Nature is, without a doubt, something you simply cannot afford to miss in this short life. I try to travel as frequently as I can to hike, mountain bike, snowboard and scuba. I was in Switzerland for several days recently and it was just jaw-dropping. [1][2][3][4][5]. Being away from crowds/touristy areas, the concrete jungle, light/noise/air pollution really puts a lot of your life and problems into perspective.
me and my wife used to as well, until we started realizing that sometimes it is complete madness to do so: there are of course the ecological and economical reasons, but the main reason is we figured we don't have to travel to get into nature. A couple of years ago I started hiking around the city where we live and discovered a whole wealth of beautiful nature of different kinds I never even knew was there. Which made me feel stupid and enlightened at the same time. Stupid because of not knowing it was there and being sucked into the 'you must travel at least x times a year to visit nice stuff' which lives strong amongst many people I know. Enlightened because of knowing it was just there for us to visit whenever we feel like.
We took this idea a bit further and instead of travelling abroad we set our minds on discovering all beauty around us by simply taking the bike and doing a short trip (say 20 or 30km) to an area we've never been before. It is simply amazing what we found already.
Granted, this is not for everyone, for starters because not everyone lives in an area where there actually is easy to reach countryside/rural area, but I highly suggest to look at sattelite images of the area around you, look for green spots and ask yourself if you know what they look like. And go figure it out if you don't.
Absolutely. I live in Washington state, and I feel like there's more nature in just this statethan I could take in over a lifetime. Driving across the state means going from a desert following the Columbia, through a shrub-steppe, into the Cascade foothills, up to the evergreen covered Cascade range, then down into the rainforests of the PNW, then on to the Pacific.
My wife and I moved to the Puget Sound area in 2009, and I've not regretted a single moment. We moved from the KCMO area and it's like night and day. People simply seem to care more about nature and outdoor activities than in MO. When we had a son, my parents moved out here to be nearby as he grows up (and watch him while we work); they don't regret a thing either, they love it here as well.
Even if you don't travel around going to the state and national parks, there's a ton of regional parks with trails, trails all over for biking and walking and a lot of nature all around.
I mean... it rains here all the time, and, and, earthquakes and volcanoes, it's probably a bad idea to move here. ;)
we did a PNW road trip a couple years ago and got lucky with great weather the whole time. Olympic National Park /Hurricane Ridge, Moss Forest, Mt Saint Helens, the coastal drive around Portland and Seattle are excellent.
certainly, i am not suggesting that traveling abroad [for nature] should option #1. i live around Chicago and i have been to hundreds of places in the States with thousands remaining. that being said, there are many things that simply do not exist here and are quite unique to other places, mainly a combination of flora/fauna/geology/climate.
while you can find 20 forest preserves nearby, you cannot really experience the vast diversity that truly exists without traveling some significant distance.
I was there on a hike along the Via Alpina! Is that Lauterbrunnen and possibly the train to Jungfraujoch?
One of the most memorable times of my life was hiking through there (Meiringen, Grindelwald, and Lauterbrunnen specifically). Very peaceful and meditative.
yes, this is a hike from Murren to Gimmelwald which is quite literally "The Shire" [1] (after a train from Lauterbrunnen). and yes, Jungfraujoch of course.
Is there any reason to believe that urban hiking has a similar effect? I don't go on nature walks very often, but learning to walk my way around my city has given me an entirely different outlook on where I live.
Seattle has a lot of greenery, but walking around is a pretty urban experience.
I think that there is also a lot to be said about regularly moving your body (walking 5-10 miles a day), and the effect it has on your mental state. I wouldn't be surprised if your surroundings play a minimal role compared to simply engaging in physical activity and changing your surroundings regularly.
> We show in healthy participants that a brief nature experience, a 90-min walk in a natural setting, decreases both self-reported rumination and neural activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex (sgPFC), whereas a 90-min walk in an urban setting has no such effects on self-reported rumination or neural activity.
According to the article, though, the "urban setting" was next to a highway, which isn't typical of any urban setting I've lived in. And the "natural setting" was still in the middle of Stanford, which isn't really what I would call a natural setting. If the parent lives in an urban area similar to the "natural setting" of Stanford's campus' green area(s), then I'd say that yes, the parent would benefit.
The study seems pretty handwavy, though. I'm not sure that a walk by a highway counts as a urban area control group. (Although, it also depends on what "highway" they are referring to. The street in front of the campus is not a highway the same way the freeway/interstate is.)
Walking next to a busy street is unnerving and stressful to me (to me it seems as though the noise is the biggest problem), so I can easily imagine there being no positive effect. However, walking down a quiet alley with no cars (audible or visible) has to me nearly the same meditative effect as walking in nature. Not alle urban settings are the same, so I could imagine there being a positive effect in some. (Structurally some small pedestrian-only alley from Renaissance times in the town I grew up in actually feels very similar to nature.)
My office is directly underneath the flightpath to London Heathrow Airport, and my house is under the secondary approach path. There's a landing about every 90 seconds for most of the day (average 1290 flights per day, maximum 15 between 23:00-0600). Planes tend to be < 2000ft overhead, and Heathrow has lots of big planes.
I don't need to go to the countryside to notice the peace and quiet, and feel much better rested. Hotels in the centres of Sheffield and Birmingham have had the same effect.
There was a study showing that crime goes down when the neighborhood executes a simple
trees++;
and from this we can definitely deduce that the deciduous decidedly discriminates.
Or in other words, urban hiking may have a similar effect, but it is quite likely to be lesser. (And as another poster points out, an urban hike seems to have no effect.)
Well, the linked article does discuss the potential difference between a nature walk, and an urban walk.
> In an earlier study published last month, he and his colleagues found that volunteers who walked briefly through a lush, green portion of the Stanford campus were more attentive and happier afterward than volunteers who strolled for the same amount of time near heavy traffic.
If urbanization makes people depressed and anxious, why do millennials seem to prefer cities? How does this jive with the "safety in numbers" feeling young people usually use to explain why they want to live in cities?
I'm starting to think that the desire to live in cities in our newest generation has been implanted by marketers. Keep humans in a constant state of rushing and anxiety, then quell them with gastropubs and single-origin coffee and other urbane pleasures, in order reinforce a permanent state of discontent. The goal is to have an insatiable working class that will do anything to afford their $1,500/month Brooklyn closet, without realizing that you can be much happier and more relaxed anywhere else.
Reasons I think people in that age range would prefer to live in a city:
1 - More people, more events and places to socialize == more opportunities to find a mate
2 - Since people in those age groups right now are sacked by debt, or working jobs lower on the totem pole (or even super low paying internships)...living in a city means they can avoid car ownership
3 - This might sound ridiculous, but...along with point 1, socializing frequently means drinking, and in suburbs, that usually goes hand in hand with drunk driving. Not an issue in the city.
Honestly modern suburbs just make you feel isolated.
In Britain and other places people have the right to roam, but in America nature walks are generally most accessible to city dwellers. Seattle has loads of easily accessible natural areas (off the top of my head, Karkeek, Magnussen, Seward, Ravenna, Schmitz, Discovery, Lincoln, Arboretum). Where I grew up in the sticks walking in the woods meant trespassing, angry dogs, and barbed wire, or a long drive to a state park.
It seems like I'm one of those millennials, according to some definitions. This group of humans that are so different, alien and impossible to understand, it seems?
Well, almost everyone around me prefers to live in the countryside. I do, too. The thing is, most jobs in IT and other domains that were pushed on the young at school are not in the countryside, and telecommuting jobs aren't plentiful either. A sizable amount of people dream of having a small farm or something in the mountains, some of my friends actually have done it, but it's not easy.
Some people prefer cities, but the only reason you might think all "millennials" do, is that more of them have worked for a shorter time yet, and do not yet miss a better environment.
In most areas of Europe (which is what I know), a park is never far away, and the cities are kind of narrow and not built for cars. A short bike ride will carry you to the fields with a lot of paths, or a forrest also full of streets (well, utility roads, but you're free to use them). There could be a lake for swimming in biking distance (or use local transport). Some of the bigger cities have been created from several towns, and at the seams there can be a lot of greenery (Frankfurt, for example).
Thus, you do not need a car to get around and can reach a good number of places, and you still have access to city culture. Not all cities are made equal.
Not having a nearby park makes one feel depressed. But so does commuting an hour a day to work. The best thing would be living in a city or walkable town with tons of transit and tons of nearby parks.
Do they? Most of the people who live and work in mountain towns are millennials, and I see far more millennials hiking, camping, and generally doing things outdoors than the older generations. Granted, I'm sure far more millennials live in cities, but many also prefer a 'simpler' life.
On a separate note though, the allure of cities is that they're nicer to live in than the suburbs. And they're where most jobs are. I think it's necessity more than anything.
People prefer lots of things that make them depressed and anxious like sugar, drugs, gaming etc. It might be from brainwashing but it might also just be because these things offer short term rewards, with costs being more long term.
I prefer to be in a city because I like the things cities offer, but I am aware that it would probably be better for my health to live in the country side.
>If urbanization makes people depressed and anxious, why do millennials seem to prefer cities?
Because urbanization makes some people depressed and anxious, but not others. Also, wage-density and productivity are now substantially higher in urban areas than in suburbs or rural villages.
"Urbanization" and "concrete jungle" with "a constant state of rushing and anxiety" are also very different: I now live in, what is it, the 4th or 5th most densely-populated city in the United States (Somerville, MA), and it's downright pleasant and leafy. We have parks, tree-topped walk/bike-ways, long trails that go out into marshlands and riversides (even though I don't particularly like marshes), and greenery everywhere in town.
We also have hipster shops and a reasonable commute to a large number of professional, high-paying workplaces.
Of course, our housing is pretty unaffordable, but that's because the bloody NIMBYs won't let anyone build more of it.
Being in a wooded area triggers my anxiety. I'm constantly itching, scratching and worried about ticks (as others have mentioned here). Obsessively to the point of not being able to relax. I have no affinity for flowers or trees or any such thing -- I'm just not built that way.
But there are other ways to enjoy Nature -- the beach for instance. It doesn't have to be a stroll through the woods or a hike. It can be just as freeing and relaxing to be on a beach.
Well, except I'm a pseudo-ginger (red beard, blonde hair, pale and freckled). So I'm usually under a giant umbrella, coated in the strongest SPF blocker I can be. And a big straw hat to boot.
Hell, now that I think about it, the Outside is trying to kill me. I should stay home more.
May I suggest ditching the sunscreen in favor of a very lightweight, breathable synthetic "workout" shirt ? You know, the kinds that runners often wear ... long sleeve.
And then a decent 4" brim hat. OR (outdoor research) makes a very good, highly rated one. Or just military surplus model.
Makes it much faster and simpler to just get outside than having to deal with sunblock. If at beach/swimming, you can substitute the shirt for a longsleeve rashguard. I swim/surf in the ocean with my hat on. No problem.
If you hike at altitude, say above 3.5 km, you'll encounter few animals and plants. The Andes in Peru, Bolivia and Chile are very suitable for this kind of hiking. The sun is even stronger than at sea level though!
Another interesting side effect of the outdoors that I've noticed is the impact on human social interaction. I ride the train into SF every day and throughout the week I sit next to countless other people without speaking to a single one of them. I went backpacking through the Lost Cost Trail last weekend and had a conversation with literally every human being that I passed. Not just a "hi, how you doing?" but a genuine conversation about where they were from, what part of the trail they started on, where they were going, what they had seen. In fact, I would get people waving and saying hi from 100 yards away across a stream. It felt genuine and easy and I'm pretty sure they all felt the same.
That's not nature, that's how people behave in a leisure enviroment, and in other locations where they feel some commonality with the people around them.
For what it's worth, I've noticed that for me too but have considered it a ruleset issue: we all desire to connect with other human beings, but because there are too many people everywhere and of low connection relevancy, the default we take is to not interact with anyone, else we'd never get around to doing anything.
In nature the people are scarce and also all share an appreciation for nature, so it's natural for us to want to connect.
> the scientists randomly assigned half of the volunteers to walk for 90 minutes through a leafy, quiet, parklike portion of the Stanford campus or next to a loud, hectic, multi-lane highway in Palo Alto.
So waking through a particularly beautiful part of Stanford campus leads to better mental health than waking along a noisy highway. No shit.
Are we really still at the point in "Landscape and Urban Planning" research that we need to verify that walking in the woods chills you out and helps you focus more than walking down a busy street?
Lots of science is about looking at "no shit, Sherlock" phenomena. The hope is you can find principles beneath the commonsense aspects. Ideally, you see the commonsense and allow yourself to get puzzled by it.
For example, physicists can't tell you much about what goes on outside your window; it's too complex. They isolate little things in highly controlled environments which remove as much as possible. ("Experiments".)
I visited my cousins in a little town in Germany recently that is surrounded by walking paths all through town and in the surrounding hills. The town is filled with clinics that Germans get to go to to recover from surgery and other health issues because the walking and nature is so peaceful. Wish I lived there :-(
Kettering in England is a typical town — few people would recommend visiting it. Look at the official (government-produced) map: http://binged.it/1SDXCaH (the layer should say "Ordnance Survey", I hope it works outside the UK). The pink dotted/dashed lines are walking, cycling or horseriding paths. There are lots!
Kettering was chosen at random. Scroll north and some pink lines have pink diamonds — these are long-distance leisure routes, often with some kind of theme or historical purpose to the route.
I spent a lot of time as a child touring the USA with my parents. The national parks were great! But outside these parks, are footpaths rare?
Rare? No. There are not a great number of regional paths, but there are lots of local paths in state/county/city parks, and in nature areas that are not so developed as to be called parks.
The regional path thing is changing somewhat as rail easements are converted to trails, but those tend to be a little bland.
There are also national trails like, for example, the Appalachian Trail (2,200 miles) and North Country Trail (4,600 miles planned, 2,700 miles completed).
The interesting thing about Germany is that small towns located in the forests (and they are LOTS of forest in Germany) are also centers for major engineering centres, some of these centres are European HQ.
For us who work in engineering, this makes it easy to live in the forest, and commute to work through the forests.
Don't know about the OP, but I visited Bad Kreuznach a few years ago which has a reputation for health/spas. They have public Saline Graduation Towers which offer a place to sit and breath in the mineral rich water droplets. Very soothing.
I'm not sure how anyone could think that walking next to a loud highway for an hour and a half (without a distraction such as a friend or music) would be a great idea.
Thank you for that link. I am not expert on statistical methods - is the reference to the F-stat in the link meant to indicate that the p-value was only 7%?
Yes, traditionally you need the 5% of error, or even 1%. Also the partial eta-squared is the ANOVA measure for the size of the effects studied, which happens to be very low too: 9%.
It's odd that we feel this way when the opposite is closer to the truth. Citites change so much, but the forest near my house where I grew up is probably almost the same as when I left.
A couple years ago I walked a trail that the US Forest Service had developed several decades prior. There were quite some signs discussing the beautiful views out over the river valley and a lot more trees completely obscuring those views.
It's about the direct perception of impermanence, which in a timescale of a walk in a park is much more striking in nature, where everything is in a constant flux.
Interesting. Also, urban structures are founded upon right angles, and the urban experience is very linear. The rigidity of urbanity is in stark contrast to the variable angular expression of nature. It's interesting when great architects works are praised that push the limits of structural integrity and aesthetic, finding more varied expressions of structure, because that new creation seems to be reaching towards nature in the sense that we are valuing the variation.
Nature, and being in nature, is soothing and palliative because your sophistication/environment ratio goes to infinity.
At any point, you can be in an environment (city, highway, coffee shop) and you have a certain level of sophistication, and no matter how sophisticated you are, there's a ratio to the environment you are in. Quiet main street in your home town ? Very high ratio. Formal wedding in a foreign country surrounded by strangers ? Low ratio. Stress. Uncertainty.
But in nature, no matter how unsophisticated you are, the "nature" you are in is (essentially) zero complexity (at least in terms of technology and cultural sophistication). So the ratio goes to infinity. No matter what.
I walk 20 minutes to and from work through park each day. I like it, but I kinda associate that park with my job at this point, and immediately start to think what I have to do the next day.
I also like to go on a few hours long photo-shooting trips through my city and it relaxes me more, no matter the relative lack of nature. I think the point is - it makes me focus on different things, after a while I'm in the "flow" and forget about daily problems.
Grew up in Snowdonia, North Wales. Nature made me feel both privileged and insignificant at the same time. It truly is amazing that there is so much variety and depth to nature. There is so much life in there, you just need to open your eyes and ears. I highly recommend the area as a traveling destination.
Hmm, I 'get' the fear of that, it's not unreasonable, but not going into nature to avoid a small chance of lyme disease seems shortsighted. Like others said, it's curable, and the tick has to be on you for 24 hours, and it's not like a guaranteed thing[0]. Just check when you get home at the least. Bug sprays and whatnot work great too (check out Lemon Eucalyptus oil, it's as strong as DEET but without any side effects according to the CDC and it's pretty inexpensive on Amazon).
That said, I get it, I avoid skiing with the same fervor; too much risk of bodily harm for little reward, also things like tree wells and avalanches? No thanks. People look at me as weird as you probably feel we are looking at you. (it's also expensive, so there's that excuse)
This is absurd. Lyme disease is incredibly uncommon. I grew up going camping for at least several weeks every year, live in a city that has wild, forested areas less than 5 minutes away, go on multi-day hikes into the back-country several times a year, and know a variety of people who, for all purposes, live for the outdoors. No one I know has ever contracted Lyme disease.
You should never leave your room then; coming near people is more dangerous than going into nature. As long as it's not caught too late, lyme disease is curable.
Are you sure about the 24 hours thing ? From memory it all depends on the tick.
And if you remove it in a non optimal way you can still be contaminated.
On French websites you can still find the wrong advice to use ether to make the tick sleep. In fact it makes it sick and it can throw up in your bloodstream thus contaminating you.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/ETu4tsr.jpg
[2] https://i.imgur.com/EsppCVS.jpg
[3] https://i.imgur.com/WwqmZjJ.jpg
[4] https://i.imgur.com/aWJxEZf.jpg
[5] https://i.imgur.com/zJRh5tm.jpg