How much "Natural Time" do we need to improve well-being?
Spending time in nature can improve overall well-being, but
how much exposure do we need? New research finds that 2 hours a week is enough
to reap the benefits, although important questions remain.
In western society, as global interaction with nature slowly
declines, scientists are investigating whether reconnecting with parks, woods
and beaches could benefit our health and overall well-being.
Researchers have conducted a number of studies, of varying
quality, that have examined the role of human interaction with nature in
overall health.
For example, one study found that living in areas with more
trees increases people's perception of their physical and mental health and
reduces the risk of cardiometabolic diseases.
A 2016 review concluded that "living in areas with
larger amounts of green space reduces mortality, primarily [cardiovascular
disease]".
Despite the slow accumulation of evidence of the benefits of
visiting green spaces, no one has calculated the exact time that a person must
spend in the wild to reap the benefits.
The authors of the new study, from the University of Exeter
Medical School in the United Kingdom and the University of Uppsala in Sweden,
aimed to "better understand the relationships between time spent in nature
per week and health and self-reported subjective well-being”.
Timing Interactions with Nature
To investigate, the team took data from the Monitor of
Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey, which includes a representative
sample of the British public. The researchers collected data for this survey by
conducting face-to-face interviews at the participants' homes.
They used a sample of 20,264 people and asked them a series
of questions, two of which were, "How is your health in general?" and
"Overall, how satisfied are you with life these days?"
They also asked participants how much contact they had with
nature in the past 7 days, including “parks, canals and natural spaces; the
coast and the beaches; and the countryside, including farmland, woods, hills
and rivers, "but does not include" routine shopping or time spent in
your own garden."
The researchers asked how many times they went and how long
each visit lasted; from this information, they extrapolated the participants'
average weekly exposure to nature.
Before the analysis, scientists also checked a long list of
variables, including gender, age, average amount of exercise practiced each
week, level of deprivation in the area, ownership of a dog, and the state of
the relationship.
2 Hours in Each Week
They found that there were no significant self-reported
health or wellness benefits until participants reached the 2-hour mark. Less
did not make a significant difference, and more did not accentuate the positive
effect.
People could take the 2 Hour exposure as one long trip or on
several shorter trips.
“Two hours a week is
hopefully a realistic target for many people, especially given that it can be
spread over an entire week to get the benefit.”
Study lead Dr. Mathew
P. White
The study authors discuss the magnitude of the positive
effect, explaining that the increase in self-reported health and well-being
after 2 hours of contact with nature each week is similar to the differences
observed in:
- · People living in a low or high deprivation area
- · People employed in a profession of high or low social level
- · People who achieved recommended levels of physical activity in the past week compared to those who did not
Due to the impressive magnitude of the effect, the team
hopes that public health officials will soon be able to use the growing body of
evidence to inform new policies. As the study's co-author, Professor Terry
Hartig explains:
"There are many reasons why spending time in nature can
be good for your health and well-being, including having a perspective on life
circumstances, reducing stress and spending quality time with friends and family."
He adds, "The current results provide valuable support
for health practitioners to make recommendations on time spent in the wild to
promote basic health and well-being, similar to the guidelines for [physical
activity] weekly."
A number of limitations
This study meets the question of cause and effect; for
example, perhaps people with depressive symptoms do not feel the urge to visit
the forests.
As its authors write, "we cannot rule out the
possibility that the association is, at least in part, due to healthier and
happier people who spend more time in nature".
They also explain that their method of measuring weekly
exposure to nature was far from perfect, writing that they "only asked for
one random visit in the last week". However, they estimate that on
more than 20,000 people, this effect should be canceled.
In addition, they reiterate how important it is to treat
interview data "with caution", as human memory is certainly not
perfect.
Although the 2-hour cut-off is the primary statistic, the
authors call for caution here too. They believe that, at least in part, this
duration could be due to the aggregation of data; people are much more likely
to say they have visited a forest for 1 or 2 hours, for example, rather than 1
hour and 23 minutes or 2 hours and 49 minutes.
Aside from the limitations, there is mounting evidence of
the psychological benefits of spending time in the wild.
Spending at least two hours a week in the wild can be a crucial step in promoting health and well-being, according to a new large-scale study.
Research from the University of Exeter, published in
Scientific Reports and funded by NIHR, found that people who spend at least 120
minutes in the wild per week are much more likely to report good health and
well-being. higher psychological than those who do not visit nature. at all for
an average week. However, no such benefit was found for people who visited
natural environments such as municipal parks, woods, country parks and beaches less
than 120 minutes per week.
The study used data from almost 20,000 people in England and
found that it did not matter whether the 120 minutes were completed in one
visit or over several shorter visits. He also found that the 120-minute
threshold applied to men and women, to older and younger adults, in different
professional and ethnic groups, among those living in rich and poor regions, and
even among those suffering long-term illnesses or disabilities.
Dr. Mat White, of the Faculty of Medicine at the University
of Exeter, who led the study, said: "It is well known that outdoor nature
can be good for your health and well-being. people but so far we haven't been
able to say how much The majority of the nature tours in this research have
taken place just two miles from the house, so even visiting local urban green
space seems to be a good thing. Two hours a week is hopefully a realistic goal for
many people, especially since it can be spread over an entire week to benefit.
"
It is becoming increasingly clear that simply living in a
greener neighborhood can be good for your health, for example by reducing air
pollution. Data for the current research comes from the Monitor of Engagement
with Natural Environment Survey from Natural England, the largest study in the
world that collects data on people's weekly contact with the natural world.
Research co-author Professor Terry Hartig of Uppsala University
in Sweden said: "There are many reasons why spending time in nature can be
good for your health and well-being. specially to gain insight into life
circumstances, reduce stress and enjoy quality time with friends and family.
The current results provide valuable support to health care practitioners in
making recommendations for time spent in the home. nature to promote basic
health and well-being, like the guidelines for weekly physical activity. "
0 Comments