Health Benefits of Urban Wilding

Written by Ylva Lindberg

Most people recognise that time in nature improves how they feel, both physically and mentally. With around 75% of Europeans now living in urban areas, the availability and quality of green space in cities are becoming increasingly important tools for public health. But how, exactly, do urban nature and biodiversity influence health? And does it make a difference whether you spend time in a manicured park or a more natural, wilder setting? Emerging research is beginning to answer these questions.

A growing body of research links wilder urban spaces with human health, and as the evidence base expands, a more nuanced picture is emerging. Definitions of concepts such as wildness, biodiversity and even health vary across studies, and the field is still relatively young. As a result, the underlying mechanisms behind health effects are not always well understood, and there is ongoing experimentation around which specific features of urban nature matter most (Houlden et al. 2021; Spotswood et al. 2025). Also, like all ecosystems, those that include human communities are complex, dynamic and shaped by local conditions. This means outcomes vary – for example, in healthier overall environments, the likelihood of positive wellbeing effects from urban nature increases.

Keeping these complexities in mind, research across several aspects of human health in urban environments points to the benefits of urban wilding – even if some studies report weak or mixed results. Here, we highlight some of the most interesting findings from recent years.

Mental health effects of urban wilding

Much of the current research on urban nature and health focuses on mental wellbeing. While simply spending time in any kind of green space appears to have a positive effect on factors such as mood, depression and stress, some studies suggest that biodiversity – a quality often associated with wilder urban areas – may also play a role.

Examples include a Sheffield-based study (Cameron et al. 2020), in which participants tracked their emotions while visiting green spaces and reported feeling happier in sites they perceived as having greater bird diversity. Another study, based on urban park surveys in three South Australian cities, found that higher biodiversity was associated with better psychological wellbeing, including reduced stress and improved mood and concentration, though not self-esteem (Schebella et al. 2019).

There are also studies linking mental wellbeing to living near wilder urban spaces, suggesting that effects may be longer term. In New Zealand, a large survey (Mavoa et al. 2019) found that living near more diverse and abundant natural areas with native vegetation was associated with fewer symptoms of depression among urban adolescents. Similarly, researchers linking public data on biodiversity and mental health across 36 Canadian metropolitan areas found that self-reported good mental health was significantly related to nearby bird and tree species diversity (Buxton et al. 2024).

Physical health and urban wild spaces

Air pollution, noise, sedentary lifestyles and other factors affect the physical health of urban residents, who face increased risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory illness, among other conditions. Although there is still less research in this area, some studies suggest that wilding urban spaces may also help address these challenges. In one experimental study, for example, park visitors exposed to greater plant species richness experienced stronger reductions in blood pressure (Lindemann-Matthies and Matthies 2018).

One particularly intriguing line of research concerns the so-called ‘microbiome rewilding hypothesis’, which builds on growing evidence of the importance of the human microbiome for health, as well as the links between environmental and human microbial communities. The theory proposes that wilding city parks and gardens could restore environmental microbiota in ways that reduce the risk of disease (Mills et al. 2017). In one study exploring this idea, researchers found that higher schoolyard biodiversity improved the short-term recovery of disturbed skin microbiota in children, suggesting that increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces could offer an equitable public health intervention (Mills et al. 2023).

As the climate crisis intensifies, urban residents will be subject to increasing public health risks like heatwaves and flooding. Here, wilder spaces with abundant vegetation might offer benefits beyond typical parks and gardens. A study of Roanoke, Virginia, found that the city’s vacant sites were home to over 200,000 trees and made significant contributions to public health by removing air pollution, reducing flooding and air temperatures (Kim 2016). This illustrates how embracing natural processes like spontaneous vegetation – a key tenet of rewilding – can protect public health in the era of climate change.

Potential negative health effects of urban wilding

Although the health effects described in the literature are mostly positive, a poorly executed approach to urban wilding can also pose risks that need to be considered. A frequently cited concern is that wilder urban spaces might increase zoonotic disease transmission – diseases passed from animals to humans or domestic animals – though research shows positive, negative and weak or non-existent relationships (Marselle et al. 2021). Allergies are another potential downside, though this is not specific to wilded or native green spaces (Marselle et al. 2021). In some settings, densely vegetated or poorly designed spaces may also raise safety concerns or encourage unwanted activity, which can induce stress or present physical risks (Houlden et al. 2021).

Conclusion

All in all, although much remains to be understood, the evidence increasingly points to urban wilding as a practical way to support healthier, more resilient cities. Wilder, more biodiverse spaces can strengthen climate resilience, support wildlife, and make neighbourhoods more liveable and appealing. Recognising them as public health measures only adds weight to the case for urban wilding.

Want to support urban wilding? Click the button below to see how you can get involved in our work!

References

Buxton RT, Hudgins EJ, Lavigne E, Villeneuve PJ, Prince SA, Pearson AL, Halsall T, Robichaud C, Bennett JR, 2024. Mental health is positively associated with biodiversity in Canadian cities. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01482-9

Cameron RWF, Brindley P, Mears M, McEwan K, Ferguson F, Sheffield D, Jorgensen A, Riley J, Goodrick J, Ballard L, Richardson M, 2020. Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosyst. 23, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00929-z

Houlden V, Jani A, Hong A, 2021. Is biodiversity of greenspace important for human health and wellbeing? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Urban For. Urban Green. 66, 127385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127385

Kim, G. (2016). Assessing Urban Forest Structure, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Benefits on Vacant Land. Sustainability, 8(7), p.679. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070679.

Lindemann-Matthies P, Matthies D, 2018. The influence of plant species richness on stress recovery of humans. Web Ecol. 18, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-18-121-2018

Marselle MR, Hartig T, Cox DTC, De Bell S, Knapp S, Lindley S, Triguero-Mas M, Böhning-Gaese K, Braubach M, Cook PA, De Vries S, Heintz-Buschart A, Hofmann M, Irvine KN, Kabisch N, Kolek F, Kraemer R, Markevych I, Martens D, Müller R, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Potts JM, Stadler J, Walton S, Warber SL, Bonn A, 2021. Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environ. Int. 150, 106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420

Mavoa S, Lucassen M, Denny S, Utter J, Clark T, Smith M, 2019. Natural neighbourhood environments and the emotional health of urban New Zealand adolescents. Landsc. Urban Plan. 191, 103638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103638

Mills JG, Selway CA, Thomas T, Weyrich LS, Lowe AJ, 2023. Schoolyard Biodiversity Determines Short-Term Recovery of Disturbed Skin Microbiota in Children. Microb. Ecol. 86, 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-022-02052-2

Mills JG, Weinstein P, Gellie NJC, Weyrich LS, Lowe AJ, Breed MF, 2017. Urban habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: the Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. Restor. Ecol. 25, 866–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12610

Schebella MF, Weber D, Schultz L, Weinstein P, 2019. The Wellbeing Benefits Associated with Perceived and Measured Biodiversity in Australian Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 11, 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030802

Spotswood EN, Aronson M, Bazo M, Beller E, Brown JD, Dronova I, Estien CO, Frumkin H, Galarraga J, Grossinger R, Hachadoorian K, Herman B, Jennings T, Jennings V, Kuo M, McDonald RI, Miller D, Rigolon A, Symonds J, Weinbaum K, 2025. Will biodiversity actions yield healthy places? A systematic review of human health outcomes associated with biodiversity‐focused urban greening. People Nat. 7, 2622–2658. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70130