{"id":7497,"date":"2019-06-26T07:26:34","date_gmt":"2019-06-26T07:26:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7497"},"modified":"2019-06-26T07:26:34","modified_gmt":"2019-06-26T07:26:34","slug":"two-hours-max-for-wellbeing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2019\/06\/26\/two-hours-max-for-wellbeing\/","title":{"rendered":"Two hours max for wellbeing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Research by the universities of Exeter and Uppsala, published in Scientific Reports<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>found that people who spend at least 2 hours a week in natural settings such as town parks, woodlands, country parks and beaches\u00a0are more likely to report good health and higher psychological wellbeing than those who don't. \u00a0However, no such benefits were found for people who visited for less than 2 hours.<\/p>\n

This is the paper's abstract:<\/p>\n

\"Spending time in natural environments can benefit health and well-being, but exposure-response relationships are under-researched. \u00a0We examined associations between recreational nature contact in the last seven days and self-reported health and well-being. \u00a0Participants (n\u2009=\u200919,806) were drawn from the [MENE] Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (2014\/15\u20132015\/16); weighted to be nationally representative. \u00a0Weekly contact was categorised using 60\u2009min blocks. \u00a0Analyses controlled for residential greenspace and other neighbourhood and individual factors. \u00a0Compared to no nature contact last week, the likelihood of reporting good health or high well-being became significantly greater with contact \u2265120\u2009mins (e.g. 120\u2013179\u2009mins: ORs [95%CIs]: Health\u2009=\u20091.59 [1.31\u20131.92]; Well-being\u2009=\u20091.23 [1.08\u20131.40]). \u00a0 Positive associations peaked between 200\u2013300\u2009mins per week with no further gain. The pattern was consistent across key groups including older adults and those with long-term health issues. \u00a0It did not matter how 120\u2009mins of contact a week was achieved (e.g. one long vs. several shorter visits\/week). Prospective longitudinal and intervention studies are a critical next step in developing possible weekly nature exposure guidelines comparable to those for physical activity.<\/em>\"<\/p>\n

\n

ScienceDaily<\/a> quotes Dr Mat White, of the University of Exeter Medical School, who said:<\/p>\n

\"It's well known that getting outdoors in nature can be good for people's health and wellbeing but until now we've not been able to say how much is enough. The majority of nature visits in this research took place within just two miles of home so even visiting local urban greenspaces seems to be a good thing. \u00a0Two 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<\/em>.\"<\/p>\n

What to make of all this? \u00a0Well, three things strike me:<\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> In the study, up to 59 minutes of contact time per week\u2009was not associated with better outcomes than zero\u2009mins, and there was also no linear increase above 60\u2009mins. \u00a0 Longer durations were not associated with better outcomes. \u00a0Whilst you can see that this is what the stats throw up, it is ridiculous to argue that being in the park for 59 minutes is not worthwhile, but adding an extra minute turns it into a valuable experience. \u00a0How could the authors write this?<\/p>\n

They are on safer ground when it comes to talking about an upper limit, but even here there will be a tapering off, rather than a cliff edge.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

2.<\/strong> It seems that having 60 1 minute experiences (or 120 half-minute ones, etc) is the same as having 1 60 minute experience. \u00a0Lunacy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

3.\u00a0<\/strong>But what's to count as a natural environment? \u00a0As ever in such studies, it's rather contrived. \u00a0Participants were introduced to the survey as follows (my emphasis added in bold<\/strong><\/em>):<\/p>\n

\u201cI am going to ask you about occasions in the last week when you spent your time out of doors<\/i>. \u00a0By out of doors we mean open spaces in and around towns and cities<\/i>, including parks<\/i>, canals and nature areas; the coast and beaches; and the countryside including farmland<\/i>, woodland<\/i>, hills and rivers<\/i>. \u00a0This could be anything from a few minutes to all day<\/i>. \u00a0It may include time spent close to your home or workplace<\/i>, further afield or while on holiday in England<\/i>. \u00a0However this does not include: routine shopping trips or; time spent in your own garden.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n

This assumption (it may be a prejudice) against all gardens as natural environments is plain silly, given how much biodiversity many contain. \u00a0They are, of course, hardly\u00a0natural<\/em>, but what is? \u00a0Certainly not urban\u00a0parks, canals, most nature areas, farmland, and most\u00a0woodland. \u00a0I spend 3 hours on Sunday in my garden, working away \u2013 mostly undoing the tendency of the second law of thermodynamics to bring disorder and chaos. \u00a0There were periods of contemplation \u2013 mostly of bees \u2013 as well. \u00a0Why was none of that (well the first 2 hours) to count in the well-being stakes?<\/p>\n

Authors too much in awe of the numbers, I fancy. \u00a0The paper is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

......................................................<\/p>\n

Citation<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Mathew P. White, Ian Alcock, James Grellier, Benedict W. Wheeler, Terry Hartig, Sara L. Warber, Angie Bone, Michael H. Depledge, Lora E. Fleming. Spending at least 120\u2009minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing<\/strong>. Scientific Reports<\/em>, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038\/s41598-019-44097-3<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Research by the universities of Exeter and Uppsala, published in Scientific Reports,\u00a0found that people who spend at least 2 hours a week in natural settings such as town parks, woodlands, country parks and beaches\u00a0are more likely to report good health...<\/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-7497","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\/7497","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=7497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}