Nature Deficit in the Context of Forests and Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Modern societies are increasingly experiencing limited contact with nature, a phenomenon referred to as the “nature deficit.” The article presents a systematic review of the literature on this issue, with particular emphasis on the role of forests in mitigating its effects. The analysis, based on the Scopus and Web of Science databases, synthesizes the current state of knowledge on the consequences of nature deficit for physical, mental, and social health, while also highlighting the potential of forests as spaces supporting human well-being. The review process followed a systematic methodology, using precisely defined keyword combinations and multi-stage screening. From an initial pool of 88 publications, a critical selection process led to 11 articles that met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in depth. The findings show that regular contact with nature reduces stress, anxiety, and ADHD symptoms, supports cognitive development, and im-proves concentration, creativity, and social skills. At the same time, there is a lack of consistent tools for clearly diagnosing nature deficit, and existing studies face significant methodological limitations (small samples, subjective measurements, lack of laboratory control). The article also identifies research gaps, particularly in the context of sustainable forest management, cultural differences, and the long-term health effects of exposure to nature.

1. Introduction

In contemporary societies, contact with nature is no longer a natural element of everyday life; instead, it requires conscious effort and time allocation [1]. As early as the late 20th century, it was noted that processes initiated by the Industrial Revolution had separated urban residents from the natural environment, creating a need to rediscover experiences connected with forests and ecology in their original form [2]. While in the past the proximity of nature was an integral part of daily functioning, today for many people, contact with the natural world has become significantly limited, taking the form of occasional, fragmented, or even exceptional experiences [3,4].

This phenomenon carries important consequences, as numerous empirical studies indicate that the natural environment plays a key role in maintaining physical, mental, and social health [5,6,7]. Its deficit may lead to a decline in individual quality of life as well as an increased burden on healthcare systems [8,9]. For example, research by Šćepanović et al. [10] found that higher levels of roadside greenery in urban areas were associated with lower consumption of medications, including those for hypertension and depression, which was reflected in reduced pharmacy sales.

The lack of contact with nature has been defined as the phenomenon of nature deficit, which is increasingly appearing in scientific and popular literature as a useful interpretive framework for describing the negative consequences of limited engagement with the broadly understood natural environment [11,12,13,14]. The term was introduced by Richard Louv in his bestseller Last Child in the Woods and further developed in subsequent works [15,16]. According to Alvarez et al. [11] “nature-deficit disorder” (NDD) is undergoing a renaissance and is increasingly used in discussions on the built environment, even though NDD is not officially recognized as a medical condition in either the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) or DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) [17].

Nature deficit manifests in somatic dimensions (e.g., higher risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases) [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], in psychological dimensions (higher levels of stress, depression, and anxiety) [26,27,28], and in social dimensions (weakened bonds and reduced social capital) [6,29,30,31,32]. This underscores the growing importance of research on the role of the natural environment as a protective resource against the negative consequences of modern lifestyles. At this point, it is important to stress that “nature deficit” is understood here as a broad phenomenon, encompassing diverse forms of limited human interaction with natural environments. Within this general framework, forests constitute a specific and particularly significant context, in which the manifestations of nature deficit acquire distinct ecological, psychological, and social dimensions.

In the scientific literature, the link between contact with nature and human well-being has been increasingly emphasized [33]. As Alvarez et al. [11] point out, the connection between nature and mental health is not a new concept. The health benefits of nature have long been acknowledged, but only in recent decades have these claims been subject to rigorous empirical verification. Today, we possess a significant body of evidence, ranging from controlled experiments to large-scale epidemiological, laboratory, and field studies employing both psychological and psychometric tools, all indicating that contact with nature reduces stress [34,35,36], improves mood [37,38], enhances immune functioning [39,40,41], lowers the risk of childhood obesity [42], and improves health outcomes in adults, even potentially extending life expectancy in older populations [12].

Forest ecosystems play a particularly important role in this context, as they not only intensify psychophysical benefits but also support educational processes and the development of social bonds. However, despite the growing number of studies focusing on the benefits of forests, there is still a lack of conclusive evidence identifying the consequences of their absence. This distinction between the general concept of nature deficit and its forest-related forms is crucial for the further arguments developed in this article. This knowledge gap hinders a full understanding of the phenomenon of “nature deficit,” which may be crucial for physical, mental, and social health.

In the current research, the dominant perspective concerns urban greenery—parks, gardens, and green infrastructure [27,43,44] (as well as forests, divided into urban [44,45] and peri-urban areas [46]). Despite increasing interest, there remains a lack of in-depth analyses and clear research implications that would allow answers to several key questions. First, do contemporary societies truly experience a nature deficit, and do we have sufficient tools and research methods to reliably diagnose it? Second, what factors shape this phenomenon, and to what extent can forest areas help mitigate it, for example, through ecosystem services, improved well-being, and stronger social bonds? Third, should nature deficit be treated as a global problem of modernity or rather a marginal phenomenon, and if so, are there EU, national, and local policies capable of addressing it systematically? These issues remain insufficiently explored, which justifies the need for further research. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are proposed in this article:

• Contemporary societies experience a measurable nature deficit, although current research tools allow only for partial and imperfect diagnosis.
• Forest areas can play a significant role in mitigating nature deficit by providing ecosystem services, supporting human well-being, and strengthening social integration.
• Significant research gaps remain, particularly with regard to sustainable forest management, cultural contexts, health policy, and the long-term effects of contact with nature on health.

The overall objective of this review is to determine the extent to which contact with forests can serve as an effective remedy for nature deficit and to identify directions for future research and policy development necessary to systematically address this phenomenon. At the same time, the review seeks to lay the groundwork for practical recommendations in areas such as education, environmental education, public health, psychology, and forestry, thereby supporting the development of public policies as well as local and international initiatives aimed at mitigating nature deficit.

2. Materials and Methods

To conduct the systematic literature review, two renowned databases were selected: Scopus [47] and Web of Science [48]. These databases are among the most frequently used sources in academic research, as they provide access to high-impact, peer-reviewed international publications, e.g., Ciesielski et al. [49], Referowska-Chodak [50]. Their broad thematic scope, covering the natural, social, and medical sciences, also enables the identification of interdisciplinary studies [51,52,53], which is particularly important in the context of nature deficit and its links to various aspects of health and human well-being.

The search process was based on a set of precisely defined keywords. Combinations of terms related to the concept of nature deficit, forest areas, and their potential impact on health, social well-being, and ecosystem services were used. Among the applied search strings were: “nature AND deficit AND forest AND health”, “nature AND deficit AND forest AND wellbeing”, and “nature AND deficit AND forest AND ecosystem AND services”. These expressions helped narrow down the results to studies directly relevant to the research problem, minimizing the risk of omitting essential publications.

The inclusion criteria considered titles, abstracts, and keywords, with no temporal restrictions. This allowed the review to cover the full spectrum of studies—from early works shaping the foundations of the nature deficit concept to the latest contributions to the ongoing scientific discourse. At the preliminary stage, 88 publications were identified across both databases. After removing duplicates (publications that appear in both databases), the first screening was conducted, involving an analysis of titles, abstracts, and keywords. As a result, 28 studies were selected as relevant to the research scope. The second stage consisted of a detailed full-text analysis, enabling a deeper evaluation of their quality and relevance to the research objectives. At this stage, 21 articles were shortlisted for further consideration. Finally, following a critical assessment, 11 articles were included in the systematic review, as they most strongly met the criteria and provided significant contributions to understanding the research problem (Figure 1).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Bibliographic Overview

The analysis covered 11 scientific articles, including journal papers, review articles, and feature-type articles published in academic journals. Other types of materials, such as books, government reports, or websites, were not included. The analyzed publications span the years 2010–2024. The highest number appeared in 2022 (three publications), followed by 2018 (two publications). In the remaining years—2010, 2011, 2014, 2020, 2021, and 2024—one publication was recorded for each year.

Of the 11 identified articles, the majority—8 publications (72.7%)—were available in open access, while 3 articles (27.3%) required institutional or subscription access, which to some extent limited their general availability. The 11 scientific articles included in this review were published by six different publishers. The largest number appeared in MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 4 articles, 36.4%) and Elsevier (3 articles, 27.3%). Single publications were released by American Chemical Society (ACS) Publications (1 article, 9.1%), Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (Ecopsychology Journal, 1 article, 9.1%), Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL, 1 article, 9.1%), and Springer Nature (1 article, 9.1%).

Among all the journals analyzed, 8 articles (72.7%) were published in titles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, belonging—depending on the journal—to quartiles Q1–Q3 in the fields of natural sciences, health, and education. Three articles (27.3%) appeared in more specialized, niche journals outside the mainstream of international academic journal rankings.

The studies analyzed in this review were prepared by researchers representing different parts of the world, highlighting the global nature of the issue. Of the 11 articles, two publications were international in scope, involving research teams from multiple continents, while the remaining were conducted within a single country. The largest number of authors came from Asia (7 affiliations)—primarily South Korea (3), but also Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, and Myanmar. Europe was also well represented (5 affiliations), including the United Kingdom (2), Poland, Sweden, and Greece. Additional contributions came from Africa (4 affiliations)—Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia; North America (3 affiliations)—the United States (2) and Canada; and Australia/Oceania (1 affiliation)—Australia.

This wide distribution of affiliations demonstrates that issues related to the relationship between humans and nature, health, and education are being addressed in many parts of the world, with significance that is transnational and universal (Figure 2).

The concept map illustrates the distribution of 44 unique keywords (excluding duplicates) included in this review, organized into four main thematic clusters: health, education, nature and recreation, and global context. Within the health cluster, terms such as child health, forest therapy, microbiome, stress, lifestyle, and tuberculosis appear, highlighting the importance of natural influences for both physical and mental well-being. The education cluster includes terms such as outdoor education/learning, forest school, environmental education, children’s connection to nature, and natural playground, emphasizing the role of outdoor education in children’s development and learning processes. In the nature and recreation cluster, keywords such as outdoor recreation, urban forests, ecological restoration, restoration in nature, and nature conservation underline the links between recreational activities and efforts aimed at ecosystem protection and restoration. The global context cluster contains terms such as COVID-19, COVID-19 in Africa, climate change, Sweden, international comparison, and rural towns, situating the analyzed issues within broader social and environmental challenges. Among all the keywords, the most frequently occurring were outdoor recreation and climate change—each appearing twice—underscoring their particular importance in research on the relationship between nature, health, and education. The remaining terms appeared only once (≈2.3% each), indicating a broad and balanced thematic scope of this review, encompassing not only health and educational aspects but also environmental protection and the global context (Figure 3).

3.2. Key Scientific Articles in the Analyzed Area

To organize the literature and highlight the main research trends, a selection of scientific articles addressing the issue of nature-deficit and the importance of the natural environment for human health was compiled (

Table 1. Overview of the key scientific articles included in the main research analysis.

№	Title	DOI	In-Text Citation
1	Accelerating the Nature Deficit or Enhancing the Nature-Based Human Health during the Pandemic Era: An International Study in Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Myanmar, following the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic	https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010057	[54]
2	Can Natural and Virtual Environments be used to Promote Improved Human Health and Wellbeing?	https://doi.org/10.1021/es103907m	[55]
3	Forest School—a Forest Playground as a Remedy for Nature-Deficit Disorder in Children	http://dx.doi.org/10.15219/em76.1381	[56]
4	From Rhetoric to Knowledge Based Actions—Challenges for Outdoor Recreation Management in Sweden	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.004	[57]
5	Hands-On Ecological Restoration as a Nature-Based Health Intervention: Reciprocal Restoration for People and Ecosystems	https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2020.0003	[58]
6	Impact of COVID-19 Lock-Downs on Nature Connection in Southern and Eastern Africa	https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060872	[59]
7	Landscape and Children’s Health: Old Natures and New Challenges for the Preventorium	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.08.018	[60]
8	Nature Exposure Sufficiency and Insufficiency: The Benefits of Environmental Preservation	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2017.10.027	[61]
9	Perspectives on the Psychological and Physiological Effects of Forest Therapy: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression	https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122029	[62]
10	The Importance of Forest School and the Pathways to Nature Connection	https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-021-00074-x	[63]
11	The Participation of Teachers in Greece in Outdoor Education Activities and the Schools’ Perceptions of the Benefits to Students	https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080804	[64]

). The included publications provide an overview of the current state of knowledge in this field, drawing attention both to the consequences of limited access to nature and to the potential of natural environments—particularly forests—in shaping physical, mental, and social well-being. The analysis of the collected sources also makes it possible to identify areas that require further in-depth research and that may serve as a foundation for practical actions and recommendations in the context of natural resource management and health policies.

3.3. Current State of Knowledge on Nature Deficit and Its Consequences for Human Physical, Mental, and Social Health

3.3.1. Definition and Main Causes of the Phenomenon

Nature-deficit disorder is a growing problem in contemporary societies, resulting from progressive urbanization, increasingly intensive lifestyles based on prolonged and sometimes even continuous immersion in the virtual world (television, computer monitors, tablets, or smartphones), and parental concerns about the safety of their children outdoors [56,63]. From an early age, children function within overloaded daily schedules filled with classes and extracurricular activities, leaving little room for spontaneous play outdoors. This often stems from parents’ fears that without additional education their children may fall behind in the so-called “rat race” [56]. Adults, focused on careers, the pursuit of a “better life,” or self-development, also tend to forget about the need for regular contact with the natural environment [55]. Another discouraging factor is the perception of spending time in nature as an activity that requires time, skills, or financial resources, which often results in giving up this form of activity [56], and in extreme cases, may even lead to a kind of “hatred of nature” [62].

Reduced physical activity and the growing amount of time spent indoors contribute to increasing health problems, such as obesity, diabetes, depression, or other mental disorders [55,61,63]. Research shows that children spend less and less time outdoors—for example, in the United Kingdom, only about 9% of their day—while adults spend about 20% [55]. The phenomenon of nature deficit was further exacerbated by global restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which intensified the disconnection between people and direct experiences with nature [59]. The very concept of nature deficit assumes that limited contact with nature can lead to negative health and psychological consequences, while overcoming them requires conscious and active efforts to seek direct experiences with the natural environment. It is emphasized that counteracting this phenomenon fosters the well-being of individuals, families, and entire communities [56,61].

Studies indicate that nature deficit is associated with a decline in both the quantity and quality of experiences with the natural environment, which negatively affects quality of life in modern society [59]. In this context, Reddon and Durante [61] proposed the concept of Nature Exposure Insufficiency (NEI). Unlike the term Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD), which suggests the existence of a distinct set of symptoms, NEI rather describes a continuum of reduced contact with nature, without attributing rigid diagnostic criteria to it.

3.3.2. Consequences for Physical Health and Quality of Life

The consequences of nature deficit for physical health are multidimensional and include a range of negative effects, as well as the loss of potential benefits derived from contact with nature (

Table 2. Consequences of nature deficit for physical health and quality of life.

№	Area	Consequences
1	Lifestyle and chronic diseases	Obesity and diabetes—limitations of daily physical activity, living in environments that promote sedentary lifestyles, and exposure to surroundings full of stimuli and products that contribute to being overweight (so-called obesogenic environments) [55,59,60,61,64]
		Cardiovascular and respiratory diseases—reduced exposure to greenery and lack of outdoor physical activity increase the risk of mortality from cardiovascular diseases [55]
2	Respiratory system	Increased risk of infections and allergies—limited early exposure to diverse microorganisms (especially soil-based) disrupts the maturation of the immune system, contributing to allergies and inflammatory conditions [59]
		Exacerbation of respiratory diseases—air pollution worsens respiratory system functioning, while higher surrounding biodiversity has a protective effect [64]
		Susceptibility to dust-borne diseases—limited contact with natural environments increases vulnerability to pathogens present in dust, including fungi causing coccidioidomycosis [55]
3	Immune system	Weakened immunity due to stress—contact with nature reduces stress levels and oxidative stress markers (MDA), supporting immune system functioning; isolation and restrictions contribute to the deterioration of physical health [62]
		Vitamin D deficiency—limited exposure to sunlight reduces vitamin D synthesis, negatively affecting bone health and immune system functioning [64]
4	Visual system	Greater presence of greenery—for example, in the surroundings of schools, is associated with lower rates of vision degeneration [64]
5	Quality of life and vitality	Limited contact with nature (NEI)—reduced contact with nature (NEI) lowers overall well-being [61]
6	Lifestyle and general health	COVID-19 pandemic—lockdowns and restrictions reduced time spent outdoors, while simultaneously highlighting the need to return to nature as a source of health and recreation [54,59]

).

3.3.3. Consequences for Mental Health and Social Relationships

Mental health problems often overlap with difficulties in the social sphere. Mood disorders or reduced well-being affect relationships with others, self-esteem, and one’s way of functioning in society. As a result, the consequences of nature deficit are not limited to the individual but also extend to their ability to build relationships and participate in social life (

Table 3. Consequences of nature deficit for mental health and social relationships.

№	Area	Consequences
1	Increased stress and reduced mental well-being	Stress and deteriorated mental health—higher stress levels, reduced mental and social well-being, decline in vitality, life satisfaction, and sense of happiness [54,59,60,64]
2	Mood and emotional disorders	Anxiety and fear—activation of the amygdala increases the sense of anxiety [63]
		Anger and aggressive behaviors—intensified emotional reactions such as anger and aggression [64]
		Rumination and sadness—increased tendency toward recurring negative thoughts [61]
		Lowered mood and energy—limited contact with nature negatively affects cognitive abilities and mood, similarly to Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) [61]
3	Cognitive and developmental problems	Reduced creativity and imagination—limited contact with nature decreases creative abilities and imagination development [64]
		Cognitive difficulties—weakened concentration, clarity of thought, and problem-solving skills [64]
		Aggravation of ADHD symptoms—lack of green spaces and sleep deficiency related to insufficient daylight exacerbate symptoms [64]
4	Identity and social relationship disorders	Loss of sense of full humanity—weakened connection with the natural environment and deterioration of existential identity [63,64]
		Poor social relationships—weak communication, limited cooperation, and fragile social bonds [64]
		Weakened self-esteem—decline in self-confidence and independence [63]
		Aversion to nature—reluctance toward nature observed among the digital generation [54]

).

3.4. The Role of Forests as Natural Environments Counteracting Nature Deficit

3.4.1. Mechanisms of Forests’ Impact on Humans

Forests influence humans through a variety of psychological and biological mechanisms. According to the biophilia hypothesis, people possess an innate, subconscious tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life, rooted in our evolutionary history [55]. Experiencing the forest activates these natural mechanisms, providing a sense of safety, harmony, and rootedness in the natural world.

Equally important are the restorative properties of natural environments (the capacity of nature to renew psychological resources), which make it possible to replenish mental reserves such as improved concentration, reduced mental fatigue, and recovery of energy after intense intellectual effort [55,61].

Another crucial dimension involves biological mechanisms associated with volatile organic compounds, so-called phytoncides (BVOCs), released by trees and forest vegetation. Inhalation of these compounds affects the nervous and immune systems, supporting stress reduction, improving sleep quality, and lowering cortisol levels. Studies also indicate that phytoncides may alleviate pain, reduce anxiety, and act as antidepressants, making them a key element of the forest’s health-promoting potential [59,61,62]. Through this combination of psychological and physiological mechanisms, forests become environments of exceptional therapeutic value.

3.4.2. The Importance of Forests in Today’s World

Contemporary societies, dominated by urban lifestyles and digital technologies, are experiencing an increasing disconnection from nature [55,56,63,64]. Forests, particularly urban and peri-urban ones, have become crucial spaces for safeguarding health and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic further emphasized the role of forests as “survival spaces” and places of recovery, motivating people to return to nature [59,62]. Forests thus serve as a natural antidote to the nature deficit, providing “vitamin N”, essential for healthy development [56] (Figure 4).

3.4.3. Improving Mental and Emotional Health Through Contact with Forests

Forest areas help reduce stress and anxiety. Contact with forests significantly lowers stress levels. Studies have shown decreases in cortisol (the stress hormone), blood pressure, and heart rate after 15–20 min of exposure to forest environments [55,61,62,64]. Amygdala activation (associated with fear and anxiety) is lower in natural than in urban scenes. Forests strengthen mental resilience and the capacity to adapt to everyday challenges [61,64].

Spending time in nature is also associated with improved mental and social well-being, vitality, life satisfaction, and happiness. People often report feelings of peace, comfort, and refreshment after walks in nature [55,63]. Forest walks can reduce rumination (negative self-focused thoughts) and decrease activity in brain regions linked to sadness in individuals with depression. Forest therapy has shown significant improvements in symptoms of anxiety, depression, anger, and fatigue [61,62].

Outdoor activities further enhance mental health, self-esteem, confidence, and independence, as they provide opportunities to experience agency and a sense of control over one’s body. Even simple physical effort, such as walking, becomes an act of self-care and a source of satisfaction from overcoming small challenges. Contact with nature also fosters reflection and the building of inner harmony, which translates into a stronger and more positive self-image [64].

3.4.4. Supporting Cognitive Development and Creative Abilities Through Contact with Forests

Being in a natural environment supports the restoration of attention and cognitive abilities after intensive mental activity, giving the brain an opportunity to “rest” from stimulus overload. Contact with greenery reduces stress and information overload, which translates into improved focus and information processing. Studies indicate that children with ADHD show significantly higher levels of concentration after walks in urban parks, confirming the particular role of nature as an environment that supports cognitive development [55,61,64].

Play in natural settings enhances creativity in children’s play, strengthens their imagination and inventiveness, and encourages positive engagement, problem-solving, and perseverance in overcoming obstacles—thus fostering the development of adaptive behaviors [64].

Forest-based education improves memory, learning abilities, and self-discipline. It enables the integration of education with real-life contexts, which increases motivation to participate in the learning process. Experiential learning, involving multisensory engagement in diverse tasks and interactions with others, provides stimulating, tangible, and practical benefits for both mental and physical health [64].

3.4.5. Benefits for Physical and Physiological Health Through Contact with the Forest

Research on the impact of the forest environment on human health is extensive and covers various aspects of bodily functions. This study presents selected, most significant elements based on a review of the literature, focusing on the links between contact with nature and both physical and mental health.

Physical activity and health prevention. Spending time in forests and other green areas promotes spontaneous physical activity, which plays an important role in preventing lifestyle-related diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Exercise performed in natural settings—so-called green activity—provides both immediate benefits, such as improved mood and fitness, and long-term effects, supporting overall health and immune system resilience [54,55,61,63,64].

Strengthening the immune system. Contact with nature can enhance immune system functioning, particularly through the effects of phytoncides (volatile organic compounds released by plants). Phytoncides may also reduce depression and lower cortisol levels [59,61,62,63].

Improvement of physiological indicators. Observed effects include increased heart rate variability, reduced blood pressure, and decreased cortisol levels. Forest environments exert a calming influence by activating the parasympathetic nervous system [61,62].

Outdoor therapy. Forests offer opportunities for outdoor therapy, which strengthens muscle endurance, bone density, and cardiorespiratory functions [59].

3.4.6. Social, Emotional Development and Connection with the Environment

Building social bonds and empathy. Forests and contact with nature can significantly contribute to the development of social bonds and empathy—both in interpersonal relations and in relation to the natural environment itself. Research indicates that contact with nature promotes cooperation-based attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors [61]. A conscious example of this potential is found in urban parks, such as Central Park, which were designed to prevent social problems and to restore mental, physical, and social health in densely populated cities [60]. Exposure to nature also fosters social cohesion [59], while outdoor activities support improved social and intercultural relationships within school communities and enhance students’ ability to communicate and collaborate [64]. Moreover, shared experiences in natural settings strengthen the sense of community and trust, which constitute the foundation of lasting social bonds [56,61].

Sense of belonging and pro-environmental behaviors. Contact with nature fosters a sense of belonging to the broader natural community, becoming a key motivating factor for pro-environmental and pro-conservation behaviors. Individuals who experience nature from an early age learn to love and protect it [56,63]. A prominent example of this approach is the Forest School initiative in the United Kingdom, which is based on the concept of “connection with nature” understood as a feeling of belonging to the natural community. This sense of belonging forms the basis for place attachment and sense of place, both of which are closely linked to promoting health, well-being, and the development of long-term pro-environmental attitudes [63].

Reduction in aggression and social problems. Time spent in natural environments provides numerous benefits for mental health across all ages [64]. Among children, it supports the development of self-discipline and assists in managing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), while more broadly contributing to reduced aggression and lower crime rates [55]. Outdoor activities reduce feelings of anger and support the control of impulsive reactions, lowering hostility [62]. Outdoor education, due to its inclusiveness, gives students a greater sense of freedom, autonomy, and initiative, enabling the building of healthier peer relationships. As a result, not only are anger and tension reduced but communication skills, cooperation, and intercultural relations within school communities also improve [55,64]. A negative correlation has been observed between the number of teachers offering outdoor learning opportunities and the frequency of reported incidents of violence and crime [64]. Furthermore, exposure to nature alleviates the negative impact of ostracism, reducing the tendency to respond with aggression. In this way, outdoor education and contact with nature can be regarded not only as support for the didactic process but also as an effective tool for preventing social and behavioral problems [61].

4. Limitations of Research on Nature Deficit and the Role of Forests in Its Mitigation

Research on nature deficit and the benefits of contact with forests faces numerous challenges at the theoretical, methodological, and practical levels.

At the theoretical level, the very concept of “nature deficit” is problematic. The term nature-deficit disorder, although widely used, does not hold official medical status. Some scholars emphasize that it implies the existence of a clinical condition, whereas a more appropriate concept may be nature exposure insufficiency, understood as reduced functioning on a continuum of experiences rather than as a distinct syndrome.

At the methodological level, there are difficulties related to small sample sizes, low representativeness, and challenges in generalizing findings across different age groups and cultural contexts. In international studies, additional barriers arise from historical, economic, and geographical differences, which hinder the development of uniform conclusions. Results are often based on subjective assessments by participants or institutional representatives (e.g., school principals), rather than on objective psychological or physiological measures. This creates a risk of confirmation and selection bias, as individuals particularly motivated to participate in programs may be more likely to report positive effects. Furthermore, the lack of appropriate control groups and laboratory conditions, combined with the high heterogeneity of findings, makes it difficult to draw consistent conclusions.

At the practical level, a major limitation remains the unequal access to nature, the lack of systematic recreation monitoring, and the insufficient use of scientific knowledge in planning and management processes. Decisions regarding recreation and nature-based education are often made on the basis of practical experience or ad hoc measures rather than sound scientific evidence. Integrated eco-health studies that would link ecosystem condition with human health are still lacking. Particularly evident is the research gap regarding the relationship between sustainable forest management and the reduction in nature deficit—despite the potential of forestry practices to play an important role in addressing the issue, there is a lack of conclusive scientific evidence. At the same time, proposals for health and educational programs that use contact with nature as a tool to support well-being are becoming increasingly common, which demonstrates the growing interest in this topic but also highlights the absence of a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach.

The most important problem, however, is the lack of tools that would allow for a clear and objective measurement of nature deficit, especially in its psychological dimension. It remains difficult to determine whether observed mental health problems result directly from limited contact with nature or from the complex interaction of multiple factors, such as social, economic, or cultural conditions. It should also be noted that in today’s world, political and social contexts are dynamically changing: growing armed tensions, migration crises, and cultural conflicts may indirectly exacerbate nature deficit, yet there is currently a lack of up-to-date studies that comprehensively analyze these relationships. Consequently, we cannot be certain whether, and to what extent, nature deficit truly exists as a distinct phenomenon, and if so, how it can be measured.

Despite these limitations, existing studies clearly indicate that forests and contact with nature play a key role in mitigating the consequences of reduced exposure to the natural world. Regular contact with natural environments supports mental and physical health, improves concentration, reduces ADHD symptoms, fosters social bonds and empathy, and shapes pro-environmental attitudes. In this way, nature fulfills a protective function against psychological and social problems resulting from limited exposure, while simultaneously serving as a space for education, prevention, and social integration.

5. Conclusions

This review emphasizes that contact with forests plays a key role in mitigating the negative effects of nature deficit, while also highlighting the need for more precise diagnostic tools and research methods. In the future, it is worth stressing the necessity of developing dedicated research instruments, such as psychometric questionnaires, that would allow for a holistic and clear assessment of nature deficit. The findings confirm that forests support physical and mental health, well-being, and social integration, foster child development, promote pro-environmental attitudes, and counteract the pressures of urbanization and technology-dominated lifestyles.

The greatest challenge remains to determine whether the observed health problems result directly from reduced contact with nature or rather from overlapping social, economic, and cultural factors. Nevertheless, the available evidence consistently indicates that exposure to natural environments, particularly forests, contributes to improvements in cognitive, emotional, and social functioning.

Forests can serve as an effective tool in counteracting nature deficit, but this requires interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of ecological, social, and health perspectives. From a practical perspective, it is particularly important to include the role of forests in health policies (e.g., implementing nature-based therapies), education (environmental and forest education programs), and spatial planning (urban design that increases access to forests and green areas). The development of such strategies can systematically harness the potential of forests to improve public health and overall quality of life.