Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41529077›Full record

ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2026

Employee-nature interactions: A scoping review on employees' green exercise behaviors.

Buket Aydemir, Bahattin Karademir, Güney Çetinkaya

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Buket AydemirDepartment of Recreation, Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Bahattin KarademirDepartment of Business Administration, Cukurova University, Adana, Türkiye.
Güney ÇetinkayaDepartment of Recreation, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-1757-5105

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundGreen exercise is emerging as a promising approach to improve employee well-being.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to map the existing literature on employees' green exercise behaviors.MethodsFollowing the methodological framework suggested by Arksey and O'Malley, relevant studies were identified in the Web of Science and Scopus databases on March 10, 2025. Various study types, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and intervention studies published in peer-reviewed English journals, were screened. 13 studies were selected for detailed review, focusing on employed adults engaging in intentional physical activity within natural or semi-natural outdoor environments, such as parks and forests. Exclusions were applied to studies involving non-working populations, those that focused on non-exercise behaviors, as well as studies conducted in indoor or virtual environments. Editorials, opinion articles, theses/dissertations, conference papers, and non-English publications were also excluded.ResultsAmong the included studies, nature walking was the most prevalent form of green exercise. Psychological outcomes were the most frequently reported, while occupational outcomes were the least commonly addressed. The findings suggest that there is a growing body of research supporting the benefits of green exercise for employees. However, there remains a significant gap in understanding the facilitators and barriers that influence employees' participation in green exercise.ConclusionsFuture research should examine underlying mediating and moderating mechanisms. Integrating theoretical frameworks from occupational health psychology and behavioral sciences will be essential to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how and why green exercise is adopted or avoided by employees.

Indexed as

ExerciseHumansWorkplacenatural environmentsoutdoor recreationphysical activityrecovery from workwellbeing at workworkplace health

Identifiers

PMID41529077
PMCPMC13219771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.