Transcript The Benefits to Health and Wellbeing of a Wilderness

Influences of a
Wilderness Experience
on Individual
Health and Wellbeing:
A Case Study on
Fraser Island
Belinda Warren
Science Honours Student 2005
Supervisors: Dr Anne Neller
Assoc. Prof. Ron Neller
Isn’t it obvious that it’s beneficial?
• Environmental Health research is mainly centred on the
adverse effects of various environmental exposures
• Environmental exposures may have positive health
effects
• Intuitive, however,
– Anecdotal and empirical evidence lacking on actual
benefits
– Theoretical and empirical evidence lacking on the role
environments play in facilitating social connectedness
– No evidence on the extent, nature and process of the
impact of nature on health or quality of life
The Biophilia Hypothesis
• Humans are innately attracted to other living
organisms
• Four aspects of the Natural World:
Animals
Plants
Landscapes
Wilderness
• Evidence:
Real estate
Preservation
Knowledge of natural settings increases survival
Health Approach
“Although everybody knows what it feels like to
be healthy, it is impossible to give a precise
definition; health is a subjective experience
whose quality can be known intuitively, but
can never be exhaustively described or
quantified.” (Capra, 1983)
Aim
“To Characterise the
influences of a wilderness
experience on the individual
health and wellbeing among
tour guests on Fraser Island.”
Research Questions
1. What are the influences of a wilderness
experience on the health and wellbeing of
tour guests on Fraser Island?
2. Is the degree of health benefit derived from
a wilderness experience associated with:
1. Level of pre-existing health and wellbeing status
2. The length of the wilderness experience
3. Level of social connectedness experienced
among group members
Methodology
Methodological Step
Outcome
Epistemology
Constructionism
Theoretical Perspective
Critical Theory, Grounded
Theory
Study Boundaries
Time, money, availability of
samples, access to tour groups,
familiarity with topic, and study
location.
Research Family
Qualitative and Quantitative:
Mixed methods, Fieldwork
Research Approach
Survey with case study
attributes
Research Technique
Questionnaire & face-to-face
interviews
Research Approach
• Survey
– Similar studies used this approach
– Appropriate for time-frame and budget
– Strengths:
• Can measure extent & nature of phenomenon
• Comparisons to previous studies possible
• Survey can be replicated
• One-day and Three-day Tour Groups
• Cluster Sampling
(n = 216)
Questionnaire Design
• General Themes were:
– Motivations and Purpose
– Perceptions of Experience
– Subjective Wellbeing
– Self-reported health status
– Demographics
• Face-to-face interviews
– Brief and non-structured
– More detailed perspective
Data Collection Methods
• Instrument: self-administered questionnaire
– cost effective
– closed and open-ended
– effective for sensitive data
– groups surveyed in a relatively short time
• Limitations
– varying literacy and language skills
– questionnaires limit the ‘depth’ of responses
Data Analysis
• Quantitative Analysis
–
–
–
–
–
Descriptive Analyses to summarise data
Pearson’s Chi Square to compare 2 tour groups
Mann-Whitney Tests on non-parametric data
Factor analysis: data reduction
Pre-defined instruments as per instructions
• Analysis of Qualitative Data
– Responses collapsed into common categories
Demographics and
Characteristics of Experience
One-day Group
Older/Couples
Equal Male
and Female
Three-day Group
Younger/ Singles
¾ English
Speaking
Domestic
International
83% First
Trip
Lower
Educational
Qualifications
Residence:
House
Positive Perceptions:
Scenery,
Learning,
Lakes,
Awe &
Conservation
Relaxation
Wonder
Visitor Numbers
about as expected
Visitor Numbers
more than expected
Higher
Educational
Qualifications
Residence:
Unit/Flat
Motivations for Visiting
• Top factors:
1. Relaxation
2. Nature
3. Personal
4. Away
5. Practical
6. Culture
Median (and mean) Scores of Motivational Items for Visitation to
Fraser Island for One-day and Three-day Tour Groups
Median (mean)
Motivational Item
One-day
Tour
Three-day
Tour
p
To Rest
2 (2.7)
4 (3.4)
.011
To Experience Adventure
4 (3.7)
5 (4.3)
.017
To visit a World Heritage Area
4 (3.8)
3 (3.2)
.034
To be with Family and Friends
4 (3.2)
1 (1.7)
.001
1 = not important; 5 = very important
Influences on Health and Wellbeing
30
One-day Tour
Three-day Tour
40
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
50
30
20
10
0
One-day Tour
Three-day Tour
20
10
0
vC
in
Pa
e
/B
dy
od
Fo
Bo
s
es
i
ho
ity
Negative Influences
s
ce
ss
re
-st
De
iv
ct
lA
dn
re
ica
ys
Ti
Ph
r
Ai
n/
io
t
xa
h
es
Fr
la
Re
Positive Influences
Influences of a Wilderness Experience on Health and Wellbeing for
One-day and Three-day Tour Groups on Fraser Island
Changes in Health and Wellbeing
80
75
One-day Tour
70
Mean
65
Score
Three-day Tour
60
> 50 - Positive change
55
50
e
Ov
lth
ea
ly
al
ic
ns
H
ll
ra
ys
Ph
io
ot
n
io
at
iv
ot
Em
M
&
ss
re
St
s
es
in
pp
rs
Ha
he
ot
n
ti
e
us
in
Tr
ut
Ro
al
rm
n
No
ti o
ra
nt
e
nc
Co
ng
ei
lb
el
W
Area of Change
Self-reported changes for Fraser Island One-day
and Three-day Tour Respondents
Physical and Mental Health


6




 


  



 



   

  
 




  





 





 


 














 



 

 






 








     




  




 



 

 


 




Comp atibil ity Score


4



2



Compatibility Score


6





4


2








 


  






















 





 


  










 


  




 











 

 





 


  


 


 






 

  

 




 


  









0
20
30
40
50


0
60
Physical He alth Score
Association between Physical Health
and Compatibility for all Tour Guests
(r = 0.210, p = .004, n = 185)
20
30
40
50

60
Mental Health Score
Association between Mental Health
and Compatibility for all Tour Guests
(r = -0.231, p = .002, n = 185)
Personal Wellbeing Associations


Nega tive Emotion Score

25



 

20



15


10

 
 

  


  

  
  




  






 


   


  











40
60
80
100
Personal Wellbeing Index Score
Association between Personal
Wellbeing and Negative Emotion for
all Tour Guests
(r = -0.159, p = .042, n = 166)
• Those who rated highly
on the Personal Wellbeing
Index indicated more
positive change in their
health and wellbeing (r =
0.199, p = .016, n = 147)
Social Connectedness Associations
• Social Connectedness
– Trust
– Reciprocity
– Diversity
…..is significantly associated with……
• Perceived Restorativeness Scale
–
–
–
–
Being Away (rs = .171, p = .020, n = 185)
Compatibility (rs = .161, p = .029, n = 184)
Fascination (rs = .208, p = .004, n = 186)
Coherence (rs = .234, p = .001, n = 184)
• Length of stay:
– No significant correlations
• Interviews:
– Stated how their mood had changed
– Suggestions – eg. more time, info booklet
Limitations
• Language and literacy skills of the
respondents
• Honesty from respondents, although
anonymous self-completion
• Data only provides a snapshot; seasonal
variations
• Survey may not have been adequate to
capture the complex issues
• Case study – only Fraser Island
Summary
•
To Characterise the influences of a wilderness
experience on the individual health and wellbeing
among tour guests on Fraser Island
Self-administered Questionnaire & Face-to-face
Interviews
The degree of health benefit derived from a wilderness
experience…
…is associated with:
•
•
–
–
Level of pre-existing health and wellbeing status
Level of social connectedness experienced among group
members
…is NOT associated with:
–
The length of the wilderness experience
Where now?
• Recommendations for research:
– More empirical research with the tourist
population; experimental
– Increase sample size
– Comparative tours that are much longer in length
• Implications for the future:
– Contact with parks and nature is affordable, nonelitist and highly accessible
– Key stake holders (ie. Tour operators) can
promote benefits
Influences of a
Wilderness Experience
on Individual
Health and Wellbeing:
A Case Study on
Fraser Island
Belinda Warren
Science Honours Student 2005
Supervisors: Dr Anne Neller
Assoc. Prof. Ron Neller
Attention Restoration Theory
• Grounded in cognitive psychology
• Focuses on how the interaction with nature
is important for effective mental
functioning
• Directed attention: requires effort;
voluntary control; suppress focus towards a
competing, more interesting activity;
susceptible to fatigue.
• Fascination, being away, extent, and
compatibility – Perceived Restorativeness
Scale
Restorative and Coping Resources
Provided by Gardens in Healthcare Facilities
Movement &
Exercise
Social Support
Among patients, visitors, staff
Mild Exertion
Physical Rehabilitation
Natural Distractions
Control
(Actual and Perceived)
Temporary Escape
Access to Privacy
Plants, flowers, water
Nature sounds
Wildlife
Stress Restoration and Buffering
(Enhanced Coping)
IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES
Adapted from Ulrich, 1999
Health Approach
• “A complete state of physical, mental and social wellbeing,
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” (WHO,
1948)
• “Although everybody knows what it feels like to be healthy,
it is impossible to give a precise definition; health is a
subjective experience whose quality can be known
intuitively, but can never be exhaustively described or
quantified.” (Capra, 1983)
• Primary Health Care: emphasises social justice,
equitable distribution of services, community participation
& involvement, prevention, use of a range of sectors to
respond to the needs of local populations.
Current Body of Knowledge
• Recent research:
– Personal/commercial interest in wilderness experiences
(wilderness therapy) (Frumkin 2001)
– Predominantly Theoretical
– US-based
• Gaps:
–
–
–
–
Little Australian research
How long a wilderness experience is
Level of pre-existing health and wellbeing status
Contributing factor: social connectedness
Target Population
Short-term
Arrivals
• Resort Guests
• KBRV
• Eurong
• Fishermen
• Adventurers
Campers
• Resort Visitors
• Walkers/Hikers
• Australians
• Independent
• Day Trips
out of KBRV
• Tour Groups
• 3 Days
• Guided
• International
• International
Tourists
• Australians
Tourists
Previous Activity and Main Mood
40
Number of Respondents %
70
60
50
40
30
20
30
20
Tour Type
Tour Type
O
One-day T our
er d
th se
Ores
t
is
D
n
at
re
io
atd
ipire
icT
Three-day Tour
k
c
pa
d
oo
G xed
a
el
R
0
t
An
Three-day tour
10
G
ck
ba
s/
ay
lid
er
ho
th
O
d
ire
g
g
in
kin
dy
t
Re
u
St
or
W
0
n
10
One-day tour
Main Mood
Previous Activity
Previous Activity in Last Four
Weeks for One-day and Three-day
Fraser Island Tour Respondents
Main Mood of Fraser Island Tour
Respondents in Previous Four Weeks