Background/Objectives: This study examines the legislation governing forest therapy in healthcare, centered on nature-based environments as workplaces for professional forest therapy specialists within international, EU, and national legal frameworks from a labor law perspective. Methods: Using systematic legal analysis, comparative document analysis, and analysis of the scientific literature, the study examines current relevant international, EU, and national (Lithuania, the Republic of Korea) regulations. Results: Based on a cross-sectoral legal norms analysis, the legal conception of forest therapy in healthcare systems and the general regulatory framework for the professional use of nature-based environments as workplaces were identified, along with their impact on the realization of the right to work, workplace requirements, and the provision of forest therapy services. Regulatory mechanisms and conditions governing the use of nature-based environments for forest therapy purposes, under schemes administered by public and private bodies, were identified and analyzed. The interaction between nature-based workplace factors and legal liability arising from professional, contractual, and service-based relationships was also defined and clarified. Conclusions: Fragmented legal regulation of nature-based environments as workplaces for forest therapy creates legal uncertainty, limits the realization of the right to work, and increases legal risks in employment, service provision, patient protection, and resource use. Strengthened interdisciplinary integration between health and forest policy is essential to ensure service quality, accessibility, and legal certainty. Therefore, future regulation should prioritize integrated and harmonized legal frameworks that recognize forest therapy within healthcare systems, ensure fair working conditions, and establish clear rules for the professional use of nature-based environments in therapeutic practices.
Tamašauskaitė-Janickė et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: