Designing Restorative Nature-Based Experiences in a Coastal Wellness Resort: A Randomised Companion Analysis of Cloud Noticing, Forest Therapy Elements, and Active Control

1. Introduction

Natural amenities contribute to a resort's appeal, but scenery alone does not constitute an organised guest experience. A view of the sky, a wooded path, shade, sound, texture, and contact with the ground become service resources only when the destination gives guests a comprehensible and safe way to engage with them. The relevant managerial task is therefore not simply to possess attractive surroundings, but to shape an encounter in which environmental opportunity, staff practice, timing, and guest attention work together.

This issue is especially visible in coastal wellness properties, where atmospheric light, the horizon, clouds, and Mediterranean vegetation are commonly used in branding while remaining largely unstructured during the stay. A low-infrastructure innovation can occur when such features are converted into a clearly bounded activity with an intentional sequence, defined facilitation, safety provisions, and explicit limits. Tourism innovation may thus arise through a new configuration of existing resources and organisational knowledge rather than through physical expansion (Hjalager, 2010).

Environmental psychology and nature-health research provide reasons to expect immediate restorative responses to contact with forests, green areas, and blue environments, including changes in affect, stress, attention, and physiological activation (Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1995; Hansen et al., 2017; Britton et al., 2020; White et al., 2020). Evidence concerning forest bathing and forest therapy is encouraging but methodologically diverse, with substantial variation in protocols, samples, and endpoints (Farrow & Washburn, 2019; Stier-Jarmer et al., 2021; Queirolo et al., 2024; Kaleta et al., 2025). For hospitality research, the additional question is how these possibilities can be translated into a credible and manageable visitor offer (Ohe et al., 2017; Farkić et al., 2021). A separate investigation of a three-day guided forest-bathing programme has likewise shown that average immediate change and differences in guests' starting orientations are separate issues for programme design (Racz & Armano, 2026a).

Deliberate attention offers a plausible bridge between environmental exposure and experienced restoration. Research on noticing nature indicates that actively registering natural details and one's reactions can add value beyond the duration of exposure (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore et al., 2025). In a coastal setting, attention can be directed outward and upward toward cloud movement, light, depth, and horizon, or inward and nearby toward scent, sound, temperature, texture, posture, and footing. These modes use the same destination at different perceptual distances and may therefore produce related yet distinguishable forms of experience.

The current manuscript is transparently linked to the randomised parent study reported by Racz and Armano (2026b), but it answers a different question. The earlier article used the final assessment of all four conditions to evaluate a 22-item service-performance module covering organisation and quality of the experience, satisfaction, perceived innovativeness, added value, and recommendation intention. Here, the analytical sample is restricted to participants with paired observations surrounding one of the three organised sessions, and the outcomes are psychological, experiential, and basic physiological responses. No service-performance endpoint, statistical model, or principal result from the earlier publication is repeated.

Accordingly, the object of inquiry is an immediately experienced restorative episode within a hospitality setting, not a clinical intervention and not a second evaluation of service quality. We ask whether two different ways of directing attention to destination nature show more favourable response patterns than an organised control activity, whether the sky- and forest-focused sessions have different experiential signatures, and what those patterns imply for responsible resort programming. All inferences are confined to the period of the activity.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Restorative Experience in Wellness Tourism

Attention Restoration Theory describes how fascination, psychological distance from routine, environmental scope, and person-environment fit may replenish directed attention (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). Stress Reduction Theory instead emphasises relatively rapid affective and bodily responses to environmental cues compatible with safety (Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991). Within tourism, neither process occurs in isolation from the service encounter. Guests respond to the environment as it is framed by instructions, pacing, group conditions, facilitator conduct, perceived choice, and congruence with the destination.

A scenic location may therefore remain merely pleasant if the visitor is hurried, distracted, or uncertain about what to do. Conversely, a highly scripted activity may feel artificial even in an attractive setting. We conceptualise restorative experience as an emergent property of three interacting elements: what the place affords, how the programme organises participation, and how the guest engages with the opportunity.

2.2. Nature-Directed Attention as Experience Design

The two nature-focused sessions organised attention at different spatial and sensory scales. Cloud observation privileged distant visual information and atmospheric change: form, brightness, depth, motion, and openness. It did not require participants to name cloud types or assign symbolic meaning. Such a format may encourage soft fascination, temporary decentring, and awe—an emotion linked to perceived vastness and adjustment of one's current frame of reference (Yaden et al., 2019; Isham et al., 2022; Ugurlu et al., 2026).

The forest-based session centred on nearby, multisensory, and embodied information. Slow movement and periods of stillness directed awareness toward sound, smell, shade, surface qualities, temperature, posture, and contact with the ground. Only selected practices suitable for a short group activity were used. The session was neither described nor delivered as treatment, an individually prescribed intervention, or a complete proprietary forest-therapy system.

These formats were treated as complementary rather than as competing versions of a single universal intervention. A wide sky and visible horizon may offer a distinctive resource in a coastal property, while a wooded area affords closer sensory and bodily engagement. The empirical issue is whether organising attention in these different ways leads to recognisably different short-term response profiles.

2.3. The Role of Active Control

An organised comparison session was required because simply receiving additional programme time can change self-report. Contact with a facilitator, temporary relief from routine, group participation, quietness, and a clearly marked beginning and end may all be restorative. The active control reproduced these general conditions but omitted directed engagement with clouds, vegetation, multisensory forest cues, mindfulness, and reflective nature-based prompts. It therefore provided a more demanding benchmark than an untreated comparison.

2.4. Hypotheses

H1. Improvements in state anxiety, affect, and subjective restoration will be larger in the cloud-observation and forest-therapy-elements groups than in active control.

H2. After the session, cloud observation will show the highest ratings for awe, mental spaciousness, and perspective distancing.

H3. After the session, forest-therapy elements will show the highest ratings for sensory immersion, bodily presence, and grounding.

H4. Resting pulse and blood pressure will decline more in the two nature-focused groups than in active control; these measures are considered ancillary field outcomes rather than indicators of clinical benefit.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Analytical Scope and Relationship to the Earlier Companion Publication

The source project was a prospective field experiment with four conditions—cloud observation, forest-therapy elements, active control, and standard stay—implemented during normal operations at a coastal wellness resort. Recruitment, consent, allocation, programme delivery, and data collection belonged to one approved protocol. The present paper uses only the portion of that dataset needed to examine immediate changes around the organised sessions.

The published companion paper evaluated the final, performance-oriented service module in the full four-condition sample (Racz & Armano, 2026b). Its dependent variables were experience quality, satisfaction, perceived innovativeness, added value, and recommendation intention. By contrast, this article uses paired pre-session and post-session psychological and physiological observations together with separate experiential ratings. The two reports therefore share a parent protocol but not an outcome family, primary tables, hypotheses, or central analyses.

Standard-stay participants were not exposed to a study-organised session and did not have an equivalent before-and-after programme interval. Their data were appropriate for the earlier service-value comparison but not for the present question. The active-control arm, which matched the duration, group organisation, and facilitator contact of the added activities, is the relevant comparator for estimating whether explicitly nature-directed content contributed beyond participation in any structured session.

3.2. Setting, Participants, Random Allocation, and Analytic Sample

Fieldwork took place before the summer peak in an anonymised Northern Adriatic health-and-wellness property. Within the same resort, one location provided a wooded or park-forest environment and another, situated at its edge, opened toward the sky and sea horizon. These spatial characteristics allowed the two nature-focused formats to be delivered without naming the commercial property or destination.

Adults were eligible when they could safely undertake low-intensity outdoor participation, understood the study procedures, agreed to complete questionnaires, and provided consent. Acute health problems incompatible with the activity, inability to follow elementary instructions, or refusal of consent led to exclusion. The recruited guests were a convenience sample from a wellness-oriented resort and should not be regarded as representative of tourists more generally.

Individual allocation occurred after consent and baseline measurement. A card was prepared for every participant using a temporary operational code. Co-occupants of the same room received separate A and B suffixes and entered the draw independently, so the room was never the allocation unit. The draw materials were stored apart from research responses, and the room-based codes were removed before analysis.

Cards were repeatedly mixed and selected until each of the four conditions contained 30 participants. This procedure produced equal allocation (1:1:1:1; N = 120) and did not allow choice based on preference, arrival time, prior nature or wellness experience, or facilitator expectations. Because the activities were visibly different, masking participants and guides after assignment was not feasible.

Recruitment began with 176 contacted guests. Of these, 142 showed interest and 128 were screened; eight did not enter the study, leaving 120 randomised participants. Before the final assessment, one person left the cloud-observation arm, two left forest-therapy elements, and three left active control, whereas the 30 standard-stay participants completed the final questionnaire. The paired analysis reported here therefore contains 29, 28, and 27 participants in the three organised arms, respectively (total n = 84). Withdrawal did not require justification, and reasons were not collected.

Table 1. Participant flow in the parent study and present companion analysis.

Study phase	Number of participants
Contacted hotel guests	176
Expressed initial interest	142
Entered screening	128
Excluded before inclusion	8
Included and randomised	120
Initially allocated to each of four conditions	30 per condition
Completed programme - cloud noticing	29
Completed programme - forest therapy elements	28
Completed programme - active control	27
Completed final evaluation - standard stay	30
Total final evaluation sample in parent study	114
Present matched pre-post companion sample	84
Serious adverse events	0

Note.Table 1 shows the complete parent-study flow; only participants from the three facilitated sessions contributed to the paired analyses in this article. Outcomes from the standard-stay arm are available in the earlier service-evaluation report.

Table 1. Participant flow in the parent study and present companion analysis.

Study phase	Number of participants
Contacted hotel guests	176
Expressed initial interest	142
Entered screening	128
Excluded before inclusion	8
Included and randomised	120
Initially allocated to each of four conditions	30 per condition
Completed programme - cloud noticing	29
Completed programme - forest therapy elements	28
Completed programme - active control	27
Completed final evaluation - standard stay	30
Total final evaluation sample in parent study	114
Present matched pre-post companion sample	84
Serious adverse events	0

Note.Table 1 shows the complete parent-study flow; only participants from the three facilitated sessions contributed to the paired analyses in this article. Outcomes from the standard-stay arm are available in the earlier service-evaluation report.

3.3. Intervention Conditions and Standardisation

Each organised condition lasted about two hours and was delivered to a group by a facilitator. To keep the formats comparable, the two nature-focused sessions used the same broad progression: arrival and safety orientation, attentional settling, guided exploration, an extended period with little facilitator speech, a short invitation to articulate or reflect on what had been noticed, and closure. The content of attention—not the duration or overall structure—was the main planned difference.

Delivery occurred outdoors in stable, clear weather. Before starting, all participants received the same guidance concerning voluntary involvement, comfortable positioning, movement within agreed boundaries, and the freedom to remain seated or stand. They were also told that there was no preferred response and that speaking during the final exchange was optional. Facilitators used prepared prompts, refrained from interpreting participants' experiences therapeutically, and made no promises of health improvement.

3.3.1. Cloud-Noticing Condition

The cloud-observation session took place where the wooded resort grounds opened toward the sea-facing horizon. The site offered an unrestricted sky view without placing participants on the shoreline. Facilitator invitations prioritised clouds and atmospheric change; nearby trunks, bark, and vegetation were not used as the central objects of attention.

The sequence allocated approximately 10 min to orientation and eye-safety advice, 15 min to awareness of air, temperature, ambient sound, posture, and openness, and 20 min to guided observation of cloud shape, edges, colour, illumination, shadow, layering, direction, and apparent speed. Participants then observed mainly in silence for about 45 min, followed by a 15-min invitation to reflect on one atmospheric feature that had held their attention and a 15-min voluntary closing exchange. They were instructed never to look at the sun and to alter their position if sustained upward viewing became uncomfortable.

Observation concerned how clouds emerged, moved, changed, divided, and disappeared. No meteorological labelling or predetermined metaphor was requested. The session translated the general principle of noticing nature into a brief sky-oriented resort activity; it was not a mindfulness course and did not reproduce the original two-week intervention protocol.

3.3.2. Forest-Therapy-Elements Condition

Forest-therapy elements were delivered inside the resort's wooded grounds. The format assembled a limited set of practices commonly used to slow and deepen engagement with a forest environment, adapted to a short group programme for hotel guests. It was not represented as clinical care, a personalised prescription, certification-based treatment, or a complete standard method.

Timing paralleled the cloud session. About 10 min were devoted to orientation, route limits, safety, and choice; approximately 15 min to slower movement and awareness of light, colour, sounds, scents, surfaces, shade, temperature, posture, and footing; and about 20 min to exploring whichever natural element attracted attention without naming or judging it. A 45-min period of quiet movement, standing, or stillness followed, with limited speech from the facilitator. The final 30 min comprised reflection on a memorable sensation or encounter and an optional group integration.

The programme was intentionally responsive to this site, the participating adults, and the practical conditions of group delivery. Its conceptual basis was flexible nature-oriented facilitation rather than adherence to an external licensed protocol.

3.3.3. Active-Control Condition

Active-control participants received a two-hour, facilitator-led session scheduled in the same way as the experimental activities. It combined orientation, neutral informational content, low-intensity seated or quiet participation, and a common closing procedure. The control was designed to hold constant the experience of additional programme time, staff attention, group organisation, and a period of relative quiet.

Nature-focused ingredients were deliberately absent. The facilitator did not ask participants to observe the sky, clouds, horizon, vegetation, natural acoustics, scent, shade, texture, or contact with the ground, and there was no guided sensory exploration, slow forest sequence, mindfulness exercise, reflective nature invitation, or nature-based integration. Quiet periods remained neutral components of the schedule rather than contemplative instructions.

3.4. Measures Used in This Companion Analysis

One multi-module questionnaire package served the approved parent project. Separate sections covered consent, background and wellness characteristics, repeated psychological and nature-related variables, immediate experiential ratings, basic cardiovascular readings, contextual comments, and the service-performance module. The last of these—22 items concerning quality and perceived service value—belongs to the earlier publication and was excluded in full from the analyses presented here (Racz & Armano, 2026b).

Four repeated psychological variables were designated as principal outcomes for this report. State anxiety was measured with the state form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1983), and affect with the positive and negative subscales of PANAS (Watson et al., 1988). Immediate restoration was represented by a brief contextual module grounded in perceived-restorativeness research (Hartig et al., 1997). Because this abbreviated module was developed for the field setting, it is not presented as equivalent to the complete Perceived Restorativeness Scale.

Perceived stress and connectedness with nature were secondary repeated outcomes, informed respectively by the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983) and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Six single-session indicators—three expected to characterise sky-focused experience (awe, mental spaciousness, perspective distancing) and three expected to characterise forest-focused experience (sensory immersion, bodily presence, grounding)—were rated on five-point scales. These concise, theory-led indicators were created to describe this programme and are not claimed as validated diagnostic or transportable instruments.

Additional items documented whether instructions were understandable, participation was comfortable, duration felt suitable, the activity seemed useful, participants would consider repeating it, and the measurements felt burdensome. Step count, temperature, perceived disturbance, visibility of the sky, and sun exposure were recorded to contextualise delivery. Written comments were retained for background interpretation only and were not analysed as a qualitative dataset.

3.5. Physiological Measurements and Data Collection

Pulse and blood pressure were obtained with a validated automatic upper-arm device after participants had rested in a seated position for at least five minutes. Pre- and post-session readings followed the same procedure in comparable locations. These measurements were included as pragmatic indicators of short-term activation in the field, not as tests of a particular biological mechanism or as clinical endpoints.

Anonymous codes connected each participant's baseline and final questionnaire. The first assessment preceded the assigned session and the second followed its completion. Neither direct identifiers nor the temporary room-related allocation codes were retained in the analytical file. Only cases with linkable observations at both time points in an organised programme arm entered the present dataset.

3.6. Statistical Analysis

The analysis was restricted to complete paired cases from the cloud-observation, forest-therapy-elements, and active-control arms; missing outcomes were not replaced. Means and standard deviations describe continuous measures, while counts and percentages describe categorical variables. For repeated outcomes, tables provide pre-session and post-session values, unadjusted mean differences, and descriptive standardised change within each arm. Planned between-arm contrasts are reported as signed Hedges g with 95% confidence intervals for cloud observation versus active control, forest-therapy elements versus active control, and cloud observation versus forest-therapy elements.

Activity-specific experience, acceptability, movement, and environmental variables were summarised rather than entered into complex explanatory models because they were short, study-specific indicators. The sign of each Hedges g matches the raw first-minus-second contrast: for outcomes where reduction is favourable, a negative value favours the first-named condition; for outcomes where an increase is favourable, a positive value does so. An interval crossing zero is treated as uncertainty in the estimated contrast, not as proof that the groups are equivalent.

The available field-recruitment window and the intention to populate four equal groups determined the parent sample; no formal prospective power calculation was performed. With 84 paired completers, the current analysis cannot reliably exclude small differences. Neither the study nor the hypotheses were registered in advance. Interpretation therefore gives priority to effect size, interval width, and consistency across related measures, and is limited to responses observed immediately around the activity.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

The FoRRestMind Institute Ethics Committee approved the complete parent protocol (004-2026; 15 March 2026), and the work followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Before enrolment, guests received information about the purpose and procedures, handling of data, freedom to skip questions, and the right to stop without penalty or explanation. Written consent preceded participation. The reviewed materials comprised the protocol, participant information and consent documents, baseline and repeated questionnaires, the separate service-evaluation module, anonymisation procedures, and outdoor-safety arrangements. Analysis used anonymised records, and no serious adverse event occurred.

4. Results

4.1. Participant Characteristics

Paired observations were available for 84 participants: 29 after cloud observation, 28 after forest-therapy elements, and 27 after active control. Loss to follow-up was small but confined to the organised conditions. Table 2 reproduces only the basic descriptors required to characterise these completers and to maintain consistency with the previously disclosed parent sample. All psychological values used in the current analysis, including baseline levels, appear with their post-session counterparts in Table 3 and Table 6.

4.2. Primary Psychological Outcomes

Across all four principal psychological measures, change was more favourable in the two nature-focused groups than in active control (Table 3). State-anxiety scores fell by 7.3 points following cloud observation, 6.2 following forest-therapy elements, and 3.1 following the control session. Positive affect rose by 5.8, 4.9, and 1.9 points, respectively; negative affect declined by 5.2, 4.8, and 1.9 points. The largest gain in subjective restoration occurred after the forest-focused session, closely followed by cloud observation.

The contrast estimates in Table 4 were clearest for subjective restoration. All four intervals for cloud observation relative to active control excluded zero. For forest-therapy elements relative to active control, the intervals excluded zero for positive affect, negative affect, and restoration, but not for state anxiety. None of the direct comparisons between the two nature-focused formats excluded zero. The results therefore support advantages over active control more strongly than they support ranking one nature-focused format above the other.

4.3. Distinct Experiential Profiles

The activity-specific ratings provided the most visible distinction between the two nature-focused sessions (Table 5). Cloud observation produced the highest means for awe, mental spaciousness, and perspective distancing, whereas forest-therapy elements produced the highest means for sensory immersion, bodily presence, and grounding. Active control scored lower than both on every indicator.

This configuration is consistent with two provisional experiential orientations: atmospheric and distal attention in the sky-focused session, and proximal, embodied attention in the forest-focused session. The indicators do not establish latent mechanisms, prescribe individual matching, or define stable market segments. They are group-level descriptive findings that require replication with validated measures and observed guest choices.

4.4. Perceived Stress, Nature Connectedness, and Physiological Indicators

Stress scores improved in every arm, although the reductions were larger after cloud observation and forest-therapy elements. Nature connectedness changed little in active control, increased after cloud observation, and increased most after the forest-focused session. The latter pattern accords with the session's sustained emphasis on close contact with vegetation, natural surfaces, sound, scent, and footing.

Pulse and all reported blood-pressure measures decreased from baseline in each condition. The two nature-focused arms showed somewhat larger reductions than active control, but the magnitudes were modest. In the absence of more comprehensive or blinded physiological assessment, these findings are used only to check whether the bodily direction of change was broadly compatible with the self-report pattern.

Table 6. Changes in secondary self-reported outcomes.

Outcome	Group	Baseline M (SD)	Final M (SD)	Mean change	Standardised change d
PSS	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	19.8 (5.4)	16.7 (5.2)	-3.1	0.58
PSS	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	20.2 (5.7)	17.1 (5.4)	-3.1	0.56
PSS	Active control (n = 27)	19.5 (5.1)	18.2 (5.0)	-1.3	0.26
Nature connectedness	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	3.4 (0.7)	3.8 (0.7)	+0.4	0.57
Nature connectedness	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	3.3 (0.7)	3.9 (0.6)	+0.6	0.92
Nature connectedness	Active control (n = 27)	3.4 (0.6)	3.5 (0.7)	+0.1	0.15

Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. Nature connectedness was scored from 1 to 5. Standardised values describe within-group movement in a favourable direction.

Table 6. Changes in secondary self-reported outcomes.

Outcome	Group	Baseline M (SD)	Final M (SD)	Mean change	Standardised change d
PSS	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	19.8 (5.4)	16.7 (5.2)	-3.1	0.58
PSS	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	20.2 (5.7)	17.1 (5.4)	-3.1	0.56
PSS	Active control (n = 27)	19.5 (5.1)	18.2 (5.0)	-1.3	0.26
Nature connectedness	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	3.4 (0.7)	3.8 (0.7)	+0.4	0.57
Nature connectedness	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	3.3 (0.7)	3.9 (0.6)	+0.6	0.92
Nature connectedness	Active control (n = 27)	3.4 (0.6)	3.5 (0.7)	+0.1	0.15

Note. PSS = Perceived Stress Scale. Nature connectedness was scored from 1 to 5. Standardised values describe within-group movement in a favourable direction.

Table 7. Changes in simple physiological field indicators.

Outcome	Group	Baseline M (SD)	Final M (SD)	Mean change	Standardised change d
Resting heart rate	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	76.2 (9.1)	71.4 (8.5)	-4.8	0.55
Resting heart rate	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	75.8 (8.7)	71.5 (8.2)	-4.3	0.51
Resting heart rate	Active control (n = 27)	76.5 (8.9)	74.6 (8.6)	-1.9	0.22
Systolic blood pressure	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	128.4 (12.8)	122.8 (11.9)	-5.6	0.45
Systolic blood pressure	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	127.9 (13.1)	122.8 (12.4)	-5.1	0.40
Systolic blood pressure	Active control (n = 27)	128.1 (12.6)	126.0 (12.2)	-2.1	0.17
Diastolic blood pressure	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	81.6 (8.4)	78.2 (7.9)	-3.4	0.42
Diastolic blood pressure	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	81.9 (8.1)	78.7 (7.8)	-3.2	0.40
Diastolic blood pressure	Active control (n = 27)	82.0 (8.3)	80.7 (8.1)	-1.3	0.16

Note. Pulse is reported in beats per minute and blood pressure in mmHg. These are supportive field observations without an implied clinical threshold or treatment effect.

Table 7. Changes in simple physiological field indicators.

Outcome	Group	Baseline M (SD)	Final M (SD)	Mean change	Standardised change d
Resting heart rate	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	76.2 (9.1)	71.4 (8.5)	-4.8	0.55
Resting heart rate	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	75.8 (8.7)	71.5 (8.2)	-4.3	0.51
Resting heart rate	Active control (n = 27)	76.5 (8.9)	74.6 (8.6)	-1.9	0.22
Systolic blood pressure	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	128.4 (12.8)	122.8 (11.9)	-5.6	0.45
Systolic blood pressure	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	127.9 (13.1)	122.8 (12.4)	-5.1	0.40
Systolic blood pressure	Active control (n = 27)	128.1 (12.6)	126.0 (12.2)	-2.1	0.17
Diastolic blood pressure	Cloud noticing (n = 29)	81.6 (8.4)	78.2 (7.9)	-3.4	0.42
Diastolic blood pressure	Forest therapy elements (n = 28)	81.9 (8.1)	78.7 (7.8)	-3.2	0.40
Diastolic blood pressure	Active control (n = 27)	82.0 (8.3)	80.7 (8.1)	-1.3	0.16

Note. Pulse is reported in beats per minute and blood pressure in mmHg. These are supportive field observations without an implied clinical threshold or treatment effect.

4.5. Environmental Conditions and Acceptability

Participants moved relatively little in all three sessions. Recorded temperatures and perceived disturbance were similar across arms; the cloud-observation site provided the greatest sky visibility, and the forest-focused activity involved slightly more slow movement. These observations assist interpretation of implementation but cannot eliminate every environmental or behavioural alternative explanation.

Immediate acceptability was positive throughout. Compared with active control, both nature-focused sessions received higher mean ratings for usefulness and willingness to take part again. Comfort was highest after forest-therapy elements, while cloud observation retained the strongest sky-related experiential signature. Perceived measurement burden was low and comparable. These responses are intentions and appraisals at the end of the activity, not evidence of purchasing, repeat attendance, or market demand.

Table 8. Movement and environmental conditions during the programme.

Indicator	Cloud noticing M (SD)	Forest therapy elements M (SD)	Active control M (SD)
Steps during programme	312 (95)	428 (120)	295 (88)
Air temperature, °C	22.4 (1.2)	22.1 (1.3)	22.3 (1.1)
Subjective noise/disturbance, 1-5	1.6 (0.6)	1.7 (0.7)	1.8 (0.7)
Sky visibility, 1-5	4.6 (0.5)	3.2 (0.8)	3.4 (0.7)
Sun exposure, 1-5	2.8 (0.7)	2.5 (0.6)	2.6 (0.7)

Note. Step counts refer to low-intensity movement during the approximately two-hour session. Environmental observations are implementation descriptors rather than independently manipulated exposures.

Table 8. Movement and environmental conditions during the programme.

Indicator	Cloud noticing M (SD)	Forest therapy elements M (SD)	Active control M (SD)
Steps during programme	312 (95)	428 (120)	295 (88)
Air temperature, °C	22.4 (1.2)	22.1 (1.3)	22.3 (1.1)
Subjective noise/disturbance, 1-5	1.6 (0.6)	1.7 (0.7)	1.8 (0.7)
Sky visibility, 1-5	4.6 (0.5)	3.2 (0.8)	3.4 (0.7)
Sun exposure, 1-5	2.8 (0.7)	2.5 (0.6)	2.6 (0.7)

Note. Step counts refer to low-intensity movement during the approximately two-hour session. Environmental observations are implementation descriptors rather than independently manipulated exposures.

Table 9. Immediate acceptability of the three programme conditions.

Indicator	Cloud noticing M (SD)	Forest therapy elements M (SD)	Active control M (SD)
Clarity of instructions	4.6 (0.5)	4.7 (0.5)	4.4 (0.6)
Comfort during participation	4.5 (0.6)	4.7 (0.5)	3.8 (0.8)
Appropriateness of duration	4.3 (0.7)	4.4 (0.6)	4.0 (0.7)
Subjective usefulness	4.4 (0.6)	4.5 (0.6)	3.4 (0.8)
Willingness to participate again	4.5 (0.6)	4.6 (0.5)	3.5 (0.9)
Measurement burden	2.0 (0.8)	2.1 (0.7)	2.2 (0.8)

Note. Items used five-point response scales; higher scores on measurement burden indicate a less favourable experience.

Table 9. Immediate acceptability of the three programme conditions.

Indicator	Cloud noticing M (SD)	Forest therapy elements M (SD)	Active control M (SD)
Clarity of instructions	4.6 (0.5)	4.7 (0.5)	4.4 (0.6)
Comfort during participation	4.5 (0.6)	4.7 (0.5)	3.8 (0.8)
Appropriateness of duration	4.3 (0.7)	4.4 (0.6)	4.0 (0.7)
Subjective usefulness	4.4 (0.6)	4.5 (0.6)	3.4 (0.8)
Willingness to participate again	4.5 (0.6)	4.6 (0.5)	3.5 (0.9)
Measurement burden	2.0 (0.8)	2.1 (0.7)	2.2 (0.8)

Note. Items used five-point response scales; higher scores on measurement burden indicate a less favourable experience.

5. Discussion

5.1. Principal Findings

This companion report focused on paired immediate responses in the three facilitator-led conditions of the randomised parent experiment. The cloud- and forest-focused activities generally produced larger favourable changes than active control in anxiety, affect, restoration, stress, nature connectedness, pulse, and blood pressure. Between-group precision was strongest for subjective restoration. Direct comparisons of the two nature-focused formats were consistently uncertain for the four principal psychological outcomes, indicating that their common advantage over control was clearer than any overall ranking between them.

The formats differed primarily in experiential character. Looking toward clouds and the horizon was associated with awe, a sense of mental room, and temporary distance from immediate concerns. Attention within the wooded area was associated with sensory absorption, bodily awareness, grounding, and the largest change in nature connectedness. These findings suggest that hospitality programmes can organise restorative engagement through different perceptual routes: one expansive and atmospheric, the other close-range and embodied.

Some improvement also occurred in active control. This is not a nuisance finding: a scheduled pause, staff attention, group containment, and removal from ordinary routine may themselves support short-term relief. Larger changes in the nature-focused arms are compatible with an added contribution from the content and direction of attention, but the design cannot isolate each element of expectation, facilitation, social context, or exposure.

5.2. Implications for Tourism Experience and Resort Service Design

From a management perspective, the study treats destination nature as material for service design rather than as a therapeutic claim. Clouds, trees, sounds, and surfaces do not need to be labelled intrinsically curative. A resort can instead offer a time-limited, voluntary, and safely facilitated encounter with an intelligible sequence and clear boundaries between wellness programming and healthcare. This reading complements the separate three-day forest-bathing study, in which programme response and guests' initial orientations were examined as distinct considerations for hospitality delivery (Racz & Armano, 2026a).

Place fit is essential. A property with unobstructed sky and horizon can credibly support atmospheric observation; a property with accessible wooded ground can support slower multisensory exploration. Other destinations—urban hotels, islands, mountains, gardens, terraces, or waterfronts—would need to build different experiences from their own affordances. The generalisable proposition is a design process: identify authentic environmental resources and organise a suitable form of guest attention around them.

The contrasting group profiles should not be converted into fixed customer types. Individual guests may value either format, both, or neither, and their choice may depend on interest, mobility, available time, weather, and accessibility. A cautious service model would describe each module, allow elective or sequential participation, and then evaluate actual selection, completion, willingness to pay, repeat uptake, and later memory or recommendation.

Facilitation remains an operational competency rather than a script-reading task. Guides must protect physical and psychological safety, regulate pace and silence, preserve voluntary sharing, adapt to changing weather and group needs, and avoid implying medical benefit. Protocols, training, withdrawal procedures, and contemporaneous documentation of delivery conditions are therefore central elements of quality assurance.

5.3. Relationship to the Published Companion Evidence

The two articles derived from the parent experiment have deliberately non-overlapping analytical purposes. The prior report used 114 final assessments from all four conditions to study perceived service performance and value: experience quality, satisfaction, novelty, added value, and recommendation intention (Racz & Armano, 2026b). This report uses 84 paired observations from the three facilitated conditions to estimate change in psychological, experiential, and basic physiological variables. It does not reuse the earlier dependent variables, principal tables, hypothesis tests, or conclusions.

This distinction matters scientifically as well as procedurally. Guests may consider an activity well organised and worth recommending without exhibiting measurable short-term restoration; equally, a transient psychological response does not establish that a programme is attractive, feasible, or commercially sustainable. Taken together, the publications describe separate dimensions of the same service encounter, while neither supports claims about durable health, observed behaviour, costs, profitability, or destination competitiveness.

Shared factual elements—setting, recruitment flow, allocation method, programme identity, ethical approval, and basic participant characteristics—are disclosed consistently and cross-referenced because they belong to one parent protocol. Repetition has otherwise been minimised, and the current manuscript is self-contained only to the extent necessary for readers to understand and reproduce the present analysis.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

Interpretation is constrained by several features. The research involved one resort and a self-selected, wellness-oriented guest population, so results may differ across destinations, cultures, seasons, accommodation categories, age distributions, and levels of prior interest in nature. Neither participants nor facilitators were masked, leaving expectancy and demand characteristics as plausible influences. Although expected usefulness was recorded, it was not experimentally controlled.

The standard-stay arm could not contribute to the session-level paired analysis because it had neither an organised study activity nor a matching programme interval. Active control is therefore informative about nature-specific content within an added session, but the study does not estimate ordinary change during the stay. Attrition was low overall yet occurred unevenly across the three programme arms, and withdrawal reasons were unavailable.

Several restoration and experiential items were deliberately brief adaptations for the resort context. Their apparent coherence does not demonstrate factor structure, invariance, temporal reliability, or validity in other destinations. Physiological measurement was equally limited: only resting pulse and blood pressure were collected under field conditions. Heart-rate variability, biochemical markers, ambulatory monitoring, and independent blinded assessment would permit stronger physiological interpretation.

The sample size reflected a finite recruitment opportunity rather than prospective power estimation, and the paired complete-case dataset was not adequate for small-effect exclusion, mediation analysis, or extensive subgroup modelling. Missing values were not imputed. The absence of prospective registration further supports an estimation-focused and exploratory reading. Finally, all measurements were immediate; the study cannot address duration of response, clinical importance, purchase or recommendation behaviour, return visits, price tolerance, or financial return.

Future studies should preregister multi-property protocols, use established experiential instruments, include delayed assessments and seasonal replication, and measure actual tourism decisions alongside implementation costs. Within-person crossover work could test whether guests experience sky- and forest-focused activities as complements. Further research should also examine accessibility, cultural meaning, group size, facilitator expertise, weather, and landscape morphology as determinants of fidelity and response.

6. Conclusions

In this paired analysis of three facilitated arms from a four-condition resort experiment, sky-focused cloud observation and forest-therapy elements were associated with more favourable immediate response patterns than an organised active control. Neither nature-focused format was generally superior. Rather, cloud observation emphasised awe, mental spaciousness, and perspective distancing, while the forest-based session emphasised sensory immersion, bodily presence, grounding, and connection with nature.

For hospitality practice, the findings show how existing environmental affordances can be converted into structured restorative programming through careful attention to sequence, safety, choice, pace, and facilitation. The innovation lies in the design of the encounter, not in declaring natural features to be treatments. Replication across properties, seasons, and behavioural endpoints is necessary before drawing conclusions about lasting wellbeing or commercial and destination-level outcomes.