Contact with nature, nature prescriptions, and loneliness: Evidence from an international survey of adults in Australia, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health & Place Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103331
Thomas Astell-Burt , Michelle Kondo , Tanya Pritchard , Katarzyna Olcon , J. Aaron Hipp , Deepti Adlakha , Evangelos Pappas , Xiaoqi Feng
{"title":"Contact with nature, nature prescriptions, and loneliness: Evidence from an international survey of adults in Australia, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States","authors":"Thomas Astell-Burt ,&nbsp;Michelle Kondo ,&nbsp;Tanya Pritchard ,&nbsp;Katarzyna Olcon ,&nbsp;J. Aaron Hipp ,&nbsp;Deepti Adlakha ,&nbsp;Evangelos Pappas ,&nbsp;Xiaoqi Feng","doi":"10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evidence to support nature contact and nature prescriptions to reduce loneliness is scant. A total of 2100 individuals took part in a survey conducted in Australia (n = 525, mean age = 34.1), India (n = 526, mean age = 29.5), Singapore (n = 523, mean age = 36.1), the UK (n = 526, mean age = 37.3), and the US (n = 525, mean age = 43.6) in 2022 (overall age range 18–89yrs). Multilevel logistic regressions adjusted for confounding indicated mean levels of overall loneliness tended to be higher in India (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.90–1.62), Singapore (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.15–2.07), the UK (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 0.96–1.67) and the US (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94–1.64) compared with Australia. Notable differences were observed by loneliness type, for example, with lower odds of social loneliness (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.41–0.79) and higher odds of emotional loneliness (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.14–2.06) in India compared with Australia. Findings with regards to loneliness and nature contact varied between country. In general, social loneliness was lower in participants who visited natural surroundings regularly (OR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.61–0.98) and spent two hours or more per week in nature (OR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.49–0.81). Overall loneliness (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.48–2.47) and emotional loneliness (OR = 2.84, 95%CI = 2.13–3.51) were substantially higher among those who felt having no-one to go with was a barrier to spending time in nature. Emotional loneliness was higher in those who had more time in nature (OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.94–1.75) or more frequent visits (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94–1.49), which may be indicative of selective processes by which some people who feel emotionally lonely seek meaningful sources of connection or solace in natural environments. In sum, these findings highlight potentially important contingencies in how people feel lonely in different countries, and the potential of contact with nature as a means to address this critical issue of modern times. Randomised trials of nature prescription interventions for loneliness co-designed with respect to contrasting cultural, economic, and climatic contexts are needed to ensure programs intended to reconnect people with nature are effective, equitable, and acceptable for everyone.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49302,"journal":{"name":"Health & Place","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 103331"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Place","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922400159X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence to support nature contact and nature prescriptions to reduce loneliness is scant. A total of 2100 individuals took part in a survey conducted in Australia (n = 525, mean age = 34.1), India (n = 526, mean age = 29.5), Singapore (n = 523, mean age = 36.1), the UK (n = 526, mean age = 37.3), and the US (n = 525, mean age = 43.6) in 2022 (overall age range 18–89yrs). Multilevel logistic regressions adjusted for confounding indicated mean levels of overall loneliness tended to be higher in India (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.90–1.62), Singapore (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.15–2.07), the UK (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 0.96–1.67) and the US (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94–1.64) compared with Australia. Notable differences were observed by loneliness type, for example, with lower odds of social loneliness (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.41–0.79) and higher odds of emotional loneliness (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.14–2.06) in India compared with Australia. Findings with regards to loneliness and nature contact varied between country. In general, social loneliness was lower in participants who visited natural surroundings regularly (OR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.61–0.98) and spent two hours or more per week in nature (OR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.49–0.81). Overall loneliness (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.48–2.47) and emotional loneliness (OR = 2.84, 95%CI = 2.13–3.51) were substantially higher among those who felt having no-one to go with was a barrier to spending time in nature. Emotional loneliness was higher in those who had more time in nature (OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.94–1.75) or more frequent visits (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94–1.49), which may be indicative of selective processes by which some people who feel emotionally lonely seek meaningful sources of connection or solace in natural environments. In sum, these findings highlight potentially important contingencies in how people feel lonely in different countries, and the potential of contact with nature as a means to address this critical issue of modern times. Randomised trials of nature prescription interventions for loneliness co-designed with respect to contrasting cultural, economic, and climatic contexts are needed to ensure programs intended to reconnect people with nature are effective, equitable, and acceptable for everyone.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接触自然、自然处方和孤独感:来自澳大利亚、印度、新加坡、英国和美国成年人国际调查的证据。
支持自然接触和自然处方以减少孤独感的证据并不多。2022 年,共有 2100 人参加了在澳大利亚(n = 525,平均年龄 = 34.1)、印度(n = 526,平均年龄 = 29.5)、新加坡(n = 523,平均年龄 = 36.1)、英国(n = 526,平均年龄 = 37.3)和美国(n = 525,平均年龄 = 43.6)进行的一项调查(总体年龄范围为 18-89 岁)。经混杂因素调整的多层次逻辑回归表明,与澳大利亚相比,印度(Odds Ratio [OR] 1.21,95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.90-1.62)、新加坡(OR = 1.54,95%CI = 1.15-2.07)、英国(OR = 1.26,95%CI = 0.96-1.67)和美国(OR = 1.24,95%CI = 0.94-1.64)的总体孤独感平均水平往往更高。例如,与澳大利亚相比,印度的社会孤独几率较低(OR = 0.57,95%CI = 0.41-0.79),而情感孤独几率较高(OR = 1.57,95%CI = 1.14-2.06)。不同国家在孤独感和与大自然接触方面的调查结果各不相同。一般来说,经常去自然环境(OR = 0.81,95%CI = 0.61-0.98)和每周在自然环境中度过两小时或更长时间(OR = 0.65,95%CI = 0.49-0.81)的参与者的社会孤独感较低。在认为无人陪伴是在大自然中度过时间的障碍的人群中,总体孤独感(OR = 1.98,95%CI = 1.48-2.47)和情感孤独感(OR = 2.84,95%CI = 2.13-3.51)都要高得多。在大自然中度过更多时间(OR = 1.32,95%CI = 0.94-1.75)或更频繁地去大自然(OR = 1.24,95%CI = 0.94-1.49)的人中,情感孤独感更高,这可能表明了一些感到情感孤独的人在自然环境中寻求有意义的联系或慰藉的选择性过程。总之,这些研究结果凸显了不同国家的人们如何感到孤独的潜在重要偶然性,以及与自然接触作为解决现代这一关键问题的一种手段的潜力。需要对针对孤独感的自然处方干预措施进行随机试验,并根据不同的文化、经济和气候环境进行共同设计,以确保旨在重新将人们与自然联系起来的计划有效、公平,并为每个人所接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health & Place
Health & Place PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
176
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: he journal is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the study of all aspects of health and health care in which place or location matters.
期刊最新文献
Outdoor health intervention for refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers: A mixed-methods pilot study Hard-to-reach communities in the rural Ecuador: A qualitative perspective on dietary habits and physical activity Editorial Board Forces at play: A qualitative study of risk aversion, policy and decision making for children's physically active play in schools Using citizen science to explore barriers and facilitators for healthy and sustainable lifestyles in office environments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1