Introduction
South Korea faces intense competition and social conflict, which contribute to high levels of stress and psychological distress among its citizens (Yang, 2015). According to the 2024 World Happiness Report by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Korea ranked fifty-second out of 143 countries, and thirty-third among the 38 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), placing it near the bottom (Helliwell et al., 2024). In response, the public has shown significantly increased interest in healing, well-being, and mental health, reflecting a broader societal shift toward prioritizing psychological stability and mental health (Shin, 2014).
Although pinpointing the global origin of the healing trend is difficult, evidence suggests that it began to take root in Korea in the mid-1990s and intensified after 2010 (Cho, 2014). The term “healing” became a cultural keyword in 2012, used interchangeably with the term chi-yu, the Korean word for healing (Lee and Park, 2014). Cho (2014) attributed the rise in interest to the aftermath of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) crisis, during which economic stress persisted despite rising incomes. Choe and Rhie (2019) added that the emergence of a network society in the mid-2000s, coupled with information overload and mounting societal anxiety, catalyzed the spread of healing culture as a response to widespread burnout.
As the healing trend became embedded in commercial products, South Korea’s healing industry began to formalize across diverse sectors (Cho, 2014). High levels of stress and long working hours further fueled this growth. According to the OECD, in 2022 the average South Korean worker logged 1,901 hours—149 hours more than the OECD average of 1,752 hours (OECD, 2023). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic amplified this trend, drawing increased attention to psychological well-being and the concept of psychological quarantine (Ha, 2019; Kim, 2024).
From a policy perspective, the healing industry also offers potential solution to pressing national issues such as urban–rural imbalances, rapid population aging, and regional decline (Kim, 2024). Growing urban fatigue has prompted many to seek emotional restoration through nature-based lifestyles. Chae et al. (2018) found a notable increase in forest-based health activities, while Park (2018) reported growing demand for healing travel. South Korea’s rapid, capital-centric development has exacerbated regional disparities, with the Ministry of the Interior and Safety identifying 89 local areas at risk of extinction in 2024 (Ministry of the Interior and Safety, 2024). In this context, the healing industry has emerged as a strategic tool for regional revitalization, leveraging local natural resources (Kim, 2024).
In South Korea, the healing industry is estimated to be worth approximately KRW 76.0 trillion, equivalent to around 7.0% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Park, 2022). Globally, the wellness market was valued at approximately USD 6.3 trillion in 2023, accounting for 6.0% of global GDP. According to the Global Wellness Institute (2024), it is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 7.3%, reaching nearly USD 8.9 trillion by 2028, reflecting the rapid expansion of the global wellness economy.
Yet, in contrast to the global wellness economy’s growth, the domestic understanding of the healing industry in South Korea remains fragmented and unclear.
Despite its rising importance, South Korea lacks a formal legal or academic definition of the healing industry. Scholarly research has primarily focused on its subfields, such as forest healing, agro-healing, and marine healing. Public healing agencies often use “healing industry” as an umbrella term for legally backed sectors managed by various ministries (e.g., forestry, marine, and agro-healing). In contrast, private firms apply the term more broadly to market consumer products such as healing foods and media-based healing experiences. This lack of conceptual clarity has led to difficulties in delineating the scope of the healing industry. Kim (2024) emphasized the need for an accurate conceptual framework to support the industry’s structured development.
Only a few studies have comprehensively addressed the healing industry as a whole. Notable examples include Keum and Woo’s (2018) strategy report for Busan and Lee et al. (2023a) topic modeling analysis of healing facilities and programs. By contrast, research on subfields is more developed. Studies on forest healing have examined its effects on older adults (An, 2024) and key activation factors (Lee and Kim, 2024). Marine healing research has examined psychological benefits for cancer patients and residents (Sung and Lee, 2024) as well as tourism support policies (Lee, 2023). Studies on agro-healing include neuroscience-based approaches to depression (Shim et al., 2024) and program development for specific populations (Moon et al., 2024). Garden therapy research has clarified therapeutic mechanisms and conceptual boundaries (Choi, 2023; Go and Lee, 2023). Healing tourism has also attracted academic attention through marine and agro-healing experiences and legislative proposals (Ha, 2019; Hwang and Lee, 2024; Min and Kim, 2019; Yoo, 2023).
Despite two decades of quantitative growth, research in the healing industry remains fragmented across ministries and subfields (Lee et al., 2023b). Although government bodies have introduced policy and legal frameworks, the lack of a unified theoretical and practical foundation hampers integration. This conceptual ambiguity has led to redundant policies and implementation inefficiencies, undermining consistent industry development (Sartori, 1970). As Adcock and Collier (2001) note, clear concepts are essential for effective policy evaluation and empirical analysis (Yoo et al., 2021).
This study seeks to establish a stronger conceptual foundation for the healing industry by systematically examining legislated healing-related research in Korea, identifying domain-specific trends, and articulating directions for future inquiry.
Research Methods
Research Design
This study employs a scoping review methodology to investigate the body of literature concerning the healing industry. Scoping reviews are particularly suitable for mapping key concepts, identifying major information sources, and examining the types of available evidence in complex or under-researched fields (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). According to Daudt et al. (2013), scoping reviews help researchers map literature on a specific topic or research area, offering insights for practical applications, policy development, and future research by identifying gaps, conceptual frameworks, and evidence types. Similarly, Colquhoun et al. (2014) define scoping reviews as a form of knowledge synthesis designed to address exploratory research questions by systematically searching for, collecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge in a defined field.
This methodology plays a vital role in clarifying key concepts and the scope of research in a specific field, laying the groundwork for future investigations (Seo and Kim, 2018; Shin, 2024). Scoping reviews are particularly useful for assessing how much research exists on an un-reviewed topic or for identifying the key themes and characteristics of a particular concept (Munn et al., 2018).
This study focuses on South Korean literature and follows the six-stage framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005): (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results, and (6) consultation. While Arksey and O’Malley (2005) described the consultation phase as optional, Levac et al. (2010) emphasized its necessity. Accordingly, this study conducted two consultation sessions: one during the interim stage and another upon reviewing the results.
Study Subjects and Data Collection
Identification of Research Questions
The first step in conducting a scoping review involves formulating the research questions. To guide the search strategy and maintain a clear focus, this study posed the following overarching research question: What key concepts define the healing industry, and how have researchers studied this field to date?
The following research questions (RQ) guided this study:
RQ1. What are the key characteristics of existing research on the healing industry?
RQ2. What major concepts do researchers commonly address in studies of the healing industry?
RQ3. What are the main findings of existing research on the healing industry?
RQ4. What future research directions can advance the study of the healing industry?
Literature Search
To ensure a comprehensive identification of relevant evidence, the literature search encompassed electronic databases, reference tracking, manual searches, academic conference abstracts, and gray literature (Seo, 2020; Peters et al., 2015). This study did not impose any restrictions on publication year and included all South Korean publications and gray literature published up to 2024 that addressed the concept and characteristics of the healing industry.
Seo and Kim (2018) stress that while search breadth is essential, researchers must also consider practical limitations. Balancing comprehensiveness with feasibility, this study included the term “healing industry” along with its commonly associated subfields: forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism.
The initial search retrieved approximately 2,438 articles across these domains. Given the large volume of results, which posed a challenge for review, the keyword “trend analysis” was added in consultation with experts to further refine the search scope. To ensure a thorough understanding of the core concepts and definitions, we also included integrative sources such as books, journal articles, and gray literature that comprehensively addressed the healing industry.
The literature search drew from the following academic databases and search engines: National Assembly Library of Korea, Research Information Sharing Service (RISS4U), Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISS), and Google Scholar. Search queries included combinations such as: “healing industry”, “forest healing and trend analysis” or “marine healing and trend analysis” or “agro-healing and trend analysis” or “garden healing and trend analysis” or “healing tourism and trend analysis”.
Literature Selection
This study followed the international Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to guide the literature selection process (Tricco et al., 2016). We documented the process using a study flowchart and organized and categorized the collected data in Microsoft Excel. Fig. 1 presents the study flowchart in Fig. 1.
We applied the following inclusion criteria. First, we did not limit the publication year and included all Korean-language literature published to 2024. Second, we selected studies that defined or conceptualized the healing industry. Third, we included trend analyses related to adjacent disciplines such as forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism. Finally, we considered quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
Exclusion criteria included duplicate studies retrieved during the search process, literature unrelated to the core research topic, materials produced by private-sector entities related to the healing industry, and theses published in peer-reviewed journals (we included only the journal version).
Following the PRISMA-ScR stages, we began with a keyword-based search that yielded 4,056 studies. After removing irrelevant studies and private-sector materials, 60 articles remained. In the second round, we removed 18 duplicates, leaving 52 articles. In the third stage, we reviewed abstracts and full texts and excluded 14 studies that did not align with the research objectives. Ultimately, we selected 38 studies for analysis in this scoping review.
Data Extraction
We used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to extract and organize data from the 38 selected publications based on a predefined data entry format. For each study, we compiled general research information—such as author(s), year of publication, research topic, publication type, keywords, objectives, methods, findings, and recommendations—and information directly related to the research questions, including conceptualizations of healing, the healing industry, forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden-based healing, and healing tourism. We listed the 38 publications in alphabetical order by the first author’s Korean name and then arranged them chronologically by publication year. Table 1 presents the final list of the 38 selected publications.
Results and Discussion
Research Characteristics of the Healing Industry in South Korea
Only two publications have directly addressed the healing industry in South Korea: a research report by Keum and Woo (2018) and a journal article by Lee et al. (2023a). In addition, between 2022 and 2024, scholars published two general books, one academic magazine article, and one forum proceedings document on the broader topic of the healing industry.
By sector, Table 2 shows that forest healing has attracted the most trend studies, likely due to its early institutionalization. Researchers published seven studies on forest healing between 2015 and 2019—the highest among all domains—following the enactment of the Act on the Promotion of Forest Welfare in 2015. Another six studies appeared between 2020 and 2024.
Marine healing and agro-healing became institutionalized in 2021. No trend studies on marine healing appeared prior to 2019, although there were five publications between 2020 and 2024. Similarly, researchers published six trend studies on agro-healing during the same period, marking it as the most active phase of research in that area. These findings suggest an increase in trend studies following the enactment of relevant legislation.
In contrast, garden-based healing saw only one trend study published between 2020 and 2024. As for healing tourism, it had one study published between 2015 and 2019, followed by two more between 2020 and 2024.
Academic journal articles accounted for the largest pro- portion of publications on the healing industry and its subfields, accounting for 27 out of 38 studies (71%). Research reports and conference proceedings each contributed three publications (7.8%), followed by general books and other materials, with two each (5.2%), and one master’s thesis (2.6%).
We identified specific research methods in 32 of the 38 publications (excluding general books and research reports that lacked methodological details). Of these, 30 studies relied on literature reviews as the primary method. Two studies combined literature reviews with additional techniques such as expert focus group interviews, surveys, or online interviews. Four studies integrated literature reviews with word cloud or text mining analysis. One study employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating case studies, surveys, and expert panel discussions to provide field-based insights.
Within the subfields of the healing industry, all 14 studies on forest healing used literature review methods, including five systematic literature reviews and one scoping review. Likewise, all five studies on marine healing employed literature reviews, with one classified as a systematic review. Of the nine studies on agro-healing, eight were literature-based. Compared to other subfields, this domain included more mixed-methods studies, such as word cloud analysis, text mining, surveys, and focus group interviews. Two of these studies also used meta-analysis.
The single study on garden-based healing applied information visualization techniques to analyze research trends. In the healing tourism subfield, one study combined a literature review with online surveys, and another employed empirical analysis. Compared to other sectors, healing tourism featured fewer literature-based studies.
Key Concepts of the Healing Industry
Definitions of Treatment, Healing, Well-being, and Wellness
Researchers often use the terms treatment, healing, well-being, and wellness interchangeably with the concept of healing. Table 3 summarizes the definitions of these related terms along with the core keywords extracted from each.
Treatment refers to medical interventions performed by licensed healthcare professionals aimed at alleviating or eliminating physical symptoms or diseases. These procedures typically involve direct clinical methods such as surgery or medication (Keum and Woo, 2018; Lee, 2022; Jo and Jeon, 2022; Kim, 2024; Kim et al., 2014). In contrast, healing represents a broader category of practices that include treatment, disease prevention, and health promotion. Healing extends beyond medical interventions by adopting a complementary approach that utilizes psychological, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions to facilitate the recovery and maintenance of body and mind (Keum and Woo, 2018; Lee, 2022; Jo and Jeon, 2022; Kim, 2024; Kim et al., 2014; Choe and Rhie, 2019; Eom and Jeong, 2014).
Well-being refers to a stable state of harmony and contentment rooted in the balance of physical and mental health. Unlike healing, which emphasizes the process of recovery, well-being reflects an outcome-oriented view of one’s overall quality of life (WHO, 1948; Lee, 2006; Choe and Rhie, 2019; Kim, 2024). Finally, Wellness emphasizes a holistic and proactive lifestyle. It involves the voluntary, ongoing pursuit of health and fulfillment across multiple dimensions—physical, mental, emotional, social, and environmental. Intentional habits support self-actualization and sustained vitality, forming the foundation of wellness (Dunn, 1961; Allen, 2004; Jeong et al., 2016; Choi and Tak, 2021; Choe et al., 2018).
In the current healing industry, the term healing is often used as a concept distinct from treatment. However, the definitions and conceptual boundaries between the two remain ambiguous, with the terms frequently used interchangeably. Furthermore, healing is often employed in ways that overlap with concepts such as well-being and wellness (Kim, 2024). For example, while the legislative proposal refers to healing tourism, the National Assembly Healing Industry Forum materials (2023) use the term interchangeably with wellness tourism, reflecting a lack of conceptual consistency.
A concept refers to a generalized understanding of a specific object or phenomenon, derived by synthesizing common attributes across various ideas (National Institute of Korean Language, 2024a). Concepts are thus inherently structural and possess distinctive characteristics that differentiate them from others. A definition, which is often used interchangeably with concept, refers to the precise explanation or specification of the meaning of a word or phenomenon (National Institute of Korean Language, 2024b). In academic contexts, a definition serves as a tool to clarify the meaning and scope of a term or concept.
This study seeks to establish the conceptual boundaries of healing by structurally comparing its definition with related terms such as treatment, healing, well-being, and wellness, which are often used in overlapping ways. Through an analysis of existing literature, the conceptual distinctions and areas of overlap among these terms were identified.
As presented in Table 4, treatment refers to professional medical interventions aimed at eliminating disease and alleviating symptoms, typically defined in short-term and physically-centered terms. In contrast, healing encompasses not only treatment but also the integration of psychological, social, and cultural resources to promote holistic recovery. Well-being is generally understood as a relatively static condition, a state of equilibrium and satisfaction that functions as an evaluative outcome. In contrast, wellness is a more active, practice-oriented concept that emphasizes ongoing efforts toward multidimensional health and self-actualization across physical, mental, emotional, social, and environmental domains.
Based on these definitions, treatment is subsumed under healing; well-being is encompassed by wellness; and healing and wellness, while overlapping, maintain distinct conceptual boundaries. Their overlap lies in the shared holistic approach to health and the common goal of enhancing overall quality of life. However, healing centers on recovery, while wellness emphasizes growth and self-fulfillment, with well-being serving as an evaluative outcome of wellness practices.
Based on this understanding, the redefined concepts are as follows.
First, treatment involves direct medical procedures conducted by qualified professionals to address injuries, diseases, or symptoms using clinical technologies such as surgery and pharmaceuticals, typically within institutional healthcare settings.
Second, healing encompasses treatment and includes preventative and health-promoting practices. It adopts a complementary perspective that incorporates psychological, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions to holistically restore and sustain the body and mind. Healing functions as a recovery-oriented process that overlaps with certain components of well-being, such as emotional stability and quality of life, and contributes to the pursuit of wellness.
Third, well-being refers to a state of happiness and balance that arises from integrating physical and mental health, contributing to a stable sense of psychological and social fulfillment in everyday life. It is regarded as an evaluative and relatively static condition that reflects the outcome of wellness practices.
Fourth, wellness represents a lifestyle centered on self-actualization, characterized by voluntary and continuous efforts to enhance holistic health across physical, mental, emotional, and social domains, and lead a purposeful, satisfying life.
Fig. 2 presents the conceptual relationships among treatment, healing, well-being, and wellness, synthesizing the definitions and structural comparisons discussed above.
Conceptual Components of the Healing Industry
We analyzed relevant publications to establish a conceptual definition of the healing industry by examining definitions and shared elements across the literature. Based on our analysis, we summarize the key components of the healing industry in Table 5.
Among the core keywords identified across various definitions of the healing industry, “health promotion” and “quality of life improvement” appeared most frequently. In marine healing, scholars specifically used the term “welfare enhancement,” while healing tourism framed health holistically, encompassing physical, mental, and social well-being, and included the keyword “health recovery.” Several domains, including the broader healing industry, marine healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism, explicitly mentioned the industrial purpose of healing.
Perspectives on the scope of the healing industry domains vary. The National Assembly Healing Industry Forum (2023) and Lee et al. (2023b) limited the scope of the healing industry to legally institutionalized areas: forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism. In contrast, Lee (2022) proposed a broader categorization that includes counseling and complementary and alternative medicine. This perspective diverges from that of the National Assembly Healing Industry Forum (2023), which excludes natural healing, alternative medicine, integrative healing, and conventional clinical treatment from the definition of the healing industry.
Discrepancies also emerged in the scope application. The legal definition of forest healing emphasizes physical health, while Park et al. (2021) advocate for an integrative approach that includes psychological, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Marine healing and garden therapy focus primarily on physical health, whereas healing tourism covers a wider spectrum, addressing physical, mental, and social well-being. Most sources define the target population of healing services as the general public. However, forest, marine, and agro-healing also explicitly include individuals who require medical care. Expanding this scope further, Kim (2024) argued that healing should extend beyond humans to include animals, plants, and the natural environment. Based on these findings, a clear conceptual definition of the healing industry must include four essential components: purpose, domain, healing resources, and target population. These elements are necessary for articulating the full scope and meaning of the industry.
Therefore, this study defines the healing industry as follows:
The healing industry is a public-interest-oriented system that provides nature-based healing and wellness services through legally institutionalized and policy-supported sectors, including forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism (National Assembly Healing Industry Forum, 2023; Jo and Jeon, 2022; Kim, 2024). These services cater to a broad demographic, encompassing healthy individuals, pre-patients, and patients, and—within an extended ecological framework—also address animals, plants, and the natural environment (Kim, 2024). Rather than focusing solely on treatment or disease management, the healing industry seeks to promote healing and wellness by integrating physical, psychological, emotional, social, and environmental dimensions (Choe and Rhie, 2019; Lee, 2022).
At the individual level, it fosters a happy and meaningful life through the active pursuit of physical, mental, emotional, and social wellness, while facilitating the gradual restoration and self-regulation of health and vitality (Jo and Jeon, 2022). At the sociocultural level, it enhances psychosocial stability, strengthens community resilience, and promotes social inclusion (Jo and Jeon, 2022; Kim, 2024). At the economic level, it supports local regeneration and contributes to sustainable economic development (Kim, 2024).
In summary, the healing industry can be understood as a convergence-based sector grounded in a public-interest- oriented and institutionally supported framework that offers nature-based healing and wellness services across multiple legally defined domains. It serves a wide spectrum of beneficiaries—not only healthy individuals, pre-patients, and patients but also animals, plants, and the broader ecosystem. By integrating physical, psychological, emotional, social, and environmental dimensions, the healing industry aims to advance healing and wellness, thereby contributing to improved individual quality of life, enhanced social inclusion, regional revitalization, and sustainable economic growth.
Main Findings of Healing Industry Research
This study analyzed the key findings of 32 selected studies that examined trends in the healing industry and its adjacent disciplines—namely, forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism. General books and reports that lacked clear research methods, results, or recommendations were excluded from the analysis.
1) Key Characteristics of the Research
Among the reviewed studies, only one focused on the healing industry as a whole, specifically addressing trends in facilities and programs. Forest healing was the most frequently studied domain among legislated fields, while research on marine healing, agro-healing, and garden therapy remained limited despite recent legal institutionalization. Forest healing showed relatively strong connections to medical and complementary and alternative medicine. Marine healing research, mostly conducted after its legislation in 2020, covered topics such as public awareness, feasibility, and therapeutic potential. Notably, only one study employed quantitative analysis (Study 24). Garden therapy research has surged since 2018, likely influenced by the 2021 amendment to the Act on Arboretums and Gardens, which granted legal recognition to garden-based healing.
2) Research Ethics and Quality
Several forest healing studies reported relatively low methodological quality and insufficient attention to research ethics, such as the absence of IRB approval and lack of informed consent procedures (Studies 7, 11, 13, 14). This does not necessarily indicate that forest healing research is of lower quality than other areas. Rather, it reflects a concentration of studies aiming to establish medical and scientific evidence for forest healing effects and to build foundational data for program development through rigorous outcome validation.
3) Study Populations
Forest healing primarily targeted the general population (Studies 8, 12, 17, 20), while marine healing studies often focused on individuals with specific medical conditions. In agro-healing, study populations varied, including both general and special groups (Studies 28, 33, 34). Garden therapy studies mainly involved vulnerable groups such as individuals with dementia or intellectual disabilities.
4) Evaluation Tools and Program Effects
Evaluation tools and program outcomes varied across subfields. In forest healing studies, self-report questionnaires were most commonly used, particularly mental health scales assessing depression and stress (Studies 7, 8, 12, 13). Many studies confirmed psychological and social benefits, while several also measured physiological outcomes (Studies 7, 14, 15, 18, 19). Marine healing showed improvements in physical function, blood lipid levels, and cognitive ability (Study 24). Agro-healing research focused on psychological and emotional factors (Studies 28, 34), and healing tourism studies reported improvements in stress, emotional state, vitality, recovery, and subjective energy (Study 36).
Future Directions for Research on the Healing Industry
This study employed a scoping review methodology to examine research on the legally institutionalized and legislatively proposed domains of the healing industry in South Korea. We analyzed conceptual definitions and research characteristics across subfields to propose future directions for healing industry research. Based on this analysis, we suggest the following developmental directions.
First, the healing industry requires a clear, unified conceptual definition and an industrialization strategy aligned with that definition. The government should establish a dedicated agency to coordinate these efforts and oversee the healing industry.
Our findings show that policymakers and researchers define the healing industry inconsistently. Even within legally institutionalized subfields such as forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism, definitions of healing vary. Although most sources distinguish healing from treatment, the distinction remains vague. Our analysis of policy documents across ministries showed that the concept of healing frequently overlapped with wellness, which emphasizes the proactive pursuit of optimal health and personal growth. Choe and Rhie (2019) visualized the evolution of healing-related concepts and demonstrated how, since 2019, the concept of healing has gradually expanded to encompass wellness, influencing a wide range of fields. This trend suggests the need to revise and broaden the term “healing industry” to encompass these developments accurately.
In terms of methodology, many healing programs address psychological and emotional aspects alongside disease recovery and health promotion, features closely associated with complementary and alternative medicine. However, current government definitions exclude such practices from the official scope of the healing industry. Cho (2021) emphasized the need to build consensus around agro-healing’s conceptual orientation, and Woo (2020) similarly highlighted the lack of a clearly defined concept in marine healing, calling for deeper academic discussion.
These discrepancies demonstrate the varied interpretations of healing across ministries and sectors. While the healing industry has wide applicability to the general public, current programs remain fragmented. For instance, healing tourism is still undergoing legislative institutionalization. It categorizes forest healing, marine healing, and agro-healing as subtypes of wellness tourism, highlighting the need for greater integration across ministry-level domains (Kim and Lee, 2017; Kim, 2021).
At the same time, the healing industry must balance its therapeutic function with industrial sustainability. It must generate local employment and income through diverse sectors, ultimately creating socio-economic value (Kim et al., 2014). However, this study revealed that most existing research focuses on program effectiveness, with limited attention to understanding how, for whom, and under what conditions one could apply these programs for sustainable development. Therefore, to address these multifaceted challenges, the government should create a dedicated ministry and enact a Basic Act on the Healing Industry. This legislation would facilitate the formation of a unified conceptual framework and enable the development of practical and strategic industrial policies.
Second, researchers must conduct systematic reviews using quantitative and qualitative methods to improve research quality and uphold ethical standards. Sustaining the healing industry requires robust research and development efforts across various domains, with a focus on the effectiveness, applicability, and scalability of healing interventions. Although forest healing has received considerable attention, our review found that many studies lacked methodological rigor and ethical consideration.
Hong et al. (2024) emphasized the need to incorporate exploratory and descriptive research designs alongside program evaluation studies, and they advocated for a rigorous framework for qualitative and quantitative research. Similarly, Lee et al. (2016) stressed the importance of clearly describing and documenting participant selection and experimental procedures to improve causal inference. They also called for objective, standardized data collection methods.
To improve research quality, scholars should follow standardized reporting guidelines tailored to each research design. Clearly describing the research design, implementation, and outcomes in academic publications will contribute significantly to improving the quality of research (Song and Bang, 2017). Researchers must also consistently uphold ethical practices, including Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and securing informed consent from research participants.
Third, interdisciplinary collaboration with fields such as counseling psychology, coaching, health, and medicine is essential to enhance the healing industry’s effectiveness and ensure its long-term sustainability. Our definition of the healing industry emphasises that the industry’s growth requires active collaboration with the medical field, and interdisciplinary research that connects healing practices with psychology, coaching, and public health.
Yoo et al. (2015) highlighted the need for more rigorous evidence-based research to ensure the medical safety of forest healing programs, while Sung et al. (2015) called for more active involvement of the medical field. Further, Min et al. (2022) emphasized that collaboration with the healthcare sector would enable the development of healing programs tailored to diverse populations, backed by scientific evidence linked to specific diseases and symptoms.
Beyond medicine, counseling psychology and coaching play vital roles in the healing industry. Since healing aims to address illness and promote physical, mental, and social well-being, psychological support is essential. Foundational approaches in counseling by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow in the 1960s emphasized prevention and well-being. More recently, Martin Seligman’s positive psychology, which emerged in the 2000s, has influenced the field by emphasizing human flourishing and strength-based development (Lee, 2022).
Coaching also aligns closely with the goals of the healing industry. It views individuals as holistic, creative beings with unlimited potential (Whitworth, 2007), and it empowers them through self-directed goal-setting and personal growth. As a practice-oriented field, counseling and coaching enhance psychological well-being by helping individuals understand their needs, motivations, and behavioral patterns. Their goals and methods make them highly compatible with the vision and practices of the healing industry.
To support the sustainable development of the healing industry, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential. This includes the establishment of convergence-based research centers and consortia involving stakeholders from the public, private, academic, and research sectors. Universities should also implement interdisciplinary curricula integrating health sciences, psychology, economics, and policy. Institutionalizing such research and education systems will foster innovation and strengthen the healing industry’s capacity to evolve as a future-oriented sector contributing to both individual well-being and public value.
Conclusion
Drawing on a scoping review of gray literature and academic studies, including related domains of the healing industry such as forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism, this study identified core conceptual elements and synthesized them into a unified conceptual framework for the healing industry. By systematically analyzing definitional inconsistencies, scope variations, and research trends, the study not only mapped key research characteristics and gaps but also proposed a comprehensive conceptual definition of the healing industry.
The findings revealed considerable variation in how the healing industry is defined across scholars and disciplines, which may lead to inconsistencies in policy implementation and field practices. To address this, the study proposes an integrated definition of the healing industry as a public-interest- oriented sector operating within a legally institutionalized and policy-supported framework, delivering healing and wellness-promoting services through the utilization of nature-based resources such as forests, oceans, agriculture, gardens, and tourism.
This definition emphasizes a holistic approach that integrates physical, psychological, emotional, social, and environmental dimensions. It positions the healing industry as one that promotes healing and wellness, facilitates individual health restoration and self-regulation, enhances community resilience and social inclusion, and contributes to local regeneration and sustainable development. Furthermore, the proposed scope expands the concept of healing to include not only human well-being but also the ecological health of animals, plants, and the broader environment. By structurally distinguishing related concepts, such as healing, treatment, well-being, and wellness, the study repositions the healing industry as a domain oriented toward holistic recovery and proactive wellness.
These findings provide a theoretical foundation for the academic consolidation of the healing industry, representing a significant contribution to the integration of previously fragmented discourses. They also offer strategic insight into how healing-related services can be aligned with public policy and industrial development, ensuring both conceptual clarity and field-level applicability. By addressing the conceptual ambiguities and sectoral fragmentation identified at the outset, this study proposes a coherent framework that not only strengthens theoretical integration, but also offers practical guidance for more consistent and coordinated policymaking in the healing industry.
As with all scoping reviews, this study did not include a quality appraisal of the selected literature, thereby limiting the generalizability of its conclusions. To address this inherent limitation, future studies should consider incorporating minimum quality indicators—such as study design, sample size, and ethical approval—to enhance the reliability of the findings. Moreover, the literature reviewed focused primarily on trends within subfields of the healing industry, suggesting potential conceptual gaps.
In particular, this study limited its scope to legally institutionalized and policy-supported domains namely forest healing, marine healing, agro-healing, garden therapy, and healing tourism excluding literature related to private- sector initiatives, community-based practices, and non-institutionalized healing activities. This public-sector-centered focus represents a limitation in fully capturing the diverse ecosystem of the healing industry.
To address these limitations, the following directions are proposed for future research.
First, more in-depth investigations are needed within each subdomain of the healing industry to generate concrete and practice-oriented insights. Second, empirical studies, including meta-analyses assessing the effectiveness of healing programs, should be expanded to strengthen policy and clinical reliability. Third, to more comprehensively reflect the evolving nature of the healing industry, future research should include scoping or systematic reviews that encompass private-sector initiatives, community-based practices, and emerging hybrid models. Such reviews can help broaden the current theoretical framework, which remains largely focused on publicly institutionalized domains, and offer a more holistic understanding of the industry’s actual landscape. Furthermore, integrated and interdisciplinary research, particularly through cross-sector collaboration, must be actively promoted..
Such continued efforts are expected to establish a robust foundation for the academic evolution of the healing industry and contribute meaningfully to its practical advancement and institutional consolidation.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
