I think that legitimate research studies can help support a particular perspective. However, we can often find studies that support our own beliefs, viewpoints, and agendas.

Recently I read an article titled Spending Time In Nature Is Good for You. New Research Explains Why, published at Healthline.com by Chantelle Pattemore, reports why spending time in nature is beneficial to our mental and physical well-being and specifically why (Pattemore, 2022).

This article was based on another article reporting new research coming from the University of Tokyo, where researchers found at least 10 new mechanisms that can positively affect mental and physical health (Huynh et al., 2022). These would include satisfactive, formative cohesive, and transcendent. Satisfactive would be a feeling that one’s needs and expectations are satisfied by way of interactions with nature. Formative would be where following interactions with nature, factors of attitude, behaviors, mood, and values change either instantly or over a short duration of time. Cohesive is the growth of significant human relationships through activities engaging with nature. Transcendent refers to obtaining spiritual or religious benefits after interacting with nature (Pattemore, 2022). This particular article references the observational research having come from a systematic review and analysis of 301 relevant peer-reviewed pieces of literature from 62 different countries. Most of the studies included and focused on local communities, followed by tourists, indigenous communities, farmers, fishers, and business owners (Huynh et al., 2022).

I feel that there definitely was the potential for research bias as the studies that were reviewed were mostly from Europe, Asia, and North America. Obviously, there are other regions of the world where people not only live near or within nature but may more or less embrace doing so depending upon many variables. Studies from Europe comprised 42.1% of articles, Asia comprised 21.7% of articles and North America comprised 18.5% of articles reviewed. Central and South America offered 6.5% of articles, Africa had 5.8% of articles, and Oceania had 5.4% of articles reviewed. Additionally, the studies focused on various locations of particular cultural ecosystem services (CESs) within each country. CESs are also referred to as the non-material or “intangible contributions” to well-being that nature provides. The reviewed studies focused on CESs from urban and semiurban ecosystems (26.2% of articles), forests and woodlands (20.2% of articles), inland water (12.5% of articles), and coastal areas (8.9% of articles) (Huynh et al., 2022).

I think that if the majority of the studies reviewed came from regions that are directly located near nature, such as coastal areas, mountainous areas, locations near some type of body of water, wooded areas, and others, people will probably have reasons why they think they receive benefits from the nature available in these types of areas. Conversely, I think that if the studies reviewed came from people dwelling happily within city buildings, separate from plant life or areas with less access to nature, they might be more inclined to report that they are not as concerned with access to nature. For this reason, I think this article might be considered as reviewing a captive audience knowing that people living close to nature are going to report positively about the benefits of doing so.

I do feel that this article has merit overall based on the reviewed data, but I actually find myself biased in favor of the results. I have lived within areas where I had much, as well as little easy access to nature and therefore have the benefit of being able to draw a comparison for myself as to what is better for my health and well-being. Another individual may find that living in a mostly concrete and metal environment, that offers them income and other resources, that may contribute to their own peace and satisfaction, is better for their own health and well-being. In conclusion, while I think that legitimate research studies can help support our own beliefs, viewpoints, and agendas particular perspective, there are often just as many studies that support contradictory viewpoints.

References:

Pattemore, C. (2022, August 5). Spending Time In Nature Is Good for You. New Research Explains Why. Healthline. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.healthline.com/health-news/spending-time-in-nature-is-good-for-you-new-research-explains-why

Huynh, L. T. M., Gasparatos, A., Su, J., Dam Lam, R., Grant, E. I., & Fukushi, K. (2022, August 5). Linking the nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relations and human well-being through cultural ecosystem services. Science Advances, 8(31). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn8042

I teach and offer lectures about holistic health, physical fitness, stress management, human behavior, meditation, phytotherapy (herbs), music for healing, self-massage (acupressure), Daoyin (yoga), qigong, tai chi, and baguazhang.

Please contact me if you, your business, organization, or group, might be interested in hosting me to speak on a wide spectrum of topics relative to better health, fitness, and well-being.

I look forward to further sharing more of my message by partnering with hospitals, wellness centers, VA centers, schools on all levels, businesses, and individuals who see the value in building a stronger nation through building a healthier population.

I also have hundreds of FREE education video classes, lectures, and seminars available on my YouTube channel at:

https://www.youtube.com/c/MindandBodyExercises

Many of my publications can be found on Amazon at:

http://www.Amazon.com/author/jimmoltzan

My holistic health blog is available at:

https://mindandbodyexercises.wordpress.com/

http://www.MindAndBodyExercises.com

Mind and Body Exercises on Google: https://posts.gle/aD47Qo

Jim Moltzan

407-234-0119