Finding Nature

It’s a delight to announce the winner of the Tune Into Nature Music Prize, it’s been wonderful to see the idea become reality with the support of Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Selfridges, Tileyard London. The winning track is I Eden by LYDIAH, who says:

“Becoming the winner of the Tune Into Nature Music Prize has been such a blessing, I’m so grateful to have been given the opportunity. It’s definitely going to help me progress as an artist. Having Selfridges play my track in store and to be associated with such an incredible movement for Project Earth is something that I am very proud of and excited for. I’m able to use the funding to support my debut E.P which couldn’t have come at a better time! The Prize is such a great project and the message is so so important. I can’t thank Miles, Martyn and everyone who supports it enough.”

Twenty-one year old LYDIAH, based in Liverpool, has been selected as the winner of the Tune Into Nature Music Prize for her entry I Eden. The composition is written from the point of view of Mother Nature and highlights the dangers of humans becoming increasingly distanced from the natural world. LYDIAH will receive a £1,000 grant to support her work, the opportunity to perform at Timber Festival in 2021 and a remix with Tileyard London produced by Principal Martyn Ware (Heaven 17), who says:

“I thoroughly enjoyed helping to judge some exceptional entries for this unique competition. Our winner is a very talented young artist who I’m looking forward to meeting and working with to create an exciting remix. As an artist and an activist myself, I hope this will encourage more young people to creatively respond to the issues we face today. We all want the success of this year’s competition to encourage even more entries next year.”

The Prize is the brainchild of Miles Richardson, Professor of Human Factors and Nature Connectedness at the University of Derby. The research team at the University of Derby has found that the connection between young people and nature dips during teenage years and takes more than a decade to recover. Research also shows that references to nature in contemporary music have decreased consistently since the 1950s. This matters as a close connection with nature helps both the wellbeing of people and our planet, as people who are tuned into nature are more likely to care for it, as Miles says:

“LYDIAH’s lyrics stood out as they tell the story of the importance of the simple things in nature, the birds and the trees – and their beauty. Our research this year shows that tuning into these simple things really matters for nature’s wellbeing and our own wellbeing – yet people tend not to notice them. Through singing of Mother Nature’s loss LYDIAH helps highlight their importance”.

I Eden will be broadcast through Selfridges’ flagship store on 3 and 10 October as part of the organisation’s Project Earth initiative which pledges its long-term commitment to creating a more sustainable future for people and the planet.

The Prize was selected by a team comprising Prof. Miles Richardson of the Nature Connectedness Research Group at the University of Derby; Dr Simon Lesley, Course Director of BA (Hons) Popular Music at Birmingham City University; musician Sam Lee, music critic Kristan J Caryl, Selfridges, Tileyard London, and Yorkshire Sculpture Park to highlight the need for a new relationship with nature and provide vital support for young creative practitioners. It was facilitated by Yorkshire Sculpture Park as part of its mission to be an agent of positive change, bringing people together who wouldn’t otherwise meet to realise shared ambitions.

The judges were impressed by many of the 180 entries and highly recommend a number, which ranged from folk (Iona Lane, Alyshah Monroe); instrumental (Faraaz Hussain), folk/jazz (Sullie Burgess) as well as tracks inspired by the lockdown (Sarah Carton, Niamh Gibbs, Max Greaves) or contemporary tracks inspired by simple pleasures in nature (Caslean, Omar Gutierrez, Tyler Worthington, Shivelights) and express their gratitude to everyone who took part.

Shinrin-yoku, or forest-bathing, has been receiving increased attention internationally. Our latest paper provides a review of research that has considered forest bathing and mental health. Following peer review the full paper has been published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.

Shinrin-yoku is a healing practice in Japan, where people immerse themselves in nature, while mindfully paying attention to their senses. Often involving a walk in a forest, it aims to integrate and harmonise humans with a forest. Shinrin-yoku programmes vary and can include breathing exercises, yoga, meditation, walking, aromatherapy, and other recreational activities (e.g., cooking), that are often aimed at producing relaxation effects for well-being.

We gathered 481 articles related to forest bathing and nature therapy in someway. Of those, twenty met inclusion criteria, e.g. being peer-reviewed, being of good design and using forest bathing. Of the 20 papers eight were non-randomised trials and twelve randomised controlled trials. The studies were mainly conducted in Asia with three in Europe.

They also used a variety of different forest bathing approaches (e.g., breathing, walking, yoga) and time duration ranged from 15 minutes to nine days. While all studies involved paying attention to the five senses, 18 (90%) studies involved walking and three (15%) involved recreational activities. A variety of outcomes measures were used, including depression, anxiety and anger. The results from all these studies was included in a meta-analysis. A total of 2257 participants (M=1478, F=779; age range 18 to 79 years old) were involved in these included studies. It’s interesting to note that our systematic review of nature connectedness included 50 research studies, involving 16,396 people, yet forest bathing gets 300 times more press coverage (37,600 news stories mention forest bathing, 123 news stories mention nature connectedness).

While some of the forest bathing studies demonstrated good design and reporting, we found a number of weaknesses concerning study design and outcomes. Therefore an important outcome of the research in recommending a number of areas of improvement, which should strengthen future shinrin-yoku research.

With those design caveats in mind we did find some evidence that shinrin-yoku could be effective for depression, anxiety, stress and anger in both clinical and non-clinical samples, especially for anxiety. Although all included studies demonstrated some promising results, the risk of bias was deemed medium to high, and potential publication bias was identified in almost all analyses. This may explain why benefits were greater for Japanese and Asian participants: people in a culture that accords with nature’s healing effects may receive greater benefits from shinrin-yoku.

A key finding was that none of the randomised control trials (RCTs) compared shinrin-yoku with other major therapeutic approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Shinrin-yoku was often compared with spending time in urban settings. Spending time in urban setting has negative health effects and our RCT meta-analyses targeting anxiety and anger, found that all control groups reported increases in mean scores. Therefore, some of the the benefits found could be related to negative impact of the control condition, rather than positive benefits of forest bathing. We recommended that shinrin-yoku should be compared with other major therapeutic approaches and simply spending time in nature to explore the added value forest bathing brings.

A further observation was the variety of practice and time spent in forest bathing interventions. This makes it difficult to establish what works and the value added by some elements. To be more accepted as a reliable clinical approach, there needs to be greater understanding of which aspects of shinrin-yoku deliver benefits so they can be core to delivery.

Other limitations in the shinrin-yoku research reviewed included a lack of follow-up assessments. A lack of follow-up assessments can compromise the validity of clinical research because whether the effects of shinrin-yoku can last for a period of months remains uncertain. The representativeness of the sample was also not addressed, therefore whether the study recruited people who were interested in, and positively interpreted/reported the effects of shinrin-yoku or not was not clarified. In the RCTs, randomisation and blinding were not addressed. In addition, many RCTs used a crossover design with no interval (the groups were swapped on the next day), which may violate the accuracy of the results: the impacts of the first intervention need to be ‘washed out’ before swapping the groups. Furthermore, failing to blind the researchers can lead to placebo effects in participants; this maybe particularly important when studies include a prominent shinrin-yoku figure. Finally, the included RCTs did not conduct intention-to-treat analysis and did not clarify whether other outcomes were measured or not.

Finally, although likely to activate the pathways to nature connectedness, none of the studies explored the psychological construct of nature connectedness, which is linked to higher levels of psychological well-being. Future shinrin-yoku research should also explore nature connectedness, both as a potential outcome of forest bathing, but also as a mechanism for the benefits of forest bathing.

Conclusion

The twenty studies of a suitable standard to be included in this systematic review and meta-analysis reported that shinrin-yoku could be effective for mental health, particularly anxiety – but more robust research is required with benefits compared to simple exposure to nature and established therapeutic approaches. Whilst promising results were reported, medium-high risk of bias and publication bias were also identified. Some of the key constructs related to mental health (e.g., self-compassion, isolation, nature-connectedness) have not been explored in shinrin-yoku research and mechanisms of benefits (e.g. nature connectedness and affect regulation) have not been determined. Additionally, the duration of benefits and how they compare with other established therapeutic approaches are needed for shinrin-yoku to be accepted as mainstream mental health intervention.

Kotera, Y., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Effects of Shinrin-Yoku (Forest Bathing) and Nature Therapy on Mental Health: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-25.

A guest blog about taking part in our latest research project Nature Up Close and Personal: A Wellbeing Experiment, by Sophie Yeo from the new and excellent Inkcap a newsletter about nature, ecology and conservation in the UK.

Nature Up Close and Personal is a NERC funded project with UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, University of Derby and the British Science Association: take part here.

I am sitting on a bench staring very hard at a thistle.

I am counting the insects that appear, but I don’t think I am doing a particularly good job. Several minutes on the ten-minute timer have expired and nothing has shown up. I am panicking about my blank recording form and the state of British pollinators.

Eventually, a bee arrives. Or is it a hoverfly? It darts away so quickly that I cannot identify it. Plus, I am getting distracted by a goldfinch singing in the adjacent apple tree. I refocus my attention on the thistle. Now there is a small fly. Should I record this species? I can’t remember.

When the time is up, I have seen three bees, a fly and a yellow ladybird. I have taken photos; my identification skills are not strong enough to accurately determine the species in the milliseconds that they spend on the thistle. I wouldn’t say I’m feeling relaxed, but there’s undoubtedly something calming about setting aside my usual whirl of thoughts and focusing on the world of this single plant.

I am taking part in a citizen science project – but one with a twist. In addition to counting the insects in my garden, I am also providing feedback to a team of scientists on how this activity is making me feel.

The experiment is being run by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology alongside the University of Derby. The insect counting activity is a classic citizen science experiment; members of the public are essentially instructed to collect local data that feeds into a wider picture of insect population trends. It is vital work: without a network of willing volunteers, the decline in pollinators across the UK would be much harder to detect.

But the scientists are also researching another question: does participating in citizen science make people happy?

There are certainly good reasons to think that it might. Miles Richardson runs the University of Derby’s Nature Connectedness Research Group, which focuses on links between the natural world and our mental health. His research has shown that activities that connect us to nature – such as smelling wildflowers or watching the sun rise – can improve our mental health.

Citizen science projects give people a reason to venture into the great outdoors and encourage an unusually forensic (and some might say mindful) approach to nature. While I often spend time in my garden, for instance, I rarely give my undivided attention to a single bloom.

Equally, it’s possible that taking a methodical approach to nature could undermine the psychological benefits forged through a more sensuous and emotional connection.

“If you’re counting pollinating insects, you’re deeply engaged with those insects, so it could be that will increase nature connectedness and wellbeing. But are you appreciating them or are you counting them? We don’t know if that kind of focused attention starts to interfere with your enjoyment of them,” says Richardson.

So the team is putting the theory to the test, asking volunteers to carry out a number of tasks and record their personal responses. Some, like me, have been asked to undertake a pollinator count, some to record butterflies, and others simply to notice the nature around them. Some participants are asked to multitask, both recording insects or butterflies while also noticing nature.

There are two excellent reasons to investigate this question of whether citizen science makes us happy and improves wellbeing.

Firstly, nature demonstrably improves mental health, but there are still questions over how best to harness this effect. Policymakers, planners and architects are among the professions that hope to optimise how people engage with the natural world; whether they should be prompted to notice and enjoy their surroundings, or whether it’s equally helpful to engage with the world rigorously and methodically.

The question is particularly pertinent given the solace that nature has provided during the coronavirus lockdown; indeed, the project was funded through a COVID-19 urgency grant.

“If we can have greater understanding about the impacts of nature on our wellbeing and the benefits to individuals, I think that helps us as society think more strategically about what we can do to support people who might be suffering through aspects of social isolation,” says Michael Pocock, an ecologist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, who is leading the project.

In this case, if the experiment shows that citizen science does improve mental wellbeing, then future projects can be designed to maximise the psychological as well as the scientific benefits.

Secondly, if citizen science makes people happy, then nature itself could benefit.

Recent studies by Richardson’s research group have demonstrated that people who feel a greater connection to nature are more likely to behave in a way that protects the natural world. If citizen science projects encourage more people to form a meaningful connection to nature, then there is a clear benefit to the planet.

But this research project could provide an additional boost to efforts to preserve the UK’s declining biodiversity. Scientists rely on large networks of volunteers to collect the local observations that underpin their knowledge of the natural world – people who tend to be driven by scientific interest or concern for the planet. Proven mental health benefits may provide an additional incentive for people to get involved, leading to bigger and better datasets for scientists.

“Maybe it sounds a bit idealistic, or certainly optimistic, that we can have these genuine win-wins, where we can have this greater understanding of the world, but we also have people who are happier, feel better and care more. It’s all going in the same direction,” adds Pocock.

The notion that nature may be a salve to our minds has, it feels, become embedded in the country’s psyche in recent months. A flurry of books covering this idea of a “nature cure” (Losing Eden and The Natural Health Service are two wonderful examples) has encouraged many people to find peace in wildlife and greenery during these troubled times. But I often wonder whether this phenomenon exists beyond my own social bubble.

Experiments like this are useful because they reach out to new communities of interest: to people who enjoy counting and recording instead of feeling and observing. Personalities are varied and complex; perhaps nature can bring peace to them all.

The team is still looking for volunteers. Click here to take part.

Being connected to nature found to play vital role in pro-nature conservation behaviours.

There’s no wellbeing without nature’s wellbeing. Yet, nature is in crisis – the Living Planet Report showed that 60% of animals have been lost since 1970 and in their 2019 global assessment, IPBES emphasized how the current era of mass extinction poses an urgent threat to human civilisation. Nature’s recovery depends upon changes in human behaviour, but which factors best explain pro-nature behaviours? Sadly, there is a huge disparity in awareness, coverage and psychological research into the behaviours that lead to climate change and biodiversity loss, yet “Only by addressing both ecosystems and climate do we stand a chance of safeguarding a stable planet for humanity’s future on Earth,” Prof Johan Rockström, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Our latest research paper, published open access in People & Nature, is the first of its kind, using the first specific validated measure of pro-nature conservation behaviour (ProCoBS). Working with the National Trust we ran a nationally representative YouGov survey of 1298 adults to explore how the factors below related to pro-nature conservation behaviours using our new ProCoBS measure:

1. Nature Connectedness
2. Time in Nature
3. Actively tuning into nature (e.g. direct engagement through listening to bird song)
4. Indirect Engagement with Nature (e.g. nature books and programmes)
5. Knowledge and Study of Nature
6. Valuing Nature
7. Concern for Nature
8. Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Together these factors explained a 70% of the variation in people’s actions for nature – this is an unusually high figure for this type of research. Key factors that best explained pro-nature conservation behaviours centred on connection with nature: psychological nature connectedness and actively tuning into nature, which we know increases nature connectedness – psychological and lived nature connectedness if you like. Indirect engagement with nature was also a significant factor, along with pro-environmental behaviours.

Importantly, in analysis examining the relative importance of all the factors in explaining pro-nature conservation behaviour, time in nature, knowledge/study of nature, value/concern for nature did not emerge as significant – there wasn’t a relationship.  The lived experience of nature connectedness – engaging in simple nature-activities – emerged as the largest significant contributor to pro-nature conservation behaviour.  However, in reality, factors rarely work alone – commonality analysis revealed that just 15% of the variance in people’s level of pro-nature behaviours were directly explained by factors working alone. However, for the majority of occasions when variables worked together, nature connectedness and engagement in simple activities were involved 92% of the time.

The message is clear, nature connectedness and tuning in for simple engagement with nature need to run as a theme through our efforts to encourage people to do more for nature. When spending time in nature it must tap into the activities that increase nature connectedness and involve simple engagement. When studying and sharing knowledge about nature there is a need to ‘activate’ the pathways to nature connectedness – elicit emotion, generate meaning, celebrate beauty.

Speaking after the publication of the IPBES report, Sir Bob Watson, lead scientist of the work, noted the core issue in biodiversity loss was about humans and that we need to ask how do we become more in tune with nature? How do we relate to nature? This research confirms that the key is to tune in and develop a new relationship with nature.

However, wider analysis of the data, published jointly with The National Trust in the Noticing Nature report showed that most people are tuned out. Around 80% of people reported that they rarely or never watched wildlife, smelled wildflowers or drew/photographed nature. 62% of people rarely or never listened to bird song or took a moment to notice butterflies or bees. No surprise then that although 80% of people expressed concern about the state of nature, far fewer actively help its recovery – for example only 29% said they’d created a home for wildlife in the past year. We found that those people with a high level of nature connectedness, did much more– 40-50% more – than those with a weaker relationship.

Stopping, looking, listening to everyday nature is key to pro-nature behaviours.

The biodiversity crisis shows that our relationship with nature is broken (at least in so-called “developed” nations).  Our disconnect from the natural world has caused a spiral of disruptions in ecosystems worldwide.  To fix this, there is a need to understand both the factors that explain pro-nature conservation behaviours and the types of interventions that are associated with increasing these behaviours. Only then can effective measures be taken to improve the human relationship with the rest of nature in a way that will assist nature’s recovery. Findings from the current study highlight the vital importance that a close connection with nature, and engaging with nature through simple activities which enhance nature connectedness, play in catalyzing efforts to care for the natural world. And the bonus is that they improve human wellbeing too!

This research provides important direction for local initiatives and policies, a need to engage more people in the simple activities that build nature connectedness across all aspects of society for a new relationship with nature.  In essence, and in practice, we need a Green Care Code:  Stop—Look—Listen to the Nature around you.  Campaigns centred around such a code would comprise the pathways of sensory contact, emotion, beauty, and meaning – strengthening our connection to nature and moving us to acts of compassion towards the rest of the natural world.

After a dry spring, we’ve had much more rain recently and I was wondering if weather and time of year affected levels of nature connection. Through the Nature Connection Index we’ve been measuring nature connectedness nationally since 2015. This has been intermittent because it was during the development of the scale and then for a specific project. However, there’s enough MENE data to take a quick look – and this blog presents a quick look rather than a formal analysis. It is real data, but not evenly collected throughout the year in a wide variety of conditions. Data collection continues though, so they’ll be opportunity for that.

Firstly, we pulled out the data for each year. You can see in the table that those completely or strongly agreeing that they ‘feel part of nature’ is around 45%. The higher this level is the more likely it is people will do more for nature. And the more likely they’ll feel well. The mean looks like it may have crept up a few percentage points, a little encouragement. However, we can make a speculative estimate of target levels from other work – those who take action for nature tend to score well over 6. So 5.06 to 5.25 might show a start – or could be related to seasonal/weather variation given the months collected.

So what happens across the seasons? Given the uneven spread across the months I took a broad summer (May-Sept) to winter (Nov-Mar) approach. This suggests a slightly higher figure for nature connection in the summer (n=1866), 46.4% with high agreement (mean 5.23) compared to 43.6% (mean 5.11) in winter (n=2989). This is a small difference, but mirrors nature connection data gathered on single days by Duffy and Verges (2010) from a student cohort of 220.

Rain can be fun!

So what about the weather? We know weather is a theme that features when people notice the good things in nature. The MENE data is national and collected across a number of days so I used monthly average temperature and total rainfall records for each month. Based on the mean, there was a reasonable positive correlation between temperature and nature connection of 0.4. Using the percentage feeling close to nature this was again 0.4. Duffy and Verges found a figure of 0.4 too! This is interesting as they used an implicit measure of nature connectedness (an IAT), as they were concerned that explicit scales were subject to participant bias and measure stable beliefs that are unaffected by seasonal changes .

Similarly, there was a reasonable negative correlation between rainfall and nature connection of -0.4. Using the percentage feeling close to nature this was disappeared, falling to zero. Duffy and Verges didn’t look at correlation, but did find nature connection was lower when it rained.

I then had a quick look at wellbeing over time. Several wellbeing indicators are quite steady across the seasons, although happiness does show greater seasonal variation – and adding that into the data we find a correlation between happiness and nature connectedness over time of 0.5. That’s something interesting to follow-up. We know from other work that happiness is linked to connection and increases as nature connectedness is improved.

So what does all this mean? Is the link between weather and connection a sign of our latent embeddedness in the environment – we can detect physiological changes from forests & beautiful flowers for example? Duffy and Verges noted that their similar findings supported Emerson’s observation from 1836 that forces of nature affect human psychological functioning, noting the sentence “Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind” (p. 12).

This embeddedness explanation suggests that natural cycles have a negative impact though, there is seasonal variation in wellbeing after all. Emerson might suggest the wet and cold bring a different state of mind – but is it disconnecting? The mind might find it immersive and crisp. If every hour and season yields delight it can bring connection. There’s much to be debated here. Duffy and Verges approach measured preference for natural to built environments – perhaps there’s an evolutionary preference for the warmth of shelter when it’s cold and wet. Does preference for shelter in the winter mean nature connectedness is reduced as nature becomes ‘negative’?

Or is the explanation of the link between weather and connection simply that when it’s colder (when days are also shorter) and wetter we tend to spend more time indoors and less likely to be outside engaging with the good things in nature in ways that we know improves nature connectedness? Frequency of positive engagement nature matters. However, it’s worth remembering that the difference between winter and summer levels was small, around 2.5% – overall nature connectedness appears to be quite stable across the seasons. Larger differences have been generated by encouraging people to notice the good things in nature – in winter and summer.

In sum, there are some trends in the data and it’ll be an interesting question to ask as more data arrives. And it will arrive, from April 2020 this key indicator item from the NCI is included in the new People and Nature Survey – indeed the first monthly report was recently published – so we’ll be able to track what happens over the summer and beyond. Meanwhile, be sure to enjoy the good things in nature, whatever the weather!

Duffy, S., & Verges, M. (2010). Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 723-739.

Thanks to Dave, and Holli-Anne Passmore for getting the data together.