IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p7897-d601481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Being Solo in Nature Affect Well-Being? Evidence from Norway, Germany and New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Evi Petersen

    (Institute of Sports, Physical Education and Outdoor Life, University of South-Eastern Norway, 3800 Bø i Telemark, Norway)

  • Annette Bischoff

    (Institute of Sports, Physical Education and Outdoor Life, University of South-Eastern Norway, 3800 Bø i Telemark, Norway)

  • Gunnar Liedtke

    (Department of Human Movement Science, University of Hamburg, 20148 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Andrew J. Martin

    (School of Sport, Exercise and Nutrition, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand)

Abstract

Background: Solo—being intentionally solitary in nature—is receiving growing attention as a valuable outdoor education program component. Its practice and history have been researched in the context of experiential learning, but few studies have explicitly examined how solo experiences can affect dimensions of well-being. This study investigated a broad range of well-being pathways provided by being solo, based on data from Norway, Germany, and New Zealand. Methods: Using qualitative content analysis (QCA), the solo debrief responses of 40 participants (26 females, age: 19–64 years) were analysed, applying the PERMA-V framework (emotions, engagement, relationship, meaning, achievement, and vitality). Variations in the reports were explored as a function of the national sample, gender, age, prior solo experiences and expectations. Results: The study suggests that hedonic and eudemonic well-being pathways, represented by the six PERMA-V pillars, interrelate strongly. The experience of a range of positive emotions and connecting process during solo highlights two of the most frequent findings related to well-being pathways. The secondary findings suggest minor variations in the well-being pathways for the different national samples, gender and age. Expectations and prior experiences with solo were identified as context factors with minor impact. Further, the data-driven analysis identified specific physical activities, landscape features, sense-activation, perception of time and ‘good’ weather as relevant to the specific experience. Conclusions: Solo experiences provide for well-being-related pathways in a multitude of ways, which highlights the well-being potential of solo implementation across practical fields beyond outdoor education, such as wilderness therapy, and environmental and planetary health initiatives. Future studies should continue to explore solo’s well-being potential in different settings, especially in the context of non-Western samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Evi Petersen & Annette Bischoff & Gunnar Liedtke & Andrew J. Martin, 2021. "How Does Being Solo in Nature Affect Well-Being? Evidence from Norway, Germany and New Zealand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7897-:d:601481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7897/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7897/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    2. Corey S. Mackenzie & Eric C. Karaoylas & Katherine B. Starzyk, 2018. "Lifespan Differences in a Self Determination Theory Model of Eudaimonia: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Younger, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(8), pages 2465-2487, December.
    3. Brett H. Day, 2020. "The Value of Greenspace Under Pandemic Lockdown," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1161-1185, August.
    4. Sandra Rousseau & Nick Deschacht, 2020. "Public Awareness of Nature and the Environment During the COVID-19 Crisis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1149-1159, August.
    5. Ed Diener & Shigehiro Oishi & Louis Tay, 2018. "Advances in subjective well-being research," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 253-260, April.
    6. Jules Pretty & Jo Barton, 2020. "Nature-Based Interventions and Mind–Body Interventions: Saving Public Health Costs Whilst Increasing Life Satisfaction and Happiness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Ethan McMahan & David Estes, 2011. "Hedonic Versus Eudaimonic Conceptions of Well-being: Evidence of Differential Associations With Self-reported Well-being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 93-108, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nona C. Kiknadze & Blaine J. Fowers, 2023. "Cultural Variation in Flourishing," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 2223-2244, October.
    2. A. Butkovic & J. Tomas & A. M. Spanic & T. Vukasovic Hlupic & D. Bratko, 2020. "Emerging Adults Versus Middle-Aged Adults: Do they Differ in Psychological Needs, Self-Esteem and Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 779-798, March.
    3. Johan Lataster & Jennifer Reijnders & Mayke Janssens & Marianne Simons & Sanne Peeters & Nele Jacobs, 2022. "Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Well-Being Across Age: A Cross-Sectional General Population Study among 1709 Dutch Speaking Adults," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 2259-2290, June.
    4. Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera & Xavier Oriol-Granado & Mònica González-Carrasco & Diego Vaca-Quintana, 2023. "Examining the Relationship between Subjective Well-being and Psychological Well-being among 12-Year-Old-Children from 30 Countries," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(5), pages 1851-1870, October.
    5. Anna Bak-Klimek & Thanos Karatzias & Lawrie Elliott & Rory MacLean, 2018. "The Determinants of Well-Being Among Polish Economic Immigrants. Testing the Sustainable Happiness Model in Migrant Population," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 1565-1588, August.
    6. repec:osf:osfxxx:fqmdu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    9. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    11. Yanju Luo & Jinyang Deng & Chad Pierskalla & Ju-hyoung Lee & Jiayao Tang, 2022. "New Ecological Paradigm, Leisure Motivation, and Wellbeing Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Recreational Use of Urban Parks before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Aline Lopes Moreira & Jorge Castellá Sarriera & Leonardo Fernandes Martins & Lívia Maria Bedin & Maria Angela Mattar Yunes & Luciana Cassarino Perez & Murilo Ricardo Zibetti, 2022. "Psychometric Properties of Children’s Subjective Well-Being Scales: a Multigroup Study Investigating School Type, Gender, Age and Region of Children in the South and Southeast Regions of Brazil," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 15(2), pages 657-679, April.
    13. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    14. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    15. Ihsana Sabriani Borualogo & Ferran Casas, 2023. "Bullying Victimisation and Children’s Subjective Well-being: A Comparative Study in Seven Asian Countries," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, February.
    16. Violeta Mihaela Dincă & Mihail Busu & Zoltan Nagy-Bege, 2022. "Determinants with Impact on Romanian Consumers’ Energy-Saving Habits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    18. Bruno Marques & Jacqueline McIntosh & Chitrakala Muthuveerappan & Krzysztof Herman, 2022. "The Importance of Outdoor Spaces during the COVID-19 Lockdown in Aotearoa—New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    19. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    21. repec:osf:socarx:n49hv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Sam Hampton & Richard Blundel & Aqueel Wahga & Tina Fawcett & Christopher Shaw, 2022. "Transforming small and medium‐sized enterprises to address the climate emergency: The case for values‐based engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1424-1439, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7897-:d:601481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.