30 Days Wild: who benefits most?

Abstract

Purpose

There is a need to provide interventions to improve well-being that are accessible and cost-effective. Interventions to increase engagement with nature are coming to the fore. The Wildlife Trusts 30 Days Wild campaign shows promise as a large-scale intervention for improving public engagement with nature for well-being. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 273 people fully participated in a repeated measures evaluation comparing baseline measures of nature connection, health, happiness and conservation behaviours with measures post-30 days and 3 months.

Findings

There were sustained and significant increases for scores in nature connection, health, happiness and conservation behaviours. Those with lower scores at baseline in nature connection, conservation behaviours and happiness showed the most benefit. Older participants and those with higher baseline scores in conservation behaviours were the most likely to sustain their engagement with the campaign.

Research limitations/implications

Although the design and defined outcomes meet criteria for public health interventions, the self-reported measures, self-selecting sample and attrition are limitations.

Originality/value

The significant and sustained effects of the campaign on health, happiness and nature connection and conservation make this a promising intervention for improving human’s and nature’s well-being. The large community sample and naturalistic setting for the intervention make these data relevant to future interventions and policy.

Citation

Miles Richardson, Kirsten McEwan and Gulcan Garip (2018) "30 Days Wild: who benefits most?", Journal of Public Mental Health, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 95-104

Download as .RIS