Green Exercise/What We Know and Suspect

What We Know and What We Suspect

Green exercise seems to be effective in generating a variety of health benefits and fostering social bonds, which leads to healthier communities and reduces public health costs. Establishing this emotional connection with the environment also inspires people to think about, and become engaged with environmental issues such as conservation and climate change and encourages environmentally friendly behaviours. Greenspaces are perfect surroundings for outdoor learning, where engaging with nature can lead to enhanced connectedness to nature and increased environmental knowledge (green education).

Greenspace rich in biodiversity not only provides the ideal opportunity for outdoor recreation and acts as a valuable health and educational resource for its users but it can also initiate a virtuous cycle of benefit to the environment itself.

The positive outcomes of green exercise on health therefore have implications for direct intervention amongst people who are physically or mentally unwell (green care) and for the redesign of environments (buildings, gardens, urban areas or rural landscapes) so that people can be well (green design).

Figure 1. What We Know and What We Suspect

A: Nature and Health Evidence

Know

Nature (including parks, gardens, countryside and wildernesses) is good for you, bringing mental health benefits.

Nature is a place where physical activity is likely and easy, bringing physical health benefits.

All types of people (age, gender, social groups, ethnic groups) benefit, but vulnerable, ill, disaffected and disadvantaged seem to benefit more (eg green exercise is more effective for people who start with poorer mental health).

All types of natures produce positive health and memory outcomes, from nearby nature to countrysides to wildlands.

Nature can act therapeutically, making many people better, but not the severely ill or depressed.

Suspect

Engagements with animals (pets, wild) results in the same kinds of mental health benefits as with nature and places.

There is a hard-wired, genetic component to human engagement with green places (biophilia), resulting in different outcomes depending on the view.

Physiological profiles can be produced to measure GE/GC interventions (eg endocrine indicators, blood pressure).

Danger could offset mental health benefits, as could extreme weather.

Nature or activities in nature could set the context for curing certain conditions or problems.

B: Children and the Outdoors

Children are engaging less with nature in unstructured and creative ways (no longer free-range), resulting in the production of a lost generation.

A rediscovered engagement by children with nature will create positive experiences and memories that will benchmark future decisions in life.

Green interventions in school playgrounds will result in improved health for children.

C: Living Space and Design

Urban unpleasant scenes (with no green nature) raise blood pressure and reduce self-esteem and mood indicators.

People living near to and with access to nature and green space are likely to be healthier (with green design implications).

Stockaded new-build in both green- and brown-field sites will result in diminished engagement by residents with local natural places.

Nearby nature and pocket parks in urban areas are vitally-important natural health resources, and could have greater benefits for society because of their ease of access.

Ecotown design could incorporate better planning for physical activity and direct engagements with green places.

D: Memory and Knowledge

There is a link between knowledge/memory and engagement – people who know more about nature go out more.

The creation of memory comes from personal experience in places or received experiences in stories. Places are created by people’s interactions in them; disconnections create anonymous space and foods.

Long-term meaningful engagements with nature change people, and can create enduring memories.

Brief exposure to green space provides similar therapeutic mental health outcomes as longer exposures, but longer ones may result in different emotions and memories.

E: Towards Sustainable Behaviours and Divergence

There are several different types of engagement with nature, with different outcomes for memory creation and behavioural change.

There are different patterns (types) of responses to nature engagements over nine month periods after intervention.

Events change people, especially scary ones when adrenalin flows, and where nature intrudes and threatens.

Engagements with nature that are tactile and physical, where the body is in the place, are more likely to result in awareness change and transformation.

Engagements with specific places (defined by differing ecologies) will result in divergent lifeways rather than convergent ones.

Engagement with nature can be transformative.

Engagements with nature can lead to behavioural changes that will result in environmentally-sensitive behaviours across all parts of lifeways.

Greater engagement with nature changes food consumption behaviour resulting in health benefits.

F: Social Capital and Conflicts

Engagement with nature brings people together (bonding social capital) and that social capital may be a major reason for outdoor activities (dog walking, fishing, walking groups).

Some people wish to engage with nature where there are no other people, and some environments/habitats are sensitive and require protection from large numbers of visitors.

Greater engagement with nature by GE may lead to conflict between different groups (eg anglers and walkers, walkers and wildfowlers, off-roaders and bird-watchers, hunters and walkers).

G: Health Professionals

Very few doctors are as yet convinced that GE and GC public health interventions are effective treatments

Green care could be used more widely as a treatment and should be used as therapeutic options by health care professionals.

The mainstream medical establishment will need quantified studies using standard methods of (dis)proof to accept that GE/GC are serious options.

Analysis of post-intervention pathways or routes will allow development of predictive methods pre-intervention, thus allowing severe (unresponsive) individuals to be given alternative treatments.

H: Economic Consequences

A fitter and emotionally-more content population would cost the economy less.

An economic analysis of GE/GC interventions would show that GE/GC is cost-effective compared with existing treatments or the full costs of non-treatment.

I: Policy Issues

Authorities should not prevent children or adults from engaging creatively with nature (eg tree climbing, dams on creeks) as any costs are likely to be short-term and minor compared with the personal benefits created.

Health and safety culture tends to mitigate against free play in nature.

Revitalisation projects could be effective in cultural continuity for indigenous groups, and that lessons can be learned for application elsewhere.

If government produces simple recommendations for GE these will only be adopted by those already likely to accept the messages, and that the nannying will be rejected by those most in need of a behaviour change (new habits are difficult to predict).