Time in nature is one of the best-evidenced, lowest-risk tools we have for mental health. Yet according to a new comment piece in Communications Health (a Nature Portfolio journal), most people who could benefit from it simply can't access it, and the researchers argue that's a policy failure, not a personal one.
The piece, "Public Nature-Based Mental Healthcare," was written by an international team led by Ralf C. Buckley (Griffith University), with co-authors spanning conservation and tourism research groups in Australia, India, China, Malaysia, Japan, and Chile. It's not a new experiment, it's a call to action, built on the authors' own prior research and a wide body of existing evidence.
The backdrop: a mental health system running out of runway
The paper opens with a sobering frame: anxiety diagnoses have risen 63% and depression 26% over the past 15 years, according to the 2023 Global Burden of Disease study, and mental health concerns now account for a large share of all medical consultations. The two default tools–antidepressants and psychological counselling–each have real limits: medication carries dependence risk, and counselling capacity simply can't keep pace with demand.
That's where "nature-based mental healthcare" (NBMHC) comes in: spending several hours a week in natural settings, alone, socially, or with a guide. It's not a fringe idea, the authors cite research showing its effectiveness scales with how pristine and biodiverse the environment is, and that it can work both preventively (for people who are doing fine) and therapeutically (for people managing anxiety or depression).
The gap nobody's filling
Here's the crux of the argument: NBMHC currently exists in only two forms. There's the clinical version, delivered through occupational therapy to people formally diagnosed with a mental health condition. And there's the lifestyle version, self-directed nature time, which works, but requires having the money, spare time, and outdoor confidence to go and do it.
The authors point to a telling Australian data point: among roughly 20,000 people assessed with standard psychological scales, half of those classified as having poor mental health never sought any medical treatment at all, while 20% of the people who did receive publicly funded clinical mental healthcare were, by the same scales, already in good mental health. In other words, the people most likely to benefit from something like nature therapy often aren't in the clinical system in the first place, and the clinical system isn't reaching everyone who needs it.
For people without diagnosed conditions, and without the time, money, or confidence to arrange their own nature outings, there's currently... nothing. The paper argues this is a public health gap, not just a lifestyle-choice gap.
The proposed fix: treat parks like health infrastructure
The authors' central proposal is that nature-based mental healthcare needs a third delivery model, a public health approach, built across several government portfolios that don't normally think of themselves as being in the healthcare business:
Parks and greenspace. This is described as the single biggest lever: national parks and forests near cities, plus greenspace in poorer suburbs (not just wealthy ones), maintained and expanded through public investment. The economic case is striking, the authors cite prior research estimating that national parks already contribute more than US$5 trillion a year to the global economy through visitor mental health benefits alone, roughly 500 times what's currently spent on protected-area budgets worldwide.
Guides and infrastructure. Many people simply don't feel confident navigating nature safely on their own. The paper points to China's model as an example at scale: nature-therapy infrastructure built into 1,200 forest reserves, designed to deliver a billion person-hours of nature exposure a year. Free ranger-led walks are floated as a low-cost way to lower the entry barrier elsewhere.
Education and transport. People who visited parks as kids tend to keep visiting as adults, so school outdoor programs matter for the long run. And access is a hard logistical constraint: in Japan, China, and India, many parks are reachable by public transport; in the US, Canada, Australia, and Chile, you often need a car. The authors also note that public health campaigns (like anti-smoking efforts) rarely get pointed at nature exposure, despite the same "reduced healthcare costs" logic applying.
Culture. The paper is careful to flag that this isn't one-size-fits-all. Some countries have strong cultural traditions of outdoor recreation; others treat public space mainly as a venue for social gatherings rather than solo recreation. Social, religious, or gender-based restrictions can also limit who feels able to use these spaces freely. Any public rollout, the authors argue, must adapt to local culture rather than assume a universal template.
The bottom line
The suggestions are to influence individual lifestyles with public health campaigns that aim to change cultural expectations and create the public perception that spending time in nature contributes to health and social status. They named a gap between "sick enough for clinical care" and "well-resourced enough for lifestyle medicine," and argue that public infrastructure such as parks, transport routes, school programs, and guided access, is the missing third pillar. The authors' pitch to policymakers is straightforward: money spent expanding and connecting green space isn't just an environmental cost, it's a healthcare investment that pays for itself through reduced treatment costs and higher workplace productivity.
But, what if we considered this less from a policy angle and reliance on the government and more from a local community level? Who in our community can we support? What do we as individuals have capacity to offer by way of supporting everyone to get out and have some time in nature?
Asking the person new to your neighbourhood on a walk to show them the local nature spots and parks. Ensuring the elderly in our community feel supported in getting into nature, having younger people to go with who can assist them with driving and mobility. Inviting your kids friends on nature plays if their parents aren't so nature based. If you're a parent, encouraging your local school to include more nature based excursions. Organising family events in nature so you can all go together.
If you feel lost on where or what to do, reaching out to those in your community who are more well-versed. The neighbour who goes camping and hiking every other weekend. The family member who knows the good beaches and ask if you cab go with them next time they go. Google local community groups like tree planting, group nature walks, morning swim clubs etc. There are more people offering these services and often they are free or have a small cost, but they are not waiting on the government to make it happen.
Source
Buckley, R.C., Singh, R., Zhang, Z.J., Liddon, M., Zhong, L., Underdahl, S., Cooper, M-A., Westaway, D., Chauvenet, A.L.M. & Brough, P. "Public nature-based mental healthcare." Communications Health 1, 6 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44528-026-00012-7
