ReviewNature communications2019
Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health.
Review in Nature communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effect of Forest Therapy on Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Political ecology of private tourism development in public protected areas in the lead-up to the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
- Comparing guided and unguided forest bathing for graduate student stress management: a pilot study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Valuing South American sea lions through ecotourism: a case study from a protected natural area in Argentine Patagonia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Therapist-Guided Versus Self-Guided Forest Immersion: Comparative Efficacy on Short-Term Mental Health and Economic Value.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Measuring Adult Health and Well-Being Outcomes Associated With Nature Contact in Parks and Other Forms of Protected Areas: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Conservation funding from CBD COP15 and COP16.Ambio · 2025Article
- An integrative review of the physical, mental, and socioeconomic benefits of outdoor hiking.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- How leisure involvement impacts visitors' perceived health benefits in urban forest parks: examining the moderating role of place attachment.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Association of Redlining and Natural Environment with Depressive Symptoms in Women in the Sister Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on SCUBA diving experience in marine protected areas.Journal of outdoor recreation and tourism · 2023Article
- Reconceptualizing Women's Wellbeing During the Pandemic: Sport, Fitness and More-Than-Human Connection.Journal of sport and social issues · 2023Article
- Health Impact Assessment in protected areas: a proposal for urban contexts in Brazil.Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- The relationship between perceived restorativeness and place attachment for hikers at Jeju Gotjawal Provincial Park in South Korea: the moderating effect of environmental sensitivity.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- Tourism as a Tool in Nature-Based Mental Health: Progress and Prospects Post-Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Review
- Predicting the impacts of land management for sustainable development on depression risk in a Ugandan case study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluate methods to calculate the economic value of protected areas derived from the improved mental health of visitors. A conservative global estimate using quality-adjusted life years, a standard measure in health economics, is US$6 trillion p.a. This is an order of magnitude greater than the global value of protected area tourism, and two to three orders greater than global aggregate protected area management agency budgets. Future research should: refine this estimate using more precise methods; consider interactions between health and conservation policies and budgets at national scales; and examine links between personalities and protected area experiences at individual scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.