Public nature and health for homeless populations: Professionals' perceptions of contingent human benefits and harms.

This article investigates relationships between public nature and health for unsheltered homeless populations. It examines perceptions of health benefits and harms for people living in public natural areas including local, state, and national forests and parks in the Seattle metropolitan area (USA). Interviews with environmental, social service, and law enforcement professionals who regularly interact with this vulnerable population were conducted and thematically analyzed to understand perceptions of physical and mental health outcomes. Results show professionals' perspectives on the health benefits and detriments of time spent in natural environments and the contextual factors perceived to influence health. Interviewees' observations about the variability of personal circumstances and biophysical, social, and weather conditions encourage the nuanced consideration of how contingent therapeutic landscapes provide deeply needed benefits, but for a population with a diminished capacity to adapt when conditions change. We conclude with insights for future research that directly assesses homeless populations' exposures and health outcomes of living in public natural areas.

Associations of nature contact with emotional ill-being and well-being: the role of emotion regulation.

Nature contact has associations with emotional ill-being and well-being. However, the mechanisms underlying these associations are not fully understood. We hypothesised that increased adaptive and decreased maladaptive emotion regulation strategies would be a pathway linking nature contact to ill-being and well-being. Using data from a survey of 600 U.S.-based adults administered online in 2022, we conducted structural equation modelling to test our hypotheses. We found that (1) frequency of nature contact was significantly associated with lesser emotional ill-being and greater emotional well-being, (2) effective emotion regulation was significantly associated with lesser emotional ill-being and greater emotional well-being, and (3) the associations of higher frequency of nature contact with these benefits were partly explained via emotion regulation. Moreover, we found a nonlinear relationship for the associations of duration of nature contact with some outcomes, with a rise in benefits up to certain amounts of time, and a levelling off after these points. These findings support and extend previous work that demonstrates that the associations of nature contact with emotional ill-being and well-being may be partly explained by changes in emotion regulation.