Urban nature supports mental health in cities, with benefits including reduced stress and anxiety, enhanced positive emotions and increased social connection. However, most evidence concerns dominant communities in high‐income countries, neglecting marginalised groups such as migrants, refugees, sexual minorities and neurodivergent individuals. Given the more than 280 million international migrants worldwide, it is essential to understand whether, and how, urban nature supports their well‐being. We conducted a systematic literature review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis framework, of quantitative, qualitative and mixed‐methods articles on urban nature interactions and the well‐being of migrant communities, identifying 39 studies. We found impacts of urban nature through four well‐being domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal, cultural and place‐related) and seven types of well‐being. Positive impacts outweighed negative impacts, and included enhanced positive emotions, social interaction and sense of belonging. Negative impacts included feelings of alienation, perceptions of unsafety and conflict with dominant groups. Major barriers were maintenance issues and a lack of information about safety and social norms in green spaces. The cultural domain is a novel contribution to the current frameworks linking nature and well‐being benefits. It enables migrants to maintain cultural practices while shaping new identities. Also, a critical geographical gap was identified, with only five articles focused on the Southern Hemisphere. These results can inform strategies to create inclusive urban green spaces that overcome barriers and enhance the benefits of urban nature for migrants and host communities. Broader research across underrepresented regions may also deepen understanding of how nature and culture are valued and interrelated across diverse worldviews. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mardones et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: