Nature prescribing or nature programming? Complementary practices to increase time in nature to support mental health

Tate, W., Chawla, L., Sachs, A. L., Litt, J. S., & Razani, N. (2024). Nature prescribing or nature programming? Complementary practices to increase time in nature to support mental health. Ecopsychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/eco.2023.0064

Complementary practices to increase time in nature can provide mental health benefits to people with different levels of needAn impressive body of research indicating that nature provides multiple benefits for humans has led to the development of health care initiatives encouraging people to spend more time in nature. Because certain groups of people face more disadvantages than others in accessing high-quality natural spaces, creating equitable access needs to be recognized as a critical component of such initiatives. This paper proposes a network of access and engagement with nature for mental health that also includes “nature prescribing” and “nature programming."

“Nature prescribing’’ initiatives involve health care professionals or other service providers encouraging people to make time in nature an integrated part of their lives. “Encouraging” can take the form of general advising (“counseling”) and/or written prescriptions. This approach “tends to follow a medical model that treats nature like a medication to be administered.” “Nature programming” initiatives, on the other hand, involve people in organized activities in nature to promote health and well-being. This approach typically involves groups, with opportunities for building social relations. With nature programming, people are viewed as ‘‘active agents.’’ With nature prescribing, people are viewed as “passive patients.” Other comparisons between these two approaches as discussed in this paper focus on (1) participant engagement, (2) program leadership and community partnerships, (3) the role of health care providers, and (4) financial sustainability.

Highlighting differences between these two models is not to suggest that one is better than the other. Each has a role to play in promoting population health. Which model is best for participants depends on the needs of the participants, which often include children and families. While both models can serve prevention and early intervention needs, nature programming may be a better fit for people with a diagnosed medical and mental health condition. The two models – prescribing and programming – are presented as being complementary, with each supporting or enhancing the other.

The network of access and engagement with nature to support health and well-being presented in this paper is designed “to make the healing properties of nature available for people with different levels of need.” Recommendations for research and practice on how to implement the different components of this model are offered, including ideas on how to overcome some related barriers.

The Bottom Line

Complementary practices to increase time in nature can provide mental health benefits to people with different levels of need