Spending time in nature is often touted as beneficial for our health and well-being. But just how much time do we actually need to spend outdoors to reap these rewards? Interestingly, research points towards a specific duration that might be key: 120 minutes. When we ask, “How Long Is 120 Minutes?”, in the context of nature and health, we’re not just asking for a time conversion. We’re delving into the science that suggests this duration could be significant for our well-being. This article explores the methodology behind studies investigating the link between nature and health, shedding light on how researchers quantify and analyze the impact of outdoor time, particularly around the 2-hour mark.
Unpacking the Research: How Scientists Study Nature’s Impact
Understanding the potential health benefits of nature requires rigorous scientific investigation. Researchers employ detailed methodologies to collect and analyze data, ensuring that findings are robust and reliable. Let’s delve into the process used in a specific study that examined the relationship between recreational nature contact and both self-reported health and subjective well-being. This study, part of the UK government’s National Statistics, provides a valuable framework for understanding how “how long is 120 minutes” becomes a relevant question in the context of nature and health.
Participants and Data Collection: Ensuring a Representative Sample
To draw meaningful conclusions about the general population, studies need to involve a diverse and representative group of participants. The featured research utilized data from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, a large-scale survey conducted across England. This survey is repeat cross-sectional, meaning different individuals participate in each wave, providing a broad snapshot of the population over time.
The MENE survey employs a sophisticated sampling system to ensure representativeness, integrating data from the Post Office Address file and census data. This includes stratifying areas by population density and socio-economic factors and systematically allocating fieldwork to maximize geographical dispersion. Furthermore, quotas are set for gender and working status to ensure a balanced sample within contacted households. Finally, the collected data is weighted to accurately reflect the UK population’s demographics. Data collection is conducted through in-home, face-to-face interviews, using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) software for recording responses. This meticulous approach to participant selection and data collection is crucial for the credibility and generalizability of the research findings related to questions like, “how long is 120 minutes of nature exposure beneficial?”.
Measuring Health and Well-being: Defining the Outcomes
Quantifying health and well-being in a study requires using validated and reliable measures. This research focused on two key outcomes: self-reported health and subjective well-being.
Self-reported health was assessed using a single, widely used question: “How is your health in general?”. Responses ranged from “Very bad” to “Very good.” This simple question is a robust indicator, correlating well with healthcare utilization and mortality rates. For the purpose of analysis, responses were simplified into two categories: “Good” (Good/Very good) and “Not good” (Fair/Bad/Very bad).
Subjective well-being was measured using the “Life Satisfaction” question, a part of the UK’s national well-being measures: “Overall how satisfied are you with life nowadays?”. Participants responded on a scale from 0 (“Not at all”) to 10 (“Completely”). Similar to health, these responses were categorized into “High” (8–10) and “Low” (0–7) well-being for analysis. These dichotomizations, while simplifying the data, are based on previous research and are consistent with the distribution of responses in the current study. Using these established measures allows researchers to reliably assess the impact of nature exposure on these critical aspects of human experience, helping to answer questions around optimal durations, like “how long is 120 minutes enough?”.
Exposure to Nature: Quantifying Time Spent Outdoors
A central element of this research is defining and measuring “exposure” to nature. The study focused on recreational nature contact within the last 7 days. Participants were carefully introduced to the concept of “outdoors,” encompassing parks, canals, nature areas, coasts, beaches, and the countryside, explicitly excluding routine shopping trips or time in private gardens.
Participants reported the number of visits they made to these natural environments each day for the previous seven days. To estimate the duration of nature exposure, one visit was randomly selected by the CAPI software, and participants were asked, “How long did this visit last altogether?” (Hours & Minutes). Weekly duration estimates were then calculated by multiplying the duration of the randomly selected visit by the total number of visits reported for the week.
Interestingly, the duration of nature contact was categorized into specific bands for analysis, including: 0 mins, 1–59 mins, 60–119 mins, 120–179 mins, 180–239 mins, 240–299 mins, and ≥300 mins. The choice of these categories, particularly the 120–179 minutes band (which includes the 2-hour mark), highlights the researchers’ interest in understanding the effects of different durations of nature exposure, and whether durations around how long is 120 minutes might be particularly significant. The clustering of responses around hour marks, with a notable proportion precisely reporting 120 minutes within the 120-179 minute band, further emphasizes the relevance of this duration.
Controlling for Other Factors: Accounting for Variables that Influence Health
Recognizing that health and well-being are influenced by numerous factors beyond nature exposure, the study meticulously controlled for potential confounding variables. These control variables were categorized into area-level and individual-level factors.
Area-level controls included neighbourhood greenspace, area deprivation, and air pollution. Neighbourhood greenspace was measured using a density metric derived from the Generalised Land Use Database (GLUD), reflecting the proportion of greenspace and domestic gardens within an individual’s Census area. Area deprivation was assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), a composite measure encompassing various aspects of deprivation at the local level. Air pollution was represented by LSOA background PM10 concentrations, indicating particulate matter levels.
Individual-level controls encompassed socio-demographic characteristics such as sex, age, occupational social grade (as a proxy for socio-economic status), employment status, relationship status, ethnicity, number of children in the household, and dog ownership. Crucially, the study also controlled for “Restricted functioning” (long-standing illness, health problem, or disability) and physical activity levels. Controlling for restricted functioning helps address potential reverse causality, while controlling for physical activity separates the effects of nature exposure from the benefits of exercise often undertaken in natural settings. By accounting for these diverse factors, researchers can isolate more accurately the specific contribution of nature exposure to health and well-being, providing a clearer picture of whether and how long is 120 minutes of nature beneficial, independent of these other influences.
Why This Methodology Matters: Understanding the Science of Nature’s Benefits
The detailed methodology employed in this study is critical for several reasons. The rigorous sampling and data collection methods ensure that the findings are representative of the broader population. The use of validated measures for health and well-being provides confidence in the accuracy of the outcome assessments. The careful quantification of nature exposure, particularly the focus on duration categories including the 120-minute mark, allows for nuanced analysis of exposure-response relationships. Finally, the comprehensive control for confounding variables strengthens the evidence for a causal link between nature exposure and health outcomes.
By understanding the “how” behind this type of research, we can better appreciate the evidence supporting the benefits of spending time in nature. When we consider the question, “how long is 120 minutes?”, in light of this research, it moves beyond a simple time calculation. It becomes a question about the potential dose-response relationship between nature and well-being, suggesting that around two hours a week in nature could be a meaningful target for promoting public health. Further exploration of the study’s findings, beyond this methodological overview, would reveal the specific associations observed and the potential significance of this 120-minute threshold.
References
[49] Natural England. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: the national survey on people and the natural environment. Technical Report to the 2009-16 Surveys. Natural England Joint Report JP023 (2017).
[50] Miilunpalo, S., Vuori, I., Oja, P., Pasanen, M. & Urponen, H. Self-rated health status as a health measure: the predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. J Clin Epidemiol 50, 517–528 (1997).
[51] Kyffin, R. G., Goldacre, M. J. & Gill, M. Mortality rates and self-reported health: database analysis by English local authority area. Brit Med J 329, 887–888 (2004).
[52] Wheeler, B. W. et al. Beyond Greenspace: An ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality. Int J Health Geogr 14, 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-015-0009-5 (2015).
[53] Office of National Statistics (ONS). Measuring Subjective Well-being. London: Office of National Statistics (2011).
[54] White, M. P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B. W., Depledge, M. H. & Fleming, L. E. Natural environments and subjective wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of well-being. Health Place 45, 77–84 (2017).
[55] Nan, L., Jeffrey, A. J., James, W. S., David, F. & Joel, S. C. Self-Reported Health Status of the General Adult U.S. Population as Assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care 43, 1078–1086 (2005).
[56] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM). Generalised Land Use Database Statistics for England. London: ODPM Publications (2005).
[57] Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. London: Communities and Local Government (2008).
[58] Brookes, D. M. et al. Technical report on UK supplementary assessment under the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC), the Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC) and Fourth Daughter Directive (2004/107/EC) for 2014 (2016).
[59] R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/ (2017).
