Natuur

Een inspirerende, leerzame en grappige lezing over de zintuigelijke waarneming van planten door Daniel Chamonitz. (Harvard University 2014)

 

Onderzoek uit Japan toont het spectaculaire effect op je witte bloedlichaampjes van in de natuur zijn

 

Onderzoek uit oktober 2017 laat zien dat er een alarmerende afname is van het aantal insecten net over de grens met Duitsland (75% in 27 jaar). Dit heeft gevolgen voor de biodiversiteit van onze natuur terwijl juist biodiversiteit belangrijk is voor onze gezondheid. 

 

Planten zijn veel ‘slimmer’ dan we denken. Zo blijken 85% van de landplanten op basis van een ‘kosten-baten analyse’ samenwerkingsverbanden (mycorrhiza’s) te vormen met schimmels.

 

A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments
Diana E Bowler, Lisette M Buyung-Ali, Teri M Knight and Andrew S PullinEmail author
BMC Public Health 201010:456
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456© Bowler et al. 2010

Background
There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed.

Methods
We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes.

Results
Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included ‘natural’ environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies.

Conclusions
Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

 

Table: The pooled effect sizes (Hedges g) and 95% CI when comparing data before and after the activity in the natural environment 

Outcome

Effect size

95% CI

No. studies

Summary

Attention

0.23

(-0.30, 0.76)

3

No effect

Energy

0.76

(0.30, 1.22)

5

Improved

Anxiety

0.52

(0.25, 0.79)

6

Improved

Tranquillity

0.07

(-0.42, 0.55)

7

No effect*

Anger

0.35

(0.07, 0.64)

6

Improved

Fatigue

0.76

(0.41, 1.11)

4

Improved

Sadness

0.66

(0.16, 1.16)

3

Improved

Systolic BP

0.02

(-0.42, 0.38)

4

No effect

Diastolic BP

0.32

(-0.18, 0.82)

3

No effect

Cortisol

0.57

(-0.43, 1.57)

4

No effect*

The sign of the effect size reflects the benefit on health (positive effects indicate greater attention, energy and tranquillity but lower values for the other outcomes). ‘Summary’ describes the interpretation of the impact on health/well-being and an asterisk is used to denote a significant heterogeneity test (p < 0.05) for a particular group, indicating variation among studies. Number of studies reflects the number of studies for which there was data available to calculate this effect size