Further research is needed to explore the capacity of nature to enhance, rather than restore, psychological health and functioning Existing research has widely documented the restorative effects of nature, or how exposure to natural environments can help restore cognitive resources and emotional well-being following stress or fatigue. However, the instorative benefits of nature—the positive effects that occur even in the absence of stress or fatigue—are less understood. Unlike restoration, which involves recovering from a depleted state, instoration refers to improvements beyond an individual’s baseline, such as enhanced mood, cognitive performance, and overall well-being. The authors of this literature review argue that this research gap may reflect bias in the field, with greater attention given to nature’s restorative effects than its instorative benefits. They further suggest that although research on these benefits has increased over the past decade, much of it remains grounded in established theories, particularly Attention Restoration Theory and Stress Reduction Theory, which may have contributed to overlooking nature’s broader instorative effects. This scoping review sought to address these limitations by mapping existing research on the restorative and instorative effects of nature exposure, identifying common research methods, and highlighting gaps in the literature to guide future research.
A literature search was conducted to identify experimental and quasi-experimental studies examining the effects of nature versus urban exposure on cognition, affect, and perceived restoration. Studies considered for inclusion examined exposure through direct interaction (e.g., walking or spending time in an environment), indirect exposure (e.g., viewing images or videos of natural or urban settings), and multisensory approaches (e.g., auditory exposure to natural versus urban sounds or virtual reality simulations). Studies involving both short exposures and long-term interventions were eligible; however, only those that controlled the timing and nature of environmental exposure were included. No restrictions were placed on publication date. Fifty-four studies, comprising 61 experiments, met these criteria and were included in the review. The studies were published between 1996 and 2024 and were conducted primarily in the United States, Canada, and Europe. The average age of study participants was 17 years, with participants including children, young adults, and adults. A range of measures were used to assess cognitive (working memory, attention, and executive functioning), affective (mood, stress, and emotional state), and physiological (heart rate, blood pressure, or salivary cortisol) responses to environmental exposure. Synthesis of findings across studies utilized a flexible process guided by a Grounded Theory approach. The studies were classified as: (1) explicit stressor restorative studies (“explicit stressor studies”) in which participants experienced a stressor, such as cognitive tasks or emotionally distressing stimuli, before environmental exposure; (2) implicit stressor restorative studies (“implicit stressor studies”) that did not involve intentional stressors but used cognitive or affective assessments, which likely induced mental fatigue before environmental exposure; or (3) instorative studies that did not expose participants to a stressor, demanding task, or cognitive or affective assessment before environmental exposure.
The majority of studies investigated short-term exposure to an environment, such as sitting or walking in nature or urban areas (31 experiments) or exposure to photographs (15 experiments). The main results compared beneficial effects across studies by examining the proportion that reported positive, negative, mixed, or non-significant findings. Although instorative experiments represented the smallest group of studies, they consistently demonstrated beneficial effects. All four instorative experiments examining cognitive outcomes reported positive effects (100% success rate). Of the six studies examining affective outcomes, four (66.7%) reported positive effects, while one reported mixed effects and one reported non-significant effects. Similarly, all three instorative experiments that examined perceived restoration found positive effects (100%). The authors note that “these high success rates are particularly noteworthy given that instorative studies assess enhancement from neutral baselines rather than recovery from depleted states.” Among implicit stressor studies (studies that did not intentionally induce stress), most found positive effects from exposure to nature. Of the studies examining cognitive outcomes, 61.9% (13 of 21) reported positive effects, while the remaining studies found either negative or non-significant results. For affective outcomes, 71.4% (15 of 21) reported positive effects, with only a small number finding negative, mixed, or non-significant results. The strongest findings were for perceived restoration, with 92.9% (13 of 14) reporting positive effects. Explicit stressor experiments (studies that intentionally exposed participants to a stressor) also mostly found positive effects. For cognitive outcome studies, 75% (12 of 16) reported positive effects, while the remaining found mixed or non-significant results. Similarly, 75% of studies (6 of 8) examining affective outcomes reported positive effects, with the others reporting mixed or non-significant findings. The strongest results were found for perceived restoration, with 85.7% (6 of 7) reporting positive effects.
When restorative studies were combined (studies with implicit or explicit stressors), 67.6% showed positive effects on cognition, 72.4% on affect, and 90.5% on perceived restoration. Compared with instorative studies, which reported positive effects in 100% of cognitive and perceived restoration outcomes and 66.7% of affective outcomes, instorative studies showed stronger effects on cognition and perceived restoration. However, restorative studies showed slightly stronger effects on affect. The higher success rates found in instorative studies were unexpected and may challenge the idea that nature’s benefits increase with higher levels of stress. However, the authors note that with only eight instorative studies, results may not be fully reliable. At the same time, these findings may support the importance of instorative effects: “if nature can consistently enhance functioning from a neutral baseline, this suggests a fundamental mechanism that operates independently of stress recovery.”
By mapping the existing literature comparing nature and urban exposure, this review reveals an imbalance in the evidence base, with studies examining restorative effects greatly outnumbering studies examining instorative effects (45 vs. 8 experiments). Further, theoretical frameworks remain centered on recovery-focused models, and relatively little attention has been given to potential enhancement effects from a neutral, non-depleted baseline. Although the limited number of instorative experiments prevented the authors from offering strong conclusions, findings suggest that nature’s ability to enhance psychological functioning may be an important additional benefit that deserves further research. Several methodological considerations to guide future research are offered. Overall findings highlight both a conceptual and empirical gap in the existing literature. The authors conclude that “addressing this gap may help environmental psychology develop more nuanced models of human–nature interaction, capable of fully capturing nature's capacity to support health, well-being, and long- term resilience.”
The Bottom Line