Can’t See Nature for the Trees: A Literature Review about Virtual Nature for Well-Being

Paper Title

Can’t See Nature for the Trees: A Literature Review about Virtual Nature for Well-Being

Publication Info

• Topic area: Virtual nature interventions for well-being and their design, representation, and evaluation.
• Keywords: Virtual nature, well-being, HCI, stress reduction, attention restoration, immersive environments, digital nature, physiological measures, ecological connection, systematic review.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: Despite increasing interest in virtual nature as a tool for well-being, the field lacks a systematic understanding of how design, representation, and evaluation choices shape user experiences and outcomes. Research is fragmented and dominated by short-term, passive interventions.
• Significance: Virtual nature offers a potential solution to declining access to real-world nature due to urbanization, climate change, and socio-economic barriers, making it critical to understand its design and impact for well-being.
• Motivation and related work: Prior work has demonstrated the psychological and physiological benefits of nature exposure, grounded in theories like Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Stress Reduction Theory (SRT). However, virtual nature research often focuses narrowly on stress and mood metrics, neglecting broader dimensions like ecological connection, cultural relevance, and user agency.

Solution

• Proposed approach: A systematic literature review of 124 empirical studies to analyze how virtual nature interventions are designed, represented, and evaluated, and to identify gaps and opportunities for future research.
• Novelty:
  1. Consolidates fragmented research into a comprehensive overview of virtual nature for well-being.
  2. Identifies trends and gaps in design, representation, and evaluation practices.
  3. Proposes design inspirations for more inclusive, interactive, and relational virtual nature experiences.
  4. Highlights the need to move beyond passive, short-term interventions to adaptive, pluralistic approaches.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Systematic review using the Scopus database with a structured search query.
  • Screening of 770 records to identify 124 relevant studies.
  • Coding and analysis of studies based on 38 variables, including nature representation, technological design, and well-being measures.
  • Identification of trends and gaps through qualitative synthesis.

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • 73% of studies used passive interaction models, with limited user agency.
  • Forests were the most common environment (62.1%), with underrepresentation of urban, degraded, or culturally specific landscapes.
  • ART and SRT dominated theoretical frameworks (>70%), emphasizing short-term stress and mood relief.
  • Self-reported measures were most common (85.5%), followed by physiological indicators (43.5%), with limited attention to long-term or eudaimonic outcomes.
• Advantage over baselines:
  • Virtual nature consistently improved psychological well-being, reduced stress, and enhanced mood compared to urban or blank control conditions.
  • High-fidelity VR and familiar environments showed stronger effects than lower-fidelity or generic settings.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Studies were predominantly conducted in controlled laboratory settings with short exposure durations.
  • Common metrics included the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and heart rate variability.
  • Limited exploration of longitudinal effects, multisensory engagement, or real-world applications.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Overreliance on passive designs and idealized nature representations.
  • Lack of personalization and cultural specificity.
  • Methodological focus on short-term, quantitative outcomes.
  • Future work should explore active and relational designs, multisensory modalities, and longitudinal, in-the-wild studies.

Summary

This paper systematically reviews 124 studies on virtual nature for well-being, highlighting its potential to improve psychological and physiological outcomes. However, the field is constrained by passive designs, idealized representations, and short-term evaluations. The authors identify three trends—passive design dominance, wilderness bias, and methodological myopia—and propose design inspirations to foster interactive, personalized, and culturally diverse virtual nature experiences. Future research should embrace longitudinal, participatory approaches to better understand and enhance virtual nature’s impact on well-being.