Across health, education, social care and community services, there is growing recognition that many of the difficulties people present with today cannot be fully understood or addressed without attending to the environments in which they live, work, learn and recover. Chronic stress, emotional dysregulation, anxiety, low mood, burnout, loneliness and attentional difficulties are not occurring in a vacuum. They are shaped by fast-paced, cognitively demanding, socially fragmented and often biologically impoverished contexts.

Within this landscape, connection to nature is increasingly understood not as an optional enhancement to wellbeing practice, but as a foundational human need with clear implications for mental health, resilience and functioning. Over the past few years, the evidence base has strengthened considerably, moving beyond small-scale studies and anecdotal claims to include large systematic reviews, meta-analyses and national-level evaluations. The question is no longer whether nature matters, but how we integrate this knowledge into ethical, trauma-informed and accessible practice.

Our Connection to Nature – March 2026 training has been developed in response to this growing evidence base and the practical questions practitioners are now asking: What does connection to nature actually mean in practice? How do we facilitate it safely? And how can it be integrated meaningfully into professional and everyday contexts without oversimplification?

From Exposure to Relationship: Why “Connection” Matters

It is important to distinguish between nature exposure and nature connectedness. Exposure refers to physical contact with natural environments, time spent in green or blue spaces, proximity to greenery, or visual access to nature. Connectedness, by contrast, refers to the psychological relationship a person has with the natural world: how emotionally, cognitively and experientially connected they feel to it.

The relationships between nature connectedness, nature contact and positive psychological outcomes found that nature connectedness showed consistent associations with wellbeing, life satisfaction and meaning in life, often exceeding the effects of contact alone. This has significant implications for practice: simply increasing time outdoors may not lead to sustained benefits if individuals remain psychologically disconnected, overstimulated or unsafe. For practitioners working with people who experience trauma, chronic stress, neurodivergence or social exclusion, this is particularly salient. The capacity to engage with nature in a way that feels regulating, relational and meaningful cannot be assumed. It often needs to be supported, paced and revisited over time.

Leadership and Practice Expertise

Our Connection to Nature – March 2026 training will be led by Associate, Cat Jolleys, whose work sits at the intersection of nature-based facilitation, wellbeing and reflective practice. Cat is a qualified NatureWell Health and Nature Facilitator and Forest School Leader, bringing extensive applied experience of supporting people to build authentic, accessible and sustainable connections with the natural world.

Crucially, Cat’s approach recognises that connection to nature is not universally experienced in the same way. Personal history, sensory preferences, emotional states, access to outdoor environments and feelings of safety all shape how individuals relate to nature. As such, facilitation must be responsive rather than prescriptive.

This aligns closely with trauma-informed principles: prioritising relational safety, choice, pacing, consent and reflection. Participants can therefore expect a learning experience that bridges current research, lived experience and practical application, supporting them to integrate nature connection into their work and lives in ways that are ethical, realistic and sustainable.

The Mental Health Evidence: What We Know

Two recent meta-analyses provide robust population-level evidence linking green space exposure with mental health outcomes. Zhang et al. (2024) found that exposure to green spaces was associated with a lower risk of common psychiatric disorders, including depression and anxiety. Similarly, Liu et al. (2023) reported that increased green space exposure was associated with a reduced risk of depression, with emerging evidence pointing towards protective effects for anxiety. These findings are significant because they move beyond individual wellbeing outcomes and point to preventative potential at a public health level. They support the position that access to nature is a structural determinant of mental health, not simply a lifestyle preference.

Intervention research has also strengthened. A 2023 systematic review of nature-based walking interventions found evidence for improvements in mood, optimism and overall mental wellbeing, alongside reductions in stress, anxiety and rumination (Ma et al., 2023). Notably, interventions delivered in more natural environments often demonstrated stronger effects than those in urban contexts. For practitioners, this highlights that nature is not a neutral backdrop. The characteristics of the environment itself interact with psychological processes, influencing outcomes in ways that matter for design, facilitation and evaluation.

Biodiversity and Environmental Quality

Emerging research suggests that quality of nature may be as important as quantity. A 2024 systematic review examining biodiversity and children’s mental health found early evidence that exposure to biodiverse environments may support wellbeing, while also emphasising the need for further high-quality studies and standardised measures (Davis et al., 2024).

For education and community settings, this invites reflection on how outdoor spaces are designed, maintained and used not merely whether green space exists, but whether it is capable of supporting regulation, curiosity and engagement.

Social Connection, Loneliness and Belonging

Mental health is not only an individual experience; it is fundamentally relational. Loneliness and social isolation are now recognised as significant risk factors for poor mental and physical health outcomes.

A 2024 systematic review of nature-based social interventions found that group activities in natural settings can foster social connection and belonging, particularly when interventions are sustained over time (Sachs, 2024). While quantitative outcomes varied, qualitative findings consistently highlighted the role of shared natural experiences in reducing isolation.

For trauma-informed practice, this is especially relevant. Natural environments can offer lower-threat contexts for social engagement, supporting co-regulation and relational safety in ways that more formal or clinical settings may not.

In England, green social prescribing has transitioned from concept to evaluated practice. The national evaluation of the Preventing and Tackling Mental Ill Health through Green Social Prescribing programme, published in 2024, provides important system-level learning (Haywood et al., 2024). The evaluation highlights both benefits and challenges. Participants frequently reported improvements in wellbeing and connection, but successful delivery depended on skilled facilitation, accessible pathways, strong partnerships and sustainable infrastructure. These findings reinforce the need for trained practitioners, rather than assuming that nature-based provision is inherently beneficial.

NHS England now positions green social prescribing within personalised care pathways, acknowledging its role alongside clinical and community-based approaches (NHS England, n.d.).

How Nature Supports Psychological Regulation

Current evidence suggests multiple interacting mechanisms through which nature supports wellbeing. Natural environments are associated with reductions in perceived stress and improvements in emotional regulation. For individuals living in prolonged states of threat or hyperarousal, nature can support down-regulation when engagement is slow, sensory and non-demanding (Ma et al., 2023).

Modern environments place sustained demands on directed attention. Natural settings can engage attention in gentler ways, allowing cognitive resources to replenish, particularly relevant for burnout and attentional fatigue. The relationship between nature connectedness and meaning in life is increasingly evident (Zhang et al., 2025). Feeling part of something larger than oneself can support identity, purpose and psychological resilience.

From Evidence to Ethical Practice

As the evidence base grows, so does the responsibility to apply it well. Buckley et al. (2024) argue that nature-based mental health approaches require clear specification and methodological rigour, including attention to environment type, sensory input, group composition, facilitation style, duration and frequency.

Poorly designed interventions risk exclusion or unintended harm. Ethical practice therefore requires training that integrates research evidence with reflective, relational facilitation skills.

The Connection to Nature – March 2026 training addresses this need by offering structured exploration of what nature connection means in practice, how it can be facilitated safely and inclusively, and how it can be embedded meaningfully into professional roles and everyday life.

Why This Matters Now

The convergence of evidence from environmental psychology, public mental health, trauma-informed practice and social prescribing leads to a clear conclusion: connection to nature is integral to human wellbeing.

At a time of rising mental health need, social fragmentation and ecological uncertainty, reconnecting people with the natural world is not a retreat from complexity, but a grounded response to it. For practitioners, leaders and organisations, developing competence in this area is about aligning practice with what the evidence increasingly shows supports regulation, resilience, connection and meaning.

The March 2026 event offers an opportunity to deepen that understanding through learning that is reflective, evidence-based and rooted in real-world application.

References

Buckley, R. C., Zhang, Z. J. B., Underdahl, S., Cooper, M. A., Sclippa, K., Brough, P., & Chauvenet, A. L. M. (2024). Nature-based mental health: Research and implementation agenda. The Lancet Planetary Health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00166-9/fulltext

Davis, Z., Jarvis, I., Macaulay, R., Johnson, K., Williams, N., Li, J., & Hahs, A. (2024). A systematic review of the associations between biodiversity and children’s mental health and wellbeing. Environmental Research, 245, 120551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.120551

Haywood, A., Dayson, C., Garside, R., Foster, A., Lovell, R., Husk, K., Holding, E., Thompson, J., Shearn, K., Hunt, H. A., Dobson, J., Harris, C., Jacques, R., Witherley, D., Northall, P., Baumann, M., & Wilson, I. (2024). National evaluation of the Preventing and Tackling Mental Ill Health through Green Social Prescribing Project: Final report. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

Liu, Y., Wang, R., Lu, Y., Li, Z., Chen, H., & Cao, M. (2023). Green space exposure and depression: A meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 335, 122395. 

Ma, J., Lin, P., & Williams, J. (2023). Effectiveness of nature-based walking interventions in improving mental health in adults: A systematic review. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05112-z

NHS England. (n.d.). Green social prescribing. https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-social-prescribing/

Zhang, Y., Wu, T., Yu, H., Fu, J., Xu, J., Liu, L., Tang, C., & Li, Z. (2024). Green spaces exposure and the risk of common psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis. SSM – Population Health, 26, 101630.