Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the Outdoors Affects Our Nervous System and Changes Our Microbiome

News Feed
Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Rachel Feltman: Happy new year, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, this is Rachel Feltman.Whether you’re an avid backpacker, an occasional park stroller or someone whose relationship with the great outdoors falls somewhere in the middle, you probably already know that spending time in nature is a great way to de-stress. But what if leaf peeping could do more than just help you unwind? Well, according to a recent book, the sights, sounds and smells of plant life can have serious impacts on our bodies.My guest today is Kathy Willis, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, where she also serves as principal of St Edmund Hall. She’s the author of Good Nature: Why Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, and Touching Plants is Good for Our Health.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Thank you so much for joining us today.Kathy Willis: It’s a pleasure, absolute pleasure.Feltman: So you’re a professor of biodiversity, and a lot of your work focuses on the well-being of plants and their ecosystems. How did you become interested in how plant life impacts human health and wellness as well?Willis: So that’s right: I’m very much someone who’s always worked at the sort of interface between looking at vegetation and climate change and—very academic. But then I was working on a big international project and they asked me to—part of my role was to pull together the information about the relationship between nature and human health.And as I was trawling through the literature I kept coming across this study published in 1984 in this journal, the top scientific journal, showing that people who looked out of hospital window beds onto trees recovered from gallbladder operations much faster and took less pain relief than those who didn’t. And I thought, “This is really strange.” So people looking on brick walls—how does that work? They’re in a chamber. They’re in a sort of a, you know, a hospital room, so it’s not anything to do with the environment of the room; it was to do with them looking on to something. Was it influencing their health?And so that started me on a very different pathway because I started to look at this paper and realizing that, very clearly, the action of looking at nature was triggering not just mental changes but physiological changes in the body that was improving these recovery rates and effects for human health. And that’s how I started the whole journey of really saying, “Well, what else is there out there? What are the senses, when you interact with nature, [that] have an impact on our health and well-being?”Feltman: That’s fascinating, and your new book, you know, examines how those senses connect us with nature. Can you tell us a little bit about what you found when you went exploring? What does the research say about how we connect to plants and the outdoors?Willis: So it’s both outdoors and indoors, but I’ll start—I can certainly start with outdoors. I mean, so the way I looked at it and the way I started to pull the literature together was looking at the different senses: so our sight, our sound, our smell, our touch, and then there’s a hidden sense, but we’ll talk about that later.But what I found, actually, is that—very much that each of these triggers these different actions in our body, and there are three sort of mechanisms that get triggered when we interact with nature: the three direct ones.But the first one is: it affects our nervous system. So it triggers changes in things like our breathing rate, our heartbeat goes down, our blood pressure goes down, our heart rate variability: it changes to a parasympathetic variability, which is—induces much more physiological calming. But it also affects our hormone system. So you can think about—I mean, I think, for me, it’s more obvious about the heart rate and the breathing, but for example, your adrenaline goes down.Feltman: Mm.Willis: Salivary amylase, which is a hormone that you get in your saliva, which is elevated when you’re stressed, that reduces. And then the—all these psychological experiments show that your psychological state is better when your senses interact with certain aspects of nature.And then there are two other aspects of nature. The first is that when we breathe in the scents, those scents that you get are molecules—they are volatile organic molecules—and they basically become, they become a gas when they come out into the air from the plant. Those molecules pass into our blood. And once across our lung membrane and once in our blood, they interact with certain biochemical pathways in the same way as if you’re taking a prescription drug.And then finally, the other things—and our body takes on those aspects of nature, and it comes inside our body. And actually, we shouldn’t be surprised about that; we know pollution gets into our blood—pollution in the air gets into our blood. But so, so do the good aspects of nature. And finally, what I also found out from looking at this research is that when you’re in a more biodiverse environment, that environment has a much more biodiverse bacterial assembly—the good microbes that we all need—and your body adopts and takes on the signature of that environmental microbiome, which I find, again, fascinating. And as a result of that it triggers all sorts of metabolic processes that are good for us.Feltman: Very cool. And I would love to hear more about that hidden sense you mentioned.Willis: So with the hidden sense, I mean, you know, with—we’re constantly being bombarded—I don’t know [if it’s] the same for you [laughs], but I, every time I open the newspaper here, I see another thing about how we must eat 30 plants a week and we should eat pickled vegetables and everything else to increase your gut microbiome. And that is true. I think there’s a lot of real very, very important science in there. But what I learnt from looking at this is, first of all, that up to 93 percent of our gut microbiome is not inherited; it’s to do with our environment and what we eat. Now, we think about what we eat, but we don’t think about our environment. But a lot of work started about 10 years ago where they started to show that people that live in a more biodiverse environment—where you’ve got greater diversity of plants, different heights of plants, etcetera, etcetera—and more organic environments, so not using whole loads of fertilizers, that those environments, if you measure the air in those environments, they’re full of all these bacteria that we’re busily [laughs] chomping our way on, you know, food to try and get into our gut. And once we’re in those environments or we’re touching that organic soil, we adopt the signature, so we adopt all those good microbes, and it gets into our guts.Now why is that important? Because then there’s a very—some beautiful study’s been carried out on kindergarten-age—so, you know, children go to nursery school, or play school, in Finland where they, basically, they, for 28 days, they—one group played in a sandpit [where] they poured in soil from the, the local pine forest, and the other group had sterile sand. And they measured their skin microbiota, they measured their gut—so through their poop—but then they also measured their bloods. And what they found was that after 28 days those that had played in the soil had this hugely elevated microbiome in their gut.But the really critical thing in there is they measured their inflammatory markers in their bloods, and their inflammatory markers were right down. And they found the same with adults, adults playing with soil or adults even sitting in a room with a green wall: after 28 days they’d adopted that microbiome. But also, it’s affecting their bloods in a really good way. In the same way as we’re being told our diet—we ought to, with our diet, you know, eat more plants because it will do this—you can do that with your environment as well.And I find that really, really fascinating. So as well as eating 30 plants a week we should be interacting with the plants daily in order to build up good bacteria in our gut.Feltman: That’s really striking research, and I think it’s a great segue to—you know, many of our listeners might not have easy access to soil to play in or lush green spaces. What does the research say about harnessing those positive powers of plants in the outdoors when we’re stuck indoors or in urban environments?Willis: You can absolutely do it indoors. And I—it’s transformed the way I—my offices and where I work and even my home because what it’s shown [is] if you have plants in your office, you get all the benefits. For example, having a, a vase of roses on your desk.But on top of that plants in the room will seed the air with the good microbiota. And so something as simple as a spider plant—it doesn’t have to be something exotic and large; it can be a—something that reproduces rapidly like the spider plants. They’ve shown that those actively seed the air with this good microbiome.But then again, indoors, there’s some beautiful studies showing that when you smell certain plant scents it affects how you are. So lavender makes you more relaxed because it—once it’s in your blood it interacts with the biochemical pathways as if you’re taking an antianxiety drug. So if you want to be more relaxed or want to go to sleep, you can diffuse lavender in your bedroom. If you want to be more awake, you should have rosemary.And if you want to really do something that’s good for you, what they’ve shown is that the Cupressaceae family, when you smell that, not only does it decrease your adrenaline hormone, but it also elevates the natural killer cells in your blood. And the natural killer cells are those cells that attack the cancers and viruses cells, so we all want elevated natural killer cells in our blood. And so in my study at home I have Japanese cypress oil in a diffuser. I just—few drops in there, and I, every couple of days, I just push it on for 20 minutes. It does me no harm, but it probably does a lot more good.So there’s so much you can do indoors, but the number of times I go into offices or houses and there’s—the only plant you see there is plastic, if you’re lucky. And so it’s really thinking, “What can I bring into the—my house or my office or where I live in order to bring about these well-being benefits?”Feltman: Yeah, you mentioned your own personal experiences with changing your environment and habits; could you tell us more about those changes? You know, which did you find most impactful?Willis: One of the things I’ve found most impactful is just changing my route to work. So up until now—up until, you know, I started writing this book I went the quickest route, and, you know, I’m on my bike, and I’m just going down the streets. And then I started looking, and there’s some beautiful studies that have been carried out, particularly, actually, in the U.S. and actually in Japan as well, where they had—and the Japanese experiment was beautiful—they had a group of participants: Japanese males all [around] the same age, didn’t smoke, hadn’t taken any alcohol or anything. And they walked for 15 minutes [on] the streets, and they did 15 minutes going through the local urban park. And they measured their physiological and psychological markers and there was a significant difference. So walking through the park they were much more physiologically and psychologically calmer than if they walked for 15 minutes, the same pace, on the streets.And that really got me thinking about: “Actually, can you tweak your route so that you spend more time on the way to work and back by going via the park?” which is what I now do. And it does make a difference. You just feel calmer. Now, part of me thinks, “Oh, well, I’m feeling calm because I know it should make me calmer,” but even if you’re stressed, what they’ve shown is that when you look on to green vegetation, you recover faster from stress—if you look on to nature and particularly on to green vegetation—then if you don’t.And as we know, huge percentage of global diseases now are not the communicatable ones; they’re ones that actually follow on from high levels of stress, so that, you know, we really, really need to think about this very, very seriously because all that high level of stress in the longer run is really bad for us and for our, our health.But the other thing, and maybe this is important for your listeners: you don’t have to be pounding the pavements running to get the benefits. There’s a lovely study where they measured the salivary amylase of people over an eight-week period and they could choose the exercise they did in the park. And what they found was that, actually, those people that went and walked to the park and sat down [laughs] had a greater reduction in the salivary amylase—i.e., less stressed—than those doing all the other things. I think that’s always worth remembering: you don’t have to be running to get these benefits; you just have to be looking and enjoying.And then the other thing that I do now—when I worked on the chapter on sound and the sounds of nature, it’s really clear that certain sounds, like tuneful birdsong or the wind rustling in the trees or trickling of a stream, those have a really significant health benefit; all sorts of things are reduced. But even pain: they found in hospitals that people are having sort of surgery where they’re still awake, like with an epidural, that they have much, much lower stress levels if they can hear the sounds of birds and trees. So when I walk now I don’t wear my headphones—unless I’m near traffic, and then I do.Feltman: That’s great advice.Now that you’ve finished this book and it’s out in the world, what do you see as some of the most important areas for future research in this field?Willis: So I think one of the big areas where the evidence is with nature is very much [that] we know that there are all these benefits that are triggered, but we need to be—now give the medical profession the details that they need to be able to prescribe properly. And we’re not there yet.So for example, if you think about a practitioner, a [general practitioner] or, you know, someone that you go to with ailments, and they’ll normally prescribe you a prescription drug because all those clinical trials have been done on that prescription drug to tell you what drug to take for the condition. So we sort of know that: we know anxiety, etcetera, etcetera, can be relieved by interacting with nature.But the second thing is: How much do you take? We also then need to set, you know, what the dosage iso for how long do you need to interact with nature in order to get the benefit?And finally, which is really important for governments, certainly in the U.K. for the National Health Service, is: What’s the cost-benefit? So how efficient is that drug—what’s [the] efficacy of being in nature compared to, let’s say, cognitive-behavioral therapy to deal with clinical levels of anxiety?But there are some really interesting studies coming out. There was one in Copenhagen where they took people who’d been off work because of anxiety, and they split them into two groups. And the first group did cognitive-behavioral therapy with a trained psychiatrist over 10 weeks, and they did two sessions a week. The other group did three sessions a week in the university gardens, and they could be doing stuff with the gardeners or they could be doing activities or just sitting. And after 10 weeks they looked at the number of visits back to the, the medical doctor and what they found was: actually, both were very successful.Feltman: Mm.Willis: But one of those—being in the garden—was much, much cheaper to deliver than the other.But the really interesting thing about this study was that a year later, they went back and resurveyed these people to see how many were still at work. Now I had assumed, cognitive-behavioral therapy, they would be the ones more at work because they’d been given the—trained with the techniques to cope. But it was the other way around: that you had a much higher percentage of people who’d spent the time in the garden than those doing the cognitive-behavioral therapy.So from that you can then start to work out what the cost-benefits are, and it’s that sort of experiment we need to be doing, along with these much bigger clinical trials. But even in Oxford, what we’ve been doing is: Instead of giving you this drug, how about going for a walk for 20 minutes three times a week? But where do you tell them to go walking? And so—especially in the winter. It’s all well and good in the summer—the birds are singing; it’s all sort of green and lush—but what about in the winter? So we’ve been looking in the botanic gardens and the glasshouses here. It’s that sort of approach that we need to be moving.And then the other thing I would say—and I sit in the second chamber of the government, the House of Lords, and the thing that we really need to be doing is making sure that nature doesn’t always come so far down the priority list, that the first thing when you’re building in a city is you get rid of the nature. Because the most important thing that comes through from all of this is that people need to be near nature. And we’ve all signed up to that internationally, but trying to persuade governments, when they’re looking at city plans, to ensure that nature is part of the infrastructure and not just an add-on is quite hard work.Feltman: Mm. Well, thank you so much for joining us. This has been a really interesting chat, and I know I’m definitely feeling extremely motivated to go spend more time in my local park, so I really appreciate your time.Willis: Oh, thank you very much. It’s been really nice to talk to you.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back with another one on Friday. And if you’ve been missing our weekly science news roundup, your wait is almost over: we’ll be rolling back into our regular publishing schedule on Monday.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

Nature can affect our nervous system and diversify our microbiome—and you don’t need to go on a hike to reap the benefits.

Rachel Feltman: Happy new year, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, this is Rachel Feltman.

Whether you’re an avid backpacker, an occasional park stroller or someone whose relationship with the great outdoors falls somewhere in the middle, you probably already know that spending time in nature is a great way to de-stress. But what if leaf peeping could do more than just help you unwind? Well, according to a recent book, the sights, sounds and smells of plant life can have serious impacts on our bodies.

My guest today is Kathy Willis, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, where she also serves as principal of St Edmund Hall. She’s the author of Good Nature: Why Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, and Touching Plants is Good for Our Health.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Thank you so much for joining us today.

Kathy Willis: It’s a pleasure, absolute pleasure.

Feltman: So you’re a professor of biodiversity, and a lot of your work focuses on the well-being of plants and their ecosystems. How did you become interested in how plant life impacts human health and wellness as well?

Willis: So that’s right: I’m very much someone who’s always worked at the sort of interface between looking at vegetation and climate change and—very academic. But then I was working on a big international project and they asked me to—part of my role was to pull together the information about the relationship between nature and human health.

And as I was trawling through the literature I kept coming across this study published in 1984 in this journal, the top scientific journal, showing that people who looked out of hospital window beds onto trees recovered from gallbladder operations much faster and took less pain relief than those who didn’t. And I thought, “This is really strange.” So people looking on brick walls—how does that work? They’re in a chamber. They’re in a sort of a, you know, a hospital room, so it’s not anything to do with the environment of the room; it was to do with them looking on to something. Was it influencing their health?

And so that started me on a very different pathway because I started to look at this paper and realizing that, very clearly, the action of looking at nature was triggering not just mental changes but physiological changes in the body that was improving these recovery rates and effects for human health. And that’s how I started the whole journey of really saying, “Well, what else is there out there? What are the senses, when you interact with nature, [that] have an impact on our health and well-being?”

Feltman: That’s fascinating, and your new book, you know, examines how those senses connect us with nature. Can you tell us a little bit about what you found when you went exploring? What does the research say about how we connect to plants and the outdoors?

Willis: So it’s both outdoors and indoors, but I’ll start—I can certainly start with outdoors. I mean, so the way I looked at it and the way I started to pull the literature together was looking at the different senses: so our sight, our sound, our smell, our touch, and then there’s a hidden sense, but we’ll talk about that later.

But what I found, actually, is that—very much that each of these triggers these different actions in our body, and there are three sort of mechanisms that get triggered when we interact with nature: the three direct ones.

But the first one is: it affects our nervous system. So it triggers changes in things like our breathing rate, our heartbeat goes down, our blood pressure goes down, our heart rate variability: it changes to a parasympathetic variability, which is—induces much more physiological calming. But it also affects our hormone system. So you can think about—I mean, I think, for me, it’s more obvious about the heart rate and the breathing, but for example, your adrenaline goes down.

Feltman: Mm.

Willis: Salivary amylase, which is a hormone that you get in your saliva, which is elevated when you’re stressed, that reduces. And then the—all these psychological experiments show that your psychological state is better when your senses interact with certain aspects of nature.

And then there are two other aspects of nature. The first is that when we breathe in the scents, those scents that you get are molecules—they are volatile organic molecules—and they basically become, they become a gas when they come out into the air from the plant. Those molecules pass into our blood. And once across our lung membrane and once in our blood, they interact with certain biochemical pathways in the same way as if you’re taking a prescription drug.

And then finally, the other things—and our body takes on those aspects of nature, and it comes inside our body. And actually, we shouldn’t be surprised about that; we know pollution gets into our blood—pollution in the air gets into our blood. But so, so do the good aspects of nature. And finally, what I also found out from looking at this research is that when you’re in a more biodiverse environment, that environment has a much more biodiverse bacterial assembly—the good microbes that we all need—and your body adopts and takes on the signature of that environmental microbiome, which I find, again, fascinating. And as a result of that it triggers all sorts of metabolic processes that are good for us.

Feltman: Very cool. And I would love to hear more about that hidden sense you mentioned.

Willis: So with the hidden sense, I mean, you know, with—we’re constantly being bombarded—I don’t know [if it’s] the same for you [laughs], but I, every time I open the newspaper here, I see another thing about how we must eat 30 plants a week and we should eat pickled vegetables and everything else to increase your gut microbiome. And that is true. I think there’s a lot of real very, very important science in there. 

But what I learnt from looking at this is, first of all, that up to 93 percent of our gut microbiome is not inherited; it’s to do with our environment and what we eat. Now, we think about what we eat, but we don’t think about our environment. But a lot of work started about 10 years ago where they started to show that people that live in a more biodiverse environment—where you’ve got greater diversity of plants, different heights of plants, etcetera, etcetera—and more organic environments, so not using whole loads of fertilizers, that those environments, if you measure the air in those environments, they’re full of all these bacteria that we’re busily [laughs] chomping our way on, you know, food to try and get into our gut. And once we’re in those environments or we’re touching that organic soil, we adopt the signature, so we adopt all those good microbes, and it gets into our guts.

Now why is that important? Because then there’s a very—some beautiful study’s been carried out on kindergarten-age—so, you know, children go to nursery school, or play school, in Finland where they, basically, they, for 28 days, they—one group played in a sandpit [where] they poured in soil from the, the local pine forest, and the other group had sterile sand. And they measured their skin microbiota, they measured their gut—so through their poop—but then they also measured their bloods. And what they found was that after 28 days those that had played in the soil had this hugely elevated microbiome in their gut.

But the really critical thing in there is they measured their inflammatory markers in their bloods, and their inflammatory markers were right down. And they found the same with adults, adults playing with soil or adults even sitting in a room with a green wall: after 28 days they’d adopted that microbiome. But also, it’s affecting their bloods in a really good way. In the same way as we’re being told our diet—we ought to, with our diet, you know, eat more plants because it will do this—you can do that with your environment as well.

And I find that really, really fascinating. So as well as eating 30 plants a week we should be interacting with the plants daily in order to build up good bacteria in our gut.

Feltman: That’s really striking research, and I think it’s a great segue to—you know, many of our listeners might not have easy access to soil to play in or lush green spaces. What does the research say about harnessing those positive powers of plants in the outdoors when we’re stuck indoors or in urban environments?

Willis: You can absolutely do it indoors. And I—it’s transformed the way I—my offices and where I work and even my home because what it’s shown [is] if you have plants in your office, you get all the benefits. For example, having a, a vase of roses on your desk.

But on top of that plants in the room will seed the air with the good microbiota. And so something as simple as a spider plant—it doesn’t have to be something exotic and large; it can be a—something that reproduces rapidly like the spider plants. They’ve shown that those actively seed the air with this good microbiome.

But then again, indoors, there’s some beautiful studies showing that when you smell certain plant scents it affects how you are. So lavender makes you more relaxed because it—once it’s in your blood it interacts with the biochemical pathways as if you’re taking an antianxiety drug. So if you want to be more relaxed or want to go to sleep, you can diffuse lavender in your bedroom. If you want to be more awake, you should have rosemary.

And if you want to really do something that’s good for you, what they’ve shown is that the Cupressaceae family, when you smell that, not only does it decrease your adrenaline hormone, but it also elevates the natural killer cells in your blood. And the natural killer cells are those cells that attack the cancers and viruses cells, so we all want elevated natural killer cells in our blood. And so in my study at home I have Japanese cypress oil in a diffuser. I just—few drops in there, and I, every couple of days, I just push it on for 20 minutes. It does me no harm, but it probably does a lot more good.

So there’s so much you can do indoors, but the number of times I go into offices or houses and there’s—the only plant you see there is plastic, if you’re lucky. And so it’s really thinking, “What can I bring into the—my house or my office or where I live in order to bring about these well-being benefits?”

Feltman: Yeah, you mentioned your own personal experiences with changing your environment and habits; could you tell us more about those changes? You know, which did you find most impactful?

Willis: One of the things I’ve found most impactful is just changing my route to work. So up until now—up until, you know, I started writing this book I went the quickest route, and, you know, I’m on my bike, and I’m just going down the streets. And then I started looking, and there’s some beautiful studies that have been carried out, particularly, actually, in the U.S. and actually in Japan as well, where they had—and the Japanese experiment was beautiful—they had a group of participants: Japanese males all [around] the same age, didn’t smoke, hadn’t taken any alcohol or anything. And they walked for 15 minutes [on] the streets, and they did 15 minutes going through the local urban park. And they measured their physiological and psychological markers and there was a significant difference. So walking through the park they were much more physiologically and psychologically calmer than if they walked for 15 minutes, the same pace, on the streets.

And that really got me thinking about: “Actually, can you tweak your route so that you spend more time on the way to work and back by going via the park?” which is what I now do. And it does make a difference. You just feel calmer. Now, part of me thinks, “Oh, well, I’m feeling calm because I know it should make me calmer,” but even if you’re stressed, what they’ve shown is that when you look on to green vegetation, you recover faster from stress—if you look on to nature and particularly on to green vegetation—then if you don’t.

And as we know, huge percentage of global diseases now are not the communicatable ones; they’re ones that actually follow on from high levels of stress, so that, you know, we really, really need to think about this very, very seriously because all that high level of stress in the longer run is really bad for us and for our, our health.

But the other thing, and maybe this is important for your listeners: you don’t have to be pounding the pavements running to get the benefits. There’s a lovely study where they measured the salivary amylase of people over an eight-week period and they could choose the exercise they did in the park. And what they found was that, actually, those people that went and walked to the park and sat down [laughs] had a greater reduction in the salivary amylase—i.e., less stressed—than those doing all the other things. I think that’s always worth remembering: you don’t have to be running to get these benefits; you just have to be looking and enjoying.

And then the other thing that I do now—when I worked on the chapter on sound and the sounds of nature, it’s really clear that certain sounds, like tuneful birdsong or the wind rustling in the trees or trickling of a stream, those have a really significant health benefit; all sorts of things are reduced. But even pain: they found in hospitals that people are having sort of surgery where they’re still awake, like with an epidural, that they have much, much lower stress levels if they can hear the sounds of birds and trees. So when I walk now I don’t wear my headphones—unless I’m near traffic, and then I do.

Feltman: That’s great advice.

Now that you’ve finished this book and it’s out in the world, what do you see as some of the most important areas for future research in this field?

Willis: So I think one of the big areas where the evidence is with nature is very much [that] we know that there are all these benefits that are triggered, but we need to be—now give the medical profession the details that they need to be able to prescribe properly. And we’re not there yet.

So for example, if you think about a practitioner, a [general practitioner] or, you know, someone that you go to with ailments, and they’ll normally prescribe you a prescription drug because all those clinical trials have been done on that prescription drug to tell you what drug to take for the condition. So we sort of know that: we know anxiety, etcetera, etcetera, can be relieved by interacting with nature.

But the second thing is: How much do you take? We also then need to set, you know, what the dosage iso for how long do you need to interact with nature in order to get the benefit?

And finally, which is really important for governments, certainly in the U.K. for the National Health Service, is: What’s the cost-benefit? So how efficient is that drug—what’s [the] efficacy of being in nature compared to, let’s say, cognitive-behavioral therapy to deal with clinical levels of anxiety?

But there are some really interesting studies coming out. There was one in Copenhagen where they took people who’d been off work because of anxiety, and they split them into two groups. And the first group did cognitive-behavioral therapy with a trained psychiatrist over 10 weeks, and they did two sessions a week. The other group did three sessions a week in the university gardens, and they could be doing stuff with the gardeners or they could be doing activities or just sitting. And after 10 weeks they looked at the number of visits back to the, the medical doctor and what they found was: actually, both were very successful.

Feltman: Mm.

Willis: But one of those—being in the garden—was much, much cheaper to deliver than the other.

But the really interesting thing about this study was that a year later, they went back and resurveyed these people to see how many were still at work. Now I had assumed, cognitive-behavioral therapy, they would be the ones more at work because they’d been given the—trained with the techniques to cope. But it was the other way around: that you had a much higher percentage of people who’d spent the time in the garden than those doing the cognitive-behavioral therapy.

So from that you can then start to work out what the cost-benefits are, and it’s that sort of experiment we need to be doing, along with these much bigger clinical trials. But even in Oxford, what we’ve been doing is: Instead of giving you this drug, how about going for a walk for 20 minutes three times a week? But where do you tell them to go walking? And so—especially in the winter. It’s all well and good in the summer—the birds are singing; it’s all sort of green and lush—but what about in the winter? So we’ve been looking in the botanic gardens and the glasshouses here. It’s that sort of approach that we need to be moving.

And then the other thing I would say—and I sit in the second chamber of the government, the House of Lords, and the thing that we really need to be doing is making sure that nature doesn’t always come so far down the priority list, that the first thing when you’re building in a city is you get rid of the nature. Because the most important thing that comes through from all of this is that people need to be near nature. And we’ve all signed up to that internationally, but trying to persuade governments, when they’re looking at city plans, to ensure that nature is part of the infrastructure and not just an add-on is quite hard work.

Feltman: Mm. Well, thank you so much for joining us. This has been a really interesting chat, and I know I’m definitely feeling extremely motivated to go spend more time in my local park, so I really appreciate your time.

Willis: Oh, thank you very much. It’s been really nice to talk to you.

Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back with another one on Friday. And if you’ve been missing our weekly science news roundup, your wait is almost over: we’ll be rolling back into our regular publishing schedule on Monday.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Nature groups rebuke Reeves for ‘cynical’ 11th-hour planning bill changes

Chancellor accused of removing environmental protections to win short-term growth and save her budgetUK politics live – latest updatesLast-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law. Continue reading...

Last-minute changes to the government’s landmark planning bill have sparked a furious backlash from nature groups who have mounted an attack on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, over her plans to remove environmental protections.The changes to the legislation come as it enters its final stages before being signed into law.Promoted by Reeves, they are designed to make it easier for developers to side-step environmental laws in order to build major projects such as AI datacentres.They include new powers for the government to overrule local democracy if councils refuse developments based on environmental grounds, or on issues such as water shortages.But in outspoken attacks on the chancellor, charities including household names such as the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts say Reeves is seeking to grab short-term growth headlines to save her budget, rather than well-thought-out reforms to planning.Reeves is pushing for the planning bill to be passed before her budget on 26 November so that she is able to factor it into forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which could give her about £3bn extra breathing room against her own debt rules.The charities have spent months working with ministers in an attempt to forge the best planning bill to ensure growth and nature recovery go hand in hand.Dr James Robinson, the RSPB’s chief operating officer, said: “Dropping 67 amendments to the planning bill at the 11th hour isn’t just poor process, it’s legislative chaos. There’s no time for proper scrutiny, no clarity on the cumulative impact, and no confidence this is about good planning rather than political optics.“It looks like a cynical attempt to game a better forecast from the OBR, rather than a serious effort to fix the planning system.”The intervention by Reeves into the landmark bill comes after she was filmed boasting about her closeness to a major developer after she intervened to lift legal blocks to their housing plans.The objections to 21,000 homes being built in Sussex concerned water shortages and concerns over the amount of water being taken from rivers and wetlands in the Arun Valley, which risked affecting protected wildlife and local water resources. The MP for Horsham, John Milne has criticised the chancellor’s intervention, stating that it was top-down government at its worst.“This decision rides roughshod over the work that Horsham district council has been carrying out to find a balanced solution.”One amendment promoted by Reeves would allow more central government intervention in local decision making. It allows the secretary of state to overrule councils that refuse permission for projects, even if they have legitimate concerns on environmental grounds, or there are issues relating to water shortages.The amendment is designed to ease the path of major infrastructure projects, for example AI datacentres, which create vast amounts of CO2 and put huge pressure on water resources.Alexa Culver, an environmental lawyer from RSK Wilding, said: “For the first time, the secretary of state will be able to make orders that prevent refusals of planning permission by planning authorities.“This could direct authorities to ignore real-world infastructure and environmental constraints – like water shortages – to allow harmful development through that leaves local communities stranded.”Joan Edwards, director of policy and public affairs at the Wildlife Trusts, said Reeves was trying to grab headlines about growth measures before her budget.“The chancellor continues to fail to understand that a healthy natural environment underpins a healthy economy. These performative amendments represent neither a win for development or the economy, and promise only delay and muddle in planning and marine policy.”Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government’s race to speed up planning decisions would fall flat on its face if it did not include the environment at its core.“Last-minute changes to the bill are being made in a hurried and piecemeal approach,” he said. “This kind of scattergun policymaking doesn’t give businesses or investors the certainty they need to drive growth, and it puts the UK’s irreplaceable natural environment at risk.”Government officials have said the amendments were required in part because an earlier watering down of the bill in the summer damaged investor confidence. However, no data has been provided to back this claim.The government said if passed, each of these “pro-growth changes” would accelerate the government’s “plan for change” to build 1.5m homes, achieve clean power by 2030 and raise living standards across the country.Steve Reed, the housing secretary, said: “Britain’s potential has been shackled by governments unwilling to overhaul the stubborn planning system that has erected barriers to building at every turn. It is simply not true that nature has to lose for economic growth to succeed.“Sluggish planning has real-world consequences. Every new house blocked deprives a family of a home. Every infrastructure project that gets delayed blocks someone from a much-needed job. This will now end.”

The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial

Rachel Reeves’s drive to speed up development is beginning to treat wildlife and the environment as expendable. Voters want homes built, but not at any costIt began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums. Continue reading...

It began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums.The scheme was given the go-ahead a day before drought was declared in Sussex, potentially giving water companies cover to breach their licence obligations – including measures meant to protect the snails. Ms Reeves won’t like being compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss railed against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who, she claimed, were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms Reeves is framing the issue the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.But the public don’t agree. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a Conservative conference fringe meeting that most Britons can’t be categorised as “nimby” or “yimby”. They want both: to build and also to protect the countryside. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delays or raises the cost of infrastructure, every single voter group – including Labour, Conservative and Reform UK – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritised nature protection while 18% sided with building at any cost.The Treasury reportedly plans to gut green rules with amendments to its planning and infrastructure bill – ditching the precautionary principle, slashing species protections and curbing legal challenges. The bill, currently in the Lords, already allows developers to bypass environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under its “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could disapply environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.Labour, significantly, is turning its back on the work of the Dasgupta review. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Labour is not only rejecting that view but deluding itself by claiming housebuilding will be accelerated by dismissing concerns around conservation. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes already have planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real barriers to housebuilding are skills shortages, hoarded land and slow delivery. They need sorting out. Blaming snails, it would seem, is easier.Many of Labour’s younger voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and leftwing economics. Now, by mocking green protections and cosying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem isn’t the planning system. It’s a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Scrapping nature protections won’t build 1.5m homes, it will just bulldoze public trust and the countryside.

Labor is close to a deal on environmental law reforms. There are troubling signs these will fall short

Labor is close to a deal on its environmental law reforms. Will they strong enough to protect nature?

Chris Putnam/GettyThe Albanese government has hinted it is close to a deal with the Coalition over the long-awaited overhaul of Australia’s environment laws. Environment Minister Murray Watt plans to introduce new legislation to parliament in November. Can Watt deliver what is sorely needed to turn around Australia’s climate and nature crises? Or will we see a continuation of what former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry called “intergenerational bastardry”? However the bill is passed, the new laws must include substantial improvements. But with pressure from all sides – including the Opposition and minor parties, mining companies, green groups and big business – will the new laws be strong enough to protect Australia’s embattled environment? Here are some of the ways our environment laws should be reformed. Not fit for purpose Australia’s key national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is 25 years old. Two major reviews, ten years apart in 2009 and 2020, criticised it variously as “too repetitive and unnecessarily complex” and “ineffective”. At the 2022 election the Albanese government promised to overhaul the laws. But most of its proposed reforms were abandoned in the lead up to the next election in 2025, citing a lack of parliamentary support. In 2022, Labor was talking up its plan to reform Australia’s broken environmental laws. A strong watchdog The success or failure of the reformed laws rests on developing well-defined National Environmental Standards – legally binding rules to improve environmental outcomes. These would apply to environmental decisions that affect nationally important plants, animals, habitats and places. Examples include land clearing in areas where threatened species occur, regional planning and Indigenous consultation. Alongside strong standards, we need a well-resourced and fearlessly independent Environment Protection Agency to assess proposals, such as applications for new gas wells or to clear native vegetation for mining. A strong EPA is essential for legal compliance. The Coalition doesn’t support an EPA and wants final approval powers to rest with the minister of the day. But if an EPA can be overruled by the minister, it could further reduce public confidence in the protection system, especially given recent examples of real or perceived industry pressure on government decisions. If the minister is given powers to “call in” proposals to assess them they should be very specific and restricted. For example, for responding to national disasters but not for purely economic purposes. The reasons for calling in a decision should be published and made public. The endangered southern black-throated finch is just one of many threatened Australian species. Geoff Walker/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC Habitats are homes for wildlife and need greater protection New laws should also clarify what are considered “unacceptable impacts” of new projects. For example, irreplaceable natural areas should be saved from destruction or damage by new developments. Destroying or damaging habitats that are home to rare and endangered species should be illegal. Protected, “no-go” areas could be recorded on a register to guide project decisions, as Watt has discussed. It is vital that environmental offsets, designed to compensate for unavoidable impacts from developments, are legislated as a last resort. Climate change The EPBC Act lacks a “climate trigger” that explicitly requires consideration of climate change impacts of greenhouse gas-intensive projects. At least ten previous attempts to introduce a climate trigger have not succeeded, and Watt has all but ruled it out in these reforms. Instead, Watt suggests “the existing Safeguard Mechanism as an effective way of controlling emissions”. The Safeguard Mechanism legislates limits on greenhouse gas emissions for Australia’s largest industrial facilities. But it only applies to the direct or scope 1, greenhouse gas emissions. It does not include emissions produced from Australia’s fossil fuel exports of coal, oil and gas. Nearly 80% of Australia’s contribution to global emissions comes from its fossil fuel exports. Even without a climate trigger, reforms to the EPBC Act must reflect the impact of climate change on Australia’s environments. They could require climate is taken into account in all decision making to achieve environmental outcomes under the Act, and prohibit development in places that offer refuge to native species during extreme events. First Nations to the front Environmental decision making must include genuine Indigenous engagement and a required standard should be part of the Act. A Commissioner for Country would help to ensure this expectation was adhered to. Furthermore, calls have been made by First Nations for new laws to include the protection of species based on their cultural significance. No more logging loopholes There must be an end to industry carve outs, including regional forestry agreements. A pact between the national government and certain states, these agreements define how native forests should be managed, harvested and protected. For decades, they have allowed the logging of forests that are home to endangered native species, including the koala and greater glider. In 2024, Victoria and Western Australia both ended the native forestry industries in their states. In August 2025, Watt confirmed that bringing regional forest agreements under the operation of national environment standards “remains our position”. But so far he has avoided questions about how that would work in practice. Clear targets If the Labor government is serious about delivering on its promise of “No New Extinctions” these reforms must include clear targets to better protect threatened animals, plants and their environments. Preventing further extinctions will take far greater, long-term funding than Australia currently provides. We need a better understanding of how endangered species and ecological communities are faring. The newly-created Environment Information Australia body will collect data and track progress against an agreed baseline, for example the 2021 State of Environment Report. Conservation leader not pariah Australia is known globally for its unique and much-loved wildlife, and its diverse and beautiful nature places. However, in the face of enormous pressure to enable increased development, we are gaining a reputation for our gross failures to care for and conserve this extraordinary natural heritage. Australia must step up as a global leader in nature conservation through strong environmental laws and biodiversity recovery strategies. As we bid to host the UN’s global climate summit COP31 next year, the eyes of the world will be on our environmental and climate ambition. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and president of the Australian Mammal Society.Phillipa C. McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Natural Hazards Research Australia, the National Environmental Science Program, Green Adelaide, the North East NSW Forestry Hub and the ACT government. She is a member of the National Environmental Law Association and International Association of Wildland Fire and affiliated with the Wildlife Crime Research Hub.Yung En Chee receives/has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She also receives funding and research contracts from Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership 2023-2028. Yung En is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Scientists Are Uncovering the Secrets of How Fluffy, White Dandelions Spread Their Seeds

Their seed dispersal strategies have helped these ubiquitous plants flourish all over the world, new research suggests

Scientists Are Uncovering the Secrets of How Fluffy, White Dandelions Spread Their Seeds Their seed dispersal strategies have helped these ubiquitous plants flourish all over the world, new research suggests Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent October 6, 2025 2:50 p.m. Dandelions are strategic about when to disperse their seeds, new research suggests. Pixabay Chris Roh and his 4-year-old daughter have developed a sweet father-daughter ritual: Whenever they see a fluffy dandelion while they’re out walking, they pick up the flower and blow on it. But Roh is not just a dad, he’s also a fluid dynamicist at Cornell University. So this shared activity got him thinking: How, exactly, do dandelions disperse their seeds? Roh and his colleagues answer this question in a new paper published September 10 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, describing the mechanisms that enable the ubiquitous weed (Taraxacum officinale) to spread its white tufts on the breeze. Did you know? Dandelions of many names Dandelions have many nicknames around the world, from "Irish daisy" to "cankerwort." The weed is also sometimes called "wet-the-bed"—likely because of its diuretic effects. “How the seeds are attached to the parent plant, how they enable or prevent [detachment] based on environmental conditions—that moment is so important,” Roh says in a statement. “It sets the trajectory and governs a lot of how far they will go and where they will land,” he says, adding that the initial detachment process “is probably one of the most crucial moments in their biology.” For the study, scientists glued a force sensor to individual dandelion seeds. Then, they slowly tugged the seeds away from the stem in different directions, recording the force required to free them in each scenario. The scientists say this is the first time anyone has ever formally measured the force needed to detach dandelion seeds, per Science News’ Susan Milius. Pulling downward required nearly five times as much force to release the seeds from the plant than pulling upward, according to the researchers. The seeds were the most stubborn when the scientists pulled straight out from the seed head, requiring more than 100 times the force of pulling upward, per Phys.org’s Sanjukta Mondal. Next, the team looked at the plant under a microscope to see how the seeds were attached to the stem. The seeds are connected to the plant by a slender tether with a horseshoe-shaped structure providing support on one side, they discovered. The researchers theorize that when the wind blows the seed tuft toward the supported side of the horseshoe, it doesn’t budge. Only when the breeze blows the tuft toward the open side does the seed detach and float away. These findings won’t surprise anyone who has ever blown on a fluffy dandelion—only the closest tufts take flight, while those on the opposite side of the seed head remain firmly attached. Rotating the plant, while continuing to huff and puff, is the only way to free all the seeds. This asymmetrical arrangement is likely an adaptation to help ensure the plant’s seeds only detach when a wind gust is optimal for dispersal—that is, when the wind is poised to blow the seeds upward and away from the parent plant, instead of downward toward the ground. This, in turn, gives the species better chances of surviving and proliferating. “Seed dispersal over a wide area … offers seedlings the chance to thrive by avoiding being in close proximity to their relatives, which would limit resources for seedlings and the parent plant,” writes Mary Abraham for Nature News and Views. This unique, microscopic seed attachment architecture is likely a big reason why dandelions grow anywhere and everywhere—much to the chagrin of groundskeepers trying to maintain unblemished, manicured lawns. “Its seed dispersal strategies are at least partially responsible for its nearly worldwide distribution and evolutionary success,” the team writes in the paper. The researchers see dandelions as a model for other wind-dispersed plants, such as cotton and lettuce, so they hope their findings will have broader implications. Understanding the basic structural mechanics of dandelion seed dispersion could prove useful for scientists modeling plant and disease population dynamics, for instance, or for growers managing their fields. The findings may one day help improve “how crop seeds are distributed, especially in large-scale farming,” says study co-author Sridhar Ravi, an engineer at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, in Australia, in a statement. “It could lead to more efficient planting techniques that reduce waste and increase yield.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea?

As work begins at four key beaches, this coastal management practice reveals a delicate balance between infrastructure and nature. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

With Capetonians in a fuss about the recently announced beach lowering programme, many are asking the obvious question: Why are bulldozers pushing sand back into the ocean at Fish Hoek, Muizenberg, Gordon’s Bay, and Bikini Beach? Aren’t we supposed to protect our beaches, not remove sand from them? The confusion is understandable. As the annual programme kicked off this October, the sight of heavy machinery on beloved beaches naturally raises concerns. But the answer lies in understanding Cape Town’s unique coastal challenge: the relentless power of wind-blown sand during the Mother City’s notorious summer winds. The Problem Cape Town’s coastal areas exist in what officials call “highly altered coastal systems”: urban coastlines where infrastructure sits close to dynamic natural forces. During winter, sand accumulates naturally. But when summer arrives with the infamous southeaster winds, this sand becomes a moving threat. “The lowering of beach sand levels enables greater areas of the beach to become wet during high tides, therefore limiting the potential for wind-blown sand to inundate adjacent roads and infrastructure,” explains Alderman Eddie Andrews, the City’s Deputy Mayor. Without intervention, wind-blown sand can smother parking areas, block stormwater outlets, and threaten electrical infrastructure. At Hout Bay, a giant dune once endangered key facilities. The Science Beach lowering is different from simply removing sand. The City pushes sand from the upper beach to the low-water mark, where wave action transports it back into the coastal circulation system. “Beach lowering mimics a natural scour event which is common on our shorelines, and puts the sand back into the sea where it returns to circulation within the oceanic system,” the City notes. By lowering the beach profile, more surface area becomes wet during high tides. Wet sand is significantly heavier than dry sand and far less susceptible to wind transport, effectively anchoring it in place during the windy season. Environmental Balance Beach manipulation raises important environmental questions. Research worldwide has identified both benefits and concerns. On the positive side, the practice maintains natural sediment circulation, protects infrastructure without hard structures like seawalls, preserves beach access and tourism, and represents a reversible intervention. Potential concerns include temporary disruption to beach organisms, short-term water turbidity during work, and disturbance to shorebirds during operations. Cape Town’s approach minimises impacts by scheduling work between 1 October and 8 November, before peak summer season and bird nesting periods. Critically, sand isn’t removed from the coastal system entirely but returned to natural ocean circulation. Why Not Just Build Walls? Hard structures like seawalls might seem simpler, but they accelerate erosion on adjacent properties, reflect wave energy, permanently alter natural processes, and prove inflexible as sea levels rise. Beach lowering represents a “soft” engineering approach that preserves the beach as a natural, dynamic feature while managing wind-blown sand. Looking Forward As sea levels rise and extreme weather intensifies, Cape Town’s approach of minimal intervention offers lessons for coastal cities worldwide. “Our intention is to intervene as little as possible,” says Gregg Oelofse, head of the City’s Environmental Policy and Strategy. “We have learnt that the more you intervene, the more you mess the situation up.” The mechanical work runs through early November, completing before summer winds intensify. Beaches remain accessible, though visitors should stay clear of machinery. For most beachgoers, results will be largely invisible. Beaches won’t look dramatically different, they’ll simply function better with less sand blowing onto infrastructure. The sand being pushed back into the sea isn’t wasted. It’s being returned to its natural home, to be redistributed by the forces that brought it ashore. Sometimes the best solution is working with nature rather than against it. A Sandy Perspective For South Africans living abroad, particularly in the UK, Cape Town’s beach challenges offer an interesting contrast. British beaches are often rocky affairs, frequently backed by concrete seawalls built to hold back the sea. When the weather is actually good enough for a beach day, you’re more likely to find pebbles than sand. Cape Town’s problem isn’t a lack of beaches but managing an abundance of sand that wants to go where it shouldn’t. It’s a uniquely South African coastal challenge, and one that makes those sprawling False Bay beaches all the more precious. Beach lowering runs from 1 October to 8 November 2025, weather dependent. For updates, visit the City of Cape Town’s official website. The post Beach lowering has begun across Cape Town: Why is the city pushing sand back into the sea? appeared first on SA People.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.