Let’s start with an uncomfortable question: if you can’t get to the mountains, if you live in a grey city, if you struggle with social anxiety or simply don’t have the time – can you still “recharge” through nature? And does it even count?
Surprisingly, the answer is: maybe yes. And research is starting to take that seriously (Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Word cloud, based on 500 keywords, represents the absolute frequency of the most used keywords about nature, virtual reality and youth.
VR and Nature: Not Sci-Fi, Just Well-being
There’s a fairly recent body of research – we’re talking about the post-2019 period, when consumer VR headsets really took off – exploring exactly this: how beneficial can immersion in virtual natural environments actually be, especially for people aged 18 to 30 who face real-world barriers to accessing nature?
The question isn’t just “does it work or doesn’t it?” The more interesting one is: how do you do it ethically and effectively? How do you balance the psychological benefits – less stress, better mood, a stronger sense of connection to the natural world – against very real risks like cybersickness or the disorienting feeling that prolonged headset use can sometimes leave behind (LaViola, 2000)?
This balance matters, especially when we consider that access to natural environments is far from equal. Urban youth, people with mobility limitations, and those living in nature-deprived areas are precisely the groups who might benefit most from virtual alternatives – and the ones most likely to be overlooked in research design (Soga & Gaston, 2016).
The Theoretical Backbone: Why Nature Helps in the First Place
Before diving into the apps, it’s worth pausing on why nature exposure benefits us at all. Two frameworks dominate the literature.
The first is Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995), which argues that natural environments restore our capacity for directed attention by engaging what Kaplan calls “soft fascination” – gentle, effortless engagement that lets the mind recover from cognitive fatigue. Think of watching leaves move in the wind. You’re paying attention, but it costs you nothing.
The second is Stress Recovery Theory (Ulrich, 1983), which frames nature exposure as a physiological reset – lower cortisol, reduced heart rate, a nervous system that steps back from high alert. Both theories have decades of empirical support, and more recently, researchers have begun testing whether virtual natural environments can trigger the same responses (Chirico & Gaggioli, 2019; Browning et al., 2020).
The short answer: often, yes – though the mechanisms and the magnitude still vary quite a bit depending on the quality of the immersion.
Wild Journey: Meditating in the Forest (Without Leaving Home)
The first app worth looking at is Wild Journey, and the concept is as simple as it is compelling: it guides you through immersive, nature-themed meditations. There’s a narrator (you can choose a male or female voice) who blends mindfulness techniques with nature storytelling, guided breathing exercises, high-quality nature soundscapes for free listening, and even multi-day journeys – like a “7-day forest retreat” – designed to build a lasting habit of connection with the natural world.
The underlying idea is that through this kind of practice, the boundary between self and nature begins to dissolve. This isn’t just relaxation: it’s training in what researchers call environmental sensitivity – the ability to genuinely perceive and internalize one’s surroundings (Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy, 2009). You’re not just unwinding; you’re rewiring how you pay attention to the living world.
The Nature Quotient framework (WWF, 2013), which the app implicitly draws on, measures this through two dimensions in particular: Spirit (a felt sense of oneness with nature) and Emotion (affective resonance with natural environments). Wild Journey targets both.
Seek by iNaturalist: The Birdwatcher Inside You (With Achievement Badges)
Then there’s Seek, which works in a completely different way but is just as interesting. Think of it as a real-world Pokédex: you go outside, point your camera at plants and animals, and the app identifies and classifies them. You earn badges for the species you observe, there are monthly challenges, and – almost without noticing – you start becoming genuinely more aware of the biodiversity around you.
What’s clever about Seek is how it uses gamification to do something serious: turn curiosity into real environmental literacy. It’s not just telling you “that’s a blackbird.” It’s teaching you to look at the world differently, to understand ecosystems, and to connect with a community of people who share those interests.
From a theoretical standpoint, this aligns well with research on citizen science and conservation behaviour (Bonney et al., 2014): when people actively participate in observing and documenting nature, their sense of environmental responsibility tends to grow meaningfully. The app targets two Nature Quotient dimensions – Cognition (stimulating curiosity and deeper ecosystem understanding) and Action (fostering active engagement and socialising through shared conservation goals).
Natural Atlas: The Field Guide of the Future
The third app, Natural Atlas, plays on yet another dimension: place attachment. It’s a GPS-powered naturalist guide that adapts to exactly where you’re standing. Original, richly detailed maps, hike tracking, field notes, and a personal profile that accumulates all your outdoor memories over time.
The theoretical lens here comes from Participatory Mapping (PPGIS – Public Participation Geographic Information Systems), a framework developed to understand how people build emotional and cognitive relationships with specific landscapes (Brown & Kyttä, 2014). By actively documenting the places you visit and the things you discover there, you’re not just recording data – you’re constructing what Scannell & Gifford (2010) call Place Identity: the way your self-concept is shaped by, and attached to, the natural places you inhabit.
Natural Atlas targets the same two Nature Quotient dimensions as Seek – Curiosity (cognition) and Action – but through a more personal, reflective lens. Less gamified, more journal-like.
So, Does It Actually Work?
The honest answer is: it depends on how you do it. Slapping on a headset and expecting miracles won’t cut it. VR platforms need to be carefully designed – high-quality content, multiplatform adaptability (the same experiences should ideally run on VR, desktop, and web to reach more users, including teachers in classroom settings), and genuine attention to physiological risks.
But what’s emerging from the research is that digital nature – done right – isn’t a lazy shortcut. It can be a genuine access point to well-being for people who would otherwise be excluded. And, in the best-case scenario, it can even become a first step towards a deeper, more conscious relationship with the real natural world.
Not bad for something that runs on a phone or a headset.
Are you exploring VR nature tools for education or well-being? We’d love to hear about your experience.
References
Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., & Parrish, J. K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437.
Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122–136.
Browning, M. H. E. M., Mimnaugh, K. J., van Riper, C. J., Laurent, H. K., & LaValle, S. M. (2020). Can simulated nature support mental health? Comparing short, single-doses of 360-degree nature videos in virtual reality with the outdoors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3124.
Chirico, A., & Gaggioli, A. (2019). When virtual feels real: Comparing emotional responses and presence in virtual nature and urban environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(12), 763–771.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182.
LaViola, J. J. (2000). A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 32(1), 47–56.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 85–125). Plenum Press.
WWF (2013). Reconnecting children with nature: A framework for developing the Nature Quotient. WWF-UK.