Search

There are generally two types of forest therapy. One is to walk or view the forest alone without a guide, and the other is to be accompanied by a guide. This study aimed to investigate the healing factors and health benefits of self-guided forest therapy and guided forest therapy programs and examine the differences in characteristics between interventions. Thirty-seven undergraduate students participated in a randomized experiment (19 in the self-guided forest therapy and 18 in the guided forest therapy program). Data were collected from 111 self-reported essays after each intervention (three essays per person). Results revealed that the forest healing factors contained four categories in common: auditory element, visual element, tactile element, and olfaction element. Forest therapy’s health benefits included five categories in common: change of mind and body, introspection, change of emotion, cognitive change, and social interaction. Among the typical differences, the self-guided forest therapy group mentioned more keywords related to introspection than the guided forest therapy program group. On the other hand, the guided forest therapy program group mentioned more keywords associated with the change of emotion and social interaction than the self-guided forest therapy. Our findings show that self-guided forest therapy provides an opportunity for self-reflection to focus on and think about one’s inner self. On the other hand, guided forest therapy programs provide positive emotional changes and promoting social bonds through interaction with others. Therefore, because the effects that can be obtained vary depending on the type of forest therapy, participants can utilize forest healing to suit the desired outcomes.

This study was conducted to verify the perceived restorativeness of citizens visiting forests on social–psychological stress and psychological resilience according to forest space type. The study involved a questionnaire survey conducted on citizens who visited forests between 1 May and 15 July 2020, when social distancing in daily life was being implemented. Three types of forest spaces (urban forest, national park, and natural recreation forest) were selected for the survey. They used the survey results of 1196 people as analysis data for this study. In this study, the PRS (Perceived Restorativeness Scale) and the PWI-SF (Psychosocial Well-being Index Short Form) were used to evaluate perceived restorativeness and social–psychological stress of citizens visiting forests. In the study, the average score of visitors’ perceived restorativeness was 5.31 ± 0.77. Social–psychological stress was found in the healthy group, potential stress group, and high-risk group. These groups made up 8.0%, 82.5%, and 9.5% of the respondents, respectively. Pearson’s correlation analysis between perceived restorativeness and social–psychological stress revealed that the higher the perceived restorativeness, the lower the social–psychological stress. “Diversion Mood”, “Not bored”, and “Coherence”, which are the sub-factors of perceived restorativeness according to the forest space type, were found to have meaningful results for psychological resilience. However, there was no significant difference in the forest space type between “Compatibility” and social–psychological stress, which are sub-factors of perceived restorativeness. In conclusion, the forest space type affects the psychological resilience of those who visit the forest. Urban forests, national parks, and natural recreation forests are places to reduce stress.

This study aimed to examine the psychological effects of forest activities in a campus forest. A pre-test and post-test control group design was employed to evaluate the psychological effect of forest activities in a campus forest. A total of 38 participants participated in this study (19 in the forest activities group, 19 in the control group). The Profile of Mood State (POMS) questionnaire, the Concise Measure of Subjective Well-Being (COMOSWB), and the modified form of the Stress Response Inventory (SRI-MF) were administered to each participant to assess psychological effects. This study revealed that participants in the forest activities intervention group had significantly positive increases in their mood, stress response, and subjective well-being, comparing with those of control group participants who did not partake in any forest activities. In conclusion, the implementation of forest activities in a campus forest is an efficient strategy to provide psychological well-being benefits to college students.

This study aimed to examine the psychological effects of a campus forest therapy program. To evaluate these, pre-test and post-test control group design was employed. A total of 38 participants participated in this study (19 in the campus forest therapy program group, and 19 in control). The Profile of Mood State (POMS) questionnaire and Modified form of the Stress Response Inventory (SRI-MF) were administered to each participant to assess psychological effects. The results of this study revealed that participants in the campus forest therapy program group had significantly positive increases in their mood and stress response compared with those of control group participants. In conclusion, the campus forest therapy program is an efficient strategy to provide psychological health benefits to university students and our study can inform decision-makers on the priority of the campus forest program in societal efforts to promote psychological well-being among university students.

We developed two distinct forest therapy programs (FTPs) and compared their effects on dementia prevention and related health problems for older adults. One was focused on Qigong practice in the forest (QP) and the other involved active walking in the forest (WP). Both FTPs consisted of twelve 2-h sessions over six weeks and were conducted in an urban forest. We obtained data from 25, 18, and 26 participants aged 65 years or above for the QP, WP, and control groups, respectively. Neuropsychological scores via cognition (MoCA), geriatric depression (GDS) and quality of life (EQ-5D), and electrophysiological variables (electroencephalography, bioimpedance, and heart rate variability) were measured. We analyzed the intervention effects with a generalized linear model. Compared to the control group, the WP group showed benefits in terms of neurocognition (increases in the MoCA score, and alpha and beta band power values in the electroencephalogram), sympathetic nervous activity, and bioimpedance in the lower body. On the other hand, the QP group showed alleviated depression and an increased bioimpedance phase angle in the upper body. In conclusion, both active walking and Qigong in the forest were shown to have distinctive neuropsychological and electrophysiological benefits, and both had beneficial effects in terms of preventing dementia and relieving related health problems for elderly individuals.