INTRODUCTION

Claims relating to the healing properties of nature have been evident in the literature for several centuries and these assertions have been supported by anecdote and observation for at least as long (Kaplan and Talbot 1983).

A substantial body of evidence now exists to support the claims that time in nature can promote health, reduce stress (Sempik 2008), enhance mood state (Barton et al 2012), reduce cognitive fatigue (Fieldhouse 2003), lower levels of aggression (Kuo and Sullivan 2001) and promote higher levels of social and nature connectedness (Taylor et al 2014). However, despite the number of references made to the healing properties of nature over this extended period, there remains a lack of clarity as to what the therapeutic mechanisms are and the components required for efficacious interventions (Annerstedt and Wahrborg 2011). In addition, knowledge of which are the properties of nature that reap the greatest benefits, and under what conditions, remain elusive (Park et al 2011).

This chapter seeks to explore a small number of issues through critical engagement with the contemporary literature. Throughout the discussion it is acknowledged that culture and contemporary views on conservation exert a powerful influence over practice. The questions of particular relevance are: why might ‘wild’ places serve as a catalyst for healing? How robust and focused is the evidence base for such a proposition? What are the implications for practice and how can researchers provide a compelling argument for nature-based therapy moving forward? To respond to these questions, it is necessary to examine the assumptions that have been made about the terms ‘wild’ and ‘therapy’.