Understanding the place of urban nature in the therapeutic landscapes literature: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global trends in urbanization, environmental degradation, and digital media consumption have ushered in major changes to the character of human-nature contact. In recent decades, it has been recognized that a growing share of human-nature contact has occurred in urban nature: portions of the non-human world in otherwise urban environments. An emerging body of literature has sought to highlight the potential for urban nature to act as a therapeutic landscape. To better understand the state of this literature, a scoping review was conducted to explore how the therapeutic landscapes framework has been applied to urban nature, specifically with regard to the relational dynamics shaping human-nature connection in an urbanizing world. A search of Scopus , Social Sciences Abstracts , and Web of Science was conducted to identify peer-reviewed, English-language literature which applied the therapeutic landscapes framework to an urban nature setting since 2016. The 52 citations identified through this search were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. This review found that the urban nature settings were often situated on a spectrum from ‘wild’ to ‘cultivated’; that the therapeutic potential of urban nature was frequently attributed to its ability to provide a space for escape, embodied experiences, and socialization; and that users might face physical, social, or economic barriers to experiencing the therapeutic attributes of urban nature. Policy-makers and urban planners must ensure that urban nature is made available in a way that meets the needs of different human-nature relationalities and remains accessible to all population groups. • Therapeutic potential of urban nature was attributed to its ability to offer escapism; offer embodied experiences; and foster community connections. • Urban nature was found to exist on a continuum from ‘wild’ to ‘cultivated’. • Access to the therapeutic properties of urban nature was frequently mediated by physical, social, and financial barriers. • Well-intentioned efforts to improve the therapeutic potential of urban nature may inadvertently lead to it becoming less accessible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".