8.5.2026

Jenni Lehtimäki: Residential nature must be preserved for the benefit of public health

Blog

Finns can be proud of their local natural environments: according to an international comparison, Finns living in urban areas enjoy exceptionally abundant greenery. It is worth investing in the quality of local nature, as the effects of nature on public health are extensive. It is estimated that increasing Finns' connection to nature could benefit the national economy by 2.5 billion euros annually, writes principal researcher Jenni Lehtimäki in her blog.

Finns can be proud of their local natural environments: international comparisons show that people living in urbanized areas in Finland enjoy an exceptionally high level of greenery. However, nearby nature is not always of sufficient quality to provide natural peace, good opportunities for physical activity, or experiences of biodiversity.

Residential nature still exists, but its quality needs improvement

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that everyone should have access to a high-quality green space within a five-minute walk, or 300 meters, from their home.

At Syke, we have measured both the amount and quality of nearby nature around the homes of Finns in two studies. These studies show that nearly all Finns living in largest urban areas have their nearest green space within 300 meters from their homes.

One of the most important quality criteria in the WHO recommendation is that the green space is large enough. When it comes to the quality of residential nature, Finland does not earn a top grade: the distance to the higher-quality green spaces is longer than recommended. In Finland, green spaces large enough to provide a sense of natural peace, green areas with outdoor trails, exercise opportunities or recreational services, and protected nature areas, are more difficult to access.

There is certainly greenery close to the homes of urban Finns, but high-quality green spaces that offer natural peace, high biodiversity, or good trails for walking are often too far from home.

The study also found socioeconomic inequalities. Residents of high-income areas had shorter distance to extensive forest areas. In contrast, residents of low-income areas lived closer to green spaces with good walking trails and outdoor exercise facilities.

Rural children face more nature, but not more biodiversity than urban children

In another Syke’s study, we made a finding that surprised even ourselves: the most biodiverse forests and grasslands are equally abundant in the residential environments of children living in urban and in rural areas. As might be expected, children living in rural areas have far more nature in their surroundings in terms of quantity. However, it is a pity that only a small share of this extensive rural nature represents the most biodiverse habitats. This observation shows that rural residents are by no means protected from the degradation of nature.

Rural children have more nature around them, but, on average, children in urban and rural areas encounter the most biodiverse nature in equal amounts in their residential environments.

What has led to the situation where the richest nature is equally present in the surroundings of urban and rural people? One possible explanation is that historically cities were founded in locations rich in natural resources. Later, remaining natural areas were preserved for recreational use, allowing natural features such as old-growth trees to persist. In rural areas, humans have likewise utilized the most fertile nature, for example for agriculture. Large-scale intensification of both forestry and agriculture has ultimately led to the replacement of rich natural habitats with land optimized for production.

In our research, the “most biodiverse nature” does not refer to primal forests or traditional biotopes, as these habitat types that support the rarest species in Finland have practically disappeared from everyday life of Finns. Instead, in our study, biodiverse nature refers, for example, to forests assessed to have a high number of species or forests that have retained features required by species specialized to forests, such as deadwood.

The public health benefits of nature are substantial

Does it matter whether people live close to nature or not? Yes. Natural environments significantly promote human health.

Nature is a holistic health promoter, comparable to a healthy diet, sufficient sleep, and physical activity. Like these, nature simultaneously enhances mental well-being, reduces the risk of illness, and lowers mortality. It has been estimated that increasing Finns’ connection with nature could reduce national economic costs by 2.5 billion euros annually.

The development of a high-quality natural environment takes at least one human generation—often longer. It is therefore time to recognize the many values produced by existing residential nature, to protect these environments for the health of current and future generations, and to improve their quality through ecological restoration.