Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Feb 19;17(1):e70008. doi: 10.1111/aphw.70008

Virtual nature and well‐being: Exploring the potential of 360° VR

Wiebke Finkler 1,✉, Lara Vlietstra 2, Debra L Waters 3, Lei Zhu 1, Steve Gallagher 4, Ryan Walker 5, Ryan Forlong 1, Yolanda van Heezik 6
PMCID: PMC11839238  PMID: 39970473

Abstract

This proof‐of‐concept study investigates the potential of immersive 360° VR nature videos to enhance emotional well‐being and nature connectedness, focusing on their use as e‐health interventions within social marketing initiatives. The research examined four key variables: (i) presence, or the extent to which participants felt immersed in the VR experience; (ii) emotional responses, measured by changes in participants' positive and negative affect; (iii) user experience, including enjoyment and engagement; and (iv) nature connectedness, reflecting participants' state of connection to the natural world. Using a mixed‐method approach, participants (n = 63) engaged with four VR nature videos, with presence, emotional states and nature connectedness measured before and after the experience. Results showed high levels of presence, with participants reporting feelings of calmness, escape and connection to nature. Positive affect increased post‐VR, although negative affect remained unchanged. Nature connectedness improved across all participants, highlighting the potential of VR nature experiences to support well‐being. Individual differences, such as prior VR experience and gender, influenced perceptions, emphasising the need to tailor interventions. This study provides a foundation for using 360° VR nature videos in social marketing to promote emotional well‐being, particularly for those with limited access to natural environments.

Keywords: e‐health, social marketing, virtual nature

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of 360° Virtual Reality (VR) as an immersive technology has gained traction in various fields, including e‐health and social marketing interventions (Fraustino et al., 2018; Nelson et al., 2020). Specifically, 360° VR nature videos are emerging as a promising tool for health campaigns when aiming to foster mental well‐being and enhance quality of life. Research into the use of virtual reality in healthcare has demonstrated significant benefits, particularly for mental health and stress relief (Chirico & Gaggioli, 2019). Nature‐based interventions, which typically rely on direct exposure to green spaces, have long been associated with improved mental well‐being (Capaldi et al., 2014). Potentially, 360° VR videos offer a virtual means of delivering those same benefits to individuals who are otherwise restricted in their access to natural environments.

The potential of virtual reality in healthcare

In healthcare settings, immersive 360° VR experiences are proving promising for e‐health interventions (Dooley, 2017; Ma, 2020). While the positive impact of exposure to natural environments on mental and physical well‐being is well‐established – with research demonstrating that natural landscapes can foster relaxation, promote restoration and reduce stress (Bratman et al., 2019; Frumkin et al., 2017; Tran et al., 2022) – that type of intervention is not readily available for the frail, or those who are otherwise incapacitated. However, 360° VR nature videos can potentially benefit such groups with limited access to natural environments; e.g., older adults (Van Houwelingen‐Snippe et al., 2021) and individuals with physical disabilities or those in confined settings (Appel et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2023; Nadkarni et al., 2017).

Van Houwelingen‐Snippe et al. (2021) showed that 360° VR nature experiences helped reduce anxiety, increase relaxation and improve overall mental well‐being among older adults facing mobility challenges or living in urban environments with limited natural landscapes. By simulating real‐world environments, 360° VR allows individuals to experience the restorative effects of nature without leaving their homes.

Individuals with physical disabilities or those who are confined to institutional settings can also benefit from 360° VR nature interventions. Li et al. (2022) found that VR nature experiences had a positive impact on individuals confined to long‐term care facilities, contributing to a reduction in feelings of isolation and enhancing their sense of well‐being. A similar outcome from using immersive virtual environments was observed for patients in rehabilitation centres (Nadkarni et al., 2017).

In this study, we examine four key variables to better understand the impact of 360° VR nature experiences. Presence, the feeling of “being there” in a virtual environment, plays a critical role in enhancing user engagement and immersion as higher levels of presence in VR experiences are associated with more profound emotional responses and greater persuasive power (Baños et al., 2004). In a social marketing context, increased presence can help individuals feel more connected to the message or environment being conveyed, leading to a more impactful experience (Nelson et al., 2020).

Emotional responses are also a crucial component of immersive experiences. Positive emotional states, in particular, foster a deeper connection with virtual environments, leading to more positive attitudes and behaviours. Research on 360° videos shows that immersive environments can produce both positive and negative effects, contributing to changes in mood and emotional well‐being (Chirico & Gaggioli, 2019). Emotional shifts are essential in contexts where social marketers aim to evoke empathy or motivate behavioural change, particularly in areas like environmental conservation or health promotion (Breves & Heber, 2020; Fraustino et al., 2018).

User experience, encompassing factors such as ease of use, enjoyment and overall satisfaction with the VR system, is another critical variable that influences how individuals engage with 360° videos. A positive user experience is essential for sustained engagement with immersive technologies, particularly in interventions that require repeated use to maximise their benefits or for long‐term behaviour change. User experience directly impacts emotional engagement, presence and the overall effectiveness of VR as a tool for social marketing and e‐health interventions (Bowman & McMahan, 2007; Dooley, 2017).

Nature connectedness is another key variable in this study. Nature connectedness refers to an individual's emotional, cognitive and experiential relationship with the natural environment (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009). This connection mediates many of the health benefits derived from nature exposure (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009), with research demonstrating that a stronger bond with nature is linked to improved well‐being and overall quality of life (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2022; White et al., 2021). Studies suggest that nature connectedness, whether through direct or virtual exposure, can foster both emotional and cognitive benefits (Chan et al., 2021). In the context of 360° VR nature experiences, enhancing nature connectedness can potentially amplify the psychological and therapeutic impacts, making such interventions particularly effective for encouraging pro‐environmental behaviours and supporting health‐related initiatives (Breves & Heber, 2020).

The COVID‐19 pandemic has underscored the importance of maintaining a connection with nature, especially for individuals with limited mobility or access to outdoor spaces. Immersive 360° VR experiences, which simulate natural environments, provide a valuable means of delivering the psychological benefits of nature exposure even in indoor settings (Brooks et al., 2017; Chang et al., 2020; Nguyen & Brymer, 2018). To maximise both the emotional and therapeutic benefits, however, these immersive experiences need to be combined with positive user experiences and presence.

The aims of this study

While the potential of immersive VR nature experiences is undoubtedly promising, more research is needed into the mechanisms underlying their impact on presence, emotional responses, user experience and nature connectedness before deploying them in healthcare settings. As a proof‐of‐concept study, then, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of immersive 360° VR nature experiences on these four variables (i.e., presence, emotional responses, user experience and nature connectedness). By exploring the influence of 360° VR nature videos on the adult population at large, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how 360° VR nature videos might be deployed as tools for social marketing in e‐health interventions.

Our primary objective was to explore the impact of 360° VR nature videos by assessing: (i) the degree to which participants felt a sense of presence, or how “real” the experience felt to them (ii) the emotional response of participants by measuring their emotional states before and after the VR experience, (iii) the user experience of participants and how that manifests as positive and negative affect and (iv) the effect on nature connectedness.

By focusing on how immersive 360° VR technology can affect emotional well‐being and nature connectedness, this proof‐of‐concept study aims to test its potential as a social marketing tool within the broader framework of health interventions.

METHODS

360° video production

Four two‐minute 360° VR nature videos were produced for this study, each consisting of a single static, unedited shot of a different natural environment (see Table 1). The videos captured real‐time action in these settings (e.g., waves, bird sounds, the movement of lake water and the behaviour of ducks). The videos were filmed with an Insta 360 ONE X2 camera, and the scenes featured four diverse natural environments, namely: a beach, a forest track, a mountain lake and a duck pond in a botanic garden. The goal was to provide an immersive yet simple experience, focusing on the inherent dynamics of nature without editing or manipulating the footage.

TABLE 1.

360‐degree video screenshot from the four nature scenes.

Nature scene screenshot

graphic file with name APHW-17-0-g007.jpg

Scene #1: Botanical garden duck pond 360 video

graphic file with name APHW-17-0-g005.jpg

Scene #2: Mountain Lake 360 video

graphic file with name APHW-17-0-g006.jpg

Scene #3: Beach 360 video

graphic file with name APHW-17-0-g002.jpg

Scene #4: Forest walk 360 video
Open in a new tab

All four videos were presented to participants in the study in a random order to avoid any sequence‐related bias. Transitions between videos were designed to maintain immersion, with a five‐second fade to black followed by a gradual fade‐in to the next video, giving participants time to reset between experiences. Prior to being tested, each participant watched an “onboarding video” on the supplied VR headset that featured a filmed replica of the lab environment where testing took place. The purpose of this was to ease participants into the VR experience by familiarising them with the equipment and setting.

Participant recruitment and experimental testing

Study participants were recruited via a flier circulated at the University of Otago, which included an information sheet and online link to a short survey where people could express their interest to take part in the study. The survey asked people about their previous experience with VR as well as their age and gender. The study utilised a convenience sampling approach, whereby participants were initially recruited based on their availability and willingness to take part. To enhance the representativeness of the sample, however, additional participants were selected if they added to under‐represented demographic groupings (age, gender, education level and ethnicity). This method aimed to ensure a more diverse and balanced participant group, reflecting a broad range of perspectives and experiences within the target population. To achieve adequate representation across all parameters we included in the analysis, 63 participants were tested.

Experimental testing was conducted in a lab setting between the 9th and 18th of May 2022, following University of Otago Ethics research approval (Reference DMO75M). After reviewing the information sheet and signing the informed consent form, participants were given Meta Oculus Quest 2.0 headsets to view the 360° VR videos while seated in a swivel chair. Playback of the videos was controlled remotely by the research team using a laptop to ensure consistency of the experience for all participants, independent of their abilities to use controls. Participants initially watched the onboarding 360° VR video, which was used to guide participants in using the VR technology effectively and ease them into the virtual environment.

Survey evaluation

The study employed a mixed‐method approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative research elements to assess participants' experiences with the immersive 360° VR nature videos. This approach allowed for a more in‐depth understanding of the impact of the VR experience on various factors, including presence, emotional responses, user experience and connectedness to nature.

Quantitative research

Quantitative data were collected through surveys conducted before and after participants experienced the VR videos. Participants answered the pre‐ and post‐VR surveys using a supplied laptop/computer. The surveys were run using Qualtrics. These surveys were used to determine the participants' attitudes, preferences and prior experiences with nature and VR before viewing the 360° VR nature videos, and their perceptions, emotional reactions and any shifts in attitudes afterwards. The data were then downloaded and exported to SPSS v29 for subsequent statistical analysis.

The survey questionnaire included the following sections:

  • Emotional States: We used a two‐dimension circumplex model of affect to assess the participants' average emotional states before and after watching the 360° VR videos (Polak et al., 2015). The two dimensions included in the model are affective valence and arousal (Barrett & Russell, 1999; Polak et al., 2015). Affective valence, as the horizontal dimension of the circumplex model, represents happiness, ranging from unhappy to happy, or from displeasure to pleasure. On the other hand, arousal, as the vertical dimension, refers to activation and ranges from low‐activation affects to high‐activation affects (Russell, 2003). A number of affect words that reflect different extents of happiness and activation have been used to describe and measure the two relevant dimensions (Polak et al., 2015; Russell, 1980; Scherer, 2005).

    The Structural Summary Method (SSM) is one of the most widely used approaches for calculating such average emotional states (Tracey, 2000), and can be done using R software (Girard et al., 2018). The SSM function includes three parameters: elevation, amplitude and displacement, which determine the X‐ and Y‐values in the visualised two‐dimensional circular model (Girard et al., 2018; Tracey, 2000). Accordingly, we measured the participants' affective states before and after viewing the 360 VR videos based on their answers to a series of short questions which included specific emotion‐denoting terms (covering both pleasant‐unpleasant terms and activated‐deactivated terms). Ratings of each emotional state ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). We used R 4.2.0 (the circumplex package) to calculate the SSM parameters and plot the results within the circumplex space.

  • User Experience: After viewing, the participants' user experience of the 360 VR videos was measured using a user experience questionnaire (UEQ). This questionnaire covers six scales, i.e. attractiveness, efficiency, perspicuity, dependability, stimulation and novelty, with a total of 26 items. It provides a comprehensive assessment of users' impressions, feelings and attitudes towards a product from different dimensions (Laugwitz et al., 2008). To integrate this questionnaire into this project and reduce the complexity of the entire questionnaire, we used the short version of the UEQ (i.e. UEQ‐S), which included eight pairs of characteristics: Obstructive ↔ Supportive, Complicated ↔ Easy, Inefficient ↔ Efficient, Confusing ↔ Clear, Boring ↔ Exciting, Not interesting ↔ Interesting, Conventional ↔ Inventive, and Usual ↔ Leading edge. The UEQ‐S is a recommended means because it takes a shorter time to complete and can still predict the full UEQ accurately (Kollmorgen et al., 2024).

    Specifically, for each pair of characteristics, the participants were asked to give a score ranging between 1.0 and 5.0, with 1.0 and 2.0 denoting the negative and 4.0 and 5.0 the positive (3.0 = neutral attitude). A multi‐factor ANOVA (GLM) was used to assess the influence of socio‐demographic factors, including age, gender and prior VR experience, on the mean scores of each characteristic pair, thereby providing detailed insights into the factors shaping the user experience.

  • Sense of Presence: The experience of presence was measured by 14 items drawn from the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ), from http://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/index.php (Panahi‐Shahri, 2009; Schwind et al., 2019). Based on the questionnaire's instructions we reversed a few items to ensure that all 14 items were consistent in terms of the meaning of agreement or disagreement. The IPQ items were designed based on a structural equation model (SEM). The questionnaire includes three sections: (i) spatial presence (SP, five items, a higher score representing a greater feeling of being physically present in the virtual space), (ii) involvement (INV, four items, a higher score representing a greater degree of awareness of the virtual experience while isolating the external world) and (iii) experienced realism (REAL, four items, a higher score meaning the participants tend to feel the virtual world is real), plus an additional general item: sense of being there (SB, one item, a higher score meaning the participants tend to have a sense of being actually located in the virtual environment). The alternatives for each item were represented using 7‐point Likert scales. A multi‐factor ANOVA tested the influence of sex, age and previous experience on presence.

  • Connectedness to Nature: Participants' connection to nature was assessed using the 13‐item Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) (Mayer et al., 2009; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). This scale measured participants' sense of oneness with nature on a 5‐point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating stronger nature connectedness. The pre‐ and post‐VR viewing CNS scores were compared using a paired‐sample t‐test to identify any changes in nature connectedness as a result of viewing the 360° VR nature videos. A multi‐factor ANOVA (GLM) was conducted to examine the potential influence of demographic factors such as age, gender and VR experience on CNS scores.

Qualitative research

Two open‐ended questions were used to gather additional feedback from participants, asking what they liked most and least about their video experience. These responses provided further insight into participants' subjective impressions of the immersive 360° VR content.

  • Thematic Analysis: The qualitative data were analysed using manual thematic analysis based on the approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Two researchers independently conducted initial coding to identify recurring patterns in the data, after which the analysis shifted to identifying and reviewing emergent themes and sub‐themes across the entire data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This iterative process ensured that the themes accurately reflected the qualitative data. The researchers then collaboratively refined and named the themes through interpretive analysis to ensure consistency and reliability in the thematic analysis, thereby enhancing the rigour and validity of the findings.

By incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study was able to capture a holistic view of participants' experiences with the immersive 360° VR nature videos. Quantitative analyses provided empirical insights into measurable outcomes such as presence, emotional states and connectedness to nature, while the qualitative thematic analysis offered deeper, more nuanced interpretations of the user experience.

RESULTS

Participant characteristics

A total of 63 participants were tested. Both genders were well represented (26 males, 37 females) and categorised into three age groups: 18–34 (26 participants), 35–55 (28 participants) and 55 + (9 participants). The majority (69.8%, 44 participants) held post‐graduate or higher qualifications, while 16 participants (25.4%) held a Bachelor's degree, and three participants (4.8%) had lower‐level qualifications than a Bachelor's degree or did not have any qualification. The participants covered a range of ethnic groups: New Zealand European (39), Māori (5), Asian (7), European (11), American (5) and African (1) (the total number above was over 63 because participants might belong to more than one ethnic groups) Most (95.2%) participants reported good health.

A significant portion (52.4%) had never experienced 360° VR videos on headsets, while 28.6% were occasional users and 18.0% were experienced users. The diverse participant sample aimed to capture a broad range of perspectives and experiences related to immersive VR nature videos.

Results revealed what participants most and least enjoyed about being in real‐life nature environments: most mentioned a feeling of calmness (19 participants). Participant 10 stated, “It is very calm and I can spend time with myself but in a very friendly environment”. Bad weather was most frequently disliked (21 participants); e.g., participant 4, “Harsh weather appearing suddenly”, as well as unpleasant bugs (e.g., biting sandflies and spiders) and harsh environments (e.g., steep and muddy paths) (11 and 11 participants, respectively).

Preferences for experimental video clips

In general, the mean preference scores for the four video clips used in the current study were significantly different (ranked preference scores ranged from 1.0 to 4.0, while 1.0 = least liked clip, 4.0 = most liked clip; Friedman test, Chi‐Square [df = 3] = 20.47, p < 0.001). The participants' most preferred video clip was the “Beach”, followed by “Mt. Cook” and the “Forest” (Figure 1). The least‐liked clip was the “Duck Pond”.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Mean ranks of the four video clips used in the experiment. Scores/ranks ranged between 1 (least‐liked) and 4 (most‐liked).

Viewing experience: evaluation of emotional state

Parameters and model fitting based on the SSM are visualised in Figure 2. The model fit for all the groups was above 0.80, which represents a good fit. The parameters reflect the average affective status of the sample population and the placement of such affective status on the circle of the circumplex model.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Visualisation of the participants' pre‐ and post‐viewing affective states for all the participants (a) and for male and female participants, respectively (b). The blue, pink, green and orange shaded polygons represent 95% confidence intervals.

At the start of the trial, the participants were generally in a happy (higher affect) mood and with a low level (but close to medium, i.e., the centre‐point of the arousal axis) of activation (Figure 2). After watching the 360° videos, their affective valence increased while the arousal decreased (i.e., they became happier and calmer, Figure 2a). The non‐overlapping 95% confidence intervals of the plots in Figure 2 suggest a significant change in the affective states before and after viewing. The gender breakdown (Figure 2b) showed a similar shift in affect and arousal for both genders.

Viewing experience: positive and negative impressions of the 360° nature experience.

Evaluations were generally positive across all criteria (Figure 3a). While most socio‐demographic factors did not significantly influence these scores, gender had a significant influence on two pairs of characteristics (Figure 3b); Usual ↔ Leading edge (GLM F[1, 61] = 5.21, p = 0.026, η2 = 0.079) and Conventional ↔ Inventive (GLM F[1, 61] = 4.18, p = 0.045, η2 = 0.062), in that females tended to give a higher score in terms of inventive and leading edge (Figure 3b). Previous experience with VR significantly influenced the rating of Not interesting ↔ Interesting (GLM F[2, 60] = 3.85, p = 0.027, η2 = 0.114; Figure 3c) in that experienced VR users tended to give a lower score in terms of “interesting”.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Participants' impressions of the videos (a). A higher score represents positive characteristics, while a lower score corresponds to negative characteristics. Mean scores (M) and standard deviations (SD) of each pair of characteristics are presented. The gender breakdowns of conventional ↔ inventive and usual ↔ leading edge are given (b). The different ratings of not interesting ↔ interesting in three VR experience groups are also presented (c).

During 14 (24.6%) of participants' experiences, we recorded some degree of external noise (doors slamming in the distance, voices, clock chiming), 14% (n = 8) of participants were subject to Wi‐Fi connection and headset issues prior to starting their experience, and 7% (n = 4) experienced problems using the headset while wearing glasses.

Thematic analysis of the two open‐ended questions “What did you like most about the video experience?” and “What did you like least about the video experience?” resulted in three themes and several subthemes in each question (Table 2). Participants most enjoyed the sound and view of the 360° videos. One participant said, “how real it felt and seemed, how I could look up, down and the image continued. It was like I was standing in the beach myself in real life. The sounds were real. I felt as if I was transported there”. Another participant described “It was immersive and by viewing the surroundings I felt that I was living in the “now“, rather than dwelling on issues and problems”. On the other hand, several participants claimed that the virtual reality environment was “not real” and that they missed the ability to walk around. One participant reported, “I would have like to have moved around in the virtual space and zoomed into things to look at them better. So, the part I liked least was that I was stationary in one spot”.

TABLE 2.

Thematic analysis of study participant's evaluation of what they liked most and least about the VR experience.

Most‐liked aspects of the video experience
Theme Feeling Immersion Video
Subthemes Calm/relaxed feeling (n = 10)

Being fully transported/

Immersed (n = 23)

 Movement of flora and fauna (n = 9)
Familiarity of the scene (n = 9)

360‐views/

Surrounded (n = 11)

 Sounds of nature (n = 24)
Reality of the video (n = 8)
Least‐liked aspects of the video experience
Theme Broken reality Video quality Motion sickness
Subtheme No realistic sense of body (n = 12) Blurry (n = 7) Speed of movements (n = 2)
Intrusion by real world (e.g. squeaking of the chair) (n = 9) Low resolution (n = 13) Feeling nauseous (n = 2)
Uncomfortable headset (n = 10)
Not being able to move (n = 11)
Things missing (smell, breeze etc.) (n = 10)
Open in a new tab

Viewing experience: sense of presence

The IPQ scale had a good level of internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.91). The mean presence score (i.e., scores of all 14 items: 4.95, SD = 1.02, n = 63) was significantly greater than the neutral score of 4.0 (t‐test, t [62] = 7.38, p < 0.001). A mean score greater than 4.0 indicates that the participants tended to consider and experience the virtual environment as real.

Overall presence can be broken down into three main elements (i.e., Spatial Presence (SP), Involvement (INV) and Experienced Realism (REAL)) plus an additional item: Sense of Being There (SB); scores for each of these are presented in Figure 4. The mean scores were significantly higher than 4.0/neutral attitude (one‐sample t‐tests, SB: t (62) = 9.44, p < 0.001; SP: t (62) = 8.46, p < 0.001; INV: t (62) = 5.60, p < 0.001; REAL: t (62) = 2.86, p = 0.006).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

The scores of presence and its four sub‐categories: sense of being there (SB), spatial presence (SP), involvement (INV) and experienced realism (REAL). Mean scores and standard deviations are shown.

360° VR influence on state connection to nature

Post‐viewing CNS scores (mean = 3.90, SD = 0.59) were significantly higher than pre‐viewing scores (mean = 3.38, SD = 0.65, paired sample t‐test, t (62) = −7.85, p < 0.001) (effect size: Cohen's d = 0.838). Demographic variables did not have a significant impact on both pre‐ and post‐CNS. There was no correlation between pre‐viewing CNS scores and Presence scores (Pearson correlation, r = 0.086, n = 63, P = 0.501) but there was a significant positive correlation between post‐viewing CNS scores and presence (r = 0.432, n = 63, P < 0.001), and a significant positive correlation between presence scores and the difference in CNS scores between pre‐ and post‐viewing (r = 0.374, n = 63, P = 0.003), although coefficients were low.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study was to explore the impact of 360° VR nature videos by assessing: (i) the degree to which participants felt a sense of presence, or how “real” the experience felt, (ii) the emotional response of participants by measuring any change in emotional state from before to after the VR experience, (iii) the user experience of participants and how that manifest as positive and negative affect and (iv) nature connectedness from how users perceived the experience. Overall, we found that participants reported significant engagement with the videos, experiencing a strong sense of presence and positive emotional outcomes. However, experienced VR users were more likely to find the experience less interesting, and there were differences between genders in their perceptions of the technology. The experience was associated with an increase in state connection with nature across all sub‐groups.

The findings highlight that 360° VR nature experiences can create an immersive and realistic environment, as reflected in high presence scores. This sense of “being there” is crucial for evoking emotional responses, aligning with Attention Restoration Theory, which suggests that nature‐based experiences must be engaging yet undemanding to foster relaxation, reflection and emotional restoration (Kaplan, 1995). The VR environments in our study appeared to facilitate such experiences, as participants described the videos as calming, and many noted a sense of escape and connection with nature. In their review, Brambilla et al. (2024) reported that in general, computer‐generated immersive nature experiences have elicited more positive psychological responses and enjoyment than 360° videos (Calogiuri et al., 2019; Litleskare et al., 2020), however, they suggested this could be due to cybersickness and presence, both of which could be affected by the quality of the virtual environment. Presence is thought to be highly related to cybersickness (Weech et al., 2019). None of the studies reviewed by Brambilla et al. (2024) had measured or controlled for cybersickness. In contrast, our study was designed to avoid the potential negative impacts of cybersickness by filming from one seated point and requiring participants to be seated during their VR experience. This allowed us to identify various aspects of the VR experience that participants thought interfered with the level of presence, largely independent of the potential for cybersickness (despite being seated throughout and not moving through the scenes, four participants still reported cybersickness).

In terms of emotional state, our results indicated an increase in positive affect following the VR experience, although there was no significant reduction in negative affect. This finding aligns with some studies (Schutte et al., 2017) but contrasts with others where both positive and negative effects were impacted (Mattila et al., 2020; Reese et al., 2022). Participants entered the study with relatively high levels of positive affect, which may explain the lack of reduction in negative emotions such as anxiety or sadness. However, the ability of the VR experience to enhance positive affect aligns with our research objective and demonstrates the emotional benefits of virtual nature exposure, particularly for populations with limited access to real natural environments, such as older adults or those with physical disabilities (Appel et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2023; Nadkarni et al., 2017; Van Houwelingen‐Snippe et al., 2021).

Individual user characteristics, including prior VR experience and gender, played a role in how the 360° VR videos were perceived. For example, females rated the experience as more inventive, while participants with previous VR exposure found the experience less interesting. This reflects the complexity of user engagement in virtual environments, where demographic factors and familiarity with technology can influence the overall experience (Browning et al., 2023; Davidov et al., 2023). Individuals accustomed to immersive environments may require more novel or sophisticated content to remain engaged. This highlights the importance of considering user familiarity and prior exposure when designing and implementing virtual reality interventions for therapeutic or social marketing purposes. It also suggests a further line for future research before deploying VR as a health intervention: if prior experience of VR lessens the impact of 360° VR nature videos, is it possible that there may be a habituation effect that lessens the therapeutic value of the videos over time? Increasing the stochasticity in therapeutic VR nature experiences to avoid monotony has been suggested as a potential means of addressing this issue (Berdejo‐Espinola et al., 2024).

Nature connection has been identified as key in promoting well‐being and pro‐environmental behaviour (Breves & Heber, 2020; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). While the evidence to date supporting the role of immersive virtual nature as a tool for promoting nature connectedness is limited and mixed (Brambilla et al., 2024), we found nature connectedness increased across all participants after the VR experience, irrespective of their socio‐demographic or other user characteristics, indicating that the 360° VR nature videos did indeed help foster a deeper connection with nature, at least in the short term. This was particularly so for those who reported higher levels of presence during the videos. Evidence for the longer‐term effects of immersive virtual reality on nature connectedness is scarce (Brambilla et al., 2024).

This study also highlighted several challenges that can impact the overall immersive experience. Technical issues, such as headset discomfort and occasional Wi‐Fi problems, were reported by some of the participants. Additionally, some felt that the limited video resolution and a lack of sensory completeness – particularly the absence of smells – detracted from the realism of the experience. These findings echo previous research that suggests the sensory limitations of VR, including the lack of physical interaction and multisensory input, can hinder immersion (Calogiuri et al., 2018). In our study, though, participants frequently cited the sounds of the natural environment as one of the most‐liked elements, suggesting that auditory stimuli using ambisonically recorded sound that produces a 360° soundscape that is aligned to the 360° imagery significantly enhances the experience. This finding is consistent with studies showing that natural soundscapes can improve stress reduction (Annerstedt et al., 2013; Hedblom et al., 2019). In other words, our virtual soundscape was able to replicate natural soundscapes and potentially reap any therapeutic benefits they may provide.

Scene preference also played an important role in shaping participants' emotional responses. While participants generally preferred more dynamic environments, such as beaches and mountains, over simpler ones, such as the duck pond, familiarity with the scenes influenced their emotional engagement. Landscape preferences and familiarity have been shown to affect the perceived restorative value of virtual environments (Appel et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2022). A recent review reported that natural landscapes, in particular waterscapes, could be more applicable to VR environments than urban‐scapes or other outdoor environments (Liu et al., 2023). We tested two waterscapes, one in a natural landscape (Mt Cook) and one in a highly modified landscape (duck pond), and also found a preference for the natural water‐scape. Age also moderates the effects of VR experiences, with older adults showing larger increases in positive affect and nature connectedness (Chan et al., 2021), and preferences for less complex scenes (Liu et al., 2023). The roles of preference and familiarity are likely to be critical when designing virtual nature interventions, highlighting the need to carefully select suitable scenes that will evoke positive emotional responses and foster immersion for the target audience.

In conclusion, the findings of this study demonstrate that 360° VR nature videos have significant potential to enhance emotional well‐being and increase nature connectedness, at least in the short term. This is likely to be especially valuable as an intervention to treat individuals with limited access to natural landscapes, such as older adults, individuals with physical disabilities, or those confined to indoor environments (Appel et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2023; Nadkarni et al., 2017; Van Houwelingen‐Snippe et al., 2021). However, technical and sensory limitations, such as video resolution and the absence of multisensory input, remain challenges that need to be addressed to improve the overall immersive experience.

Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of knowing the target audience and its individual characteristics, which should be considered when tailoring 360° VR nature interventions. Overall, our research increases our understanding of the effects and limitations of 360° VR nature experiences, demonstrating their potential to be used to promote well‐being and emotional restoration. These valuable insights should help inform future deployments of 360° VR nature videos in e‐health and therapeutic interventions.

Limitations

This proof‐of‐concept study was conducted in a controlled lab setting, which may limit the generalisability of the findings for real‐world applications where outside influences cannot be similarly controlled. Technological limitations, such as video resolution and incomplete sensory replication, are a consequence of the state of VR technology at the present time. Improvements in the technology going forward will no doubt enhance the immersive quality. Another issue was height perception in the videos. Individual differences in participant height may have influenced the experience, highlighting the need for further research to optimise height representation.

It was beyond the scope of this study to use different treatment groups or to track how much participants explored the virtual environment. While video playback was remotely controlled for consistency, this limited participant interaction with the technology. Future research should explore the effect that participant‐driven interactivity has on immersion.

These challenges raise questions about the broad applicability of VR technology, suggesting the value of comparing the immersive impacts and therapeutic value of traditional nature videos versus 360° VR nature videos. Moreover, because almost all of our study participants reported good health, findings should be cautiously generalised to other populations, such as the disabled. Future research addressing these limitations would provide a clearer understanding of 360° VR's effectiveness and potential in real‐world settings, enhancing user engagement and therapeutic benefits.

CONCLUSION

The use of 360° VR nature videos in e‐health interventions offers a promising and innovative approach to supporting mental health and well‐being. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on how features of 360° VR nature videos influence the immersive quality of the experience, how characteristics of users affect their response to VR nature experiences, and whether VR experiences can promote nature connectedness. These help with understanding how they can best be utilised as an effective healthcare intervention. As demonstrated here, 360° VR nature videos represent a promising direction for e‐health interventions, and their integration into social marketing campaigns could enhance health outcomes across especially compromised parts of the population, such as older adults, the infirm, or those otherwise confined and unable to readily get outside.

The ability to virtually recreate nature offers a new avenue for promoting mental health and reducing stress, particularly in groups with limited access to natural landscapes. Social marketing campaigns promoting the use of 360° VR nature videos have the potential to revolutionise e‐health interventions, making nature's restorative effects accessible to all.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study was approved by the University of Otago Ethics Committee (Reference DMO75M). All participants attended voluntarily and signed an informed consent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project received funding through a University of Otago Commerce Research Grant (Reference GPF2021_1) and University of Otago Ethics research approval (Reference DMO75M). Open access publishing facilitated by University of Otago, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of Otago agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

Finkler, W. , Vlietstra, L. , Waters, D. L. , Zhu, L. , Gallagher, S. , Walker, R. , Forlong, R. , & van Heezik, Y. (2025). Virtual nature and well‐being: Exploring the potential of 360° VR. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 17(1), e70008. 10.1111/aphw.70008

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Research data are not shared.

REFERENCES

  1. Annerstedt, M. , Jönsson, P. , Wallergård, M. , Johansson, G. , Karlson, B. , Grahn, P. , Hansen, Å. M. , & Währborg, P. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—Results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240–250. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Appel, L. , Appel, E. , Bogler, O. , Wiseman, M. , Cohen, L. , Ein, N. , Abrams, H. B. , & Campos, J. L. (2020). Older adults with cognitive and/or physical impairments can benefit from immersive virtual reality experiences: A feasibility study. Frontiers in Medicine, 6, 329. 10.3389/fmed.2019.00329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baceviciene, M. , & Jankauskiene, R. (2022). The mediating effect of nature Restorativeness, stress level, and nature connectedness in the association between nature exposure and quality of life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2098. 10.3390/ijerph19042098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baños, R. M. , Botella, C. , Alcañiz, M. , Liaño, V. , Guerrero, B. , & Rey, B. (2004). Immersion and emotion: Their impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(6), 734–741. 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, L. F. , & Russell, J. A. (1999). The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 10–14. 10.1111/1467-8721.00003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berdejo‐Espinola, V. , Zahnow, R. , O'Bryan, C. J. , & Fuller, R. A. (2024). Virtual reality for nature experiences. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 1–3. 10.1038/s41562-024-01857-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowman, D. A. , & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7), 36–43. 10.1109/MC.2007.257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brambilla, E. , Petersen, E. , Stendal, K. , Sundling, V. , MacIntyre, T. E. , & Calogiuri, G. (2024). Effects of immersive virtual nature on nature connectedness: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Digital Health, 10, 20552076241234639. 10.1177/20552076241234639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bratman, G. N. , Anderson, C. B. , Berman, M. G. , Cochran, B. , De Vries, S. , Flanders, J. , Folke, C. , Frumkin, H. , Gross, J. J. , & Hartig, T. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903. 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, V. , & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Breves, P. , & Heber, V. (2020). Into the wild: The effects of 360 immersive nature videos on feelings of commitment to the environment. Environmental Communication, 14(3), 332–346. 10.1080/17524032.2019.1665566 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks, A. M. , Ottley, K. M. , Arbuthnott, K. D. , & Sevigny, P. (2017). Nature‐related mood effects: Season and type of nature contact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 91–102. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Browning, M. H. , Shin, S. , Drong, G. , McAnirlin, O. , Gagnon, R. J. , Ranganathan, S. , Sindelar, K. , Hoptman, D. , Bratman, G. N. , & Yuan, S. (2023). Daily exposure to virtual nature reduces symptoms of anxiety in college students. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1239. 10.1038/s41598-023-28070-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Calogiuri, G. , Litleskare, S. , & MacIntyre, T. E. (2019). Future‐thinking through technological nature: 279Connecting or disconnecting. In Physical activity in natural settings (pp. 279–298). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315180144-15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Calogiuri, G. , Litleskare, S. , Fagerheim, K. A. , Rydgren, T. L. , Brambilla, E. , & Thurston, M. (2018). Experiencing nature through immersive virtual environments: Environmental perceptions, physical engagement, and affective responses during a simulated nature walk. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2321. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Capaldi, C. A. , Dopko, R. L. , & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta‐analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 92737. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chan, S. H. M. , Qiu, L. , Esposito, G. , Mai, K. P. , Tam, K.‐P. , & Cui, J. (2021). Nature in virtual reality improves mood and reduces stress: Evidence from young adults and senior citizens. Virtual Reality, 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chang, S.‐C. , Hsu, T.‐C. , Chen, Y.‐N. , & Jong, M. S.‐y. (2020). The effects of spherical video‐based virtual reality implementation on students' natural science learning effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(7), 915–929. 10.1080/10494820.2018.1548490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chirico, A. , & Gaggioli, A. (2019). When virtual feels real: Comparing emotional responses and presence in virtual and natural environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(3), 220–226. 10.1089/cyber.2018.0393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidov, A. , Razumnikova, O. , & Bakaev, M. (2023). Nature in the heart and mind of the beholder: Psycho‐emotional and EEG differences in perception of virtual nature due to gender. Vision, 7(2), 30. 10.3390/vision7020030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dooley, K. (2017). Storytelling with virtual reality in 360‐degrees: A new screen grammar. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 11(3), 161–171. 10.1080/17503175.2017.1387357 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraustino, J. D. , Lee, J. Y. , Lee, S. Y. , & Ahn, H. (2018). Effects of 360 video on attitudes toward disaster communication: Mediating and moderating roles of spatial presence and prior disaster media involvement. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 331–341. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Frumkin, H. , Bratman, G. N. , Breslow, S. J. , Cochran, B. , Kahn, P. H. Jr. , Lawler, J. J. , Levin, P. S. , Tandon, P. S. , Varanasi, U. , & Wolf, K. L. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. 10.1289/EHP1663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Girard, J. M. , Zimmermann, J. , & Wright, A. G. (2018). New tools for circumplex data analysis and visualization in R. In Meeting of the Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hedblom, M. , Gunnarsson, B. , Iravani, B. , Knez, I. , Schaefer, M. , Thorsson, P. , & Lundström, J. N. (2019). Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 10113. 10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kollmorgen, J. , Hinderks, A. , & Thomaschewski, J. (2024). Selecting the appropriate user experience questionnaire and guidance for interpretation: The UEQ family, In press, 10.9781/ijimai.2024.08.005, 1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lau, S. S. , Leung, S. S. , Wong, J. W. , Lee, T. C. , Cartwright, S. R. , Wong, J. T. , Man, J. , Cheung, E. , & Choi, R. P. (2023). Brief repeated virtual nature contact for three weeks boosts university students' nature connectedness and psychological and physiological health during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A pilot study. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1057020. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1057020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Laugwitz, B. , Held, T. , & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In HCI and Usability for Education and Work: 4th Symposium of the Workgroup Human‐Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society, USAB 2008, Graz, Austria, November 20–21, 2008. In Proceedings (Vol. 4) (pp. 63–76). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, G. , Li, X. , & Chen, L. (2022). Effects of virtual reality‐based interventions on the physical and mental health of older residents in long‐term care facilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 136, 104378. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Litleskare, S. , MacIntyre, T. E. , & Calogiuri, G. (2020). Enable, reconnect and augment: A new ERA of virtual nature research and application. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1738. 10.3390/ijerph17051738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, P. , Liu, J. , Fernandez, J. , Zou, Q. , & Lin, M. (2023). Positive affect and natural landscape in virtual reality: A systematic review comparing interventions, measures, and outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102011. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ma, Z. (2020). Effects of immersive stories on prosocial attitudes and willingness to help: Testing psychological mechanisms. Media Psychology, 23(6), 865–890. 10.1080/15213269.2019.1651655 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mattila, O. , Korhonen, A. , Pöyry, E. , Hauru, K. , Holopainen, J. , & Parvinen, P. (2020). Restoration in a virtual reality forest environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106295. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106295 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mayer, F. S. , & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mayer, F. S. , Frantz, C. M. , Bruehlman‐Senecal, E. , & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. 10.1177/0013916508319745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nadkarni, N. M. , Hasbach, P. H. , Thys, T. , Crockett, E. G. , & Schnacker, L. (2017). Impacts of nature imagery on people in severely nature‐deprived environments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(7), 395–403. 10.1002/fee.1518 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nelson, K. M. , Anggraini, E. , & Schlüter, A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0223631. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nguyen, J. , & Brymer, E. (2018). Nature‐based guided imagery as an intervention for state anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1858. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01858 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nisbet, E. K. , Zelenski, J. M. , & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. 10.1177/0013916508318748 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Panahi‐Shahri, M. (2009). Reliability and validity of igroup presence questionnaire (ipq). International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  42. Polak, M. A. , Richardson, A. C. , Flett, J. A. , Brookie, K. L. , & Conner, T. S. (2015). Measuring mood: Considerations and innovations for nutrition science. Nutrition for Brain Health and Cognitive Performance, 95–122. 10.1201/b18563-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reese, G. , Stahlberg, J. , & Menzel, C. (2022). Digital shinrin‐yoku: Do nature experiences in virtual reality reduce stress and increase well‐being as strongly as similar experiences in a physical forest? Virtual Reality, 26(3), 1245–1255. 10.1007/s10055-022-00631-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. 10.1037/h0077714 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695–729. 10.1177/0539018405058216 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schutte, N. S. , Bhullar, N. , Stilinović, E. J. , & Richardson, K. (2017). The impact of virtual environments on restorativeness and affect. Ecopsychology, 9(1), 1–7. 10.1089/eco.2016.0042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schwind, V. , Knierim, P. , Haas, N. , & Henze, N. (2019). Using presence questionnaires in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tracey, T. J. (2000). Analysis of circumplex models. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, 641–664. 10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50023-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tran, I. , Sabol, O. , & Mote, J. (2022). The relationship between greenspace exposure and psychopathology symptoms: A systematic review. Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science, 2(3), 206–222. 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2022.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Houwelingen‐Snippe, J. , Ben Allouch, S. , & Van Rompay, T. J. (2021). Virtual reality representations of nature to improve well‐being amongst older adults: A rapid review. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6(3), 464–485. 10.1007/s41347-021-00195-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Weech, S. , Kenny, S. , & Barnett‐Cowan, M. (2019). Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 158. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. White, M. P. , Elliott, L. R. , Grellier, J. , Economou, T. , Bell, S. , Bratman, G. N. , Cirach, M. , Gascon, M. , Lima, M. L. , & Lõhmus, M. (2021). Associations between green/blue spaces and mental health across 18 countries. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 8903. 10.1038/s41598-021-87675-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yin, J. , Bratman, G. N. , Browning, M. H. , Spengler, J. D. , & Olvera‐Alvarez, H. A. (2022). Stress recovery from virtual exposure to a brown (desert) environment versus a green environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101775. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101775 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared.

Articles from Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES