Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

People often visit natural settings for recreation and psychological restoration. This study aims to improve understanding of how exposure to and experiences of mammalian wildlife in local natural settings can permit and promote recreation and restoration. Randomly sampled residents in three regions of Sweden (N = 303) with varying presence of fear-relevant species (wolf, wild boar) and fear-irrelevant species (roe deer, squirrel) completed a questionnaire. Squirrel and roe deer were rated significantly higher than wolf and wild boar for anticipated positive feelings and restoration outcomes, and significantly lower for negative feelings and avoidance of natural settings. The possibility of exposure explained little of the variation in the restoration variables, whereas the experiences anticipated with an animal encounter contributed substantially to explanation. Vulnerability seems to counteract the restorative benefit of fascination. Wildlife conservation efforts and public health initiatives may find practical utility in distinguishing between potential exposure and anticipated experience when designing interventions.

1. Wildlife might be important to psychologically restorative values and disvalues of nature, as interactions with wildlife could trigger both positive and negative feelings. Research on positive experiences of human–wildlife interactions has largely involved participants who voluntarily sought out wildlife experiences or it has addressed encounters with non-threatening animals in urban green spaces. Less is known about the opportunities for psychological restoration in landscapes shared with mammals that are perceived to pose a threat to human activities and health.
2. This study provides a nuanced understanding of the role of wildlife in public perceptions of the restorative potential and experience of psychological restoration in local natural settings.
3. Twenty-eight participants (15 women, 13 men, 18–75 years) took part in focus group interviews subject to a reflexive thematic analysis. As an analytical framework, we used a theoretical model for how people appraise the relevance, implications, coping potential and norm congruence of human–wildlife interactions and how such appraisals may support or hinder the restoration experienced in local natural settings.
4. Relevance appraisals revealed shifts in consideration of the presence of wildlife from an integrated part of the natural scenery (background) to a distinct figure (foreground).
5. Implication appraisals revealed that wildlife encounters would hinder the experienced psychological restoration if the animal was appraised as dangerous, disgusting, causing a nuisance or destructive. Wildlife encounters would promote restoration if the animal displayed attractive traits, features or fascinating behaviour or movements, and if it opened engaging interaction situations.
6. Coping strategies perceived as feasible to deal with negative implications of wildlife involved avoidance of the local natural setting, preparatory behaviour displayed before a visit and precautionary behaviour displayed during the visit.
7. Important public health effects might be gained if wildlife policy and management explicitly consider what animals mean to the perceived restorative potential of local natural settings.

How does the likelihood of encountering wildlife affect residents’ expectations about psychological restoration when visiting a local natural setting, and their choices among settings for future recreation? Do urban and rural residents differ in such expectations and choices? We addressed these questions in a web-based experiment with 223 adult residents randomly sampled from urban and rural areas in each of three regions in Sweden. Residents in all six areas can encounter fear-irrelevant wildlife (roe deer, squirrel) near the home, but the presence of fear-relevant wildlife (wolf, wild boar) differs across the areas. The respondents read scenarios concerning encounters with each of these four animals during recreational visits to a nearby natural setting. The scenarios varied in how frequently the person could expect to encounter each animal across visits (never, sometimes, often). For all 12 scenarios, respondents answered questions about anticipated experiences and restoration outcomes, and the effect of encounter likelihood on future recreational setting choices. Across all areas, with all outcomes, increased likelihood of encounters with the wolves and wild boar detracted from anticipated restorative potential, whereas increased likelihood of encounters with roe deer and squirrel enhanced anticipated restorative potential. A similar pattern showed in recreational setting choices. A domination wildlife value orientation moderated the effects of encounter likelihood for wolf and wild boar, whereas a mutualistic orientation moderated the effects of encounter likelihood for squirrel and roe deer. Our results suggest that wildlife management and public health practice could work together not only to address the fears of residents, but also to enhance the restorative quality of local natural settings by protecting wildlife.

Background and objectives: Selection in utero predicts that population stressors raise the standard for how quickly fetuses must grow to avoid spontaneous abortion. Tests of this prediction must use indirect indicators of fetal loss in birth cohorts because vital statistics systems typically register fetal deaths at the 20th week of gestation or later, well after most have occurred. We argue that tests of selection in utero would make greater progress if researchers adopted an indicator of selection against slow-growing fetuses that followed from theory, allowed sex-specific tests and used readily available data. We propose such an indicator and assess its validity as a dependent variable by comparing its values among monthly birth cohorts before, and during, the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden.

Methodology: We apply Box-Jenkins methods to 50 pre-pandemic birth cohorts (i.e., December 2016 through January 2020) and use the resulting transfer functions to predict counterfactual values in our suggested indicator for selection for ten subsequent birth cohorts beginning in February 2020. We then plot all 60 residual values as well as their 95% detection interval. If birth cohorts in gestation at the onset of the pandemic lost more slow-growing fetuses than expected from history, more than one of the last 10 (i.e. pandemic-exposed) residuals would fall below the detection interval.

Results: Four of the last 10 residuals of our indicator for males and for females fell below the 95% detection interval.

Conclusions and implications: Consistent with selection in utero, Swedish birth cohorts in gestation at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic included fewer than expected infants who grew slowly in utero. Lay Summary Our findings suggest that the risk of spontaneously aborting a slow-growing fetus will increase during relatively stressful times.

Work time control may offer opportunities, but also implies risks for employee recovery, influenced by increased work-related ICT use and overtime work. However, this risk-opportunity tradeoff remains understudied. This study aimed to test two different models of associations between work time control, work-related ICT use, overtime work, and the need for recovery. These models were constructed based on data on office workers with flexible work arrangements. Cross-sectional data were obtained with questionnaires (n = 2582) from employees in a Swedish multi-site organization. Regression models treated the three determinants of the need for recovery either as independent, or as linked in a causal sequence. The test of independent determinants confirmed that more work time control was associated with less need for recovery, whereas more ICT use and overtime work were associated with a higher need for recovery. In a test of serial mediation, more work time control contributed to a greater need for recovery through more ICT use and then more overtime work. Work time control also had a competitive, indirect effect through a negative association with overtime work. Our results suggest that work time control is beneficial for employee recovery, but may for some be associated with more work-related ICT use after regular working hours, thus increasing recovery needs. Policies that support work time control can promote recovery, but employers must attend to the risk of excessive use of ICT outside of regular working hours.

Nature-based solutions including urban forests and wetlands can help communities cope better with climate change and other environmental stressors by enhancing social-ecological resilience. Natural ecosystems, settings, elements and affordances can also help individuals become more personally resilient to a variety of stressors, although the mechanisms underpinning individual-level nature-based resilience, and their relations to social-ecological resilience, are not well articulated. We propose ‘nature-based biopsychosocial resilience theory’ (NBRT) to address these gaps. Our framework begins by suggesting that individual-level resilience can refer to both: a) a person’s set of adaptive resources; and b) the processes by which these resources are deployed. Drawing on existing nature-health perspectives, we argue that nature contact can support individuals build and maintain biological, psychological, and social (i.e. biopsychosocial) resilience-related resources. Together with nature-based social-ecological resilience, these biopsychosocial resilience resources can: i) reduce the risk of various stressors (preventive resilience); ii) enhance adaptive reactions to stressful circumstances (response resilience), and/or iii) facilitate more rapid and/or complete recovery from stress (recovery resilience). Reference to these three resilience processes supports integration across more familiar pathways involving harm reduction, capacity building, and restoration. Evidence in support of the theory, potential interventions to promote nature-based biopsychosocial resilience, and issues that require further consideration are discussed.

Persistent loneliness troubles people across the life span, with prevalence as high as 61% in some groups. Urban greening may help to reduce the population health impacts of loneliness and its concomitants, such as hopelessness and despair. However, the literature lacks both a critical appraisal of extant evidence and a conceptual model to explain how green space would work as a structural intervention. Both are needed to guide decision making and further research. We conducted a systematic review of quantitative studies testing associations between green space and loneliness, searching seven databases. Twenty two studies were identified by 25/01/2022. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and fifteen (68 %) had cross-sectional designs. Green space was measured inconsistently using either objective or subjective indicators. Few studies examined specific green space types or qualities. The majority of studies measured general loneliness (e.g. using the UCLA loneliness scale). Different types of loneliness (social, emotional, existential) were not analysed. Of 132 associations, 88 (66.6 %) indicated potential protection from green space against loneliness, with 44 (33.3 %) reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). We integrated these findings with evidence from qualitative studies to elaborate and extend the existing pathway domain model linking green space and health. These elaborations and extensions acknowledge the following: (a) different types of green space have implications for different types of loneliness; (b) multilevel circumstances influence the likelihood a person will benefit or suffer harm from green space; (c) personal, relational, and collective processes operate within different domains of pathways linking green space with loneliness and its concomitants; (d) loneliness and its concomitants are explicitly positioned as mediators within the broader causal system that links green space with health and wellbeing. This review and model provide guidance for decision making and further epidemiological research on green space and loneliness.

Background

Urban greening may reduce loneliness by offering opportunities for solace, social reconnection and supporting processes such as stress relief. We (i) assessed associations between residential green space and cumulative incidence of, and relief from, loneliness over 4 years; and (ii) explored contingencies by age, sex, disability and cohabitation status.

Methods

Multilevel logistic regressions of change in loneliness status in 8049 city-dwellers between 2013 (baseline) and 2017 (follow-up) in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia study. Associations with objectively measured discrete green-space buffers (e.g. parks) (<400, <800 and <1600 m) were adjusted for age, sex, disability, cohabitation status, children and socio-economic variables. Results were translated into absolute risk reductions in loneliness per 10% increase in urban greening.

Results

The absolute risk of loneliness rose from 15.9% to 16.9% over the 4 years; however, a 10% increase in urban greening within 1.6 km was associated with lower cumulative incident loneliness [odds ratio (OR) = 0.927, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.862 to 0.996; absolute risk reduction = 0.66%]. Stronger association was observed for people living alone (OR = 0.828, 95% CI = 0.725 to 0.944). In comparison to people with <10% green space, the ORs for cumulative incident loneliness were 0.833 (95% CI = 0.695 to 0.997), 0.790 (95% CI = 0.624 to 1.000) and 0.736 (95% CI = 0.549 to 0.986) for 10–20%, 20–30% and >30% green space, respectively. Compared with the <10% green-space reference group with 13.78% incident loneliness over 4 years and conservatively assuming no impact on incident loneliness, associations translated into absolute risk reductions of 1.70%, 2.26% and 2.72% within populations with 10–20%, 20–30% and >30% green space, respectively. These associations were stronger again for people living alone, with 10–20% (OR = 0.608, 95% CI = 0.448 to 0.826), 20–30% (OR = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.436 to 0.966) and >30% (OR = 0.480, 95% CI = 0.278 to 0.829) green space within 1600 m. No age, sex or disability-related contingencies, associations with green space within 400 or 800 m or relief from loneliness reported at baseline were observed.

Conclusions

A lower cumulative incidence of loneliness was observed among people with more green space within 1600 m of home, especially for people living alone. Potential biopsychosocial mechanisms warrant investigation.