4.6 Article

Natural environments and subjective wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of wellbeing

Journal

HEALTH & PLACE
Volume 45, Issue -, Pages 77-84

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008

Keywords

Natural environments; Subjective wellbeing; Eudaimonic wellbeing; Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment; Exposure-response relationships

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  2. Public Health England (PHE)
  3. University of Exeter
  4. University College London
  5. Met Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite growing interest in the relationships between natural environments and subjective wellbeing (SWB), previous studies have various methodological and theoretical limitations. Focusing on urban/peri-urban residents (n=7272) from a nationally representative survey of the English population, we explored the relationships between three types of exposure: i) 'neighbourhood exposure', 'visit frequency', and 'specific visit'; and four components of SWB: i) evaluative, eudaimonic, iii) positive experiential and iv) negative experiential. Controlling for area and individual level socio-demographics and other aspects of SWB, visit frequency was associated with eudaimonic wellbeing and a specific visit with positive experiential wellbeing. People who visited nature regularly felt their lives were more worthwhile, and those who visited nature yesterday were happier. The magnitude of the association between weekly nature visits and eudaimonic wellbeing was similar to that between eudaimonic wellbeing and life circumstances such as marital status. Findings are relevant for policies to protect and promote public access to natural environments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available