Abstract
The study compared psychological and physiological health effects of short-term stays at managed and abandoned meadows, a mountain river, and an urban site of a dependent sample of 22 adult participants (mean age 27) during an 11-day field trip. The study found that pulse rates decreased during the stays at all the meadows and the urban site while no decrease was observed at the river. Blood pressure increased at all sites during the stay, with no study-site differences for systolic, but for diastolic, blood pressure. Participants reported more positive psychological health effects as a result of their stays at the most remote meadow and the river on attention restoration, stress reduction and wellbeing compared to the urban site, while no differences in health perceptions were observed between managed and unmanaged meadows. This study suggests that perceived and measured health benefits were independent of the degree of naturalness of meadows. While differences measured on the physiological level between urban built and natural sites were marginal, psychological measures showed higher health benefits of the natural environments compared to the built one.