Metla/hanke/taittaja/kk.vvvv

Well-being effects of nature-based physical activity Karjalainen, E. 1), Borodulin, K. 2), Korpela, K. 3), Neuvonen, M. 1), Paronen, O. 4), Pouta, E. 5), Sievänen, T. 1), Tyrväinen, L. 1)

Restorative experience

Reservesof healthand well-being

Flows of healthand well-being

Settings for physical activity

Perceived healthand emotional

well-being

Well-being and health effects of nature-based physical activity

Leisure time stylesSociodemography

ObstaclesMotives

Latest physical activity: – environment

– activities– company– duration

Residential and leisure time environment:

– amount and quality of green

settings

Amount of outdoor recreation and activity profile

Physical activity– on leisure time

– everyday physical activity

Figure 1. Framework for the study.

Figure 3. The strength of restorative experiences (ROS) by the latest green outdoor setting for leisure time physical activity. ‘Other green environment’ consisted of hills, fells and special attractions.

Figure 2. The strength of restorative experiences (ROS) by the latest setting for freetime physical activity. ‘Out-doors in the built environment’ includes streets, roads, cycleways, sports grounds and playgrounds. ‘In nature in the vicinity of home’ consists of parks and neighbouring forests. ‘Indoors’ includes physical activities e.g. in gyms and swimming pools.

1) Finnish Forest Research Institute, Finland2) National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland 3) University of Tampere, Finland4) UKK Institute, Finland5) MTT Agrifood Research, Finland

email: eeva.karjalainen@metla.fi

Preliminary results of the nationwide survey

Distribution of physical activity between different settings

Men performed about 40% of their leisure time physical activity in nature, 37% out-doors in the built environment or outdoors at home, and 23% indoors. The physical leisure time activity of women was more evenly distributed between various settings. Women performed about 34% of their leisure time physical activity in nature, another 34% outdoors in the built environment or outdoors at home, and 32% indoors.

Restorative outcomes of physical activity indoors and outdoors

The restorative experience (measured by ROS) differed according to the latest setting for free-time physical activity (F

(3, 2555) = 7.8,

p < .001). However, the setting explained only 1.1% of the variance in restorative ex periences. Differences between the settings in restorative experiences were small in magnitude (.10 -.20); there was a statisti cally significant difference between physical activity performed outdoors in the built en vi ronment and indoors (p < .001) and that performed outdoors elsewhere in nature (p < .001) (Figure 2).

Objectives of the study

to explore the perceived well-being effects •of different forms of nature-based activi-ties in comparison to the benefits of indoor exercise

to examine the differences between restora-•tive outcomes in various types of natural environments, and to explore which envi-ronmental qualities generate positive and which negative effects on human well-being

Material and methods

a nationwide survey performed in •Finland: 3,060 respondents

a follow-up survey for those who •volunteered for a further enquiry: 565

respondents

The questionnaires measured e.g. the type and frequency of nature-based activities, self-rated health and mood, the restorative experiences of the last outdoor recreation visit, qualities and types of outdoor recreation environment, and the quality of a respond-ent's residential environment.

The restorative outcomes of the latest bout of physical activity were measured using the Restorative Outcome Scale (ROS), that consists of 9 items (Cronbach alpha = .94). Respondents evaluated each statement on a scale of 1–7.

This study examines both the restorative ben-efits gained during a single outdoor recreation visit and the long-term influences of nature-

based activities on perceived health and well-being (Figure 1).

Restorative outcomes of physical activity in different types of green outdoor settings

The restorative outcomes measured by ROS registered a difference between the latest green outdoor settings for leisure time physical activ-ity (F=7.763, p<0.001). Forests or fields with water elements (sea, lake, pond, river, creek) differed statistically significantly from forests or fields without water (p<0.01) and from other green environment (p<0.01) (Figure 3).

Summary

Finns performed most of their physical activity in nature or outdoors in the built environment. Preliminary analyses showed that various set-tings for physical activity differed in their re-storative outcomes, even though the differences were small and the analyses included no controls for determinants of restorative experiences, such as frequency of visits. Physical ac-tivity indoors and outdoors in nature produced almost equal restorative outcomes, while physical activity outdoors in the built environment was not as restorative as activi-ties performed indoors or in nature further from home. Water elements increased the restorative outcomes of green outdoor settings. Further analyses of the data will seek a more detailed evaluation of the effect of environmental quali-ties on restorative outcomes.

4,3 4,54,9 4,7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mea

ns o

f the

RO

S sc

ale

Park andlawn (n=23)

Forest orfield (n=119)

Forest or fieldand water(n=1355)

Other greenenvironment

(n=384)

Type of outdoor environment

Means of the Restorative Outcome Scale (ROS) by the latest green outdoor settings for physical activity (scale 1–7)

Means of the Restorative Outcome Scale (ROS) by the latest settings for physical activity (scale 1–7)

Indoors (n=462)

Outdoors in thebuilt environment

(n=736)

Outdoors innature in the

vicinity of home(n=669)

Outdoorselsewhere in

nature (n=292)

The setting for leisure time physical activity

Mea

ns o

f the

RO

S sc

ale 4.9 4.7 4.8 5.0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7