Nature-based health interventions (NBIs) for the treatment of poor mental health are becoming increasingly common, yet evidence to support their effectiveness is lacking. We conduct a pilot study of a six-week intervention, aiming to engage individuals with wetland nature for the treatment of anxiety and/or depression. We employed a mixed methods design, using questionnaires, focus groups and semi-structured interviews to evaluate the intervention from the perspective of participants (n = 16) and healthcare professionals (n = 2). Results demonstrate significant improvements in mental health across a range of indicators, including mental wellbeing (Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7), stress (Perceived Stress Scale) and emotional wellbeing (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule). Participants and healthcare professionals cited additional outcomes including improved physical health and reduced social isolation. The wetland site provided a sense of escape from participants’ everyday environments, facilitating relaxation and reductions in stress. Wetland staff knowledge of the natural world, transportation and group organisation also played a considerable role in the intervention’s success. These aspects should be considered in future and existing NBIs to maximise benefits to participants. We propose NBIs based in wetlands are an effective therapy option for individuals diagnosed with anxiety and/or depression.

Improved nature provision in urban environments offers great potential for achieving both biodiversity conservation and public health objectives. Yet there are few experimental studies that address links between specific natural environments and physiological and/or psychological changes that could contribute to the health and wellbeing co-benefits of urban nature. In addition, relative to green space, the salutogenic impact of aquatic environments are understudied. Here, we present a feasibility study examining the use of low-cost wearable technology to quantify the psychophysiological effects of short-term exposure to urban wetlands. The study took place at the WWT London Wetland Centre, which is characterized by its contrasting biodiverse wetland habitat and surrounding urban setting. Thirty-six healthy participants experienced counterbalanced exposures to an indoor space, a wetland, an urban site. We continuously recorded electroencephalographic (EEG) data and real-time physiological stress responses; with additional monitoring of post-exposure self-reported mood states. We found a significant effect of site on mean resting heart rate (HR), with increased HR in the urban setting, although this was only observed in participants with pre-existing high stress. We found no significant differences in other measures of physiological stress responses (heart rate variability and electrodermal activity). The EEG data showed modulation of high beta band activity only in the wetland setting, potentially related to changes in attention. However, the EEG findings were confounded by low quality signals and artifacts caused by movement and environmental interference. Assessments of self-reported mood states demonstrated an increase in positive feelings in the wetland setting. A pronounced decrease in negative feelings in the wetland setting was observed in stressed individuals only. Our results suggest that pre-existing stress levels may be an important modulator of the salutogenic effect of blue-green space. We provide partial support for the hypothesis that exposure to blue-green space promotes stress recovery and for the use of low-cost psychophysiological measurements to quantify the potential stress-reducing effects of blue–green space exposure in urban dwellers. Further technological refinement is required for this approach to become a viable tool to support evidence-based decision-making for public health and green/blue space provision.

The health benefits associated with spending time in natural environments have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns and restrictions to safeguard public health have exacerbated the pre-existing mental health crisis and rise of non-communicable diseases. Thus, the importance of nature as a health resource has been elevated, hastening calls for a better understanding of how health benefits might differ across user groups and nature provisions. In this regard, urban green spaces have become the greatest research focus; however, blue spaces, especially inland freshwater (e.g., wetlands), remain less studied. First-hand user experiences are also under-represented. This exploratory study examines the motivations and benefits of active wetland centre users in the UK, both during and after visits. Responses to three open-ended questions were collated online from 385 participants, and a qualitative content analysis was conducted based on an existing taxonomy from users of urban green spaces. The results showed strong motivations to visit due to the biodiversity at the site (mainly the birdlife), while less tangible nature (e.g., fresh air) and amenities were also important. In contrast to other studies on natural environments, physical activity was a less influential motivation. Salient derived effects included positive and intensely positive emotions, relaxation and mental restoration. After visits to wetland centres, feelings of vitality and satisfaction were the most prominent effects that emerged. For decision-makers looking to leverage inland blue spaces for public health benefit, our results highlight the broad range and relative prominence of the reasons for use and the associated perceived health benefits derived by users of UK wetland centres. They highlight how biodiversity, abiotic nature and good amenities are important qualities to consider when planning, managing and encouraging people to use natural environments for health benefit, qualities that may also provide important environmental co-benefits.

1. Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead contamination to which wildlife may be exposed.2. The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to mitigate these have prompted intense and sometimes acrimonious discussion between stakeholder groups, including those advancing the interests of shooting, wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare.3. However, relatively little is known of the perspectives of individual ammunition users, despite their role in adding lead to the environment and their pivotal place in any potential changes to practice. Using Q-methodology, we identified the perspectives of ammunition users in the UK on lead ammunition in an effort to bring forward evidence from these key stakeholders.4. Views were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively distinct perspectives: (a) Open to change-comprised ammunition users that refuted the view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in wild birds, believed that solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning are needed, were happy to use non-lead alternatives and did not feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting; and (b) Status quo-comprised ammunition users who did not regard lead poisoning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. They believed opposition to lead ammunition was driven more by a dislike of shooting than evidence of any harm. 5. Adherents to both perspectives agreed that lead is a toxic substance. There was consensus that involvement of stakeholders from all sides of the debate was desirable and that to be taken seriously by shooters, information about lead poisoning should come from the shooting community.

No abstract