosystem services have been degraded over the past 50 years
(MEA 2005 [2]). However, Hough states that many of the ecosystem services in decline were
regulating and supporting services, while most of those enhanced were provisioning services
such as crops, livestock and aquaculture. A wide range of specific activities may increase
human health and wellbeing, at least in the short term, while decreasing the diversity of
natural resources.

Although ecosystems that are reduced or degraded may continue to function at some level,
they may reach a threshold or tipping point beyond which the services which support human
health cannot be maintained and from which it may be difficult to recover. In many contexts,
there is significant uncertainly in relation to when these thresholds may be reached and the
ability of ecosystems to recover. There is therefore considerable uncertainty regarding the
impact of global level ecosystem damage and biodiversity loss to health outcomes.

Although many of the linkages are complex, overall the evidence indicates that biodiversity is
critical to underpin ecosystem functioning and the delivery of goods and services that are
essential to human health and wellbeing. Consequently, loss of biodiversity is likely to lead to
decreases in some aspects of human health and wellbeing (CBD and WHO 2015 [2];
Sandifer et al. 2015 [2]).

The relevance of biodiversity and ecosystems to health policy, delivery of health services and
health sciences has been articulated through the OpenNESS project (Kretsch and Keune
2015 [4]). In a review of current understanding the authors noted that biodiversity and
ecosystems are ‘relevant to health risk prevention, health promotion, and the three core

9
areas of public health intervention: trauma (relating to injury and violence, including effects of
natural disasters), infectious disease (caused by pathogens such as bacteria, viruses and
parasites), and non-communicable disease (including physical and mental health, systemic
illnesses, and toxicity)’ (Kretsch and Keune 2015 [4]).

Landscape, ecosystem and city scale linkages

The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed systematic reviews or
meta-analyses, with some evidence from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which are
not systematic. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed [A]

There is a growing body of evidence using approaches such as complex systems thinking
that is beginning to inform our understanding of intermediate landscape and catchment scale
interlinkages between natural environments (including the state, diversity, composition and
distribution of land cover type, ecosystem function, and biodiversity) and health.

In the case of the catchment level, new analyses are showing how upstream processes,
such as water retention in upland peat, may have significant implications for the health of
downstream communities, for instance through the avoidance of flooding and improved water
quality (Figure 2). However, as the review conducted by Bunch et al. (2014) [1] highlighted,
despite the clear implications for human health, our understanding of these complex and
non-linear processes is currently limited. They state that health and wellbeing are products of
inter-related social and biophysical processes and that there is a need to move beyond
‘typical reductionist approaches toward more holistic methods’ (Bunch et al. 2014; 240 [1]).

Figure 2. Catchment scale processes (Maltby et al. 2011 At a city scale there is a
[2]) growing body of evidence
which links natural
environments (e.g. Green
Infrastructure) with multiple
indirect health outcomes.
Studies have suggested that
urban greenery can reduce
noise, ozone levels, personal
exposure to particulates, and
mitigate some of the additional
harmful effects of air pollution
matter, in addition to the direct
benefits discussed in the next
section (Pretty et al. 2011 [2];
James et al. 2015 [2]).

Hartig et al. (2014) [1] discuss

multiple ways in which
vegetation in urban areas may
impact on air quality; certain
tree species and other
vegetation may reduce pollution from gases and particulate matter, but they also release
hydrocarbons. Some trees and other plants release pollen, exacerbating allergies, but they
also cool urban environments and reduce energy demand. Brack (2002, cited in Hartig et al.
2014 [1]) found that monetary savings related to reduced building energy use may be greater
than those of pollutant removal.

10
Bowler et al.’s (2010b) [1] review and meta-analysis of the role of greener environments on
mitigating high air temperature in urban areas found, on average, a park was 0.94°C cooler
in the day than the surrounding built environment. They also noted that larger parks and
those with trees were cooler during the day than smaller areas with less tree cover.

3.2 Direct links between natural environments and human health at

the individual and population level
This section draws upon recent systematic syntheses which have identified multiple direct
links between human health and wellbeing and exposure to natural environments. A range of
possible benefits are discussed, including enhanced mental health and wellbeing, reduced
mortality and obesity, and the development and maintenance of a healthy internal biome.

Mental health and wellbeing

The evidence discussed in this section is from a range of peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses, with some evidence from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which
are not systematic. The section also presents evidence from other peer-reviewed journal
articles or peer-reviewed reports. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed
[A]

There is relatively robust evidence of a relationship between mental health and wellbeing
outcomes, including lower rates of stress, fatigue, anxiety and depression, and exposure to
natural environments. There is some evidence that these benefits may be most significant for
marginalised groups. However, the evidence is mixed with some systematic reviews finding
only weak evidence of the relationship between green space exposure and mental health
and wellbeing.

There are now several syntheses which have reviewed the strength and nature of the
associations between natural environments and mental health:

 Bowler et al. (2010a) [1] conclude that there is reliable evidence of the benefits of contact
with nature in relation to emotional state, self-reported anger, fatigue, anxiety, sadness,
and an increase in feelings of energy;
 A meta-analysis undertaken by Barton and Pretty (2010) [2] found that compared to
those undertaking other forms of outdoor exercise participants undertaking exercise in
green places reported improved self-esteem and mood;
 Hartig et al. (2014) [1] state there is considerable evidence of potential benefits of contact
with nature for reducing stress and attentional fatigue, although they note the majority of
this evidence relates to short-term benefits;
 In a systematic review examining the relationship between long term exposure to natural
environments and mental health, Gascon et al. (2015) [1] found some evidence of a
causal relationship between surrounding greenness and mental health in adults, but the
evidence for children was not yet inadequate to draw reliable conclusions.

Recent efforts have been made to use more robust research designs (e.g. analysis of
longitudinal data) to explore mental health outcomes. Alcock et al. (2014) [3] found that
individuals who moved to greener areas (n=594) had significantly better mental health in all
three postmove years (P=0.015; P=0.016; P=0.008) compared to their premove mental
health scores. Further analysis of longitudinal data found that compared with when they lived
in areas with less green space, people had significantly lower mental distress (as indexed by
General Health Questionnaire score and significantly higher wellbeing (as indexed by life-

11
satisfaction ratings) when living in greener environments (White et al. 2013 [3]). Both studies
controlled for income, employment status, marital status, health, housing type, and local-
area-level variables (e.g. crime rates). A twin study found greater access to green space was
associated with less depression (models were adjusted for income, physical activity,
neighbourhood deprivation, and population density) (Cohen-Cline et al. 2015 [3]).

In relation to deprived and marginalised groups, socioeconomic inequality in mental

wellbeing has been shown to be 40% narrower among those who report good access to
green/recreational areas, compared with those with poorer access (Mitchell et al. 2015 [3]).
This analysis used models adjusted for factors such as sex, age, illness limiting daily
activities, education level, employment status, environmental quality, and median household
income. Plane and Klodawsky (2013) [3] examined the relationship between neighbourhood
amenities and health, and found that a local park was subjectively identified as the most
meaningful place influencing health and quality of life for marginal women. In a longitudinal
study, Weimann et al. (2015) [3] found that while the overall effect of living in a greener area
on general and mental health was weak (after controlling for confounders), more beneficial
effects were indicated for a vulnerable subgroup with a poorer prognosis for good general
health. Weimann et al. also note that it is likely that the perceived quality of the greenness in
a neighbourhood is most important for wellbeing, rather than the absolute amount, possibly
particularly for these vulnerable subgroups.

Perceived health status

The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports, with some evidence from a peer-reviewed systematic review. All evidence
used in this section has been peer-reviewed [C]

Perceived health status correlates well with more objective measures of health status and is
a robust indicator. A review undertaken by van den Berg et al. (2015) [1] of epidemiological
studies linking exposure to natural environments and a variety of health outcomes found
moderate evidence of a positive link with self-perceived health. The review indicated that the
majority of studies to have considered perceived health status are cross-sectional and are
therefore unable to indicate causality.

There are several primary studies which have considered the spatial distribution of the self-
rated health question from the UK census in relation to proximity to natural environments in
the living environment. Mitchell and Popham’s (2007) [3] analysis, for example, found that
after controlling for selection effects and area population characteristics, a higher proportion
of greenspace in an area was generally associated with better perceived health. Significant
associations have also been found between self-rated health status and higher quality
landscapes (bird species richness and percentage of protected and designated spaces),
after adjusting for socio-economic deprivation and rurality (Wheeler et al. 2015 [3]).

Mortality
The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. The section also uses some evidence from peer-reviewed systematic
reviews or meta-analyses and evidence from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which
are not systematic. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed [C]

A systematic review found evidence of a positive association between residential greenness

and mortality, with effects greatest for cardio-vascular mortality (Gascon et al. 2016 [1]).

12
A Canadian cohort study (Villeneuve et al. 2012 [3]) of approximately 575,000 adults found
that an increase in the interquartile range of green space (using a 500 m buffer) was
associated with reduced non-accidental mortality (RR=0.95, 95% CI=0.94-0.96). Reductions
in mortality with increased residential green space were observed for each underlying cause
of death; the strongest association was found for respiratory disease mortality (RR=0.91,
95% CI=0.89-0.93). Rate ratios were adjusted for a range of socio-economic and other
variables, including income, marital status, ambient air pollution and contextual
neighbourhood characteristics. However, the authors indicate that results should be
interpreted with caution as there may be residual confounding of socio-demographic and
lifestyle factors.

Mitchell and Popham (2008) [3] found associations between income deprivation and mortality
(assessed using individual mortality records) which differed significantly according to
exposure to green space for mortality from all causes (p<0.0001) and circulatory disease
(p=0.0212), after controlling for potential confounding factors. They identified a lower incident
rate ratio for all-cause mortality for groups with higher exposure to green space (Figure 3).
However, no association was found for lung cancer or intentional self-harm, causes of death
less likely to be affected by green space.

Figure 3. Greener living environments and mortality Specific outcomes included:

(Mitchell and Popham 2008 [3])
 Health inequalities related
to income deprivation in all-
cause mortality and mortality
from circulatory diseases were
lower in populations living in
the greenest areas;
 The incidence rate ratio
(IRR) for all-cause mortality for
the most income deprived
quartile compared with the
least deprived was 1.93 (95%
CI 1.86-2.01) in the least green
areas, whereas it was 1.43
(1.34-1.53) in the most green;
 For circulatory diseases,
the IRR was 2.19 (2.04-2.34)
in the least green areas and
1.54 (1.38-1.73) in the most
green.

Richardson and Mitchell (2010) [3] showed that after controlling for relevant confounders
cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease mortality rates decreased with increasing
green space amongst men, but no significant associations were found for women. A French
study (Kihal-Talantikite et al. 2013 [3]) of neonatal mortality found that the greenness of the
living environment (within the city of Lyon) partially explained the spatial distribution of infant
mortality, after adjusting for deprivation.

Following a review of the literature, James et al. (2015) [2] conclude that there are positive
associations between increased greenness in the living environment and reduced mortality.
However, they highlight the limitations of cross-sectional or ecological designs in most
studies on these issues.

13
Obesity
The evidence discussed in this section is from peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-
analyses and other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-reviewed reports. All evidence
used in this section has been peer-reviewed [C]

A systematic review conducted by Lachowycz and Jones (2011) [1] found a positive
association between exposure to natural spaces and obesity (i.e. reduced BMI). Specific
findings included:

 Increased vegetation associated with reduced weight among young people living in high
population densities;
 Increased greenspace associated with less weight gain over 2 years;
 Across eight European cities, people were 40% less likely to be obese in the greenest
areas.

The majority (68%) of the papers reviewed by Lachowycz and Jones found a positive
(though typically weak) association between greenspace and obesity-related health
indicators; however findings were inconsistent and mixed across studies. For instance,
several studies found the relationship varied by factors such as age, socioeconomic status
and type of greenspace measure.

Physical activity is likely to be an important mediating factor (see below). In a study of the
residents of Bristol (n=6821), Coombes et al. (2010) [3] found that respondents living closest
to the type of green space classified as a ‘formal park’ were more likely to achieve the
physical activity recommendation and less likely to be overweight or obese. The authors
adjusted for respondent characteristics, area deprivation, and a range of characteristics of
the neighbourhood environment.

Development and maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of

inflammatory-based diseases
The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-
analyses which are not systematic. The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed
systematic reviews or meta-analyses. All evidence used in this section has been peer-
reviewed [B]

Some of the strongest evidence concerns the importance of direct contact with nature to the
development of a healthy microbiome. The human microbiome, the consortium of
microorganisms that cohabit the human body, typically consists of around 10,000 species
with eight million protein-coding genes (360 times the number of protein-coding genes in the
‘human’ genome) (Bernstein 2014 [2]). Human babies are born essentially sterile (Hough
2014 [1]) and studies have determined that exposure to diverse natural habitats is critical for
development of a healthy microbiome. Lack of contact with nature may therefore be
contributing to another megatrend in human health and wellbeing, the increasing prevalence
of allergies, asthma, and other chronic inflammatory diseases especially among urban
populations (Sandifer et al. 2015 [2]).

Sandifer et al. (2015;10) [2] state that ‘the only unambiguous causal relationship between
biodiversity and human health concerns the maintenance of a healthy immune system and
reduction of inflammatory-based diseases’. The authors cite a seminal paper by Rook (2013)
[2] which concluded that the requirement for microbial input from the environment to drive
immunoregulation is a major component of the beneficial effect of green space, and a

14
neglected ecosystem service that is essential for wellbeing (also see CBD and WHO 2015
[2]).

Bernstein (2014) [2] states that overweight people tend to have less diverse intestinal
microbial ecosystems than people of normal weight. He suggests that tackling obesity will
require greater attention to the intestinal microbiome, as well as diet and exercise.

Maternal health, pregnancy outcomes and children’s cognitive development

The evidence used in this section is from a range of sources. Some is from peer-reviewed
systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Some evidence is from peer-reviewed reviews or
meta-analyses which are not systematic, and some is from other peer-reviewed journal
articles or peer-reviewed reports [C]

James et al.’s (2015) [2] synthesis found consistent evidence from birth cohort studies which
shows exposure to green space during pregnancy is associated with a range of maternal,
foetal and cognitive outcomes.

A Spanish study (Dadvand et al. 2012 [3]) found a beneficial impact of surrounding
greenness on measures of foetal growth. Higher density of greenness was associated with
increases in birth weight and head circumference (adjusted regression coefficients with 95%
confidence intervals of 44.2 g (20.2 g, 68.2 g) and 1.7 mm (0.5 mm, 2.9 mm) for an
interquartile range increase in average satellite-based Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index within a 500m buffer). This study adjusted for potential confounders such as maternal
age, education, smoking and alcohol consumption. An American study found that, after
adjusting for variables including education and race, a 10% increase in tree-canopy cover
within 50m of a house reduced the number of small for gestational age births by 1.42 per
1000 births (95% CI=0.11-2.72, n=5696) (Donovan et al. 2011 [3]).

A German cohort study (Markevych 2014 [3]) also found positive associations between
residential greenness and birth weight outcomes. The authors reported that an increase of
surrounding greenness (around the residence) was associated with an average birth weight
increase of 17.6 g (95% CI=0.5 to 34.6, n=3203) with the effect strengthening after
adjustment for factors such as air pollution rates, distance to major road, and population
density. The authors also found enhanced impacts for marginalised populations with the
strongest association in mothers with less than 10 years of school education.

A small body of research suggests that childhood contact with nature can provide cumulative
benefits with far reaching developmental significance (Hartig et al. 2014 [1]). For example,
contact with nature may improve attentional function in children with attention deficit disorder
and improve self-discipline in children without a diagnosis (Taylor et al. 2002; 2009, cited in
Hartig et al. 2014 [1]). Bratman et al.’s (2012) [2] review of the cognitive impacts of exposure
to natural environments found positive impacts to memory, attention, concentration, impulse
inhibition, and mood across a range of socio-demographic populations. Recent research has
suggested that natural spaces in and around the school environment are also associated
with cognitive development in children. Dadvand et al.’s (2015) [3] comparative study of the
impact of greenery around 36 schools in Barcelona found that a high level of exposure to
green spaces was associated with a 5% improvement in working memory, 6% increase in
superior working memory, and a 1% reduction in inattentiveness.

15
Other physiological outcomes
The majority of evidence used in this section is from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses
which are not systematic, and other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-reviewed reports.
The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses.
All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed [C]

Researchers have considered the impacts of exposure to or use of natural environments on

a range of further physiological outcomes.

In a recent review Pretty et al. (2011) [2] state that contact with nature has been shown to
have a significant positive impact on heart rate and blood pressure. For instance, an early
study by Hartig et al. (2003) [3] found a significant and positive impact of exposure to natural
environments on diastolic blood pressure. This finding has been replicated in a number of
experimental and cohort studies (e.g. Juyoung et al. 2009 [3]). Positive associations between
‘green activities’ or living in greener urban environments and cardiovascular health have
been identified in a number of studies (e.g. Ekblom-Bak et al. 2014 [3]).

Pretty et al. (2011) [2] also note that humans depend on the sun for 90% of our vitamin D
requirement. Increased time spent in natural environments is associated with increased
likelihood of meeting this requirement, thus helping to avoid poor bone health and the
development of Rickets in children which is associated with vitamin D deficiency.

Type 2 diabetes, a chronic long-term condition, is an increasing healthcare priority. Positive

associations between the percentage of greenspace in the living environment and type 2
diabetes prevalence have been demonstrated in a large cross-sectional study from England
(Bodicoat et al. 2014 [2]). The odds ratio (95% CI) for screen-detected type 2 diabetes was
0.67 (0.49 to 0.93) in the greenest locations compared with the least green (models were
adjusted for ethnicity, age, sex, area social deprivation score and urban/rural status) (P=0.01,
n=10,476). The authors suggest that greenspace may be protective for type 2 diabetes.

Hough (2014) [1] discusses a well-known study (Ulrich 1984) which found that patients with a
view of green space from hospital required fewer painkillers and were discharged more
quickly. However, Hough is sceptical of the health measures used in this study and considers
that at best it demonstrates an association between improved patient outcomes and looking
at trees.

Several small scale studies have used cortisol levels to investigate the impacts of natural
environments on stress. Typically these studies find a positive association between
residential greenness and use of natural environments for recreation and significantly lower
cortisol levels, after controlling for other factors which may influence stress such as
employment, exercising and smoking (Honold et al. 2015 [3]; Ward Thompson et al. 2012
[3]).

3.3 Pathways and influencing factors

This section considers the impacts of the natural environment on a small number of
recognised pathways to good health (physical activity and social contact and cohesion),
which may also be considered as desirable outcomes in and of themselves. The section also
addresses the role of influencing factors such as the differential exposure of different social
groups to natural environments and barriers to engagement.

16
Physical activity
The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed systematic reviews or
meta-analyses, with some evidence from other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed [A]

Numerous studies show a relationship between greenness and physical activity, though the
evidence is mixed. It has been hypothesised that the availability of natural environments
(particularly in urban areas) is associated with physical activity behaviours and that physical
activity in natural spaces is of greater benefit (compared to exercise taken in indoor or non-
green environments). It is well established that physical activity independently promotes
mental and physical health (Woodcock et al. 2011 [1]).

In a systematic review of links between green space and obesity, Lachowycz and Jones
(2011) [1] found 20 studies (40% of the total included in the review) which reported an
unambiguous positive relationship between green space and levels of physical activity (for
example living within 1 mile of a park was positively associated with park use and frequency
of leisure exercise) and a further 13 (26%) which reported weak or mixed results. Only two
studies (4%) found a negative relationship, and 15 (30%) found no evidence of a
relationship.

In the UK context a significant association has been demonstrated between residential

proximity to coastal environments and the likelihood of achieving the recommended rate of
physical activity (controlling for factors such as area green space, deprivation and individual
age, gender, SES, marital status, employment status, children, ethnicity, disability, car
ownership, dog ownership, year and season) (White et al. 2013 [3]) (Figure 4). Other studies
have found that specific natural environments such as woodlands, gardens, parks, grassland
and farmland are supportive of vigorous activity (see, for example, Coombes et al. 2013 [3]).

Figure 4. Coastal proximity and physical activity rates Mitchell (2013) [3] used data
(White et al. 2013 [3]) from the Scottish Health
Survey to examine the impact
of physical activity in natural
environments on mental
health. The results indicated
that regular exercise in a
natural environment may cut
the risk of suffering from poor
mental health by half. There
was an independent
association between regular
use of natural environments
and a lower risk of poor mental
health, however this was not
found for physical activity in
other types of environments.
The odds of poor mental health
(assessed using the General
Health Questionnaire) for those
who made regular use of
woods or forests for physical
activity were 0.557 (95% CI 0.323-0.962), compared to non-users. All models were adjusted
for age group, sex, equivalised household income, average hours of physical activity per
week, urban/rural status and green space in a respondent's neighbourhood.

17
A review by Thompson Coon et al. (2011) [1] found that exercising in natural environments
was associated with greater feelings of revitalization and positive engagement, decreases in
tension, confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy compared with indoor
exercise. There were also more positive perceptions of the activity including greater
enjoyment and satisfaction and participants expressed a greater intent to repeat the activity
at a later date.

Hartig et al. (2014) [1] provide a useful breakdown of the types of activity where the physical
environment may affect levels of physical activity - work, active transport, and leisure. They
state that in the work domain, green space is unlikely to be significant in determining levels of
activity. There may be a stronger relationship for the other two domains, but overall the
evidence is mixed. In the case of active travel, they suggest that the negative associations
that are sometimes observed may be due to greater distances travelled and higher levels of
car ownership in greener areas.

Hartig et al. (2014) [1] discuss the relationship between green space and physical activity for
selected population subgroups. For children, they identify one review (Ding et al. 2011) in
which approximately 40% of studies showed a relationship between park access or
vegetation and physical activity; but in the other 60% of studies no relationship was found.
Similarly, out of two recent systematic reviews for older people, one (Van Cauwenberg et al.
2011) found no clear relationship while the other (Broekhuizen et al. 2013), which focused
specifically on green space, found a positive relationship in seven out of eight studies.

Lachowycz and Jones (2011) [1] highlight the methodological limitations of many studies
examining links between green space, physical activity and health. In particular, it is not
possible to determine if relationships are causal. For example, they note that more active
people may choose to live in greener environments. They also highlight that since a wide
range of different variables were used to adjust for socio-economic factors in the studies they
reviewed, some positive results could have been caused by residual confounding.

Variation between social and demographic groups

The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses, as well as some evidence that has not been peer-reviewed [D]

As has been noted above the impacts of exposure to or use of natural environments often
differ between social and demographic groups, examples include:

 After controlling for relevant confounders male cardiovascular disease and respiratory
disease mortality rates decreased with increasing green space in the living environment,
but no significant associations were found for women (Richardson and Mitchell 2010 [3]);
 Although a general association between greener living environments and perceived
health status was found by Mitchell and Popham (2007) [3], the relationship was not
significant in higher income suburban and higher income rural areas, whereas in
suburban lower income areas, a higher proportion of greenspace was associated with
worse health. The authors suggest the latter findings may be due to the poorer quality of
greenspace in poorer communities (all models were adjusted for indicators of socio-
economic deprivation and rurality);
 Astell-Burt et al.’s (2014) [3] longitudinal analysis of the British Household Panel Survey
(1996-2004) found variation in the association between green space and mental health
according to life stage and by gender. Their results showed that for men, the benefit of
more green space emerged in early to mid-adulthood. Among older women, a curvilinear
association materialised where those with a moderate availability of green space had

18
 better mental health. The regression models included age, gender, employment status,
household tenure, marital status, education, smoking status and household income.

There are several theories which attempt to account for the observed variations in impacts,
these include:

 Communities with lower socio-economic status often have poorer access to good quality
natural environments;
 Different socio-demographic groups use the natural environment for different reasons
and in different ways (e.g. a local park may have more impact on men’s health via
physical activity, such as playing football, than for women);
 Specific socio-cultural norms influence how (and indeed whether) different groups
engage with or benefit from the natural environment.

In relation to the availability (where, typically, no assumptions are made about actual access
or use of such spaces) of natural environments the evidence is mixed, with outcomes likely
to be partly influenced by the indicators used and by analytic approach. However the trend of
the evidence is consistent with that found by Jones et al. (2009) [3], who concluded that
there were strong disparities in access with respect to deprivation whereby the most income-
deprived groups were also the most deprived with regard to access to public parks (models
were adjusted for respondent age, sex and self-rated health).

There are significant differences between different groups of people in the extent to which
they visit the natural environment and have direct experience with nature, and therefore the
extent to which they may benefit. The latest MENE annual report (Natural England 2015a [4])
indicates that only 34% of those aged 65 or over visit the natural environment at least once a
week, 31% of those in social grades DE (semi-skilled manual workers to unemployed with
state benefits only), 28% of those in Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, and 33% of
those with an illness or disability, compared to an average of 42% in the population as a
whole. In response to a more general question where respondents were asked to estimate
the average frequency of their outside leisure activity over the previous 12 months, 58% of
the population as a whole claimed to visit once a week or more, 35% once or twice a month
or less, and 8% said they never visit.

In relation to motivations for visiting the natural environment, around two-fifths of visits by 16-
44 year old were for health and/or exercise, compared to half of visits taken by those aged
45 or over (Natural England 2015a [4]). Health and/or exercise is also a significantly greater
motivation for those in social grades ABC1 (higher to junior managerial, administrative and
professional) compared to C2DE (skilled manual workers to unemployed with state benefits
only).

There may be significant barriers to greater engagement with the natural environment for
many different groups. For example, Hitchings (2013) [3] examines reasons why city
professionals rarely visit the various parks and gardens around their offices. The study
reveals a range of factors suggesting green space may be forgotten or deliberately avoided
because the opportunities for relaxation and restoration may be subtly inconsistent with the
personal and cultural expectations of professional working life.

Hartig et al. (2014) [1] note that variations between different groups of people remain
consistently underexplored, in terms of access to, use of and responses to nature. Hitchings
(2013) [3] suggests that the key requirement for further research on the natural environment
and health may not be to improve understanding of the health benefits which can be derived
from increased contact with nature, but how to increase the number of people who choose to
engage with nature.

19
Social contact and community cohesion
The majority of evidence used in this section is from peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed [D]

The potential for greenspaces to facilitate social contact and enhance social cohesion and
quality of life has been proposed as an important mediating factor in the observed
relationships between natural environments and health outcomes.

The systematic review by Hartig et al. (2014) [1] concluded that there are positive
relationships between social cohesion and natural environments with, for example, residents
living in areas with more trees and grass tending to display less aggressive behaviour and
experiencing lower crime levels. Others have shown that green spaces (particularly in urban
areas) offer places to meet which help reduce the likelihood of loneliness and provide
opportunities to build social support systems (van Dillen et al. 2011 [3). Links have also been
made with feelings of social safety (Groenewegen et al. 2006 [3]; Maas et al. 2009 [3]) and
motivations for community activity (van Dillen et al. 2011 [3]). Each of the studies mentioned
above controlled for socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

Environmental quality
The evidence discussed in this section is from a range of peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses, with some evidence from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which
are not systematic. The section also presents evidence from other peer-reviewed journal
articles or peer-reviewed reports. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed
[C]

There is limited evidence regarding links between the ecological quality of the natural
environment and health and wellbeing benefits, with inconsistent associations between
ecological quality and mainly mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Sandifer et al. (2015)
[2], whilst noting that they found strong evidence linking biodiversity with production of
ecosystem services and between general nature exposure and human health, found less that
supported the argument that biodiversity and ecological state is an important factor in the
nature exposure pathway. This is potentially due to the relatively recent scientific interest in
the role of biodiversity in supporting good health rather than lack of a relationship.

Evidence from the UK is currently limited to a small number of observational studies of urban
green/blue space and a range of quality of life and psychological indicators (Lovell et al. 2014
[1]). The review conducted by Lovell et al. (2014) [1] concluded that there is some evidence
to suggest that biodiverse natural environments may be associated with good health and
wellbeing. Benefits were manifest in a number of ways, from better mental health outcomes
following exposure, to associations with increased health promoting behaviours. The
relationships are most evident at a local level and following immediate encounters or through
presumed repeated exposures (e.g. via proximity to residence). Wheeler et al.’s (2015) [3]
analysis of large scale datasets also found evidence of an association between ecological
state and health, with an association between the density of protected/designated areas and
bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) and prevalence of good health.
Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality. There is also
a small quantity of evidence, mainly qualitative, finding largely positive associations between
experience of wildlife and psychological and quality of life outcomes (for example Curtin 2009
[3]).

20
There is growing evidence that health is negatively affected by degraded environments. For
instance, a series of studies in the US have demonstrated that after controlling for
confounders, women living in counties infested with emerald ash borer (which resulted in the
loss of significant numbers of trees) had a 25% higher risk of cardiovascular disease
(Donovan et al. 2015 [3]).

There is an established body of evidence (predominantly observational and qualitative) which

has shown that the state or maintenance of natural environments (in terms of litter and other
incivilities) is related to wellbeing, and in some cases health. Mitchell and Popham (2007) [3]
hypothesised that their finding that a greater proportion of greenspace in the living
environment for lower socio-economic groups was related to worse health was likely to be
due to the poor state of those spaces. The models in this study adjusted for indicators of
socio-economic deprivation and rurality. McCormack et al.’s (2010) [1] review supported this
hypothesis and suggested that attributes including safety, aesthetics, amenities, and
maintenance of urban parks are important determinants of use. The authors note that
perceptions of the social environment are inextricable from perceptions of the physical
environment, suggesting that interventions to promote use of natural environments would
need to consider both the physical resource and social context.

The type of natural environment

The evidence used in this section is from a range of sources. Some is from peer-reviewed
systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Some evidence is from peer-reviewed reviews or
meta-analyses which are not systematic, and some is from other peer-reviewed journal
articles or peer-reviewed reports. The section also uses limited evidence that has not been
peer-reviewed [C]

It is also important to consider the different health and wellbeing benefits provided by
different types of natural environment. Church et al. (2011) [2] distinguish between cultural
ecosystem services provided by different types of environmental settings, including domestic
gardens, formal and informal green and blue spaces, nearby and wider countryside and
national landscapes, suggesting that these offer quantitatively and qualitatively different
experiences and health and wellbeing benefits. As noted previously, local environmental
settings provide opportunities for frequent contact with nature. In contrast, Church et al. note
that more remote ‘special’ environments may offer opportunities to see particular fauna and
flora, or climb particular crags. There is qualitative evidence that visits to National Parks and
other similar environments can provide long-term restorative effects (see Wilson 2015 [4] and
Curtin 2009 [3]).

This issue can also be approached by assessing benefits associated with specific land uses
and land covers. The review by O’Brien and Morris (2013) [2], for example, provides a
typology of health and wellbeing benefits from engagement with woodlands and forests,
including physical wellbeing, mental restoration, escape and freedom, and enjoyment and
fun. They discuss evidence that indicates the importance of trees and woodlands to people
from different social groups and illustrate how carefully designed and targeted interventions
can encourage people to visit woodlands and possibly get involved in new activities, and
therefore realise health and wellbeing benefits.

In relation to direct health outcomes, there is a small quantity of evidence, drawn from a
range of study types including experimental, epidemiological, and qualitative which has
specifically explored or considered different types of land cover.

There is evidence of some positive associations between certain types of natural

environment, including urban green spaces (Hartig et al. 2014 [1]), blue spaces (Völker and

21
Kistemann 2011 [1]), woodlands and forests (O'Brien and Morris 2013 [2]), and
arable/horticultural (Wheeler et al. 2015 [3]), and predominantly general health status or
mental health and wellbeing outcomes.

Wheeler et al. (2015) [3], after adjusting for potential confounders, found positive
associations between good health prevalence and the density of different greenspace types,
including broadleaf woodland, arable and horticulture, improved grassland, saltwater and
coastal. White et al. (2013) [3] used repeated waves of Natural England's Monitoring
Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (2009-2011), to show that visits to coastal,
woodlands and forests, and hills, moorland, and mountains resulted in the greatest
psychological benefits and visits to town and urban parks with the least. This study controlled
for demographic and visit characteristics. MacKerron and Mourato (2013) [3] also showed
that the greatest feelings of happiness were found during time spent in marine and coastal
margins, but that all other green or natural environment types they considered - mountains,
moors, and heathlands; freshwater, wetlands and flood plains; woodland, grasslands, and
farmland - resulted in happier people than continuous urban environments. The authors
controlled for weather, daylight, activity, companionship, location type, time, day, and
response trend.

In the urban setting it appears that both accessible and usable natural environments
(whether public or private), such as gardens and parks as well as ‘incidental’ greenspaces
including verges, roundabouts and other forms of green infrastructure are related to health.
Van Dillen et al. (2011) [3] found that streetscape greenery is at least as strongly related to
self-reported health as ‘useable’ green areas, after controlling for socio-demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics. Kardan et al. (2015) [3] linked high-resolution satellite
imagery and individual tree data with self-reported general health perception, cardio-
metabolic conditions and mental illnesses from the Ontario Health Study. After controlling for
socio-economic and demographic factors including income, age and education, they found
that:

 Having 10 more trees on a city block, on average, improves health perception in ways
comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000 and moving to a
neighbourhood with $10,000 higher median income or being 7 years younger;
 Eleven more trees on a city block, on average, decreases cardio-metabolic conditions in
ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $20,000 and moving to a
neighbourhood with $20,000 higher median income or being 1.4 years younger.

However, the authors state that they used cross-sectional data and that longitudinal data
would improve inferences of causality. They also highlight their assumption that controlling
for area median income accounts for many other neighbourhood variables that could affect
mental and physical health in indirect ways, and note that this may not always hold true.

Exposure mode, duration and a dose-response relationship

The evidence used in this section is from a range of sources. Some is from peer-reviewed
systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Some evidence is from peer-reviewed reviews or
meta-analyses which are not systematic, and some is from other peer-reviewed journal
articles or peer-reviewed reports. All evidence used in this section has been peer-reviewed
[C]

Bratman et al. (2012) [2] considered the extent to which the nature, duration and type of
exposure to the natural environment and the impact on health outcomes had been
investigated. They found that the majority of existing studies rely either on cross-sectional
designs with assumed repeated exposure over an un-known period of time, or short term

22
experimental approaches where people are exposed to different conditions (e.g. more/less
green, built/green) in a controlled setting. More recently researchers have begun to make
use of repeated cross-sectional and longitudinal survey datasets to investigate dose-
response relationships (for example see Kardan et al. 2015 [3] in previous section).

As noted previously there is strong and relatively extensive epidemiological evidence that
suggests that repeated exposure to natural environments through everyday living is
associated with better health outcomes. There is a significant volume of evidence showing
that the quantity and proximity of the natural environment in the living environment is
consistently positively associated with mental and physical health and wellbeing outcomes
(van den Berg et al. 2015 [1]). The evidence is mainly drawn from epidemiological studies
which focus on associations between the greenness of the environment around the home
and health outcomes or status in a population. Few epidemiological studies have
investigated the role of natural environments around the work or educational setting.

White et al. (2013) [3] used Natural England’s Monitor of Engagement with the Natural
Environment dataset to investigate psychological benefits of visits to a range of different
natural environments. Their results showed that, after controlling for demographic and visit
characteristics, feelings of restoration were positively associated with visit duration (which
they argued is an indication of a potential dose-response effect), and visits with children were
associated with less restoration than visits alone. They did not find evidence that activity type
(e.g. walking, exercising) was associated with restoration.

Shanahan et al.’s (2015) [2] review considered the evidence for dose-responses
relationships and, despite noting that few studies have addressed this dimension, they
presented four examples relating to different exposures and health outcomes (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Dose-response relationships (Shanahan et al. 2015 [2]) Examples of the dose-
response relationship
between nature and
measures of health or
wellbeing from
previous studies; (a)
psychological wellbeing
(“reflection”) in
response to exposure
to different numbers of
habitat types in
Sheffield, United
Kingdom (Fuller et al.
2007); (b) the
relationship between
green space cover (in a
3-kilometer radius
around the home) and
the percentage of
respondents stating
their health is “good” or
better (adapted from
Maas et al. 2006 to
show the inverse of the
data originally
presented); (c) the
change in stress levels in response to different landscape types (adapted from Beil and
Hanes 2013 to show the inverse of the stress measure originally presented); (d) the change

23
in mean arterial diastolic blood pressure over time during exposure to urban and natural
settings in California (adapted from Hartig et al. 2003 to show only the first section of the
experiment where participants were not exercising) (from Shanahan et al. 2015 [2]).

Our understanding of the influence of the type and duration of exposure and of a dose-
response relationship is limited by the nature of data available. There are few datasets which
allow us robustly to investigate relationships between exposure mode (e.g. passive, such as
viewing through a window, or more active exposure such as physical activity in a park) or
duration and health outcomes at a population level.

3.4 The monetary value of benefits

The evidence discussed in this section is largely from sources that have not been peer-
reviewed. The section uses some evidence from peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses
which are not systematic, as well as some from other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. This section does not use evidence from peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses [D]

A wide range of benefits to health linked to the natural environment have been valued,
including general health and wellbeing benefits to individuals and society and avoided costs
to the NHS. There is an overlap with other valuation evidence, e.g., recreational benefit
values are high in part reflecting health values.

However, it is important to note that this is a developing area and reliable values are limited.
A useful discussion of the difficulties is provided by Natural England’s (2014) [4]
‘Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment 2’ report.
Further, economic valuations should take into consideration potential environmental dis-
benefits, for example the potential synergistic effect between environmental pollutants and
pollen (Salmond et al. 2016) [3].

Natural England (2009; 1) [4] estimate that £2.1 billion would be saved annually through
averted health costs if everyone in England had equal ‘good perceived and/or actual access
to green space’. This figure is derived from research which showed that where people have
good access to green space they are 24% more likely to be physically active (Hillsdon et al.
2011, cited in Natural England 2009; 3 [4]). White et al. (2016) [3] found that the annual
physically active visits to the natural environment were associated with an estimated 109,164
Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with an annual value of approximately £2.18 billion.
Pretty et al. (2011) [2] note that if only 1% of the sedentary population adopted a more
healthy pattern of activity, 1,063 lives and £1.44 billion would be saved each year.

The estimated values of a proposed expansion of the Walking the Way to Health Initiative
(typically the walks make use of natural environments such as urban parks) were found to be
2,817 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) delivered at a cost of £4,009 per QALY. This was
estimated to be a potential saving to the health service of £81 million (based on life-cost
averted) at a cost-benefit ratio of 1:7.18 (Natural England 2009 [4]).

However, many of these figures have significant caveats. The reference above to ‘good
perceived and/or actual access to green space’ (Natural England 2009; 1 [4]) highlights that
provision of green space is only one factor in determining use and that many people face
significant barriers to use (whether economic, social, psychological or cultural). Pretty et al.
(2011) [2] state clearly that there is no guarantee people will make use of available green
space, but highlight that existing evidence indicates significant benefits and savings from
modest improvements in access to green space and/or behaviour change. Analysis carried
out in 2005 supports this assertion and highlights that greenspace interventions are likely to

24
be cost-effective because they avoid the capital expenditure associated with others forms of
physical activity infrastructure such as gyms (Willis and Osman 2005 [4]).

Bateman et al. (2011) [2] report tentative values for a range of health benefits derived from
ecosystems. For example, they cite a study undertaken by Mourato et al (2010) which used a
geo-referenced survey to estimate the physical and mental health effects associated with UK
ecosystem types. The health benefits associated with having a view of green space from
home were estimated to have a value of £135-452 per person per year. Similarly, the health
benefits of having your own garden were estimated to have a value of £171-575 per person
per year.

Nef Consulting (2013) [4] estimated the value of the Ecominds programme (nature based
health interventions for mental health) finding that for five Ecominds participants, savings of
£35,413 in one year (an average of £7,082 each; see example for a single participant in
Figure 6) were achieved through reduced NHS costs, benefits reductions and increased tax
contributions (Mind 2013 [4]). Using a formula of cost savings developed by Nef, Mind
estimated that, for just one year, the programme would result in savings of £1.46m for the
246 people who found full-time work.

Figure 6. Annual economic benefits for an individual The Scottish ‘Branching Out’
participant of an Ecominds project (Mind 2013 [4]) programme (patients with
mental health issues are
prescribed a series of formal
led woodland activities) found
that based on 335 service
users per year, the cost per
QALY was £8,600 (Willis et al.
2015 [3]). The authors note
that in comparison to the NICE
threshold of £30,000 per
QALY, the Branching Out
programme is cost-effective.

Buck and Gregory (2013) [4] cite research which assessed the economic values of
Birmingham’s city-wide Be Active programme. They suggest that approximately £23 was
recouped for every £1 spent. These values related to higher quality of life, reduced NHS use,
increased productivity, as well as other gains to local authorities. The authors suggest that
such interventions, which aim to improve health through physical activity, are more cost-
effective than most medical interventions.

Social return on investment assessments undertaken by Greenspace Scotland (undated) [4]

in conjunction with public and 3rd sector organisations found a range of favourable cost-
benefit ratios of health related natural environment interventions, including:

 Bums Off Seats found that every £1 invested in a single health walk would generate
around £5 of benefit;
 Edinburgh and Lothian Greenspace Trust found that every £1 invested in a summer bike
club at Hailes Quarry Park would generate around £6 of benefit;
 Friends of Sunnybank Park found that every £1 invested in delivering a programme of
regular community events in the park would generate around £8 of benefit;
 North Ayrshire Council found that every £1 invested in supporting volunteers to reinstate
the Coronation Gardens at Spier’s Old School Ground would generate around £20 of
benefit;

25
 Woods for Health Steering Group found that every £1 invested in structured outdoor
activities on Kinnoull Hill for individuals with mental health problems would generate
around £9 of benefits;
 Scottish Wildlife Trust found that every £1 invested in the Glen Mile Mountain Bike Trail
would generate around £3 of benefits.

Overall, the monetary value of benefits associated with increased access to and use of green
space is difficult to assess precisely, but is potentially large. Pretty et al. (2015) [3] estimate
the annual health costs of seven lifestyle-related conditions in the UK, all of which are
influenced by links to natural places. The seven conditions are mental ill-health, dementia,
obesity, physical inactivity, diabetes, loneliness and cardiovascular disease. Individualised
annual health costs amount to £62 billion for the National Health Service and £184 billion to
society as a whole.

3.5 Policy and delivery

This section reviews evidence concerning the effectiveness of existing interventions for
harnessing the value of the natural environment for health and discusses options for future
policy and practice.

The effectiveness of existing policy and interventions

This section makes use of evidence from a wide range of peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses, as well as some peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which are not
systematic. Evidence is also included from other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-
reviewed reports. The section makes use of limited evidence that has not been peer
reviewed [A]

There is growing practical experience of using or managing the natural environment to

provide a context or resource for health related interventions. This can take many forms,
from ensuring adequate access to greenspaces in the living environment (whether through
planning for new spaces or improving physical access to existing spaces) to specific
practitioner led therapeutic interventions in woodlands. The evidence for the effectiveness of
these interventions is, as of yet, limited; this is likely due to the high cost and complexity of
intervention evaluation and the relatively recent interest in such activities. There are,
however, numerous small scale programme and project evaluations which are beginning to
be brought together to synthesise reported outcomes across related projects (see, for
example, Lovell et al. 2015 [1] and Nef Consulting 2013 [4]).

Pretty et al. (2011) [2] discuss a broad range of ‘green care’ interventions which seek to
improve the health and wellbeing of vulnerable groups, such as psychiatric patients and
people with learning disabilities. Interventions include horticulture, green exercise therapies,
animal-assisted therapy, care farming, ecotherapy and wilderness therapy. These activities
can be informal and self-led (recuperative and restorative) or part of formal programmes
which one can elect to join or be referred to by a health professional. Such interventions are
led by a diverse range of organisations from public bodies such as Natural England and the
National Parks to environment or health focused non-governmental organisations (e.g.
Wildlife Trusts or Mind). In some cases they are supported by or developed in collaboration
with the health sector (e.g. with funding from Health and Wellbeing Boards or commissioned
through Clinical Commissioning Groups).

Whilst overall the use of natural environment based health interventions is in its infancy there
appears to be significant (if un-coordinated) activity. A survey undertaken in 2010 (Jepson et

26
al. [4]) in Scotland of ‘Green Interventions’ found over 170 formal programmes where
patients were referred to schemes which used the natural environment as a context for
supported physical activity. Pretty et al. (2011) [2] highlight that these approaches have not
been widely evaluated. However the existing evidence is suggestive of multiple benefit
pathways.

Lovell et al. (2015) [1] undertook a systematic review of health and wellbeing benefits
associated with environmental conservation activities (the review was partly conducted
through the Cochrane Collaboration). Such activities are a common form of green
intervention, aiming to protect and enhance the natural environment and improve health and
wellbeing. A number of NGOs lead such programmes, the most common and well known of
which is TCV’s (The Conservation Volunteers) Green Gyms (which recently won the highest
award from the Royal Society for Public Health for the promotion of health and wellbeing
through policies that empower communities and individuals). Although much of the
quantitative evidence was inconclusive, some positive psychological and quality of life
outcomes were identified. The qualitative evidence indicated that activities were perceived to
be beneficial to health and wellbeing, through providing exposure to natural environments
and enjoyment, as well as a sense of achievement and social contact.

A review of nature based therapeutic interventions (Annerstedt and Wahrborg 2011; 371 [1])
found a ‘small but reliable evidence base supports the effectiveness and appropriateness of
NAT [nature-assisted therapy] as a relevant resource for public health’. A meta-analysis of
outdoor walking groups (Hanson and Jones 2015 [1]) showed a range of impacts to health
including statistically significant reductions in mean difference for systolic blood pressure of
−3.72 mm Hg (−5.28 to −2.17) and diastolic blood pressure of −3.14 mm Hg (−4.15 to
−2.13); resting heart rate −2.88 bpm (−4.13 to −1.64); body fat −1.31% (−2.10 to −0.52),
body mass index −0.71 kg/m2 (−1.19 to −0.23), total cholesterol −0.11 mmol/L (−0.22 to
−0.01) and statistically significant mean increases in VO2max of 2.66 mL/kg/min (1.67-3.65),
the SF-36 (physical functioning) score 6.02 (0.51 to 11.53) and a 6 min walk time of 79.6 m
(53.37-105.84). The evaluation of the Lottery funded ‘Ecominds’ project led by the charity
Mind (2013) [4] reported a range of beneficial impacts including 7 out of 10 participants
experienced significant increases in mental wellbeing (before-after assessed using the
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale). The evaluation found that 56% of participants
were men, while recent IAPT statistics show that men account for only 36% of those
attending psychological therapies.

Longitudinal studies of people moving between areas with differing amounts of greenspace
suggest that increasing the quantity and proximity of greenspaces may have a beneficial
impact on health, after controlling for selected area and individual level effects (Alcock et al.
2014 [3]). Direct studies of environmental change have mixed outcomes. Initial results from
the Woods In and Around Towns programme are positive. Using a controlled design the
evaluation found significant increases in indicators of quality of life, frequency of woodland
use, in attitudes to woodlands as places for physical activity, and in perceptions of safety at
the intervention site over time, compared with no significant changes in the control sites
(Ward Thompson et al. 2013 [3]). Using a controlled repeated cross-sectional design a Dutch
study of urban greening in deprived neighbourhoods found no effect on physical activity rates
or general good health status (n 48,132) (Droomers et al. 2015 [3]).

A systematic review of interventions to promote physical activity found some evidence that
changes to the built environment encouraged use and resulted in increased physical activity
in urban green space (Hunter et al. 2015 [1]). McCormack et al. (2010) [1] reviewed research
to understand the factors that lead to increased park use. They found safety, aesthetics,
amenities, maintenance and proximity are all important factors.

27
Green health care settings have been shown to have positive impacts. For instance, a formal
systematic review found that the use of dementia gardens was associated with decreased
agitation (Whear et al. 2014 [1]).

Although currently limited, our understanding of the extent, process and outcomes, and cost-
effectiveness of environmental health interventions is growing. The Wildlife Trusts are
currently undertaking a review of their health intervention activity and a number of academic
studies, focusing on specific mechanisms (such as the commissioning and referral process)
and outcomes, are underway. TCV are currently embarking on an assessment of the impacts
and cost-effectiveness of the Green Gym programme and the National Institute for Health
Research released a funding call in spring 2016 for evaluations of the health impacts of
nature based interventions2.

Future policy and delivery options

The evidence discussed in this section is from a range of peer-reviewed systematic reviews
or meta-analyses and other peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses which are not
systematic. The section also presents a range of evidence which has not been peer-
reviewed [C]

The evidence indicates a need for more integrated policy and delivery across health, natural
environment and other sectors at a wide range of spatial scales (see, for example, Hartig et
al. 2014 [1]; Sandifer et al. 2015 [2]). The Convention on Biological Diversity and World
Health Organization (CBD and WHO 2015 [2]) highlight the need to create coherent cross-
sectoral strategies to ensure that biodiversity and health linkages are widely recognised,
valued, and reflected in national public health and biodiversity conservation policies, and
suggest joint responsibility for implementation. Recommendations based on this State of
Knowledge Review were taken forward at the meeting of the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on
Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in Montreal on 2-5th November
2015 (CBD 2015 [5]).

Integrated policy and delivery is required to help recognise and take account of multiple
benefits. Hartig et al. (2014) [1] note that even if the health benefits of a particular form of
contact with nature are small, public investment may still be justified if there are benefits
across wider policy domains such as better storm water management, species preservation
and carbon sequestration. Place-based approaches may enable benefits to be considered
more effectively across policy areas including economic development, education,
environment, health and social care, planning and transport.

There is a need to learn lessons from other sectors and wider evidence on influencing
behaviours and securing transitions across systems. Policy and delivery should aim to
encourage and enable people and organisations to behave differently to improve health
outcomes and benefit the natural environment (see for example Dolan et al. 2010 [4]; Fell
and Giorgi 2016 [4]; Spurling et al. 2013 [4]).

Policy should also recognise population level effects. Evidence indicates that benefits to
human health and wellbeing may sometimes be small at individual level relative to socio-
demographic or genetic factors, and some may be long term, but aggregate health benefits
may still be significant (Hartig et al. 2014 [1]). Buck and Gregory (2013) [4] and Willis and

2
http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/161312/16_07-Green-and-blue-space-Comm-
brief-final.pdf

28
Osman (2005) [4] also argue that the infrastructure costs of natural environments managed
and/or used for health interventions are likely to be low relative to other comparative options
such as indoor gyms.

There is a wide range of guidance in relation to developing more effective interventions

targeted at individuals and communities. For example, in a useful report targeted at local
authorities, Buck and Gregory (2013) [4] identify a series of priority actions including:

 Working with local communities to develop strategic plans for green space. They also
suggest access to green space could be prioritised in planning developments;
 Investment to ensure parks are maintained and anti-social behaviour does not become a
disincentive for people to use parks;
 Active involvement of community groups and volunteers in the management of green
spaces through programmes such as the Green Gym;
 Development of new funding models;
 Commission and work with GPs to implement activities in green spaces, consistent with
Department of Health’s Let’s Get Moving toolkit (DH 2012).

Buck and Gregory also highlight that interventions need to be specifically targeted and
designed with a clear purpose, with detailed knowledge of local needs, attitudes and cultural
contexts.

Bragg and Atkins (2016) [4] reviewed nature-based interventions aiming to improve the
mental health of vulnerable groups. In order to scale up commissioning of these kinds of
services, they recommend pilots to test and evaluate new approaches to larger scale
delivery, as well as greater coordination between green care providers to provide a more
appealing offer to health and social care commissioners.

The ‘Natural Solutions’ report from the UCL Institute of Health Equity considered how the
natural environment could contribute to reducing health inequality. It concluded that ‘There is
some research showing that interventions using the natural environment to improve health
can deliver costs savings for health and related services and improve physical and mental
health outcomes. So, increasing the amount and quality of green space can be part of a low
cost package to address health inequalities, improve health outcomes and deliver other
benefits’ (Allen and Balfour 2014; 5 [4]). The authors identified four key priorities:

 Improving coordination and integration of delivery and ensuring interventions are user-
led;
 Building a stronger evidence base to ensure programmes are evidence-led;
 Ensuring sustainable delivery of services that use the natural environment (i.e. breaking
out of the ‘pilot’ stage);
 Increasing the quality, quantity and use of natural environment assets that equitably
benefit people’s health and help prevent ill health.

Often the barriers to effective interventions are related to misunderstandings of the value of
natural environments to health. A small scale pilot programme evaluation of two
‘Communities First’ areas of South Wales suggested that gaining the support and buy in of
professional key support workers was fundamental to the success of encouraging hard-to-
reach communities to use their local natural environments. However it was noted that
community development workers, youth workers and health workers do not necessarily
understand or recognise that the availability of accessible local greenspace is a resource that
could contribute to achieving targets on health, wellbeing and employability (Natural
Resources Wales 2015 [4]).

29
3.6 Key evidence gaps
The evidence discussed in this section is largely from peer-reviewed systematic reviews or
meta-analyses and other peer-reviewed reviews or meta-analyses. The section includes
limited evidence from other peer-reviewed journal articles or peer-reviewed reports and from
sources which have not been peer-reviewed [A]

This final section identifies gaps in the evidence base concerning our understanding of the
benefits of natural environments to health and in relation to future policy and delivery.

The linkages between natural environments and human health are many, complex and
variable and whilst there is a substantial (and growing) evidence base there are a number of
key evidence gaps and needs which are discussed in more detail below:

 Methodologically, more robust evidence which seeks to identify causal pathways is

crucial.
 There is a need for more extensive and reliable evidence in relation to specific policy
interventions and to understand the factors which promote and facilitate inter-sectoral
working at different spatial scales.
 Existing evidence needs to be transformed, synthesised and disseminated more
effectively for different audiences.

There is a need to improve understanding of causal links between the natural environment
and human health (Hartig et al. 2014 [1]; Hough 2014 [1]). At present, many studies identify
associations but are unable to demonstrate causality, although in some cases this may be
largely due to the limited number of studies (e.g., Gascon et al. 2015 [1]). Partly to address
this issue, Church et al. (2011) [2] note that further evidence is required from longitudinal
studies. Natural experimental designs should also be used to take advantage of changes in
policy and practice or in the use or design of the environment (for instance the creation or
expansion of National Parks could be explored as an interesting natural experiment).

There is also a more widespread need to improve the robustness of study designs. Sandifer
et al. (2015) [2] note that many studies lack adequate controls, sample sizes and duration,
and often rely on self-reported information rather than objective data. However, despite these
weaknesses, they state that it is ‘exceptionally important’ to note that the overwhelming
evidence in this area finds a wide range of positive health responses to natural environments
(Sandifer et al. 2015; 3 [2]).

A review of key intersections in policy, both national and local, might help identify future
policy and delivery opportunities. Across Europe a number of regions have adopted
progressive and integrated approaches to decision making where environmental concerns
are considered alongside those of health. An example is the Welsh Well-being of Future
Generations Act 2015 which aims to facilitate inter-sectoral decision making. There is a need
to learn from these examples and to understand the transferability of such approaches.

There is a lack of evidence specifically designed to inform the development of policy and
interventions, including evaluation demonstrating which interventions work, for whom, in what
circumstances, and why. Both Shanahan et al. (2015) [2] and Hartig et al. (2014) [1] highlight
the need to support environmental policy and delivery more effectively by improving
assessments of what nature can and cannot do for human health and wellbeing. They state
that, arguably, this requires knowledge about the ‘doses’ of nature needed to generate
particular benefits. However, Hartig et al. (2014) [1] recommend caution with this approach,
since the long term consequences of particularly powerful forms of contact with nature might
be difficult to assess and therefore neglected.

30
There is a large volume of evaluative activity which could enhance our understanding of the
ways in which the environment is or could be used to benefit health. However evaluations
are often not of a quality suitable to inform policy or practice and are rarely disseminated and
shared effectively. There is a need to develop practical ways in which to support cost-
effective but robust evaluations, and to gather and synthesise this evidence (Allen and
Balfour 2014 [4]).

Additional valuation evidence is needed, including work to understand health values

associated with the natural environment and the benefits and cost effectiveness of different
policy and intervention options.

Mirroring the discussion of more integrated policy and delivery, further cross-sectoral and
interdisciplinary evidence is also required. For example, Sandifer et al. (2015; 1) [2] highlight
the need for ‘a new coalition of ecologists, health and social scientists and planners to
conduct research and develop policies that promote human interaction with nature and
biodiversity’. Alongside quantitative data, qualitative evidence can provide valuable
information to help understand and inform the design of interventions for particular target
groups (Hitchings 2013 [3]; McCormack et al. 2010 [1]). Environmental interventions are
often complex and likely to impact on a number of health, social, cultural and educational
outcomes. Despite this, current research and evaluation approaches often fail to effectively
identify the breadth of impact. A better understanding of the complexity of outcomes may
help support integrated policy and delivery.

There are significant opportunities to take advantage of technological developments and

make greater use of existing data. Sandifer et al. (2015) [2] highlight the potential for using
data from mobile and wearable sensors to collect a variety of health-relevant data for many
different kinds of environmental exposures. They also note that very little biodiversity
monitoring data is integrated and made accessible in ways that make it useful for public
health purposes.

Natural England (2015b) [4] provides a summary of the evidence on access and
engagement, including discussion of what is known, live research questions, and what is not
known on key topics. This covers patterns of use of the natural environment, evidence about
places where people interact with nature, and issues that arise from engagement. Evidence
gaps are identified in relation to health and wellbeing, including understanding of complex,
long-term pathways and the effectiveness of interventions.

Further gaps around our understanding of impacts and in realising the benefits of exposure
to the natural environment include:

 What factors or interventions are effective in encouraging health related use of the
natural environment?
 What are the necessary conditions for natural environments to be effective in promoting
health?
 What can be learnt from international contexts and cultures?
 How can interventions be scaled up to have substantial effects at national level?
 How can settlements be redesigned to increase social interaction and engagement with
green spaces?
 At what life stages are interventions to promote the health benefits of natural
environments most effective?
 How can benefits to population health be achieved through environmental interventions
without exacerbating health inequalities?
 What role does the natural environment have in promoting individual or community health
related resilience (particularly in relation to multiple deprivation)?

31
4 Conclusions
This review has summarised the links between natural environments and human health and
wellbeing. It has considered global ecosystem services, landscape scale and other indirect
links before focusing in more detail on direct benefits associated with use of green space and
exposure to the natural world. It has used robust and reliable evidence relevant to the
environment, health and wellbeing in the United Kingdom.

At global level, human health and wellbeing depends on air, food, shelter and water, all part
of or derived from the natural environment. If global or local thresholds are exceeded, human
health and wellbeing may be threatened. At an intermediate level natural environments are
crucial for healthy functioning landscapes that support health through a variety of pathways
including flood avoidance or mitigation, and reduced air pollution.

At a more local level, there is relatively strong evidence that direct contact with the natural
world can bring a range of physical and mental health and wellbeing benefits. Particularly
strong evidence is seen in for mental health and wellbeing and a healthy internal biome and
immunological system. The extent and ways in which different socio-demographic groups
benefit is variable and is influenced by a range of factors. Although lower socio-economic
and other marginalised groups often have poorer access to good quality natural
environments they appear to enjoy the greatest benefit. There is evidence that suggests
greenness may have a role in supporting the physical activity, and therefore the physical and
mental health, of specific groups. Factors such as the type and quality of the environment
and exposure mode moderate the potential benefit of exposure to or use of natural
environments. There is some evidence that suggests specific interventions which make use
of the natural environment as a setting are effective in promoting health and are cost-
effective.

Overall, whilst the evidence for many of the links between the natural environment and
human health is tentative, this is a complex area and the evidence has developed rapidly in
the last ten years. Key research gaps and needs exist in relation to causality, intervention
effectiveness, outcome complexity, and pragmatic policy and delivery strategies. Despite
this, multiple robust syntheses of the evidence suggest that there are several plausible
impact pathways and mechanisms linking natural environments to health and wellbeing.

In summary, particularly strong links are found in relation to: mental health and wellbeing;
development and maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of inflammatory-
based diseases; and in relation to variation between social and demographic groups.
Generally positive links are found concerning: landscape, ecosystem and city scale linkages;
perceived health status; mortality; maternal health, pregnancy outcomes and children’s
cognitive development; other physiological outcomes; physical activity (in selected groups);
and social contact and community cohesion. The evidence is mixed or unclear in relation to:
global ecosystem services, biodiversity and health; obesity; physical activity (at population
level); environmental quality; the type of natural environment; exposure mode, duration and a
dose-response relationship; the monetary value of benefits; and the effectiveness of policy
and interventions.

The review has also summarised the quality of evidence used in each section, categorising
this from A-D. Table 3 shows the strength of links between the natural environment and
human health by quality of evidence. This highlights the following four areas where there is
high quality evidence of strong links or generally positive associations, which may provide a
useful focus for future policy and delivery:

 Mental health and wellbeing;

32
 Development and maintenance of a healthy immune system and reduction of
inflammatory-based diseases;
 Landscape, ecosystem and city scale linkages;
 Physical activity (in selected groups).

Rather than waiting until the evidence base is significantly more extensive, there appears to
be a strong case for developing more integrated policy and practice across the health and
natural environment spheres, with a strong emphasis on learning and evaluation to improve
understanding of the most effective approaches and assess impacts. Such policies have the
potential to deliver health and wellbeing benefits, and strengthen the case for protecting and
enhancing the natural environment. It may be helpful to focus future efforts in a small number
of pilot areas, because of the potential for integrating across a range of policy areas as part
of place based approaches at local and regional scales. At the same time, continued effort is
required to improve the evidence base to address key issues identified in this evidence
statement and technical appendix, and careful design, implementation and evaluation of
integrated policy and delivery in pilot areas will offer opportunities in this regard.

Table 3 Strength and quality of evidence by section

Quality of evidence
Evidence largely from peer- Evidence largely from mixed
reviewed systematic or non- evidence sources, individual
systematic reviews or meta- journal articles and reports, or
analyses [A] [B] sources that have not been
peer reviewed [C] [D]
Strength of Strong 3.2.1 Mental health and 3.3.2 Variation between social
links between evidence wellbeing and demographic groups
natural 3.2.5 Development and
environments maintenance of a healthy
and human immune system and reduction of
health inflammatory-based diseases
Generally 3.1.2 Landscape, ecosystem 3.2.2 Perceived health status
positive and city scale linkages 3.2.3 Mortality
links 3.3.1 Physical activity (in 3.2.6 Maternal health,
selected groups) pregnancy outcomes and
children’s cognitive development
3.2.7 Other physiological
outcomes
3.3.3 Social contact and
community cohesion
Evidence 3.1.1 Global ecosystem 3.2.4 Obesity
is mixed services, biodiversity and health 3.3.4 Environmental quality
or unclear 3.3.1 Physical activity (at 3.3.5 The type of natural
population level) environment
3.5.1 The effectiveness of 3.3.6 Exposure mode, duration
existing policy and interventions and a dose-response
relationship
3.4 The monetary value of
benefits
3.5.2 Future policy and delivery
options

33
References
As indicated in Section 2, all evidence included is categorised using the following
descriptions, which are not intended to be strictly hierarchical. The code for each individual
journal article, report or other piece of evidence is shown in square brackets throughout the
text in the ‘Findings’ section of the technical appendix and at the end of each reference in the
list below.

Description Evidence quality code

Peer reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis [1]
Peer reviewed non-systematic review or meta-analysis [2]
Other peer reviewed journal article or peer reviewed report [3]
Other (including non-peer reviewed reports etc.) [4]
Not applicable [5]

Alcock I, White M P, Wheeler B W, Fleming L E and Depledge M H (2014). Longitudinal

Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environmental
Science and Technology 48(2): 1247-1255. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es403688w
[3]

Allen J and Balfour R (2014). Natural solutions for tackling health inequalities: UCL Institute
of Health Equity. http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/natural-solutions-to-tackling-
health-inequalities [4]

Annerstedt M and Wahrborg P (2011). Nature-assisted therapy: systematic review of

controlled and observational studies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 39(4): 371-388.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21273226 [1]

Astell-Burt T, Mitchell R and Hartig T (2014). The association between green space and
mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health 68(6): 578-583. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/06/jech-2013-
203767 [3]

Barton J and Pretty J (2010). What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for
improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44(10): 3947-3955.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903183r?journalCode=esthag [2]

Bateman I J, Abson D, Beaumont N, Darnell A, Fezzi C, Hanley N, Kontoleon A, Maddison

D, Morling P, Morris J, Mourato S, Pascual U, Perino G, Sen A, Tinch D, Turner K and
Valatin G (2011). Economic values from ecosystems. The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [2]

Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Horton R, Adams C, Alleyne G, Asaria P, Baugh V, Bekedam H,

Billo N, Casswell S, Cecchini M, Colagiuri R, Colagiuri S, Collins T, Ebrahim S, Engelgau M,
Galea G, Gaziano T, Geneau R, Haines A, Hospedales J, Jha P, Keeling A, Leeder S,
Lincoln P, McKee M, Mackay J, Magnusson R, Moodie R, Mwatsama M, Nishtar S, Norrving
B, Patterson D, Piot P, Ralston J, Rani M, Reddy K S, Sassi F, Sheron N, Stuckler D, Suh I,
Torode J, Varghese C and Watt J (2011). Priority actions for the non-communicable disease

34
crisis. The Lancet 377(9775): 1438-1447.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960393-0/abstract
[2]

Bernstein A S (2014). Biological diversity and public health. Annual Review of Public Health
35: 153-167. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-
182348 [2]

Bodicoat D H, O'Donovan G, Dalton A M, Gray L J, Yates T, Edwardson C, Hill S, Webb D R,

Khunti K, Davies M J and Jones A P (2014). The association between neighbourhood
greenspace and type 2 diabetes in a large cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 4(12).
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/12/e006076.full [2]

Bowler D E, Buyung-Ali L M, Knight T M and Pullin A S (2010a). A systematic review of

evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public
Health 10: 456. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/456 [1]

Bowler D E, Buyung-Ali L, Knight T M and Pullin A S (2010b). Urban greening to cool towns
and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning
97(3): 147-155. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204610001234 [1]

Bragg R and Atkins G (2016). A review of nature-based interventions for mental health care.
Natural England Commissioned Report NECR204. Natural England, Peterborough.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4513819616346112 [4]

Bratman G N, Hamilton J P and Daily G C (2012). The impacts of nature experience on

human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1249(1): 118-136. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2011.06400.x/abstract;jsessionid=D91E56DD3DE8D1F55B3413007A71C3DB.f03t01
[2]

Buck D and Gregory S (2013). Improving the public’s health: a resource for local authorities.
The King’s Fund, London. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/improving-publics-health
[4]

Bunch M, Parkes M, Zubrycki K, Venema H, Hallstrom L, Neudorffer C, Berbés-Blázquez M

and Morrison K (2014). Watershed Management and Public Health: An Exploration of the
Intersection of Two Fields as Reported in the Literature from 2000 to 2010. Environmental
Management 54(2): 240-254. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-014-0301-3# [1]

Church A, Burgess J and Ravenscroft N (2011). Cultural services. The UK National

Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-
WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [2]

Cohen-Cline H, Turkheimer E and Duncan G E (2015). Access to green space, physical

activity and mental health: a twin study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 69
(6): 523-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25631858 [3]

Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and

Technological Advice. Nineteenth meeting, Montreal, 2-5th November. Item 4.1 of the
provisional agenda. Biodiversity and human health. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/19/6.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=sbstta-19 [5]

35
Convention on Biological Diversity and World Health Organization (2015). Connecting Global
Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health. State of Knowledge Review. CBD, Montreal.
https://www.cbd.int/en/health/stateofknowledge [2]

Coombes E, Jones A P and Hillsdon M (2010). The relationship of physical activity and
overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Social Science and
Medicine 70(6): 816-822.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953609008156 [3]

Coombes E, van Sluijs E and Jones A (2013). Is environmental setting associated with the
intensity and duration of children's physical activity? Findings from the SPEEDY GPS study.
Health and Place 20: 62-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23376730 [3]

Curtin S (2009). Wildlife tourism: the intangible, psychological benefits of human-wildlife

encounters. Current Issues in Tourism 12(5/6): 451-474.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500903042857#.VkRIgOIxn3U [3]

Dadvand P, Sunyer J, Basagana X, Ballester F, Lertxundi A, Fernandez-Somoano A,

Estarlich M, Garcia-Esteban R, Mendez M A and Nieuwenhuijsen M J (2012). Surrounding
greenness and pregnancy outcomes in four Spanish birth cohorts. Environ Health Perspect
120(10): 1481-1487. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205244/ [3]

Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen M J, Esnaola M, Forns J, Basagaña X, Alvarez-Pedrerol M,

Rivas I, López-Vicente M, De Castro Pascual M, Su J, Jerrett M, Querol X and Sunyer J
(2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 112(26): 7937-7942.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/26/7937.short [3]

Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D and Vlaev I (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing

behaviour through public policy. Institute for Government and the Cabinet Office, London.
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf [4]

Donovan G H, Michael Y L, Butry D T, Sullivan A D and Chase J M (2011). Urban trees and
the risk of poor birth outcomes. Health and Place 17(1): 390-393.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829210001656 [3]

Donovan G H, Michael Y L, Gatziolis D, Prestemon J P and Whitsel E A (2015). Is tree loss

associated with cardiovascular-disease risk in the Women's Health Initiative? A natural
experiment. Health and Place 36: 1-7.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829215001161 [3]

Droomers M, Jongeneel-Grimen B, Kramer D, de Vries S, Kremers S, Bruggink J-W, van

Oers H, Kunst A E and Stronks K (2015). The impact of intervening in green space in Dutch
deprived neighbourhoods on physical activity and general health: results from the quasi-
experimental URBAN40 study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Online first.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/08/21/jech-2014-205210.abstract [3]

Ekblom-Bak E, Ekblom B, Vikström M, de Faire U and Hellénius M-L (2014). The importance
of non-exercise physical activity for cardiovascular health and longevity. British Journal of
Sports Medicine 48(3): 233-238. http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/3/233 [3]

Fell D and Giorgi S (2016). ORGANISER: A behavioural approach for influencing

organisations. Cabinet Office, London.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/organiser-a-behavioural-approach-for-
influencing-organisations [4]

36
Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Forns J, Plasència A and
Nieuwenhuijsen M J (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential
green and blue spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 12: 4354-4379. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/4/4354 [1]

Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Rojas-Rueda D, Plasència A and

Nieuwenhuijsen M J (2016). Residential green spaces and mortality: a systematic review.
Environment International 86: 60-67.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300799 [1]

Godfray H C J, Blacquière T, Field L M, Hails R S, Petrokofsky G, Potts S G, Raine N E,

Vanbergen A J and McLean A R (2014). A restatement of the natural science evidence base
concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 281(1786). http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1786/20140558 [5]

Godfray H C J, Donnelly C A, Kao R R, Macdonald D W, McDonald R A, Petrokofsky G,

Wood J L N, Woodroffe R, Young D B and McLean A R (2013). A restatement of the natural
science evidence base relevant to the control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281(1786).
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1768/20131634 [5]

Greenspace Scotland (undated). Greenspace is good and we’ve proved it. Summary report.
Stirling.
http://greenspacescotland.org.uk/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=133&mid=129&fileid=
184 [4]

Groenewegen P P, van den Berg A E, de Vries S and Verheij R A (2006). Vitamin G: effects
of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health 6(1): 149.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/149 [3]

Hanson S and Jones A (2015). Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 49(11): 710-715.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/11/710.abstract [1]

Hartig T, Evans G W, Jamner L D, Davis D S and Gärling T (2003). Tracking restoration in

natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(2): 109-123.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494402001093 [3]

Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S and Frumkin H (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of
Public Health 35: 207-228. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-
publhealth-032013-182443 [1]

Hitchings R (2013). Studying the preoccupations that prevent people from going into green
space. Landscape and Urban Planning 118: 98-102.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920461200268X [3]

Honold J, Lakes T, Beyer R and van der Meer E (2015). Restoration in Urban Spaces:
Nature Views From Home, Greenways, and Public Parks. Environment and Behavior. Online
first. http://eab.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/20/0013916514568556.abstract [3]

Hough R L (2014). Biodiversity and human health: evidence for causality? Biodiversity and
Conservation 23(2): 267-288. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10531-013-0614-1
[1]

37
Hunter R F, Christian H, Veitch J, Astell-Burt T, Hipp J A and Schipperijn J (2015). The
impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic
review and recommendations for future research. Social Science and Medicine 124(0): 246-
256. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614007837 [1]

James P, Banay R F, Hart J E and Laden F (2015). A review of the health benefits of
greenness. Current Epidemiology Reports 2(2): 131-142.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40471-015-0043-7 [2]

Jepson R, Robertson R and Cameron H (2010). Green prescription schemes: mapping and
current practice. NHS Scotland, Edinburgh.
http://www.healthscotland.com/documents/4300.aspx [4]

Jones A P, Brainard J, Bateman I J and Lovett A A (2009). Equity of access to public parks in
Birmingham, England. Environmental Research Journal 3(2): 237-256.
http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/publications/publication/equity-of-access-to-public-parks-in-
birmingham-england/ [3]

Juyoung L, Bum-Jin P, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T and Miyazaki Y (2009). Restorative effects

of viewing real forest landscapes, based on a comparison with urban landscapes.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 24(3): 227-234.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02827580902903341 [3]

Kardan O, Gozdyra P, Misic B, Moola F, Palmer L J, Paus T and Berman M G (2015).

Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports 5: 11610.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11610 [3]

Kihal-Talantikite W, Padilla C M, Lalloue B, Gelormini M, Zmirou-Navier D and Deguen S

(2013). Green space, social inequalities and neonatal mortality in France. BMC Pregnancy
and Childbirth 13: 191. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/13/191 [3]

Kretsch C and Keune H (2015). Ecosystem services and human health. In: Potschin, M. and
K. Jax (eds): OpenNESS Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428.
http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book [4]

Lachowycz K and Jones A P (2011). Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the
evidence. Obesity Reviews 12(5): e183-e189.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x/abstract [1]

Lovell R, Husk K, Cooper C, Stahl-Timmins W and Garside R (2015). Understanding how

environmental enhancement and conservation activities may benefit health and wellbeing: a
systematic review. BMC Public Health 15: 864. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-
2458/15/864 [1]

Lovell R, Wheeler B W, Higgins S L, Irvine K N and Depledge M H (2014). A systematic

review of the health and well-being benefits of biodiverse environments. J. Toxicol. Environ.
Health Part B 17: 1-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597907 [1]

Maas J, Spreeuwenberg P, Van Winsum-Westra M, Verheij R A, de Vries S and

Groenewegen P P (2009). Is green space in the living environment associated with people's
feelings of social safety? Environment and planning A 41(7): 1763.
http://epn.sagepub.com/content/41/7/1763.abstract [3]

38
MacKerron G and Mourato S (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 992-1000.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013000575 [3]

Maltby E, Ormerod S, Acreman M, Blackwell M, Durance I, Everard M, Morris J and Spray C

(2011). Freshwaters - openwaters, wetlands and floodplains. The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [2]

Markevych I, Fuertes E, Tiesler C M T, Birk M, Bauer C-P, Koletzko S, von Berg A, Berdel D
and Heinrich J (2014). Surrounding greenness and birth weight: Results from the GINIplus
and LISAplus birth cohorts in Munich. Health and Place 26: 39-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24361636 [3]

Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P, Boyce T, McNeish D, Grady M M and Geddes I (2010). Fair
Society, Healthy Lives. The Marmot Review. University College London. London.
http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/projects/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review [4]

McCormack G R, Rock M, Toohey A M and Hignell D (2010). Characteristics of urban parks

associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health and
Place 16(4): 712-726. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829210000316
[1]

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.,

Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.aspx [2]

Mind (2013). Feel better outside, feel better inside. London

http://www.mind.org.uk/media/336359/Feel-better-outside-feel-better-inside-
report.pdf?ctaId=/about-us/policies-issues/ecotherapy/slices/read-the-report/ [4]

Mitchell R (2013). Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than
physical activity in other environments? Social Science and Medicine 91: 130-134.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22705180 [3]

Mitchell R and Popham F (2007). Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61(8): 681-683.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/61/8/681.full [3]

Mitchell R and Popham F (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health

inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372(9650): 1655-1660.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2808%2961689-X/abstract
[3]

Mitchell R J, Richardson E A, Shortt N K and Pearce J R (2015). Neighborhood

Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental Well-Being. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 49(1): 80-84. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25911270 [3]

Natural England (2009). An estimate of the economic and health value and cost
effectiveness of the expanded WHI scheme 2009. Natural England Technical Information
Note TIN055. Natural England, Peterborough.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35009 [4]

Natural England (2014). Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the
Environment 2. Natural England, Peterborough.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392 [4]

39
Natural England (2015a). Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The national
survey on people and the natural environment. Annual Report from the 2013-14 survey.
Natural England Joint Report JP009. Natural England, Peterborough.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6579788732956672?category=47018 [4]

Natural England (2015b). Summary of evidence: Access and engagement. Natural England
Access to Evidence Information Note EIN003. Natural England, Peterborough.
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5035523150184448 [4]

Natural Resources Wales (2015). Come Outside! Welsh Natural Resources improve
wellbeing. http://whatworkswellbeing.org/pioneers/come-outside-welsh-natural-resources-
improve-wellbeing/ [4]

Nef Consulting (2013). The economic benefits of Ecominds: A case study approach. London.
http://www.mind.org.uk/media/338566/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Ecominds-report.pdf [4]

O'Brien L and Morris J (2013). Well-being for all? The social distribution of benefits gained
from woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environment: The International Journal of
Justice and Sustainability 19(4): 356-383.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2013.790354 [2]

Plane J and Klodawsky F (2013). Neighbourhood amenities and health: examining the
significance of a local park. Social Science and Medicine 99: 1-8.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361300556X [3]

Pretty J, Barton J, Bharucha Z P, Bragg R, Pencheon D, Wood C and Depledge M H (2015).

Improving health and well-being independently of GDP: dividends of greener and prosocial
economies. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. Online first.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09603123.2015.1007841 [3]

Pretty J N, Barton J, Colbeck I, Hine R, Mourato S, MacKerron G and Wood C (2011). Health
values from ecosystems. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. UK
National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. http://uknea.unep-
wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [2]

Richardson E A and Mitchell R (2010). Gender differences in relationships between urban

green space and health in the United Kingdom. Social Science and Medicine 71(3): 568-575.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20621750 [3]

Rook G A (2013). Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity from the natural
environment: An ecosystem service essential to health. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110(46): 18360-18367. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24154724
[2]

Salmond J A, Tadaki M, Vardoulakis S, Arbuthnott K, Coutts A, Demuzere M, Dirks K N,

Heaviside C, Lim S, Macintyre H, McInnes R N and Wheeler B W (2016). Health and climate
related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environmental
Health 15 (Suppl 1): 36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4895605 [3]

Sandifer P A, Sutton-Grier A E and Ward B P (2015). Exploring connections among nature,

biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance
health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services 12: 1-15.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001648 [2]

40
Shanahan D F, Fuller R A, Bush R, Lin B B and Gaston K J (2015). The Health Benefits of
Urban Nature: How Much Do We Need? BioScience 65(5): 476-485.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/04/biosci.biv032.abstract [2]

Spurling N, McMeekin A, Shove E, Southerton D and Welch D (2013). Interventions in

practice: re-framing policy approaches to consumer behaviour. Sustainable Practices
Research Group. http://www.sprg.ac.uk/projects-fellowships/theoretical-development-and-
integration/interventions-in-practice---sprg-report [4]

Thompson Coon J, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear R, Barton J and Depledge M (2011). Does
participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on
physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 45: 1761. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21291246 [1]

van den Berg M, Wendel-Vos W, van Poppel M, Kemper H, van Mechelen W and Maas J
(2015). Health Benefits of Green Spaces in the Living Environment: A Systematic Review of
Epidemiological Studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Online first.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866715001016 [1]

van Dillen S M E, de Vries S, Groenewegen P P and Spreeuwenberg P (2011). Greenspace

in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: adding quality to quantity. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health. http://jech.bmj.com/content/66/6/e8.short [3]

Villeneuve P J, Jerrett M, Su J G, Burnett R T, Chen H, Wheeler A J and Goldberg M S

(2012). A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada.
Environmental Research 115: 51-58. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22483437 [3]

Völker S and Kistemann T (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and well-being
- Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. International Journal of
Hygiene and Environmental Health 214(6): 449-460.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21665536 [1]

Ward Thompson C, Roe J, Aspinall P, Mitchell R, Clow A and Miller D (2012). More green
space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol
patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning 105(3): 221-229.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611003665 [3]

Ward Thompson C, Roe J and Aspinall P (2013). Woodland improvements in deprived urban
communities: What impact do they have on people's activities and quality of life? Landscape
and Urban Planning 118: 79-89.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204613000224 [3]

Weimann H, Rylander L, Albin M, Skärbäck E, Grahn P, Östergren P-O and Björk J (2015).
Effects of changing exposure to neighbourhood greenness on general and mental health: a
longitudinal study. Health and Place 33: 48-56.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829215000179 [3]

Whear R, Coon J T, Bethel A, Abbott R, Stein K and Garside R (2014). What is the impact of
using outdoor spaces such as gardens on the physical and mental well-being of those with
dementia? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. J Am Med Dir Assoc
15(10): 697-705. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25037168 [1]

Wheeler B, Lovell R, Higgins S, White M, Alcock I, Osborne N, Husk K, Sabel C and

Depledge M (2015). Beyond greenspace: an ecological study of population general health

41
and indicators of natural environment type and quality. International Journal of Health
Geographics 14(1): 17. http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/14/1/17 [3]

White M P, Alcock I, Wheeler B W and Depledge M H (2013). Would You Be Happier Living
in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data. Psychological Science 6:
920-928. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/23/0956797612464659.abstract [3]

White M P, Elliott L R, Taylor T, Wheeler B W, Spencer A, Bone A and Fleming L E (2016).

Recreational physical activity in natural environments and implications for health: a
population based cross-sectional study in England. Preventive Medicine 91: 383-388.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27658650 [3]

Willis K, Crabtree B, Osman L M and Cathrine K (2015). Green space and health benefits: a
QALY and CEA of a mental health programme. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Policy, 1-18.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21606544.2015.1058195?journalCode=teep20
[3]

Willis K and Osman L (2005). Economic benefits of accessible green spaces for
physical and mental health: scoping study. CJ Consulting. Oxford.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FChealth10-2final.pdf/$FILE/FChealth10-2final.pdf [4]

Wilson S (2015). National Parks for health and wellbeing: the experience of Mosaic in Wales.
Campaign for National Parks, London.
http://www.cnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploadsfiles/Mosaic%20Wales%20National%20Park
s%20Health%20and%20Wellbeing%20paper%20May%202015.pdf [4]

Woodcock J, Franco O H, Orsini N and Roberts I (2011). Non-vigorous physical activity and
all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Int J Epidemiol.;
40(1): 121-138. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630992 [1]

World Health Organization (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health
Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June,
1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the
World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html [5]

World Health Organization (2014). The determinants of health.

http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/doh/en/ [4]

42
About this Evidence Statement
This evidence statement and the supporting technical appendix have been produced by
Simon Maxwell, Environment Analysis Unit, Defra and Rebecca Lovell, Defra Research
Fellow on the Natural Environment and Human Health at the European Centre for
Environment and Human Health. The Fellowship was funded as part of Defra’s Biodiversity
and Ecosystems Evidence Programme. The evidence statement and technical appendix are
available from the Department’s Science and Research Projects Database at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk (Defra Project Code BE0109).

The European Centre for Environment and Human Health is an interdisciplinary centre,
based in the University of Exeter Medical School, which focuses on understanding the
emerging threats to health and wellbeing posed by the environment, and the health and
wellbeing benefits the natural environment can provide.

For further information please contact:

Dr Simon Maxwell Dr Rebecca Lovell

Environment Analysis Unit Defra Research Fellow on the Natural
Defra Environment and Human Health
Area 1C Nobel House European Centre for Environment and
17 Smith Square Human Health
London SW1P 3JR University of Exeter Medical School
020 8026 4094 Truro Campus, RCHT, Truro TR1 3HD
Simon.Maxwell@defra.gsi.gov.uk 01872 258 173
R.Lovell@exeter.ac.uk
Rebecca.Lovell@defra.gsi.gov.uk

43