Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective

Gregory N Bratman^{1

2

3

4}, Christopher B Anderson^{3

5}, Marc G Berman^{6

7}, Bobby Cochran⁸, Sjerp de Vries⁹, Jon Flanders^{10

11}, Carl Folke^{12

13

14}, Howard Frumkin^{15

16}, James J Gross¹⁷, Terry Hartig^{18

19}, Peter H Kahn Jr^{1

20}, Ming Kuo²¹, Joshua J Lawler^{1

2}, Phillip S Levin^{1

2

22}, Therese Lindahl¹⁴, Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg²³, Richard Mitchell²⁴, Zhiyun Ouyang²⁵, Jenny Roe²⁶, Lynn Scarlett²⁷, Jeffrey R Smith^{3

5}, Matilda van den Bosch^{28

29}, Benedict W Wheeler³⁰, Mathew P White³⁰, Hua Zheng²⁵, Gretchen C Daily^{3

4

5

31}

Affiliations

¹ School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
² Center for Creative Conservation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
³ Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁴ The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁵ Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁶ Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
⁷ Grossman Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology, and Human Behavior, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
⁸ Willamette Partnership, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
⁹ Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
¹⁰ School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
¹¹ Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX 78746, USA.
¹² Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹³ Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹⁴ Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹⁵ Wellcome Trust, London, UK.
¹⁶ School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
¹⁸ Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
²⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
²¹ Landscape and Human Health Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
²² The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.
²³ Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
²⁴ Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
²⁵ State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
²⁶ Center for Design and Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
²⁷ The Nature Conservancy, Fairfax, VA 22203, USA.
²⁸ School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
²⁹ Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
³⁰ College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
³¹ Stanford Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

PMID: 31355340
PMCID: PMC6656547
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903

Review

Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective

Gregory N Bratman et al. Sci Adv. 2019.

. 2019 Jul 24;5(7):eaax0903.

doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903. eCollection 2019 Jul.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
² Center for Creative Conservation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
³ Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁴ The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁵ Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
⁶ Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
⁷ Grossman Institute for Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology, and Human Behavior, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
⁸ Willamette Partnership, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
⁹ Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
¹⁰ School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
¹¹ Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX 78746, USA.
¹² Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹³ Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹⁴ Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
¹⁵ Wellcome Trust, London, UK.
¹⁶ School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
¹⁸ Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
¹⁹ Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
²⁰ Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
²¹ Landscape and Human Health Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
²² The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.
²³ Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
²⁴ Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
²⁵ State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
²⁶ Center for Design and Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
²⁷ The Nature Conservancy, Fairfax, VA 22203, USA.
²⁸ School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
²⁹ Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
³⁰ College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
³¹ Stanford Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

PMID: 31355340
PMCID: PMC6656547
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903

Abstract

A growing body of empirical evidence is revealing the value of nature experience for mental health. With rapid urbanization and declines in human contact with nature globally, crucial decisions must be made about how to preserve and enhance opportunities for nature experience. Here, we first provide points of consensus across the natural, social, and health sciences on the impacts of nature experience on cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, and other dimensions of mental health. We then show how ecosystem service assessments can be expanded to include mental health, and provide a heuristic, conceptual model for doing so.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

**Fig. 1. A conceptual model for mental health as an ecosystem service.**
(1) Natural features include the characteristics (size, type, and qualities such as configuration) of the nature under consideration. (2) Exposure is estimated through methods that take proximity, likelihood, and duration of nature contact into account. (3) Experience characterizes the types, forms, and intensity of experience that exposure instantiates. (4) Effects (i.e., mental health impacts) will vary according to the moderating influences of individual differences and sociocultural context, which may affect the impact experienced by people [here represented conceptually by groups A to D (e.g., different age groups)], members of which may receive different benefits from nature experience, given these moderators. It is also possible that a group will receive a net negative effect due to individuals’ aversion to urban green spaces or the negative repercussion of green gentrification in their area, for example (represented conceptually by group B). Photographs are from the public domain and free for public use.

**Fig. 2. Configuration and composition of urban green space.**
Along with other factors, spatial configuration and composition should be considered when estimating nature exposure. Different shades of green here represent different types of nature [e.g., clusters of open lawns (A to C) versus trees (D to F)], which are embedded within urban surroundings. Despite these differences, all panels have the same total amount of nature (34 street blocks). Vertical contrasts illustrate differences in configuration of this nature [e.g., (A) versus (B) versus (C)]; horizontal contrasts illustrate differences in its composition (i.e., type of nature) [e.g., (A) versus (D)]. Images (A) to (F), ©2017 Google; images (A)–(C) and (D)–(F) are photographs from the public domain and free for public use.

**Fig. 3. A hypothetical application of the conceptual model using a case study for which antidepressant prescription is the outcome.**
Information is gathered for each of the three steps. (1) Natural features in this case are street trees (other characteristics unspecified, including spatial configuration). (2) Exposure is calculated using a cumulative exposure approach regarding residential street tree density (spatial configuration illustrated here for conceptual purposes but not relevant to this estimation metric). (3) Dose and/or interaction were not taken into account. (4) The effect of decreased antidepressant (AD) prescriptions in areas with more street trees is represented along with other potential benefits (e.g., stress and working memory) not projected specifically in this case, although they are represented conceptually. As illustrated in Fig. 1, different nature options provide benefits that we can quantify over and above a “no nature” version of an urban plan. The model allows us to compare net benefits (total benefits less costs) of different viable plans. Benefits will also likely vary according to the moderating influences of individual differences and sociocultural context, here represented conceptually by groups A to D, as people receive different benefits from nature experience given these moderators. Photographs are from the public domain and free for public use.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. G. C. Daily, Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, 1997).
1. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (World Resources Institute, 2005).
1. Díaz S., Pascual U., Stenseke M., Martin-López B., Watson R. T., Molnár Z., Hill R., Chan K. M. A., Baste I. A., Brauman K. A., Polasky S., Church A., Lonsdale M., Larigauderie A., Leadley P. W., van Oudenhoven A. P. E., van der Plaat F., Shröter M., Lavorel S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y., Bukvareva E., Davies K., Demissew S., Erpul G., Failler P., Guerra C. A., Hewitt C. L., Keune H., Lindley S., Shirayama Y., Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018). - PubMed
1. Li C., Zheng H., Li S., Chen X., Lie J., Zheng W., Liang Y., Polasky S., Feldman M. W., Ruckelshaus M., Ouyang Z., Daily G. C., Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 7396–7401 (2015). - PMC - PubMed
1. Guerry A. D., Polasky S., Lubchenco J., Chaplin-Kramer R., Daily G. C., Griffin R., Ruckelshaus M., Bateman I. J., Duraiappah A., Elmqvist T., Feldman M. W., Folke C., Hoekstra J., Kareiva P. M., Keeler B. L., Li S., McKenzie E., Ouyang Z., Reyers B., Ricketts T. H., Rockström J., Tallis H., Vira B., Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 7348–7355 (2015). - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Medical
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective

Affiliations

Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Figures

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical