UNASSIGNED: Exposure to natural environments, such as parks, forests, and green areas, is often linked to a decrease in stress, anxiety and depression, while contributing to improved emotional wellbeing. These observations are supported by well-established theories, such as the Stress Reduction Theory and Attention Restoration Theory, which highlight the psychological benefits of interacting with nature. However, the relationship between exposure to nature and emotions, and in particular, with emotional regulation, is an evolving aspect of research with no clear conclusions. Emotional regulation can be deliberate in nature, where individuals voluntarily participate in modifying various aspects of their emotions, such as their type, intensity, quality or duration. Alternatively, it may be automatic, originating from sensory perception and acting without full awareness, but significantly influencing emotional experiences. In this context, the environmental self-regulation hypothesis, suggests that people consciously or unconsciously use their physical environment to regulate their emotions.
UNASSIGNED: To analyze the evidence of the relationship between contact with nature and emotional regulation, we conducted this review. Using the PRISMA statement as a reference, we conducted keyword searches in five databases in the period between 2013 and 2023. The databases selected were Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, PsycINFO and ScienceDirect.
UNASSIGNED: In addition, a manual search was carried out of journals in the research field. Initially, from which gray literature, reviews and duplicates were removed in a first step. The resulting articles were then filtered using their titles and abstracts. Subsequently, the abstracts of the 25 selected articles were reviewed and discussed by researchers to reach a final decision based on consensus about the adequacy of each paper. Finally, nine articles were included in the systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: In general terms, this review suggests that research on the relationship between contact with nature and emotional regulation provides valuable insights into how natural environments can contribute to the emotional wellbeing and physical and mental health of the population.

While many studies suggest evidence for the health benefits of nature, there is currently no standardized method to measure time spent in nature or nature contact, nor agreement on how best to define nature contact in research. The purpose of this review is to summarize how nature contact has been measured in recent health research and provide insight into current metrics of exposure to nature at individual and population scales. The most common methods include surrounding greenness, questionnaires, and global positioning systems (GPS) tracking. Several national-level surveys exist, though these are limited by their cross-sectional design, often measuring only a single component of time spent in nature, and poor links to measures of health. In future research, exposure assessment combining the quantifying (e.g., time spent in nature and frequency of visits to nature) and qualifying (e.g., greenness by the normalized difference of vegetation index (NDVI) and ratings on perception by individuals) aspects of current methods and leveraging innovative methods (e.g., experience sampling methods, ecological momentary assessment) will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the health effects of nature exposure and inform health policy and urban planning.

Research has proven that both mindfulness training and exposure to nature have positive health effects. The purpose of this study was to systematically review quantitative studies of mindfulness interventions conducted in nature (nature-based mindfulness), and to analyze the effects through meta-analyses. Electronic searches revealed a total of 25 studies to be included, examining 2990 participants. Three analyses were conducted: Nature-based mindfulness interventions evaluated as open trials (k = 13), nature-based mindfulness compared with groups in non-active control conditions (k = 5), and nature-based mindfulness compared with similar interventions but without contact with nature (k = 7). The overall combined psychological, physiological, and interpersonal effects from pre- to post-intervention were statistically significant and of medium size (g = 0.54, p < 0.001). Moderation analyses showed that natural environments characterized as forests/wild nature obtained larger numerical effects than environments characterized as gardens/parks, as did informal mindfulness compared with formal mindfulness. The small number of studies included, as well as the heterogeneity and generally low quality of the studies, must be taken into consideration when the results are interpreted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017065639.