With over half the world’s population living in urbanized areas [
Previous research focused on youth and young adults demonstrates that exposure to nature improves cognitive functioning [
Recent research into nature contact in urban green places suggests that participants’ benefits map onto the holistic biopsychosocial-spiritual model of health [
There is growing interest in camps and camping as a way of increasing nature exposure and addressing “nature-deficit disorder” [
We utilized a mixed-methods design that incorporated a pre-post within-subjects assessment employing online questionnaires as well as face-to-face interviews. Ethical approval was received by the University of Michigan’s Medical Institutional Review Board.
The National Youth Science Camp (NYSC) is a 4-week residential science education camp held in the rural mountains of West Virginia, USA, in a cell phone-free area (i.e., the 13,000 sq mile (
Each state competitively selects two delegates to attend the camp in the summer following graduation from high school; delegates occasionally attend from other countries. Selection is based on academic achievement, leadership, and demonstrated interest in the sciences; attendance is free of charge. Camp staff members are typically former campers.
All delegates (“campers”) and staff members (“staff”) (18 years old or older) received a postal letter explaining the study followed by an email invitation with a web link to an online precamp questionnaire which incorporated a consent statement (i.e., comprehensive oral consent). Weekly email reminders were sent during the month prior to camp until the potential participant joined the study, declined participation, or opted out of receiving further emails.
A subset of study volunteers who had indicated willingness to be interviewed (via the precamp questionnaire) were invited to participate in individual, in-depth interviews conducted
All questionnaires were web-based. Precamp questionnaires were completed prior to arrival with postcamp surveys completed during the last week of camp or the week of returning home; the response window was lengthened due to the limited Internet capability at the camp. Two multifaceted topic areas of relevance were explored: nature-related and well-being. Where available, we sought to utilize theory and/or validated measures; here we provide brief descriptions of the individual measures.
Four topic areas were specifically included to examine the experience of and relationship with the natural environment component of the camp experience (Table
Constructs and measures used to assess relationship with and experience in nature.
Construct | Measures | Number of items | Response range | Cronbach’s alpha |
Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nature experience | Exposure | 6 | 1–5 | na | Irvine, 2004 [ |
Knowledge | 5 | 1–5 | Ryan, 2005 [ | ||
Skills | 17 | 1–6 | Kaplan, 1974 [ | ||
Leadership | 1 | 1–6 | |||
|
|||||
Safety in nature | Single item | 1 | 1–5 | na |
Fuller et al., 2007 [ |
|
|||||
Sense of Place | Place attachment | 4 | 1–5 | .86 |
Fuller et al., 2007 [ |
Continuity with past | 5 | .84–.85 | Dallimer et al., 2012 [ | ||
|
|||||
Nature connection | Connection to nature | 14 | 1–5 | .79–.84 | Mayer and Frantz, 2004 [ |
The three remaining nature-related topics focused on safety, sense of place, and connection to nature. The degree to which one felt safe in the natural environment was assessed with a single statement (“I feel safe in the natural environment”; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), a measure used in a previous study on the experience of urban nature [
Multiple aspects of well-being, corresponding to the biopsychosocial-spiritual model of health [
Constructs and measures used to assess elements of biopsychosocial-spiritual well-being.
Construct | Measures | Number of items | Response range |
Cronbach’s alpha |
Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical health domain | |||||
|
|||||
Physical activity | Single item | 1 | 0–7 | na |
Milton et al., 2011 [ |
Relaxation | Single item | 1 | 1–5 | na | No reference |
|
|||||
Psychological health domain | |||||
|
|||||
Stress | Perceived stress | 10 | 0–4 (0–40) | .75 |
Cohen and Williamson, 1988 [ |
Psychological well-being | Self-acceptance | 15 (3 per subscale) | 1–6 (15–90) | .52 |
Ryff and Keyes, 1995 [ |
Autonomy | .37 | ||||
Environmental mastery | .49 | ||||
Purpose in life | .33 | ||||
Personal growth | .40 | ||||
Self-esteem | Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale | 10 | 0–3 (0–30) | .77–.88 | Rosenberg, 1989 [ |
Resilience | Ego-Resiliency Scale | 14 | 1–4 | .76 | Block and Kremen, 1996 [ |
Self-awareness | Situational Self-Awareness Scale/Public Subscale | 3 | 1–7 | .82 | Govern and Marsch, 2001 [ |
Mental restoration | Reflection (modified) | 3 | 1–5 | na | Irvine, 2004 [ |
|
|||||
Emotional health domain | |||||
|
|||||
Emotional state | PANAS-X, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule | 10 |
1–5 | .85–.90 |
Watson et al., 1988 [ |
|
|||||
Social health domain | |||||
|
|||||
Social | Positive Relations with Others Scale | 14 | 1–6 |
.88 |
Ryff et al., 1994 [ |
|
|||||
Spiritual health domain | |||||
|
|||||
Spiritual well-being | Sense of wholeness | 7 | 1–5 | .85 | Irvine, 2004 [ |
Transcendence | Mysticism Scale (subset of items) | 7 | 1–5 |
na |
Hood, 1975 [ |
Psychological domains of well-being included perceived stress, psychological well-being, self-esteem, resilience, self-awareness, and the ability to reflect. The 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale [
A global sense of psychological well-being was measured using fifteen items (this consisted of 3-item scales for five of the six subconstructs. While we appreciate that the 3-item scales have low internal consistency, we selected to use these in order to reduce participant burden) from the Ryff Psychological Well-Being Scale [
The Ego-Resiliency Scale [
To assess emotional state, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [
Differences in social well-being were measured using the 14-Item Positive Relations with Others Scale [
We included two aspects related to the domain of spiritual well-being. An individual’s sense of wholeness was measured using a 7-item (e.g., disconnected from what is important in life) scale from a previous study on nature and health [
The precamp questionnaire also included gender, age, date of birth, where from (country of origin and where on rural/urban continuum), whether being camper or staff (if staff, education, and work). In the postcamp questionnaire, participants were provided with a list of 10 elements of the camp experience (e.g., dining hall food; spending time with friends; and overnight hiking/camping trips) and asked to separately rank their top 5 (1 = top selection) in terms of enjoyment, influence, intellectual stimulation, and hardness (i.e., difficulty). There was also one open-ended question on “what surprised you most about the camp experience?”
Interviews were conducted during free time at the camp in a suitably private space (e.g., medical unit or tents on the archery field where there was minimal foot traffic). An interview guide identified topics for discussion with optional probing questions. Interviews focused on relationships between the camp experience, nature, perceived stress, and well-being. Interviews were audiotaped using a digital recording device and transcribed verbatim.
Postcamp questionnaires were matched with precamp response data. Participants who did not return a postcamp questionnaire were excluded from analysis. All scale scores were calculated as sums or means depending on usual practice for the scale or similar scales. Descriptive statistics for the group were reviewed. Nonresponders were compared to responders across demographics and nature-related variables using chi-squared tests or independent
Transcripts were initially reviewed by one author (MRM) and then fully analyzed by another author (SLW) and a student team. Broad themes across all interviews were identified and emergent contradictory themes were examined. Here we report on the elements of social connection and the perceived role played by nature.
The study sample consisted of 36 campers and staff from the NYSC four-week education program in rural West Virginia who completed both precamp and postcamp questionnaires (Figure
Participant characteristics (
Age | Years |
---|---|
Range | 18–31 |
Mode | 18 |
Median | 19 |
|
|
Gender | % |
|
|
Female | 67 |
Male | 33 |
|
|
Role | % |
|
|
Delegates | 69 |
Staff | 31 |
|
|
Home environment | % |
|
|
Rural | 14 |
Small town | 39 |
Suburban | 42 |
Urban | 5 |
Flow diagram for study participants.
Of the 16 participants who were interviewed, 63% were female and 56% were campers. Interviewees’ age range and mean were identical to the study sample. Identification of a suburban or urban area as one’s home environment was slightly higher at 56%.
Ranking results (
NYSC activity rankings (
Activity | Most enjoyable | Most influential | Most intellectually stimulating | Hardest |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
<0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Spending time with friends | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
Overnight hiking/camping trips |
2 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
Interactions with staff and presenters | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
Academic components |
4 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
Exercising at camp |
5 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
Cabin meetings | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
Time on own in nature |
7 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Rustic accommodations | 8 | 7 | 8 | 2 |
Dining hall food | 9 |
|
9 | 3 |
Personal computer time | 10 |
|
10 | 1 |
Further comments indicated that participants found the ranking process difficult, specifically for the most enjoyable and most intellectually stimulating categories as multiple elements of the camp experience were noted as worthy of their top selection. Most experiences were viewed positively and participants felt the components were well integrated. One participant noted, “That list does not feel entirely accurate, given there were actually very few degrees of separation in my enjoyment of all the aspects I selected. In fact, the most enjoyable part of my camp experience may have been how all the components seemed to complement each other in a way that I still do not understand, even from a more informed vantage.” Another commented, “Again, it was hard to rank, given the interconnectedness of the camp’s aspects.”
All nature measures (Table
Nature-related measures paired samples
Measure |
|
Precamp mean | SD | Postcamp mean | SD | Sig. (2-tailed) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nature experience | ||||||
Exposure | 36 | 3.14 | 0.56 | 3.65 | 0.28 | <0.001 |
Skill | 35 | 2.99 | 0.85 | 3.82 | 0.54 | <0.001 |
Knowledge | 36 | 2.60 | 0.59 | 2.79 | 0.47 | 0.018 |
Leadership | 34 | 3.47 | 1.48 | 4.68 | 1.04 | <0.001 |
Feeling of safety in environment | 36 | 3.64 | 0.87 | 4.31 | 0.58 | <0.001 |
Sense of place | ||||||
Attachment | 36 | 4.52 | 0.49 | 4.73 | 0.41 | 0.035 |
Continuity with the past | 36 | 3.92 | 0.71 | 4.22 | 0.65 | 0.003 |
Nature connection | 34 | 3.49 | 0.67 | 3.78 | 0.71 | <0.001 |
We used a biopsychosocial-spiritual framework to assess well-being before and after the camp (Table
Holistic outcome measures paired samples
Measure |
|
Precamp mean | SD | Postcamp mean | SD | Sig. (2-tailed) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical activity | 36 | 4.36 | 2.05 | 4.97 | 1.70 | 0.084 |
Relaxation | 35 | 3.23 | 0.88 | 3.71 | 0.71 | 0.025 |
Perceived stress | 34 | 20.88 | 5.07 | 17.82 | 5.57 | 0.020 |
Psychological well-being | 35 | 80.91 | 5.48 | 80.97 | 6.36 | 0.943 |
Self-esteem | 35 | 24.91 | 3.69 | 24.94 | 3.55 | 0.950 |
Resilience | 34 | 3.20 | 0.27 | 3.28 | 0.33 | 0.083 |
Situational self-awareness | 36 | 4.03 | 1.48 | 4.37 | 1.54 | 0.200 |
Reflection | 35 | 3.30 | 0.50 | 3.11 | 0.55 | 0.129 |
Positive affect | 31 | 3.73 | 0.62 | 4.26 | 0.56 | <0.001 |
Negative affect | 35 | 1.68 | 0.59 | 1.34 | 0.26 | 0.003 |
Positive relationship with others | 35 | 74.17 | 12.39 | 77.40 | 13.28 | 0.066 |
Wholeness | 35 | 2.90 | 0.36 | 3.11 | 0.35 | 0.012 |
Transcendence | 35 | 28.23 | 4.72 | 30.51 | 4.15 | 0.002 |
Surprisingly, several psychological measures, including resilience (
Two interesting constellations of relationships were identified through examination of the correlations ≥ ±0.50 (all
Pearson correlations between study variables.
Variables | Correlations between variables | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ||
1 | Exposure | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
2 | Knowledge | .09 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
3 | Skills | .12 | .18 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
4 | Leadership | .05 |
|
|
1 | ||||||||||||||||
5 | Safety | .24 | .30 |
|
|
1 | |||||||||||||||
6 | Attachment | .27 | .31 | .33 | .32 |
|
1 | ||||||||||||||
7 | Continuity with past | .15 | .23 |
|
|
|
|
1 | |||||||||||||
8 | Nature connection | .08 | .16 | .19 | .22 |
|
|
.27 | 1 | ||||||||||||
9 | Physical activity | −.16 | .10 | .18 | .09 | .07 | .02 | .12 | .15 | 1 | |||||||||||
10 | Relaxation | −.01 | −.08 | .20 | −.06 | .09 | .03 | .13 |
|
.04 | 1 | ||||||||||
11 | Perceived stress | −.15 | −.19 | −.32 | −.33 |
|
|
|
|
−.15 |
|
1 | |||||||||
12 | Psych well-being | −.18 | −.12 | .29 |
|
.22 | .11 | .29 | .08 | .17 | −.08 | .05 | 1 | ||||||||
13 | Self-esteem | −.21 | −.04 | .19 | .27 | −.05 | −.11 | .09 | .13 | .12 | .19 |
|
.05 | 1 | |||||||
14 | Resilience | −.05 | .16 | .22 | .33 | .18 | .15 | .17 | −.03 |
|
.12 | −.02 | .05 | .16 | 1 | ||||||
15 | Self-awareness | −.25 | −.09 | −.13 | −.02 | .13 | −.02 | .23 | .18 | .08 | .33 | −.23 | .31 | −.15 | −.08 | 1 | |||||
16 | Reflection | .13 | .29 | .22 |
|
.25 | .23 | .21 | −.07 | .015 | .06 |
|
.12 | .25 | .04 | −.05 | 1 | ||||
17 | Positive emotion | −.16 | .02 | .29 |
|
|
.18 | .10 | .29 | .15 |
|
|
.11 |
|
.17 | .08 | .35 | 1 | |||
18 | Negative emotion | −.07 | .08 | .012 | .01 | .15 | .02 | −.13 | −.12 | .03 |
|
|
.12 | −.30 | .20 |
|
−.27 |
|
1 | ||
19 | Positive relations |
|
.29 | .08 |
|
−.07 |
|
.33 | .20 | −.24 | −.07 | −.23 | .17 | −.13 | .05 | .07 |
|
.09 | −.03 | 1 | |
20 | Wholeness | −.03 | .08 | .09 | .02 | .19 | −.01 | .32 | .33 | −.04 | .17 |
|
−.03 |
|
.06 | −.06 |
|
.17 | −.23 | −.04 | 1 |
21 | Transcendence | −.20 | .15 | .13 | .29 | .12 | .08 | .13 | .13 | −.001 | .33 |
|
.22 | .12 | −.16 | .09 |
|
|
−.16 | .13 |
|
In the second constellation, increased nature connection is associated with decreased perceived stress. The associated changes in perceived stress and relaxation are each related to increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions, although the emotional poles are not strongly associated with each other. Elevation of self-esteem is also associated with improvement in positive emotions.
While quantitative assessment of social well-being showed no significant change (
Making friends was enhanced by spending time together, listening to each other, developing intimacy, and breaking social expectations. Quotes around making friends included “everyone has a marvelous story to tell… be patient and listen” and “everyone is like - really different and really accepting of everything each other does - which is really different from home where we have little cliques.” Another stated, “I hugged a lot of people this summer.” One person summed it up with, “You have friends you will keep for a long time.”
Being part of a group included subthemes of a sense of community, engaging in group play, absence of privacy, working together as a team, and the bonding effect of shared experiences. Exemplar quotes included “… [The] community that forms here is remarkable.” The group play was highlighted with, “We lay out on the green and just play cards and then, at night, we just sit on the benches and talk.” Teamwork and the bonding of the team was further explained, “Always a team effort.” “Our crew was really well bonded. We knew each other. We knew all of our strengths and weaknesses… We knew what we should not do around others to make them get ticked off at you.” Another commented on the benefit of “having comrades in your excitement and discomfort.” Ultimately this built a sense of belonging “because you feel like you belong somewhere, you feel like this is where you’re supposed to be and self-esteem has gone up.”
The natural environment specifically enhanced the processes of making friends and being part of a group through loss of ego and vanity, breaking down barriers, and limited distractions. This facilitated deeper relationships than would occur in urban surroundings and afforded social relatedness, positive feelings, and a sense of interdependence with others. Some quotes supporting how nature particularly influenced their social experiences included “you’re outside. You’re cut off so it’s a lot easier to get to know people”; “the space forces us to grow closer… the type of space we’re doing it in forces us to do it together”; “our connections that we made outside were much deeper than the ones made in an urban setting”; and “I think [being in wilderness] made me more outgoing and less worried about things like what I’m wearing - I do not care anymore - how I look. I think it makes my priorities different.” A final comment reflected on the priority of human interaction over technological interaction: “to look to people first before…Google.”
Being in the natural environment, away from the usual urban setting with its distractions (e.g., continuous internet access), provided a space for human-to-human interaction, allowing friendship to grow. The challenges of being in the wilderness fostered teamwork, enhancing the sense of community. The young people in this camp appear to have made deep and lasting connections and began to feel like they truly belonged.
Findings demonstrate the change in relationship to nature that an immersion experience in wilderness can provide while also delineating elements of well-being that can be affected during time spent in nature.
Measuring multiple aspects of the experience of and relationship with nature can begin to parse what may be needed to address “nature-deficit disorder.” Prior to camp, our study participants’ nature connection scores were similar to other early college-aged math, chemistry, or psychology students [
Through incorporation of multiple measures of well-being, we were able to identify the holistic health benefits associated with a nature immersion experience: more relaxation, less perceived stress, improved emotional states, and more experience of spiritual well-being. The exploratory correlations illustrate a link between nature connection and perceived stress which itself was associated with relaxation and both positive and negative emotions. Our own correlational finding are similar to Howell et al., who studied young college students and found that nature connection correlates with mindful awareness [
Nature’s effects on spiritual well-being have been previously explored qualitatively [
Surprisingly, no significant change was found on the quantitative assessment of social well-being. Yet the importance of spending time with friends was ranked highly and social relationships were clearly emphasized in the interviews, including the process of making friends, the value of being part of a group, and the wilderness environment’s facilitative role in making those connections. This pattern of findings parallels those of researchers investigating group walks in nature whereby quantitative measures show no effect on social well-being [
The inferences that can be drawn from this study are limited by the small sample size and by the lack of a control group. The 78% response rate for the postquestionnaire is not as robust as might be hoped, although there were no differences between responders and nonresponders. We did not collect complete socioeconomic data, as that was felt to be intrusive to the participants, so analysis of that type of data as a predictor of effect could not be done. Our well-being results could have been confounded by the reduced electromagnetic radiation within the US Radio Quiet Zone; however, the lack of cell phone connectivity outside the camp may have facilitated greater connection with nature and others present in the camp which we would identify as a strength of the study. We also need to be cautious about interpretation given multiple outcome measures. Since this was conceived as a pilot study, exploration of multiple measures was purposeful, allowing us to parse various parts of nature exposure, nature connection, and human well-being. Moreover, an appropriate control group, such as participants in a residential urban educational and recreational program, could strengthen the claim of the association of nature contact with the improvement in wellbeing experienced. We also are aware that physical activity was measured with a single item that did not provide details about the duration and intensity of exercise which might have revealed a change while in the camp setting. Finally, our ability to detect or measure change in the putative “nature-deficit disorder” is hampered by the lack of diagnostic criteria and a suitable measure. Lower scores on the nature-related measures are, at best, only approximations of disconnection with nature.
The exploratory correlations found here suggest relationships that could be assessed in future larger-scale studies. One might hypothesize, for example, that acquiring nature-related skills supports a greater sense of safety in nature, which then allows a greater emotional attachment to and a greater sense of personal identity from nature. Another hypothesis could be that, for those with better relationships with others, the addition of nature-based skills enables them to have the capacity to lead in a natural environment. Additionally, the relationship of nature connection to the central construct of perceived stress, which is itself related to relaxation, more positive emotions, and less negative emotions, would be interesting to explore further in this type of setting. Further, development of a scale to measure “nature disconnection” or “nature-deficit disorder” would help refine the assessment of whether this negatively phrased concept is meaningful in the discourse around nature contact and human well-being.
Further work is also required to explore the effect of nature on social well-being. In this study, qualitative findings support the idea that nature experiences enhance social well-being among young adults. The lack of corresponding evidence from quantitative measures—here and in other studies—suggests that the construct is perhaps poorly measured by existing instruments. Our interview findings could inform development of a measure of social well-being for use in nature settings among youth. Such a measure could be used and tested in further research into the effects of nature-based therapies on young people’s well-being.
Future work in the above areas could be pursued through surveying NYSC camper and staff alumni or by extending the study to other camp settings including those for youth with health conditions and youth camps in other countries.
Our work provides an exploration of the youth nature camp experience and its effects on health and well-being. Nature immersion in a camp setting positively affected the participants’ relationship with nature; increased relaxation along with decreased perceived stress; increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions; increased sense of wholeness and experience of transcendence; and enhanced social interaction. This research supports the holistic health value of being in a natural environment. In an increasingly urbanized world with reduced opportunities for interaction with nature, the role of wilderness camps to provide the acquisition of nature-based skills that facilitate a deeper attachment to nature is more important than ever. Connection to nature appears to be associated with reduced stress and greater holistic health and well-being, thus counteracting the risk of untoward effects from “nature-deficit disorder.” Young people with this type of immersive nature experience will be needed to provide leadership in envisioning and shaping a healthy and sustainable world for the future.
Nature-deficit disorder
National Youth Science Camp.
Ashley A. DeHudy was a staff member at NYSC during the conduct of this study. The remaining authors have no financial relationships relevant to this paper to disclose.
The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.
Sara L. Warber conceptualized and designed the study, provided guidance for data collection and analysis, led the qualitative analysis by a medical anthropology student team, and developed the final paper. Ashley A. DeHudy conceptualized and designed the study and managed and carried out the data collection and initial analysis. Matthew F. Bialko conducted analyses of questionnaire data, contributed to the development of the initial paper, and provided tables of results. Melissa R. Marselle conducted the preliminary analysis of interview transcripts. Katherine N. Irvine conceptualized and designed the study, provided guidance for data collection and analysis, confirmed the quantitative analysis, and developed the final paper. All authors approved the final paper as submitted.
The authors wish to thank Lauren Kane and Daniel Wang for their contribution to the qualitative analysis and Beth Ragle for paper proofing and formatting. Funding for Dr. A. A. DeHudy was provided by the University of Michigan Student Biomedical Research Program. Dr. K. N. Irvine was supported by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS).