A new theoretical paper in Nature Mental Health is urging researchers to rethink one of the most familiar ideas in environmental health: that nature is simply a place people visit to feel better. In “We are nature: expanding theoretical foundations for nature and health research and practice,” Jennifer S. Litt, William Tate and Louise Chawla argue that the relationship between human well-being and the natural world is far more fundamental, dynamic and biologically embedded than the popular language of “green space” often suggests. Their central message is strikingly direct: human health cannot be fully understood by treating nature as an external backdrop, because people are biological, social and ecological beings whose lives are continuously shaped by natural systems.
The paper arrives as interest in nature-based health interventions is accelerating worldwide. Forest bathing, urban gardens, park prescriptions, outdoor therapy, conservation volunteering and time spent near rivers or coastlines are increasingly being investigated as tools for reducing stress and supporting mental health. Yet the authors suggest that many studies still rely on narrow models that measure exposure in relatively simple ways, such as the amount of vegetation surrounding a home or the time a person spends in a park. These measurements can be useful, but they may overlook the complex mechanisms through which nature affects the body and mind. A tree canopy, for example, can alter temperature, air quality, noise levels, social interaction, physical activity and perceptions of safety simultaneously. The health outcome is therefore unlikely to result from a single “dose” of nature.
A more complete scientific framework must account for multiple pathways operating at the same time. Natural environments can influence psychological health through attention restoration, emotional regulation, sensory stimulation and opportunities for meaning or connection. They can affect physiology by reducing exposure to heat, air pollution and excessive noise while supporting sleep, movement and recovery from stress. At the same time, nature can shape social conditions by creating places where people meet, cooperate and develop a stronger sense of belonging. These pathways are not independent. Lower stress may make social interaction easier; social connection may increase the likelihood of spending time outdoors; and regular physical activity may strengthen both physical and mental resilience. The authors’ theoretical expansion places these interactions, rather than a single isolated mechanism, at the center of nature-and-health research.
The phrase “we are nature” also challenges a deep assumption in conventional health science: the division between the human body and the environment surrounding it. In practice, human physiology is constantly exchanging matter and information with the world. People breathe atmospheric gases, absorb sunlight, consume food produced by ecosystems and host microbial communities that interact with their immune and nervous systems. Environmental conditions can alter hormone levels, cardiovascular activity, inflammatory processes and brain function. From this perspective, nature is not merely an optional therapeutic setting. It is part of the biological context in which health is produced and maintained. The authors’ argument connects mental health research with ecological thinking, suggesting that the boundaries of the individual may need to be widened when scientists study well-being.
This approach also has implications for how researchers define “nature.” A remote wilderness area, a neighborhood park, a community garden, a street lined with trees and a restored wetland may all provide different combinations of ecological and social experiences. Their effects can vary according to biodiversity, accessibility, cultural meaning, maintenance, season, weather and the activities they support. A green space that appears beneficial on a map may be difficult to reach, feel unsafe or exclude people with disabilities. Conversely, a small, carefully designed urban space may provide shade, social contact and sensory relief in a densely built environment. The paper therefore points toward more precise descriptions of environmental experience, moving beyond a simple calculation of how much vegetation exists nearby.
The authors’ framework is particularly relevant to health inequalities. Access to restorative and safe natural environments is not distributed evenly across cities and regions. Lower-income communities may face greater exposure to heat, pollution, flooding and noise while having fewer parks, trees or well-maintained public spaces. Historical planning decisions, housing policy and discrimination can determine who benefits from environmental improvements and who is displaced when neighborhoods are “greened.” Nature-based health strategies could therefore reduce health disparities, but they could also intensify them if investments are directed mainly toward already advantaged communities. A theory that treats ecological conditions as part of health must also examine power, ownership, governance and the unequal ability to shape local environments.
This is where the paper moves beyond the idea of nature as a clinical prescription. If a doctor recommends time in a park, the recommendation may be helpful, but it cannot substitute for action on unsafe streets, unaffordable housing, polluted air or a lack of public transportation. The authors’ perspective encourages practitioners and policymakers to connect individual interventions with structural changes. Health professionals, urban planners, educators, environmental organizations and community groups may need to work together when designing nature-based programs. Evaluation should include not only symptoms of anxiety or depression, but also physical activity, social cohesion, perceived safety, environmental quality, cultural relevance and long-term access. Such a multidimensional approach could reveal why the same intervention produces different outcomes in different communities.
The framework also raises important technical questions about causality. People who spend more time in nature may already have better health, greater mobility, higher incomes or more flexible schedules, making it difficult to determine whether the environment itself caused the improvement. Future studies will need stronger designs, including longitudinal research, natural experiments, randomized interventions where feasible and methods that combine geographic, behavioral, physiological and psychological data. Researchers could track changes in heart-rate variability, cortisol regulation, sleep, inflammatory markers or brain activity alongside self-reported mood and social connection. Wearable sensors, satellite imagery, ecological surveys and location-based data may help capture exposure more accurately, but these tools must be used with careful attention to privacy and consent. The authors’ theoretical contribution is therefore also a call for better measurement and more sophisticated models of interacting causes.
The idea is gaining attention because it offers a powerful explanation for why nature-based experiences can feel both immediate and difficult to quantify. A short walk beneath trees may change sensory input, breathing patterns, physical movement, perceived stress and social behavior within minutes, while repeated access to healthy environments may influence longer-term habits and resilience. At the planetary scale, climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are increasingly recognized as threats to human health, including mental health. Heat waves, disasters, displacement and ecological grief demonstrate that the relationship between people and nature is not only beneficial but also vulnerable. By insisting that humans are participants in ecological systems rather than detached observers of them, Litt, Tate and Chawla propose a broader foundation for research and practice—one in which mental health, public health and environmental health are treated as interconnected dimensions of the same living system.
Subject of Research: Theoretical foundations linking nature, environmental conditions and human mental and physical health.
Article Title: “We are nature: expanding theoretical foundations for nature and health research and practice”
Article References: Litt, J.S., Tate, W. & Chawla, L. “We are nature: expanding theoretical foundations for nature and health research and practice.” Nature Mental Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-026-00706-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1038/s44220-026-00706-5
Keywords: Nature and health; mental health; environmental health; nature-based interventions; green space; ecological systems; health inequalities; urban planning; stress physiology; public health
