What Activities in Forests Are Beneficial for Human Health? A Systematic Review

Sujin Park, Eunsoo Kim, Geonwoo Kim, Soojin Kim, Yeji Choi and Domyung Paek
Additional contact information
Sujin Park: Forest Human Service Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
Eunsoo Kim: Forest Human Service Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
Geonwoo Kim: Forest Human Service Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
Soojin Kim: Forest Human Service Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
Yeji Choi: Forest Human Service Division, Future Forest Strategy Department, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea
Domyung Paek: Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 5, 1-29

Abstract: Over the past decade, clinical trials of forest-based interventions have increased, leading to their recognition as preventive medicine. However, little is known about the differences in health effects according to the activity characteristics of interventions. This study aimed to understand the types of activities and their associated health effects to identify differences in health effects between activities. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched, and methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane ROB2. A total of 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria. Health outcomes were collected from 6264 participants aged 6–98 years, and the sample size was 12–585. The Interventions were walking (n = 21), staying (n = 7), exercise (n = 4), indirect exposure (n = 4), and the activity time was between 10 and 240 min. Overall, walking showed consistent positive health effects, and there were differences in effects on anxiety and depression, cognitive function, stress hormone, and inflammation according to the activity. However, most of the included studies had a high risk of bias, and interventions were limited to specific activities, durations, and frequencies. Although a few limitations remain, the findings in this study are of great significance in providing the basis for the design of forest-based interventions.

Keywords: nature-based intervention; forest-based intervention; forest therapy; psychological outcome; physiological outcome; health promotion (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2692/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2692/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2692-:d:758820

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().