Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

A generalized relationship between dose of greenness and mental health response

Nature Cities volume 2, pages 739–748 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 22 August 2025

This article has been updated

Abstract

Exposure to green spaces is a boon to urbanites. Over the last four decades, an increasing number of researchers have shown interest in exploring the relationship between the dose of greenness and mental health response. Early studies suggested a linear dose–response relationship, making it challenging to identify the most beneficial doses of greenness. However, findings from a rapidly growing body of recent research indicate the possible existence of a generalized curvilinear pattern. Despite this, these studies have used varying measures and contexts, resulting in inconclusive evidence. Without fully understanding the nature of the relationship, we do not know how to allocate green landscape resources to maximize mental health benefits. This study aimed to identify a generalized pattern to describe the dose–response relationship between urban greenness and mental health. Through a meta-analysis of all relevant studies, we found sufficient samples to generalize the dose–response curve for greenness intensity. Our analysis revealed that a quadratic pattern best fits most of the published greenness curves, and we identified the highly beneficial and best doses of eye-level greenness and top-down greenness. This study identifies and rationalizes a generalized quadratic pattern describing the dose of greenness–mental health response curves, addressing a critical knowledge gap across multiple fields. In practice, a moderate ‘dose’ of urban greenness exposure provides the most salubrious supply of mental health benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Four circumstantial doses of green landscapes–mental health curve theories.
Fig. 2: Meta-analysis of curve refitting between dose of greenness and mental health performance.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All datasets supporting the findings of this study are publicly accessible via GitHub at https://github.com/jli1102/Dose.git. The repository comprises five structured databases: (1) Data 1_Eligibility_784 studies; (2) Data 2_Inclusion_133 studies; (3) Data 3_Extraction_69 curves; (4) Data 4_Curve refitting results; (5) Data 5_Risk of Assessment results. Database 1 includes the full list of 784 eligible studies with key information after screening. The ‘source’ variable indicated the search iteration, with six iterations conducted: sources 0 and 1 searched Web of Science and Scopus from 1985 to 2021; sources 2 and 3 searched the Web of Science and Scopus from 2021 to 2022; sources 4 and 5 included additional studies from citations or alternative sources; source 6 searched the Web of Science and Scopus from 2022 to 2025 and PubMed from 1985 to 2025. Database 2 contains the full list of 133 studies for inclusion with key information, namely, study ID, title, first author, study year, continent, relationship (causal–correlational), mental health type, mental health description, dose type, dose measured range, optimal dose, satisfactory dose and checked (Y/N). Database 3 is the full list of 69 curves with extracted key information for the final curve refitting. The information included curve ID, citation, title, published year, continent, study design type, relationship, DV, DV description, IV presentation methods, dose audit methods, dose description, dose range, optimal dose, satisfactory dose and quality check results. Dataset 4 includes the standardized curve data points and curve-fitting results across four worksheets: eye-level dose curve data points and curve-refitting results; quality-verified eye-level curve-fitting results after risk-of-bias assessment; top-down dose curve data points and curve-refitting results; and quality-verified top-down curve-fitting results after risk-of-bias assessment. Database 5 contains results for the risk-of-bias assessment and quality check. The files have three worksheets: evaluation criteria; quality check results with total points; percent possible points, final quality results and summary chart.

Code availability

The code supporting the findings of this study, especially the R code in the file titled ‘curve fitting code’, is available via GitHub at https://github.com/jli1102/Dose.git.

Change history

References

  1. Gong, P. et al. Urbanisation and health in China. Lancet 379, 843–852 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schumann, G. et al. Precision medicine and global mental health. Lancet Glob. Health 7, e32 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lai, K. Y., Kumari, S., Gallacher, J., Webster, C. & Sarkar, C. Nexus between residential air pollution and physiological stress is moderated by greenness. Nat. Cities 1, 225–237 (2024).

  4. World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All (WHO, 2022).

  5. Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen, B. et al. Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South. Nat. Commun. 13, 4636 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang, C. & Gong, P. Healthy China: from words to actions. Lancet Public Health 4, e438–e439 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu, J. et al. Effects of urban living environments on mental health in adults. Nat. Med. 29, 1456–1467 (2023).

  9. Sullivan, W. C. & Chang, C.-Y. in Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustainability (ed. Dannenberg, A. L.) 106–116 (Island Press, 2011).

  10. Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, U. A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 2, 1–18 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beil, K. & Hanes, D. The influence of urban natural and built environments on physiological and psychological measures of stress—a pilot study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10, 1250–1267 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ulrich, R. S. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environ. Behav. 13, 523–556 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van den Berg, A. E. et al. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 1203–1210 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kweon, B.-S. et al. Anger and stress: the role of landscape posters in an office setting. Environ. Behav. 40, 355–381 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cox et al. Doses of nearby nature simultaneously associated with multiple health benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 172 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. White, M. P. et al. Associations between green/blue spaces and mental health across 18 countries. Sci. Rep. 11, 8903 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Min, K. B. et al. Parks and green areas and the risk for depression and suicidal indicators. Int. J. Public Health 62, 647–656 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. Psychophys. 12, 354–356 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryan, R. L. Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environ. Behav. 37, 3–42 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuoka, R. H. Student performance and high school landscapes: examining the links. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 273–282 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jiang, B. et al. A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 139, 16–25 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shanahan, D. F. et al. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci. Rep. 6, 28551 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barton, J. & Pretty, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3947–3955 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang, B. Establishing Dose–Response Curves for the Impact of Urban Forests on Recovery from Acute Stress and Landscape Preference. PhD thesis, Univ. Illinois (2013).

  26. Suppakittpaisarn, P. et al. Does density of green infrastructure predict preference? Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 236–244 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang, B. et al. Moderate is optimal: a simulated driving experiment reveals freeway landscape matters for driving performance. Urban For. Urban Green. 58, 126976 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Xiao, X. et al. On the use of log‐transformation vs. nonlinear regression for analyzing biological power laws. Ecology 92, 1887–1894 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stevens, J. C. & Marks, L. E. Stevens power law in vision: exponents, intercepts, and thresholds. Fechner Day 99, 82–87 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cook, R. & Calabrese, E. J. The importance of hormesis to public health. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 1631–1635 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 285–291 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Davis, J. M. & Svendsgaard, D. J. U‐shaped dose‐response curves: their occurrence and implications for risk assessment. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 30, 71–83 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hardy, L. Testing the predictions of the cusp catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. Sport Psychol. 10, 140–156 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Frumkin, H. Healthy places: exploring the evidence. Am. J. Public Health 93, 1451–1456 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaplan, R. Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: an analysis of a continuing program. Leis. Sci. 6, 271–290 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuo, M. How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front. Psychol. 6, 1093 (2015).

  37. Kim, P. et al. The plasticity of human maternal brain: longitudinal changes in brain anatomy during the early postpartum period. Behav. Neurosci. 124, 695 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chang et al. The human posterior cingulate and the stress-response benefits of viewing green urban landscapes. NeuroImage 226, 117555 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Li, D. et al. Moving beyond the neighborhood: daily exposure to nature and adolescents’ mood. Landsc. Urban Plan. 173, 33–43 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Li, D. & Sullivan, W. C. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148, 149–158 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ulrich, R. S. et al. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201–230 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang, X. et al. Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 15, 112–122 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jiang, B., Chang, C. Y. & Sullivan, W. C. A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 26–36 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shanahan, D. F. et al. The health benefits of urban nature: how much do we need? BioScience 65, 476–485 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Markevych, I. et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Chiang, Y. C., Li, D. & Jane, H. A. Wild or tended nature? The effects of landscape location and vegetation density on physiological and psychological responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 167, 72–83 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jiang, B. et al. Impacts of nature and built acoustic-visual environments on human’s multidimensional mood states: a cross-continent experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 77, 101659 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jansson, M. et al. Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation—a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 12, 127–133 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Olszewska-Guizzo, A. et al. Window view and the brain: effects of floor level and green cover on the alpha and beta rhythms in a passive exposure EEG experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 2358 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maas, J. et al. Is green space in the living environment associated with people’s feelings of social safety? Environ. Plan A 41, 1763–1777 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Xu, J. et al. Global urbanicity is associated with brain and behaviour in young people. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 279–293 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jiang, B., Schmillen, R. & Sullivan, W. C. How to waste a break: using portable electronic devices substantially counteracts attention enhancement effects of green spaces. Environ. Behav. 51, 1133–1160 (2019).

  53. Hartig, T. et al. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 109–123 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kuo, F. E. & Taylor, A. A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. Am. J. Public Health 94, 1580–1586 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tennessen, C. M. & Cimprich, B. Views to nature: effects on attention. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 77–85 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jiang, B. et al. Perceived green at speed: a simulated driving experiment raises new questions for attention restoration theory and stress reduction theory. Environ. Behav. 53, 296–335 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wallner, P., Kundi, M., Arnberger, A., Eder, R., Allex, B., Weitensfelder, L. & Hutter, H. P. Reloading pupils’ batteries: impact of green spaces on cognition and wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1205 (2018).

  59. Jahncke, H., Eriksson, K. & Naula, S. The effects of auditive and visual settings on perceived restoration likelihood. Noise Health 17, 1–10 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Preis, A. et al. Audio-visual interactions in environment assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 523, 191–200 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Astell-Burt, T., Mitchell, R. & Hartig, T. The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse: a longitudinal study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 68, 578–583 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bertram, C. & Rehdanz, K. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 120, 139–152 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Krekel, C., Kolbe, J. & Wüstemann, H. The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being. Ecol. Econ. 121, 117–127 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Fong, K. C., Hart, J. E. & James, P. A review of epidemiologic studies on greenness and health: updated literature through 2017. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 5, 77–87 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hartig, T. et al. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Van den Berg, M. et al. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, 806–816 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful for financial support from the University Grants Committee (UGC) of Hong Kong SAR, General Research Fund (GRF) number 17606621 (to B.J.), the European Union-funded Horizon Europe project ‘environMENTAL’ (101057429), co-funding by UK Research and Innovation under the UK Government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee (10041392 and 10038599), the National Key R&D Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST 2023YFE0199700) and NSFC grant (82150710554) (to G.S.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Bin Jiang, Jiali Li.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urban Environments and Human Health Lab, HKUrbanLabs, Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Bin Jiang, Jiali Li, Chris Webster & Xueming Liu

  2. Division of Landscape Architecture, Department of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Bin Jiang, Jiali Li & Xueming Liu

  3. Urban Systems Institute, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Bin Jiang, Peng Gong & Chris Webster

  4. Department of Geography and Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Peng Gong

  5. Centre for Population Neuroscience and Stratified Medicine (PONS) and MRC-SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Gunter Schumann

  6. Centre for Population Neuroscience and Stratified Medicine (PONS), Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, Charite University Medicine, Berlin, Germany

    Gunter Schumann

  7. German Center for Mental Health, Berlin-Brandenburg site, Berlin, Germany

    Gunter Schumann

  8. Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

    Gunter Schumann

  9. Department of Plant and Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn

Authors
  1. Bin Jiang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiali Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peng Gong
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Webster
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gunter Schumann
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xueming Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.J. conceptualized the study. B.J., J.L. and X.L. contributed to the research design. B.J., J.L., P.S. and X.L. contributed to the collection and treatment of raw data. B.J., J.L., P.S. and X.L. contributed to the data analysis. B.J. and J.L. contributed to the write-up of the first draft. B.J., J.L., P.G., G.S., C.W. and P.S. contributed to the review and revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Cities thanks Fu Li, Masashi Soga and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, B., Li, J., Gong, P. et al. A generalized relationship between dose of greenness and mental health response. Nat Cities 2, 739–748 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00285-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00285-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene