{"id":6192,"date":"2015-06-01T07:35:50","date_gmt":"2015-06-01T07:35:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=6192"},"modified":"2015-06-01T07:35:50","modified_gmt":"2015-06-01T07:35:50","slug":"does-being-in-quality-nature-contribute-best-to-human-wellbeing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2015\/06\/01\/does-being-in-quality-nature-contribute-best-to-human-wellbeing\/","title":{"rendered":"Does being in 'quality nature' contribute best to human wellbeing?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>It is hard to pick up a newspaper or watch TV\u00a0without coming across\u00a0somebody official telling us to take more exercise. \u00a0The NHS, for example, recommends that someone my age has a mix of \"moderate and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity every week (for example two 30-minute runs plus 30 minutes of fast walking), and\u00a0muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days a week that work all major muscle groups\". \u00a0It exhausts me just to think about it. \u00a0This\u00a0is often coupled with concerns about what we eat and drink, and\u00a0moral panic about obesity and binge-drinking, particularly in the young. \u00a0Meanwhile, environmental NGOs remind us of the benefits of being\u00a0outside spending time 'in nature'. \u00a0This is good for us in terms of both body and mind \u2013 holistic, no less. \u00a0Alongside this, we find a renewed focus\u00a0on learning 'in natural environments' [LINE], on outdoor learning\u00a0through emphases such as Forest Schools, and the idea of the 'outdoor classroom' more generally. \u00a0I seem to spend considerable amounts of time sitting reading about all this when I really should be up and about, preferably outside: the sacrifices academics make for the greater good.<\/p>\n<p>Whilst the basis message\u00a0is clear \u2013 get outside and exercise because it's good for you and will make you feel better\u00a0\u2013 the detail isn't. \u00a0For example, how do different forms of\u00a0exercise compare in their contribution to wellbeing, and where should we do it? \u00a0Is being in the gym really not as good as being 'outside'? \u00a0And does it matter where that 'outside' is? \u00a0Is an urban park as good as a wildflower meadow, for example? \u00a0To help thinking about all this, the University of Essex has produced an (internal circulation only) report for the Wildlife Trusts on the contribution that 'being in nature' makes to human\u00a0wellbeing \u2013 particularly our being in natural environments rich in wildlife. \u00a0\u00a0There is considerable richness in the report and I am sympathetic to its broad conclusions. \u00a0I take it as read, for example, that we'd all likely be much healthier (in the way that the W<em>orld Health Organisation<\/em>\u00a0[WHO] thinks about these things) if we all spent much more time taking more physical exercise (and more regularly) in the open\u00a0air.<\/p>\n<p>That said, I was also\u00a0rather disappointed by the report as I had hoped for greater clarity around what is particularly effective, although\u00a0I probably expected too much, given the conceptual confusion that besets this subject where words like nature, natural, wild and environment are all used very loosely, even by people who know they should do better. \u00a0In particular, I regret that the research review was not written in a way that allows readers to see how much confidence they can place in the outcomes of particular studies. \u00a0I thought section #3.2 on the health and wellbeing benefits to be found in\u00a0natural environments rich in wildlife much the best in this sense of setting out where there was clarity and uncertainty. \u00a0This\u00a0section, and the New Economics Foundation's [<em>nef<\/em>]\u00a0framing of\u00a0five evidenced-based actions to improve\u00a0wellbeing (connect; be active; take notice; keep learning; give)\u00a0was particularly valuable. \u00a0Here, <em>nef<\/em>\u00a0suggests that if each of these were built into daily routines, health and\u00a0wellbeing would be enhanced.<\/p>\n<p>The key findings of the report are that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>contact with a wide range of\u00a0natural environments can provide multiple\u00a0benefits for health and wellbeing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>these benefits\u00a0include\u00a0improvements to physical health and to psychological and social wellbeing; for example: reductions in stress\u00a0and anxiety, increased positive mood, self-esteem\u00a0and resilience, improvements in social\u00a0functioning and in social inclusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>although environments rich in wildlife are associated\u00a0with improved wellbeing, through emotional,\u00a0social and psychological benefits,\u00a0the evidence about whether high\u00a0biodiversity levels actually contributes to wellbeing is limited.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Overall, I thought\u00a0that the report added to the confusions. \u00a0For example, I struggled with the idea of \u2018green exercise\u2019, which is defined as activity \"<em>in the presence of nature<\/em>\". \u00a0What does this mean, given that when we are outdoors, we are inevitably \"<em>in nature<\/em>\" to some extent. \u00a0As noted above, what\u00a0is being claimed is that\u00a0exercise is better for us when nature is more pronounced or of higher quality. \u00a0Running through 'improved' grassland (or an urban park) clearly counts as \"in nature\", even though the species\u00a0diversity might be low, but the argument is that the same amount and degree of exercise is\u00a0better for us when done in a wildlife-rich meadow, even though the evidence for this is not (yet) compelling. \u00a0Thus, the argument goes, being in-doors on an exercise bike is not as good for us as being in high quality nature, even if we spend the time on the bike gazing out of the window at birds in the garden \u2013 despite\u00a0the physical element of the exercise being the same. \u00a0There is clearly considerable\u00a0confusion here.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, you have to ask yourself, assuming that the air is clean, which is better for you:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>a session in the gym? \u00a0a gentle stroll in a wildflower meadow in the company of birds and insects? \u00a0an hour's gardening at home or on the allotment? \u00a0a brisk walk along suburban streets? \u00a0an indoor exercise bike routine at home? \u00a0walking or cycling to work? \u00a0a round of golf? \u00a0a game of squash? \u00a0sitting quietly in a wildlife-rich\u00a0garden? \u00a0playing football in an urban park? \u00a0<\/em><em>Or an hour in the pub talking and laughing with your friends.\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>All these\u00a0sound positive\u00a0to me, and, happily the last can always be added to any of the others, but therein lies the problem for public policy. \u00a0Given that the government recommends that, in order to stay healthy, adults should take part in moderate and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, this implies\u00a0that this needs\u00a0to be reasonably local to where we\u00a0are, irrespective of how nature-poor this is. \u00a0Thus, is it better to drive to a nature reserve in order to be nature-rich than to compromise on nature quality a bit, and do more exercise nearer home? \u00a0No one can say, but I know what I think.<\/p>\n<p>There is a considerable tension here: the government wants to promote exercise because it good for us, <em>and<\/em> for the economics of the NHS. \u00a0Meanwhile, NGOs\u00a0want to promote contact with quality-nature, because this is also good for us (and them), and they think, on balance and in general terms, that this will lead to nature's\u00a0being more valued, which will be very good for us all in the end. \u00a0Given that these objectives do not coincide, we can expect the tensions to continue. \u00a0As for me, the last thing I want, on those rare occasions I manage\u00a0to get to a wildflower meadow in order to\u00a0walk very slowly through it, is a bunch\u00a0of joggers elbowing me out of the way or trampling the orchids.<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>Wellbeing benefits from natural environments rich in wildlife: a literature review for The Wildlife Trusts; University of Essex. 2015.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It is hard to pick up a newspaper or watch TV\u00a0without coming across\u00a0somebody official telling us to take more exercise. \u00a0The NHS, for example, recommends that someone my age has a mix of \"moderate and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity every week...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-new-publications"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}