Perception of nature must happen across different scenarios to move the needle on mental health.
A University of Montreal study quietly reframes how we think about nature and healing: it is not the mere presence of green spaces that restores young minds, but the conscious, repeated act of perceiving them — woven through both daily life and physical movement. Conducted against the sobering backdrop of a pandemic-era collapse in Canadian youth wellbeing, the research suggests that attention itself may be a form of medicine. The finding carries an uncomfortable corollary: those least likely to notice nature are often those with the least access to it, meaning the gap in mental health may mirror the gap in geography and privilege.
- Canadian youth life satisfaction plummeted from 72% to 26% between 2018 and 2020, creating urgent demand for accessible, scalable mental health interventions.
- The study's central tension is not about parks existing — it's about whether young people actually see them, a distinction that upends conventional green-space policy.
- Young adults who perceived nature in both daily routines and exercise scored 7.4 points higher on mental health measures, but those who noticed it in only one context gained nothing lasting once baseline health was accounted for.
- Access to urban green space is unequally distributed across Canada, meaning immigrants, racialized communities, and low-income youth face compounding disadvantages in reaching this dual-context awareness.
- Researchers are launching the four-year SeeNAT project to track 36 physical activities and map the gap between where green spaces exist and whether people actually experience them.
- The emerging policy direction shifts from building more parks toward helping young people notice and inhabit the natural spaces that already surround them.
A research team at the University of Montreal asked 357 young adults, averaging around 22 years old, a deceptively simple question: do you actually notice nature — in your daily life, and when you exercise? Participants rated their awareness on a scale of one to five. The question wasn't about proximity to parks. It was about perception.
The timing was deliberate. Canadian youth mental health had been deteriorating for years before the pandemic, and by June 2020, only 26 percent of fifteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds reported being very satisfied with their lives — down from 72 percent just two years earlier. Led by postdoctoral researcher Corentin Montiel and professor Isabelle Doré, the study was searching for something actionable.
What emerged was both promising and precise. Young adults who reported high awareness of nature in both everyday routines and exercise sessions scored 7.4 points higher on mental health measures than those with low exposure in both contexts. But the effect was unforgiving in its conditions: those who noticed nature in only one setting — exercising in parks, say, but ignoring green spaces the rest of the day — showed no lasting benefit once baseline mental health was factored in. Dual-context perception wasn't a bonus. It was the threshold.
Doré's explanation is intuitive once stated: nature's restorative effect requires continuity. Natural environments also invite movement, and movement sharpens attention to natural surroundings — birdsong, shifting light — redirecting focus away from fatigue and inward discomfort. The two reinforce each other, but only when both are present.
The study also exposed a structural problem. Access to urban green space in Canada is unequally distributed, with immigrants, racialized minorities, and low-income households having fewer nearby natural areas. Those who stand to benefit most are often those with the least opportunity to build the daily awareness the research identifies as essential.
Doré's proposed response works on two levels: expand access to distant natural areas through community programs and shared resources, while simultaneously investing in local urban nature — parks, green corridors — that can be woven into ordinary life. Her team is now launching SeeNAT, a four-year project tracking 36 types of physical activity across urban and remote settings, combining geographic data with lived perception to identify where the gaps between available nature and experienced nature are widest. The implication for public health is significant: the priority may be less about creating new green spaces and more about helping young people truly inhabit the ones already there.
A team at the University of Montreal set out to answer a deceptively simple question: does nature make young people feel better? The answer, it turns out, is yes—but only if you're paying attention to it in the right way, and in more than one place.
For years, researchers have known that green spaces matter. A walk through a park, even a brief one lasting less than fifteen minutes, can shift a person's mood. Urban forests seem especially powerful against anxiety and depression. But the Montreal study, led by postdoctoral researcher Corentin Montiel and professor Isabelle Doré, wanted to dig deeper. They asked 357 young adults—averaging about 22 years old—to rate how much they noticed nature in their everyday lives and during exercise, on a scale of one to five. The question wasn't whether parks existed near them. It was whether they actually saw them.
The timing of this research matters. Canadian youth have been struggling. Between 2011 and 2018, rates of mood disorders and anxiety climbed among nineteen- to twenty-four-year-olds. Then the pandemic hit. In June 2020, only 26 percent of fifteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds reported being very satisfied with their lives—down from 72 percent just two years earlier. Against that backdrop, Doré and her team were hunting for something that might help.
What they found was striking: the young adults who reported high awareness of nature in both their daily routines and their exercise sessions scored 7.4 points higher on mental health measures than those with low exposure in both contexts. That's a meaningful gap. But here's the catch. Those who noticed nature in only one setting—say, they exercised in parks but didn't pay attention to green spaces the rest of the day—showed no lasting benefit once the researchers accounted for their baseline mental health. The effect vanished. Only those who perceived nature intensely in both environments maintained a real advantage: 3.6 points above the rest.
Doré explained the finding plainly: perception of nature needs to happen across different scenarios to actually move the needle on mental health. It's not about proximity to a park. It's about whether you're actually seeing it, and whether that awareness is woven through your day. The mechanism seems to work both ways. Natural spaces invite movement, and movement makes people more likely to seek out and appreciate natural surroundings. When you exercise in a place that feels green, your attention shifts outward—to birdsong, rustling leaves—rather than inward to fatigue and discomfort. That redirection of focus appears to be part of what helps.
But the study also surfaced an uncomfortable truth. In Canada, access to urban green space is not evenly distributed. Immigrants, racialized minorities, and low-income households have fewer nearby natural areas, which means fewer chances to build that daily awareness Doré's research shows is so important. The inequality compounds itself. Those who need the mental health boost most often have the hardest time accessing it.
Doré proposes a two-part solution. First, expand access to distant natural areas through community programs—school trips, ride-sharing arrangements, equipment lending. Second, invest in local nature experiences. You don't need wilderness, she notes. An urban park can move people and lift their wellbeing. Her team is now launching a four-year project called SeeNAT, which will track 36 different types of physical activity—from informal soccer games in city parks to remote hiking—to identify which ones best support youth mental health. They'll combine hard geographic data with what people actually feel and perceive, looking for the gaps between objective reality and lived experience. The work suggests that future public health policy might focus less on building parks and more on helping young people notice and use the green spaces that already exist.
Notable Quotes
Perception of nature must be combined across different scenarios to have an impact on mental health.— Professor Isabelle Doré, University of Montreal
You don't need to be immersed in nature to hear and feel it. An urban park can encourage people to move and increase their wellbeing.— Professor Isabelle Doré
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that they noticed nature in both contexts, not just one?
Because the brain seems to need that consistency. If you exercise in a park but ignore trees the rest of your day, you don't get the lasting benefit. It's like the mind needs nature to be a thread running through your whole life, not just a moment.
So it's not really about the parks themselves?
It's about the parks, but filtered through attention. Two people can walk past the same tree. One sees it. One doesn't. The study is saying the one who sees it—and keeps seeing it—is the one who feels better.
That sounds like it could be a problem for people in cities without many green spaces.
Exactly. And it's worse for certain people. If you're an immigrant or low-income, you might live far from parks. You can't build that daily awareness if the trees aren't there to begin with.
What's the practical fix?
Two things. Make it easier to get to distant nature—organize trips, share rides. But also, don't underestimate small local spaces. A city park isn't wilderness, but it works. You don't need to be deep in a forest to hear birds or feel the shift.
Why are they studying 36 different activities now?
Because they want to know which ones actually work best. Soccer in a park versus hiking in the mountains versus a walk around the block—they all involve nature and movement, but do they all help equally? That's the next question.