|
 Researchers found that it didn't matter how participants achieved
their total time outdoors, whether in one long stretch or several
short visits, but the greater the weekly "dose" of nature exposure
up to about 300 minutes, the bigger the benefit.
"Doctors (and patients) are often quite aware that spending time in
natural environments might be good for people's health, but the
question that keeps coming up is, 'How much is enough?'" said lead
study author Mathew White of the European Centre for Environment and
Human Health at the University of Exeter Medical School in the UK.
"Our aim was to take a step in answering this simple, sensible
question," he told Reuters Health by email. "Common sense, really."
White and colleagues analyzed 19,800 responses in 2014-2016 to a UK
government survey assessing "engagement with the natural
environment" in a nationally-representative sample of residents of
England. Participants were asked about their contact with nature
during the previous week, including parks, nature areas, beaches,
farmland, hills and rivers, but not including routine shopping trips
or time spent in their own garden. They were also asked about their
health and wellbeing with the questions, "How is your health in
general?" and "Overall, how satisfied are you with life nowadays?"
White's team found that people who spent two hours in nature during
the last week had 23% higher odds of reporting high wellbeing and
59% higher odds of reporting good health compared to those with no
nature contact. The positive effect increased with additional time
outdoors, peaking at about three hours per week for health and five
hours per week for wellbeing.
The researchers adjusted for gender, age, health problems or
disability, as well as socioeconomic factors and local air pollution
levels, but the effect held for all kinds of people.
"The most surprising thing for us was just how consistent the
pattern was across lots of different groups in society, including
old and young, male and female, rich and poor," White said. "For us,
the most important was also the same pattern for people with
long-term illness or disability. It benefits everyone."
[to top of second column] |
The survey participants who reported better health and wellbeing and
who spent two to three hours in nature per week were more likely to
live near neighborhood greenspace, to meet recommended physical
activity guidelines and to have an occupation with a higher
socioeconomic status, the researchers note in the journal Scientific
Reports.
"This has implications for our greenspace and how we design towns
and cities, as well as street trees and backyards," said Richard
Fuller of the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science at
the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, who wasn't
involved in the study.
"The difficulty in studying this area, however, is that it's tough
to experiment other than on a small scale," he told Reuters Health
in a phone interview. "It's harder to study cause-and-effect with
nature on the street, in a park or during our lived experience."
Future studies should include a long-term look at how changes in
weekly nature exposure affect health and wellbeing, White said.
Since these studies can often be difficult to measure and are
expensive, it may be a few years before researchers can offer
scientific guidelines, he added.
Researchers also want to know in what ways nature affects health and
if different people respond in different ways to different types of
nature, Fuller said. A football field is considered greenspace, for
instance, but it may not offer the same nature-related benefits as a
park or forest. At the same time, it's simply important for people
to go outside, he added.
"Nature is good for us. Let's get outside, especially with the
growing concern around spending time looking at computers all day,"
he said. "It's fun and easy and makes us feel good."
SOURCE: https://bit.ly/2ZvuXPC Scientific Reports, online June 13,
2019.
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
