Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 91, August 2013, Pages 130-134
Social Science & Medicine

Short report
Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Experimental evidence suggests that there may be synergy between the psychological benefits of physical activity, and the restorative effects of contact with a natural environment; physical activity in a natural environment might produce greater mental health benefits than physical activity elsewhere. However, such experiments are typically short-term and, by definition, artificially control the participant types, physical activity and contact with nature. This observational study asked whether such effects can be detected in everyday settings at a population level. It used data from the Scottish Health Survey 2008, describing all environments in which respondents were physically active. Associations were sought between use of each environment, and then use of environments grouped as natural or non-natural, and the risk of poor mental health (measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)) and level of wellbeing (measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental health and Wellbeing Score (WEMWBS). Results showed an independent association between regular use of natural environments and a lower risk of poor mental health, but not for activity in other types of environment. For example, the odds of poor mental health (GHQ ≥ 4) among those regularly using woods or forests for physical activity were 0.557 (95% CI 0.323–0.962), compared to non-users. However, regular use of natural environments was not clearly associated with greater wellbeing, whilst regular use of non-natural environments was. The study concludes that physical activity in natural environments is associated with a reduction in the risk of poor mental health to a greater extent than physical activity in other environments, but also that activity in different types of environment may promote different kinds of positive psychological response. Access to natural environments for physical activity should be protected and promoted as a contribution to protecting and improving population mental health.

Highlights

► Experimental studies show physical activity in natural environments may be better for mental health than activity elsewhere. ► Such studies tend to be small, brief and not to test effects of activity in natural environments as part of everyday life. ► This study looked for evidence of such effects in a large, real-world population. ► It found evidence that physical activity in natural environments is better for mental health than activity elsewhere. ► Each additional use of a natural environment per week is associated with about a 6% lower risk of poor mental health.

Section snippets

Background

There is now considerable research and policy attention on the potential for contact with natural environments to protect or enhance human mental health (Nilsson, Sangster, & Konijnendijk, 2011). Experimental studies have demonstrated effects of contact with natural environments on both biomarkers and self-reports of stress, on mood and reported levels of fatigue (Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010; Hartig et al., 2011; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Garling, 2003; Park, Tsunetsugu,

Methods

The research question could not be answered by simply seeking a relationship between reported use of natural environments for physical activity, and mental health or wellbeing. Those who use natural environments might also use other types of environment. Use of all environments needed to be taken into account to assess any independent benefit of physical activity in natural environments.

Data came from the 2008 Scottish Health Survey (SHS), a large cross-sectional population health survey which

Results

The mean WEMWBS score was 50.15 with a standard deviation of 8.59, and 14.25% of the sample had high GHQ. The mean number of environments used for physical activity in the month before interview was 2.7. About 30% of the subsample used 3 or more. Local pavements or streets was the environment most commonly used regularly for physical activity, followed by home/garden (Fig. 1). About 50% of the subsample reported using any natural environment for physical activity at least once during the four

Discussion

The analyses showed an independent association between regular use of natural environments for physical activity and a lower risk of poor mental health. Regular users of Woods/forest for physical activity were at about half the risk of poor mental health of non-users. Each additional use of any natural environment per week was associated with about a 6% lower risk of poor mental health. Regular use of non-natural, and in particular sporting, environments was positively and significantly

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the GreenHealth project funded by the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) Division. I gratefully acknowledge the Public Health team, Analytical Services at the Scottish Government for adding the green space variable to the SHS data.

References (24)

  • P. Grahn et al.

    Landscape planning and stress

    Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

    (2003)
  • M. Hamer et al.

    Dose-response relationship between physical activity and mental health: the Scottish Health Survey

    British Journal of Sports Medicine

    (2009)
  • Cited by (306)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text