Barriers to nature engagement in young people

2021-03-23T12:19:03Z

CPrice:

=== Why young people are not engaging with nature ===

However, despite the strong evidence base and logistical arguments for why nature is a good solution to help boost wellbeing in Surrey, young people in the county, and all over England, are not taking advantage of this valuable resource. In fact, their engagement with the outdoors is decreasing. This is concerning, as it means that many youths are suffering, despite easy solutions that would help to reduce it. The following section discusses key reasons why young people are not accessing nature anymore, in the hope of highlighting areas of focus for efforts that aim to increase usage and harness the natural environment for the wellbeing of the younger members of society.

=== Young People are Accessing Nature Less ===

Generally, in the UK, data has suggested that as children enter adolescence, their scores on the nature connectedness index (NCI), a tool used to measure the “affective, cognitive and experiential factors related to our belonging to the natural world” (Richardson et al., 2019, p. 2), drops precipitously. The pattern can clearly be seen in Figure 8, in which NCI scores decrease from the age of 7, at a mean of 64, to at least 15, when it has fallen to 47. Although it then begins to increase slightly from 16-18 years old, it doesn’t return to previous levels until ages 31-40, at which an average of 63 is scored. Feeling connected to nature is positively correlated with the amount of exposure one has to natural environments, particularly as a child (Pensini et al., 2016) which suggests that the low scores may represent a nature deficit. Developmental changes associated with becoming an adult, such as a re-evaluation of the self and ones goals or beliefs, or situational factors like moving to a new school have all been recognised as possible explanations (Richardson et al., 2019). Connection to nature has also been positively correlated with subjective wellbeing and happiness in both children and adults (Piccininni et al., 2018; Wood & Smyth, 2019; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014), so this considerable reduction in NCI for young people is concerning.

[[File:Nature_connection_index.png|link=File:Nature_connection_index.png]]

Figure 8. Mean NCI scores across the lifespan. N=3919, data from MENE report. Reprinted from A measure of nature connectedness for children and adults: validation, performance, and insights (p. 7) by Richardson et al., 2019: Sustainability.

Another potential influence on the drop in NCI scores is the current “technology focussed 
generation” in which nature is not considered immediately relevant (Richardson et al., 2019, p. 13). It also likely partly explains the reductions in outdoor usage seen in children under the age of 16 over the past six years (Figure 9). The results of a government survey (Natural England, 2019) revealed that in 2013/14, 78% respondents under 16 years old accessed the outdoors with adults. The number then decreased, fluctuating slightly between 2014 and 2018, before dropping to a value of 72% in 2018/19. A similar pattern is seen for time spent outside without adults, which has declined steadily from 22% in 2013/14 to 17% in 2018/19.

[[File:Spending_time_outdoors.png|515px|link=File:Spending_time_outdoors.png]]

Figure 9. Children spending time outside with and without adults. Data collected from surveys conducted every year from 2013/14 until 2018/19. Survey question asked about whether time was spent in nature the previous month. Reprinted from Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: Children and young people report (p . 7) by Natural England, 2019, London: Natural England.

These reductions in outdoor usage are more extreme in teenagers, as, although the amount of time spent playing outside with friends has remained the same for 6-9 year olds since 2013/14, the percentage of 10-12 year old who do so has dropped from 26% to 15%. The same pattern is observed in those aged 13 to 15, in which a decrease of 8% (from 38% to 30%) occurred over this time frame (Natural England, 2019). Although Surrey is the most wooded county in the UK (Surrey County Council, 2008) and home to the Surrey Hills AONB, a recent report suggests that this is not a relevant selling point for young people. The data showed that between 2009 and 2019, 29% adults aged 25-44 visited an AONB compared to only 9% of those aged 16-24 (Natural England, 2019). 
Additionally, only 7% of young people in this age range in Surrey access open space for exercise or health reasons compared to the national average of 25% (Community Foundation for Surrey). It highlights that we need to focus our efforts on advertising what is available in Surrey, and how it can help, to increase usage in young people, as the disconnection to the natural environment in the county may be even more extreme than in other areas (Community Foundation for Surrey, 2017).

=== Barriers to Young People Accessing Nature ===

The behaviours of parents have a significant influence on those of children and young people, as demonstrated in a recent report. The data shows for children under 16 that live with adults who visit nature weekly or more, 80% did the same. In contrast, if adults visited nature less than once a month, the majority (61%) of children also showed this infrequency (Natural England, 2019). Accordingly, Stephanie Thorlby, from Sayers Croft, mentions the importance of educating parents about the advantages of accessing the outdoors, so they can encourage it in their children. Rob Squirrell, also from Sayers Croft, concurs, emphasising that it is not only relevant for children and young people who live in urban areas. He explains how “there are many children locally whose 
parents don’t take them outside at the weekends, and they get home from school and are glued to a screen. They are just as nature-deprived as inner city kids.”

=== Parent perceptions and restrictions ===

Parental fears about nature, which are highly influential and potentially restrictive (Munoz, 2009), play a large role in preventing them encouraging their kids to go outside. Particularly as many hold the belief that society is more dangerous now than when they were younger, meaning they often feel the need to enforce several rules about where their children can go unsupervised (Tandy, 1999). For example, one survey found that 42% of children aged 7-16 were not allowed to go to a local park without being accompanied by their parent (Playday, 2007). Jake Curtis, Deputy CEO of Jamie’s Farm, describes how there is “a huge amount of fear surrounding safeguarding of children”, which 
prevents parents feeling comfortable even in letting them attend unknown areas with youth workers. As a result, “young people are less likely to be allowed to go off and enjoy nature”. The concept of “stranger danger”, the fear of others in society harming their children, has been cited as the greatest parental concern. The large publicization of certain distressing instances in which children have been abducted or abused heavily contribute to these worries. They make unfavourable situations seem much more common than they really are, when in reality, for example, a child is more at risk of sexual abuse in their own home than outside (Moss, 2012). As a result, parents are likely to take extreme measures to avoid the worst, increasingly constraining their children’s freedom. Another topic of apprehension for parents, traffic dangers, also prompts many to insist on only allowing outside play when a suitable adult is around to accompany them (Playday, 2007).

This pattern of constant supervision is largely restrictive (Moss, 2012), especially considering the increasingly busy lives of parents. For example, an international study found that although 73% parents surveyed said their children would prefer to play outside if given the choice, only 58% did in their free time, with 72% watching TV instead (Singer, Singer, D’Agostino & DeLong, 2009). Jake Curtis describes how this is amplified for children living in inner-city environments, where countryside access is limited. Parents often don’t want their children going outside alone, as it is considered dangerous, but due to work commitments, they usually cannot dedicate much time to supervising them. However, Stephanie Thorlby notes that even in rural areas, the busyness of parents restricts access with nature, which takes a toll on their engagement with the natural world. Beverley Cook, founder of Huckleberries nurture farm, agrees, stating that one of the main reasons that children who attend her service are disconnected from nature is because “the parents are hugely busy”. She says it is particularly true when they “don’t see the benefits of nature” themselves, so don’t feel the need to make time for it. 
Despite the fact that parent rules are usually made with the “best of intentions” (Louv, 2005, p. 115), this overprotective culture has been criticised as encouraging a “zero risk childhood” (Gill, 2012). Karsten (2005) describes how modern children are an “indoor/backseat generation”, in which parents are always with them. It means the majority of experiences of the outdoors are seen on electronic screens, or through the window of a car. A recent article by Child in the City, an independent foundation working to improve the rights and wellbeing of children in Europe, describes how “this risk averse culture is actually harming kids rather than protecting them as it is contributing to them having a far more coddled childhood, leading to a lack of independence later in life” (Kennedy, 2018). Similarly, the former Chair of the UK Health and Safety Executive suggests it is detrimental to children’s “preparation for adult life” (Bunyan, 2011).

In order to address the issue of disengagement with nature, organisations must be “responsive to the psychological and practical barriers that prevent people from benefitting from and contributing positively to their natural environment” (Natural England, 2014, p. 65). Several obstacles have been highlighted as significant. For example, Mark Sears, Chief Wild Officer at The Wild Network, told the Guardian that “parental fear, reduction of play time in schools and lack of green space” are all key issues (Leach, 2018). In addition, cost of outdoor activities and lack of time have been identified as contributing factors (Outdoor Nation, 2010). More detailed explanations of the reasons for the decline in nature engagement in young people are discussed below.

=== The expectations of society ===

Louv (2008) notes that young peoples’ lives are becoming busier and more structured, which facilitates the transition from direct experiences of nature, to indirect experiences, such as via media. Alison Greenwood, CEO of Dose of Nature, agrees with this concept, explaining how increasing pressures put on younger generations are having a detrimental influence on engaging with the outdoors. She says young people “are expected to do as much as they can, as quickly as possible”. Nature is thus neglected because “it is slow, and always there”, so they don’t think they’re achieving anything when they are in it, and it becomes less of a priority. According to a survey conducted by Outdoor Nation, responses to a question asking why young people don’t spend time outside included “pressures for success and doing well in school, and the increasing load of homework at a young age compete for time outside” and that “an increasingly stressful and pressure-filled environment to perform well in school and your career also leads to a skewed perception of how valuable time is spent” (Outdoor Nation, 2010, p. 10).

However, even if young people made the time to go outside, the subtle influence of social norms also significantly limits their engagement with the natural environment. According to Alison Greenwood, young people have been taught to avoid it. Strict rules like “stay off the grass” and “stick to the path” constrain the amount of direct exposure young people have with such nature, and they get used to viewing it from a distance. Dr William Bird (MBE) described in an interview for Outdoor Nation how “‘What we’ve done is we’ve put Nature over there – we’ve put a fence around it and said, ‘That’s Nature’ – this is why we’re now strangers to each other” (Moss, 2012). Stephanie Thorlby elaborates on the significance of these rules, suggesting they even produce a type of fear. For example, she recalls instances of children that have come to her nature activity sessions and are scared of standing on wet grass because they have been taught to avoid it. She therefore 
emphasises that “we need to encourage children that it is OK to stand on wet grass or go off the path”. Enforcing multiple rules about how to engage with nature also translates the experience from “spontaneous” to “organised”, which puts people off if they think that “they need special skills and equipment to take part” (Moss, 2012, p. 17). This is likely to be an even greater deterrent for the vulnerable members of society, such as those with low socio-economic status, or disabilities. Moreover, Alison Greenwood explains how society has “turned their back on nature” and migrated indoors. It is now “set-up in a way that allows us to access everything we need inside, almost instantaneously”. The inventions of heating and air conditioning create the ideal indoor environment, so people become less tolerant to any variation, such as high/low temperatures, or wind and rain. “The practicalities and biases about when it is appropriate to be outside severely restricts our usage of nature” says Alison. Being in the comfort of home is also considered “safe”, which means young people are less likely to venture away from the security (Harden, 2000). It largely explains why we now spend an average of 90% of our time indoors (Playle, 2018). The acceptance of an inside existence also means that spending time outside is considered to be “abnormal” (Moss, 2012). This is especially relevant for populations of young people, who are trying to establish their place in the world and fit in (Crosnoe, 2011), acting as a large deterrent for engaging with the natural environment.

=== Lack of knowledge and fear of the unknown ===

In addition, the result of parent regulations and social norms mean the outdoors represents the unknown for many young people. Members of the Leatherhead Youth Project describe how this unfamiliarity “is unknown and seems scary”, producing feelings of fear or anxiety. This is, in part, due to the large lack of knowledge about the natural world, which Herbet (2009) has referred to as a “generational amnesia”. Rob Squirrell adds that “even in leafy Surrey there are many children who don’t know enough about the outdoors”. In order to rectify this, LYP believe that young people “need to be taught how to access it, and the benefits it can provide”. For example, they explain that if a young person is dealing with difficult emotions, they should know that they can “go for a run or throw a stick and let out all this negativity. You can deal with it in many more ways that you can’t do indoors”.

LYP also argues that teaching them activities they can do in the outdoors will make them much less likely to act antisocially, with drugs or knives. However, they need someone to teach them “the basic knowledge and skills”, suggesting it should be “implemented within society and the education system”. One way they propose improvement is through “training youth leaders or teachers in outdoor engagement, so they can pass on this passion and excitement”. A similar argument has been made by Sir David Attenborough in the past, as he attempts to stress the importance of the younger generation learning about nature, so they feel more inclined to conserve it. He said “The wild world is becoming so remote to children that they miss out… and an interest in the natural world doesn’t grow as it should. Nobody is going to protect the natural world unless they understand it” (Colwell, 2019).

The lack of knowledge is especially relevant within the context of black and ethnic minority communities, of which are least likely to access and utilise the natural environment. For example, Figure 10 shows that whereas 70% White children spent time outside at least once a week, only 56% Black, Asian or minority ethnic background did so. This may be, in part, due to the cultural associations of the “great outdoors”, which has been “closely tied to a ‘white British’ identity”. These connotations mean that anybody who isn’t white British can often feel unwelcome (Pitt, 2016). A Guardian article collating the opinions of well-known ethnic minority individuals revealed this same 
argument. Kwame Kwei-Armah, a playwright, described how “Most people from the black community felt they were not in the same social class as the stereotype of the affluent country squire”, suggesting that they didn’t feel they belonged in the countryside. Additionally, because of the barriers preventing ethnic minorities accessing the natural environment, when they do, it often leads to staring and comments about their race. For example, Shaks Ghosh, Chief Executive of homeless charity Crisis, mentioned “I do feel different – people turn around and look at me’, where the author Andrea Levy describes how “when I see another black person in the countryside I do a double take and we look at each other out of shock” (Prasad, 2004). It demonstrates how the culture of the great outdoors is so closely linked in with a specific identity that it is largely preventing others from feeling comfortable in using it, and efforts need to be made to ensure greater inclusivity.

[[File:Ethnicity_chart.png|link=File:Ethnicity_chart.png]]

Figure 10. Percentage of children under 16 years old spending time outside at least once a week by ethnicity. Data collected from a survey conducted over 2018/19. Black, Asian and White ethnicities were included. Reprinted from Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: Children and young people report (p . 15) by Natural England, 2019, London: Natural England.

In addition, an early study (Ghodiwala, Gough, Johnson & Samat, 1993) suggested that the views of the English countryside of first generation migrants were “limited and mainly negative”, assuming it would be “dull, boring, grey, foggy and cold” (Natural England, 2005, p.17). On top of this, due to cultural differences in their home land, migrants often associate the countryside with “hard labour rather than leisure” or “unpredictable and dangerous things” (Natural England, 2005, p. 18). Hanif Kureishi, playwright, film maker and novelist, also describes how “it is totally ridiculous for middle- class Indians to walk”, due the strong connotations with peasantry (Prasad, 2004). We know that parent ideas about the natural environment have a significant influence on child usage (Natural England, 2019). So, even if ethnic minority children are second or third generation immigrants, cultural beliefs of their parents or grandparents are still likely to influence their behaviour. Proposals have been made for greater awareness of accessible natural areas, and what to expect once you arrive there. In addition, better education for ethnic minorities as to what is a socially acceptable way to utilise these resources is a recommended solution to increase the currently limited confidence they have in visiting these places (Askins, 2004).

=== Accessibility restraints ===

Another key barrier preventing access to nature is socio-economic status. Often, areas of deprivation have less local green space than those of greater wealth (CABE, 2010). This is concerning as it is individuals living in these areas who often cannot afford to travel further from home to access the natural environment. Consequently, a large disconnect from the natural world is observed in those with lower socio-economic status. For example, 81% of the least deprived children (as assessed using the Index of Multiple Deprivation) under the age of 16 access the natural environment at least 
 
weekly, where only 61% in the most deprived areas do so (Figure 11). The children with lower socio- economic status were also more likely to access urban green areas (62%) as opposed to the countryside (30%; Natural England, 2019). Surrey is fortunate enough to be described as a “pleasant rural environment” ("Explore the Surrey Countryside - Visit Surrey", n.d.) which means it is more likely there are local areas of nature to enjoy. However, pockets of deprivation in which there is limited green space do exist, which need to be identified. In addition, measures should be taken to help young people that are unaware of nearby nature through spreading awareness and providing practical support (such as funding or transport opportunities) to do so.

[[File:Weekly nature access.png]]

Figure 11. Percentage of children spending time outside at least once a week by Index of Multiple Deprivation. Data collected from a survey conducted over 2018/19. Adapted from Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: Children and young people report (p . 14) by Natural England, 2019, London: Natural England.

Various types of disability also present added challenges regarding access to nature. A report by Natural England in 2008 revealed that, although much improvement has been made since the Disability Discrimination act in 1995, many natural areas are inaccessible due to additional needs. Improvements such as flattening pathways, providing ramps, wooden seats, handrails and steps, widening footpath bridges and making gates easier to open (especially one-handed) were all cited as necessary to increase the number of disabled individuals accessing nature (Natural England, 2008). In addition, greater support and awareness needs to be raised to educate disabled individuals to the benefits of the countryside. For example, a recent paper suggested that parents of those with autism worry about “inappropriate behaviour, safety issues, phobias, social concerns and others” which often stop them bringing their child into the outdoors (Li et al., 2019). However, whether an individual has a physical or mental disability, nature has been shown to boost wellbeing (Natural England, 2008), as well as help young people to learn, interact and develop in an inclusive environment (Inclusive Play, 2018). It is therefore important to educate disabled individuals and their families to these advantages and provide opportunities in which they can see for themselves, such as by implementing nature-based engagement into specialised youth clubs.

=== What do young people want? ===

Furthermore, the range of activities may not broad enough to appeal to many young people. Surrey Youth Focus reported that in particular, underrepresented groups are more interested in taking part in non-mainstream activities (Surrey Youth Focus, 2018). Perhaps, if young people had more options as to what they could get involved with, or a greater awareness of what currently exists, they would be more inclined to utilise these natural environments. LYP stresses that training youth leaders would show young people what they can access and help to solve this problem. Alongside this, sessions that are targeted at particular cultures or religions are needed, to cater for specific needs in the young population (Surrey Youth Focus, 2018). 
In addition, some attempts to engage young people in solutions aimed to boost mental health have been criticised as being detached from their views and opinions. A report conducted by Surrey Youth Focus in partnership with Healthwatch Surrey, explained how young people often feel that initiatives aimed to improve their wellbeing are “done ‘to’ them rather than ‘with’ them”. The lack of empowerment means they often feel excluded from the process or like they are part of the issue (Surrey Youth Focus & Healthwatch Surrey, 2018, p. 6). According to Gary Evans, CEO of The Forest Bathing Institute, to increase outdoor engagement in young people, they “need to have more control over how they use nature”. He also adds that “it is a great way of learning” if they are given some freedom in how they want to engage.

=== Technology and social media ===

The increase in social media usage, especially amongst young people, has been linked to the reductions in time spent in the outdoors (Louv, 2009). A national kids survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service from 2007 to 2009 found that whereas 81.5% children and young people aged 6-19 who didn’t own a computer spent over 2 hours outside on weekends, only 68.6% of those with a computer did so. In addition, when asked why children don’t go outside anymore, 48.1% said it was because they were interested in video games, DVDs and TVs, with 47.8% suggesting it was due to an interest in the internet and sending texts etc. This is in comparison to the 20.7% respondents who cited transportation as the main barrier, with 12.9% saying it wasn’t safe enough outside (Larson, Green & Cordell, 2011). Although this report was conducted several years ago, it shows how, even then, technology was taking up a considerable proportion of young people’s free time and acted as a key barrier to nature access. Additionally, with statistics indicating how worldwide social media use has increased by 9% since only 2018 (Chaffey, 2019), the issue is likely to be even more exaggerated today.

For example, nowadays, the average internet user spends six hours on a device daily (Kemp, 2018), and over 24% of 15-year olds spend more than this amount of time online every day outside of school hours (OECD, 2017). Much of this is social media use, and according to the Office for National Statistics, over three months in 2017, 96% of individuals aged 16-24 admitted to having accessed social media at least once (ONS, 2017). The more time young people spend on their devices and online, the less time they have available to spend outside. Worryingly, Rob Squirrell references the recent news headlines that have revealed just how addictive gaming is, which encourages young people to play more and more. The contrast to the outdoors which is “a much slower pace, with far fewer instant rewards” means that it is rarely chosen above the new technologies that are designed to increase consumption. Beverley Cook describes how this affects young peoples “ability to ponder. If they’re bored they instantly pick up a phone, computer or iPad, and their boredom goes away. We don’t give our children nowadays the chance to be bored, and the opportunity to make their own entertainment. They lose the ability to be creative and do this”.

Extract from 'Into the Wild' restoring young minds in the Surrey Hills, a [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Report report] by Genevieve Lebus. [https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Into-the-Wild-report-by-Genevieve-Lebus.pdf Click here to read the full report.]

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

File:Weekly nature access.png

2021-03-23T12:15:26Z

CPrice:

Barriers to nature engagement in young people

2021-03-23T12:12:45Z

AONB directory

2021-03-23T11:43:28Z

CPrice:

How nature can be used to improve wellbeing

2021-03-23T11:41:19Z

CPrice:

=== Nature’s Potential ===

It is evident from the data presented in this report that Surrey is not exempt from many of the social or health-related difficulties plaguing the younger members of today’s society, such as mental health and weight problems or specific challenges associated with the most vulnerable. Utilising the outdoors and engaging with nature has the potential to reduce the negative impact of several of these difficulties. Among other advantages, it has been linked to reductions in obesity and related diseases (like heart disease and diabetes), vitamin D deficiency, high blood pressure, and the symptoms of ADHD, asthma, eye problems like myopia, and chronic pain (McCurdy, Winterbottom, Mehta, & Roberts, 2010). In addition, we know from part two of this report that nature can positively impact psychological wellbeing, by acting as a buffer for mental distress and inducing a sense of relaxation (Barton & Rogerson, 2017; Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001) as well as improving resiliency and the ability to cope with problems (Dobud, 2016; Ginsburg, 2007). The natural environment was also deemed useful in improving mood and self-esteem and reducing symptoms of mental health diagnoses such as depression and anxiety (Barton & Pretty, 2010; Dobud, 2016; Song et al., 2019). It therefore makes sense to utilise nature in addressing some of the key problems of mental health and wellbeing in Surrey.

=== Why Surrey would benefit from increased nature engagement ===

=== The Surrey Hills ===

A significant reason we should be focussing our efforts on bringing young people into nature is that it is right on our doorstep. Inhabitants of Surrey are fortunate enough to have access to the Surrey Hills, an AONB which stretches across a quarter of the county ("What is an AONB? | Surrey Hills", 2019). The Surrey Hills AONB organisation describes it as an “attractive landscape mosaic of 
farmland, woodland, heaths, downs and commons” ("Vision For Surrey Hills | Surrey Hills", 2019). Accessibility is a key barrier to young people engaging with the outdoors (UCL Institute of Health Equity, 2014), so the abundance of wild nature within arms-reach makes it much more feasible for outdoor-based initiatives to be successful. It also has the potential to create sustainable long-term benefits through developing healthy habits and encouraging greater personal usage of local environments in the future.

=== Surrey’s vulnerable populations ===

In addition, nature has the potential to reduce several types of disadvantage affecting local residents, whilst preventing further problems from developing. This is because it has been shown to improve overall wellbeing of the population, whilst providing added benefits for vulnerable populations, for whom the advantages seem to be amplified. For example, those with stress related illnesses respond more favourably and intensely to exposure to outdoor environments (Piccininni et al., 2018). In addition, individuals with lower mental health show larger benefits in mental wellbeing and self-esteem than those with higher psychological health after exposure to natural environments. These boosts have been observed after both long-term changes such as increases in local green space, or through a short-term exposure of green exercise or nature interaction (Barton & Pretty, 2010; Berman et al., 2008; Berman et al., 2012; Weimann et al., 2015). Likewise, some of the 
 
recommendations for how to reduce self-harming behaviours included going outside, “informal social networks” and “structured group activities” (Fortune et al., 2008, p. 1; "How butterflies can help prevent self-harm", 2015) suggesting how nature can be directly relevant to recovery. 
Regarding neurodevelopmental disorders, nature is another potential solution. It is highly relevant to Surrey in particular, as the growing number of ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) individuals can benefit from the natural world. Young people with autism have shown positive responses to nature, such as improvements in good social behaviours like talking, looking at faces and laughing (O'Haire, McKenzie, Beck, & Slaughter, 2013). In addition, it encourages better emotional control and positive affect, sensorimotor engagement and socialisation (Li et al., 2019). Similarly, those with ADHD benefit from green space, with higher residential greenness or tree cover linked to reductions in the symptoms of hyperactivity or inattention (Amoly et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2001). 
Concerning specific populations in Surrey, such as young carers, nature interventions seem a great way to meet a lot of their immediate needs. The Surrey Young Carer’s Health Survey (2013) reports that the top five priorities that young carers believe will help improve their wellbeing are: 
• Peer support from other young carers 
• Carer breaks 
• More time for social and/or physical activities 
• Sometime to talk to 
• Organised activities (i.e. holidays)

The research suggesting that nature facilitates social interaction and inclusion (Greenwood & Gatersleben, 2016; James et al., 2016; Peschardt & Stigsdotter, 2013; Plane & Klodawsky, 2013; Ward Thompson et al., 2004) can help with two of these suggestions; peer support from other young carers and someone to talk to. Wells and Evans (2003) even suggests this improved sociability may act as a buffer for their stress. In addition, the evidence highlights how the natural environment can be utilised to increase physical activity levels (Ambrey, 2016a, 2016b; Bjork et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2017; James et al., 2016), especially in young people (Almanza et al., 2012). It represents an accessible location which improves adherence to nature-based activities (The Wildlife Trust).

Although it cannot create more free time for young carers, it does provide the opportunity for more “physical activity” and “organised activities”. Finally, nature is hugely restorative, and allows individuals to escape their everyday life, which helps young carers have a “break”. The concept of positive distraction encourages people to focus on things other than their stressors, which creates a sense of being away (Gonzalez et al., 2010; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; S. Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). Furthermore, those who live in poverty or have low socio-economic status have shown greater change in both physical and mental health after being exposed to natural environments, and also rate these areas as the most meaningful for improving quality of life (Plane & Klodawsky, 2013; Twohig-Bennett & Jones, 2018). For example, green spaces have been shown to reduce depressive symptoms in pregnant women, especially for those considered economically deprived (McEachan et al., 2016). The psychological benefits may even be amplified in young deprived individuals (Munoz, 2009; Ward Thompson et al., 2006), alongside those who spend their days managing the home, the elderly, and the less educated. For example, in children of mothers with low levels of education, there was a negative correlation between distance from a city park and mental health (Balseviciene et al., 2014).

=== Income inequality ===

In addition, socio-economic inequality is a large problem in Surrey. This is often considered surprising due to its reputation as an affluent county, as many people are oblivious to the several areas that experience extreme deprivation and poverty (Community Foundation for Surrey, 2013). The inequalities are also potentially intensified due to the prevalence of knowledge economy in the area, which is higher than the national average (25% compared to 21% for the UK). It means that those who can afford to be educated well and have access to good academic opportunities are likely to succeed financially in the industry much more than those who are less educated or are income deprived (AECOM, 2017).

For example, one local area that demonstrates the large variation in income is Elmbridge, in which the pay gap in 2014 between the top and bottom earners was around £11,423 per annum higher than the average for the UK (Figure 7; New Economics Foundation, 2015).

[[File:Pay gap chart.png]]

Figure 7. The gap, in pounds, between the top 20% and bottom 20% of full-term gross annual earnings in the UK, compared to that of Elmbridge in Surrey. Reprinted from Inequality in Elmbridge by the New Economics Foundation. Retrieved from https://neweconomics.org/2015/11/inequality-in-elmbridge.

Income inequality has several potentially negative consequences, such as stunting long-term economic growth, increasing social unrest and political inequality, decreasing levels of health and reducing rates of good education (Birdsong, 2015). Of these, income-related health inequalities are a key and immediate concern as they are a “matter of life and death, of health and sickness, of well- being and misery” (Marmot, 2010). Reducing inequality should therefore be a focus within the context of improving wellbeing in Surrey.

Nature is regarded as an efficient means by which to reduce these health inequalities, due to its easy accessibility (especially within Surrey), low cost and permanence. It has been described as

“equigenic” (Barton & Rogerson, 2017), meaning it is useful for “reducing socioeconomic health inequalities, facilitating activity and promoting better mental health and well-being” (p. 81). For example, a large international study conducted using data from 34 European countries demonstrated how the difference in mental health between people with high and low financial strain was reduced by 40% for those who had good access to green, natural areas, compared to those who did not (Mitchell, Richardson, Shortt, & Pearce, 2015). The results validate the potential for nature to help narrow the inequality gap and reduce several health issues associated with it.

=== Nature deficit disorder and ill health in youth ===

Another reason we should be encouraging greater utilisation of local green space is due to the global change in lifestyles, of which Surrey is not exempt. This change, in which we are becoming detached from nature, has actually been named as a contributing factor in producing many mental and physical health problems. The Global Wellness Summit has argued that we are “bereft of nature” (2019, p. 51), linking to what Richard Louv (2005) has coined “Nature-Deficit Disorder”, a non-clinical term describing the state of being increasingly disconnected from the outdoors. He explains that the youth of today are the first generation to have grown up with technology, so their exposure to nature has suffered to a greater extent as a result. He also describes how many of the key issues facing the younger generation, such as mental health problems, ADHD and childhood obesity, can be accounted for, at least in part, by this change in lifestyle, which is negatively affecting young people as their brains are still developing. The rise in mental health problems in particular have been partly attributed to the lack of engagement with green space (The Natural History Museum, 2017). Nature- deficit disorder, which is increasingly being used in both scientific and layman domains, was named by the World Future Society in 2007 as one of the top 10 concepts that could impact and shape world health in the years to come. It emphasises the importance of reconnecting with nature to minimise the effects of many disorders, health problems and inconveniences that seem to have only recently become a serious problem within society (Louv, 2005).

=== Ecotherapy works ===

The concept of ecotherapy, albeit relatively new, has been increasing in popularity over the past two decades. The results from preliminary data sets testing these interventions have begun to emerge, and all suggest that nature interventions are beneficial for those who take part. A report by Mind and the University of Essex (2013) evaluated “ecominds”, an ecotherapy scheme designed to help those with mental health problems through the use of nature interventions. Above all else, the results suggested significant improvements in mental wellbeing and self-esteem for those who took part. For example, on average, participants improved their wellbeing scores by 17% and self-esteem by 11% from before and after treatment. In addition, 76% reported improvements in their mood. 
Mental wellbeing, self, esteem and low mood are all huge determinants of an individuals’ mental health. Therefore, the improvements in these areas have significant implications for treatment or prevention of disorders. In addition, an average of 10% improvement in social engagement was observed, with some individuals showing a change of almost 90%. General health also improved in 59% participants (University of Essex, 2013). The results are important because they demonstrate that increasing funding for these natural interventions are likely to pay off. Summarising statements of the report suggested “Ecotherapy initiatives have been proved not only to be successful at increasing mental wellbeing and building resilience but also to simultaneously produce other positive life outcomes; but there remains a lack of knowledge and acceptance among GPs (and other care providers)” as well as describing how “increasing support for a wide range of ecotherapy options for all sectors of society is also likely to produce substantial public health benefits and economic savings, and therefore should be promoted”.

Extract from 'Into the Wild' restoring young minds in the Surrey Hills, a report by Genevieve Lebus. [https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Into-the-Wild-report-by-Genevieve-Lebus.pdf Click here to read the full report.]

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

File:Pay gap chart.png

2021-03-23T11:34:04Z

CPrice:

How nature can be used to improve wellbeing

2021-03-23T11:31:04Z

CPrice: Created page with "=== Nature’s Potential === It is evident from the data presented in this report that Surrey is not exempt from many of the social or health-related difficulties plaguing the y..."

AONB directory

2021-03-18T16:56:50Z

CPrice:

Nature and Wellbeing: The Evidence

2021-03-18T16:54:43Z

CPrice:

= Nature And Wellbeing: The Evidence =

=== Discussing the benefits of nature, especially for young people ===

Nature has a significant positive impact on mental and physical wellbeing, and individuals’ health often suffers when they are deprived of it. This pattern is observed with all types of nature exposure, from direct engagement with the natural environment, to simply living within proximity to it. For example, studies have found that the prevalence of certain mental health disorders is higher in urban areas (Peen, Schoevers, Beekman, & Dekker, 2010; Vassos, Agerbo, Mors, & Pedersen, 2016). City living has also been associated with altered brain responses to stress (Lederbogen et al., 2011). Alternatively, when individuals move to a greener area, they have shown the opposite response, of improvements in mental wellbeing (Alcock, White, Wheeler, Fleming, & Depledge, 2014). Hartig et al. (2014) suggests these benefits occur in four key ways: through the quality of the air, via increases in exercise, by buffering the effects of stress and from boosting socialisation. It also improves the function of the immune system, which likely plays a role in the relationship between nature and health (M. Kuo, 2015). The Biophilia Hypothesis explains how it is the return to an environment that humans have developed to respond to in our past that fosters these enhancements in health. It explains that “the brain evolved in a biocentric world, not a machine- regulated world” (Kellert et al., 1993, p. 32) and thus maintains that engaging with nature is important as we are inclined to positively respond to it. Despite this, unfortunately more individuals are buying or renting homes away from nature, with statistics predicting that 68% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2050 (The United Nations, 2018). It demonstrates how little people are aware of the advantages of being near natural environments and has the potential to cause or contribute to an increased number of global health problems in the years to come.

=== How Nature Benefits Wellbeing ===

According to The New Economics Foundation (2008), the five ways to wellbeing are as follows: connect, be active, take notice, keep learning and give. They describe what we need to do to feel happiest in life, and in ourselves. The following section is a literature review that summarises and discusses important findings relating to how nature can facilitate several of these steps, and so has the potential to significantly improve individual wellbeing. For more information about the aims and methods of this data collection, see Appendix C.

=== Longevity ===

Several bodies of research have identified an association between living in natural environments and a longer life. For example, reductions in mortality for a large cohort were found to be correlated with living near green spaces in Ontario, Canada (Villeneuve et al., 2012). The same pattern was identified in a study of women in the United States of America. Increases in green areas were linked to higher physical activity, reduction in harmful exposures, and improvements in mental health and social engagements, which all contributed to reduced mortality (James, Hart, Banay, & Laden, 2016). Findings from a huge sample of 40 million people living in England also showed that all-cause mortality and socio-economic-based health inequalities are reduced in areas that are considered greener (R. Mitchell & Popham, 2008). It suggests the pattern is cross-culturally valid, as the same conclusions are made with populations all over the world. However, despite the concurrence in findings, all studies are based on correlations, which cannot infer causality, due to a number of potential extraneous variables that may influence results.

=== Increases in physical activity ===

One explanation for the association between green space and a longer life is the increase in physical activity with nearby nature (Ambrey, 2016a, 2016b; Bjork et al., 2008; Huang, Yang, Lu, Huang, & Yu, 2017). Exercise is important for physical and mental health, and people are more likely to adhere to their workout regime if it is outside. Natural environments are also considered “equigenic” and extremely accessible (Braubach et al., 2017). It is much cheaper and often easier to access than indoor classes, which likely contributes to reduced health inequalities, as both those with low and high socio-economic status can take advantage of it. Nature has also been suggested to amplify the benefits of exercise through lowering blood pressure and increasing blood flow, as well as mental advantages, such as improving creativity and reducing depression (Global Wellness Summit, 2017). A study by researchers at the University of Westminster on the “Green Gym” which specialises in outdoor nature-based exercise, showed that 3 hours a week of participation for 8 weeks led to reduced levels of stress, anxiety and depression, as well as 20-35% increase in cortisol awakening response, indicative of good health, cognition, and balance ("Trust me I'm a Doctor", 2017). Additionally, studies in England and Sweden have identified higher levels of subjective restoration, and reduced anxiety, anger and feelings of depression for participants who jogged in a natural environment, compared to those who did the same in a gym (Pretty et al., 2005; Bodin and Hartig, 2003). It suggests that natural environments have a holistic effect on wellbeing, through simultaneously encouraging physical exercise, and fostering boosts in mental wellbeing.

=== Positive mood and negative mood recovery ===

Furthermore, passive exposure to real or virtual natural scenes can also support recovery from negative mood (Alcock et al., 2014; Annerstedt & Wahrborg, 2011; Bell, Foley, Houghton, Maddrell, & Williams, 2018; Beute & de Kort, 2014; Beyer et al., 2014; Bratman, Hamilton, & Daily, 2012; Larson, Jennings, & Cloutier, 2016) and cognitive functioning (Berman et al., 2012; Bratman, Daily, Levy, & Gross, 2015). For example, studies have found that, in comparison to an urban environment, participants reported feeling more comfortable, soothed and refreshed, when viewing scenes of nature. State anxiety, as well as negative feelings of tension and fatigue were also reduced (Ikei, Song, Kagawa, & Miyazaki, 2014). Even simply observing a natural mural and sounds of nature have been linked to better pain control in patients recovering from a bronchoscopy in hospital (Diette et al., 2003). Research has explained how these restorative effects may occur due to the positive distraction of nature, which fosters mindfulness and creates the sense of being away (Gonzalez, Hartig, Patil, Martinsen, & Kirkevold, 2010; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich et al., 1991; University of Essex, 2015). As well as the reductions in negative mood states, increases in general happiness have been linked to green environments, compared to urban ones (Mackerron & Mourato, 2013). A meta-analysis has even demonstrated that brief contact with nature may suffice to increase positive affect (with large effect sizes) and reduce negative feelings (McMahan & Estes, 2015). In addition, a longitudinal study has suggested that feeling connected to nature may also encourage a future tendency for happiness, even when the individual is no longer in a natural environment (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). McMahan and Estes (2015) imply that this boost in positive affect may be linked to our evolution. They explain that positive emotions would have increased approach behaviours in natural environments, which heightens the chance of using the resources on offer for survival.

=== Stress recovery ===

Passive nature engagement, such as watching pictures or views through the window (Lee, Williams, Sargent, Williams, & Johnson, 2015) also benefit individuals by supporting recovery from stress and mental fatigue, more than such rest in a non-natural environment (Greenwood & Gatersleben, 2016). For example, a study in Denmark showed that participants with a high volume of green space within 3km of their home were not as physically and mentally affected by stressful life events than those with less nearby greenery (Van den Berg et al., 2010). This effect is even found simply with exposure to the smells of nature. A recent study linked diffusing essential oils in a hospital to the reduction in number of nursing staff experiencing high levels of work-related stress, from 41% to just 3% (Reynolds, Card, & Tomes, 2016). In addition, when participants of a study were exposed to a stressful and fearful video about industrial accidents, natural scenes significantly sped up mental recovery. Those who viewed water or parks after the video felt more positive and showed lower signs of stress (including blood pressure, muscle tension and heart rate) than those who observed urban scenes. They also returned to baseline brain measures within 5 minutes, in comparison to the “urban group” who were still recovering 10 minutes later (Ulrich et al., 1991). It demonstrates how natural scenery has a positive restorative influence, fostering the reduction of stressful and negative emotions. One suggestion for why this occurs involves the default mode network in the brain, which is active while we are at rest. When listening to sounds of nature, researchers recognised an “outward-directed focus of attention” (p. 8). In comparison, when listening to other, artificial sounds, the attention was focussed more inwards, which is also observed when we are experiencing anxiety, PTSD and depression (Gould van Praag et al., 2017). From a clinical perspective, a randomised controlled study also revealed that a prescription of a nature-based treatment in a wild forest arboretum for adults with stress-related illnesses led to similar reductions in healthcare usage as participants prescribed a stress-based CBT programme for the same duration. The nature intervention incorporated therapeutic practises with mindful engagement, nature-based reflection and gardening activities, and led to reduced GP visits and reductions in sick leave (Corazon, Nyed, Sidenius, Poulsen, & Stigsdotter, 2018). In addition, activities such as gardening have been shown to provide relief from severe stress (Van Den Berg & Custers, 2011). When discussing these benefits associated with engaging with natural environments, the concept of nature connectedness is an important consideration. Described by Shultz (2002) as “the extent to which an individual includes nature within his/her cognitive representation of the self” (p. 67), higher levels of connectedness are negatively associated with stress in adulthood, and linked to subjective wellbeing (Bragg, 2014). Ways to establish a beneficial connection include green exercise and childhood nature exposure, which are both named as key moderators (Wood & Smyth, 2019).

=== Increased connectedness ===

Another advantage of nearby nature is its ability to increase feelings of connectedness to the community and the place by providing communal, outdoor space (Baur & Tynon, 2010; Cleary, Fielding, Bell, Murray, & Roiko, 2017; Groenewegen, den Berg, de Vries, & Verheij, 2006; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998; Larson et al., 2016; Seaman, Jones, & Ellaway, 2010; The University of Essex, 2015; Zhang, van Dijk, Tang, & van den Berg, 2015). Green areas are an important place for social interaction among people of all ages (Greenwood & Gatersleben, 2016) which is linked to benefits for health and wellbeing (Munoz, 2009). Neighbourhoods in which more individuals live close to parks have been identified as showing higher “social capital” (Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2008), suggesting more interpersonal relationships, cooperation and shared norms or understanding. Likewise, research has concluded that the connectedness of forests is moderated through the feeling of “social inclusion” associated with these spaces (Ward Thompson et al., 2004).This finding is emphasised in a study of women living in supported housing in America, which found that nearby parks were considered one of the most important and meaningful places for improving their quality of life. When asked why this was the case, most of the women said they enjoyed the opportunity to interact with locals, and the possibility of free social events that facilitated this (Plane & Klodawsky, 2013).

=== Mental health and wellbeing ===

Similar to the boost in happiness, positive effects for mental wellbeing have been attributed to spending time in nature. For example, a study using phone data of Spanish, British, Dutch and Lithuanian participants found that contact with natural outdoor space was linked to better mental health (Triguero-Mas et al., 2017). Natural views in hospitals or prisons have also been shown to enhance wellbeing of individuals, both in the short and long term (The University of Essex, 2015). In addition, a recent five-year study involving over 1000 individuals who moved to a new house, revealed that in comparison to before the change, those who now lived in greener urban areas showed improvements in mental health, as measured using the General Health Questionnaire. The researchers controlled for several extraneous variables and benefits were seen for the three-year remainder of the study, suggesting they may be maintained over time (Alcock et al., 2014). However, the causality of this association needs to be verified, as other studies have indicated that the boosts to wellbeing could instead be due to changing life circumstances which influence the decision to move (Weimann et al., 2015). In addition, further research into the long-term implications (beyond 3 years) is required to determine the extent of the sustained benefits. Despite this, research has also found that individuals with lower mental wellbeing benefit even more from increases in local green space than others (Weimann et al., 2015). For example, a twin study found that individuals with greater access to green areas had lower levels of depression, even when comparing within twin pairs (Cohen-Cline, Turkheimer, & Duncan, 2015). In addition, participants with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) showed enhancements in cognitive processes (working memory), as well as increases in positive affect after interacting with nature for 50 minutes. These benefits were even suggested to be almost five times as large as in previous research employing healthy participants (Berman et al., 2008; Berman et al., 2012). It is therefore unsurprising that nature-based interventions for disadvantaged populations have often proven successful in enhancing wellbeing. Active nature engagement is especially beneficial, as the combination of spending time outside, alongside activities such as wilderness experiences, learning outdoor skills and green care, provide further support for the boost to health and wellbeing by allowing participants to feel a sense of confidence, purpose and meaning (Annerstedt & Wahrborg, 2011; Chiang, Li, & Jane, 2017; Cole & Hall, 2010; O'Brien, Burls, Townsend, & Ebden, 2011; Soulsbury & White, 2015). In addition, any endeavours designed to help the greater community (such as conservation) boosts social pride, and helps individuals feel like they are more connected to nearby environments, and the local community (The University of Essex, 2015). The ”Gateway to Nature” project is a key example, which provided free outdoor activities 2-3 times a week (such as gardening, walking, conservation and healthy cooking) for homeless or vulnerable people. A report measuring its impact revealed that 93% participants showed significant improvements to mental and physical health, and 85% said they had improved their life chances with the skills and opportunities for work. Also, 98% users said they enjoyed the activities and 91% felt they had increased their confidence, often from overcoming fear and isolation, or learning new skills, of which 98% reported doing. One participant commented “This was the first time I had been on a proper walk after 18 months of depression. It was great for my confidence and I enjoyed talking to people and learnt something about nature” (p. 6). Additionally, one referrer noted how there were “definite psychological improvements regarding mood and recognising own abilities” and that it was a “positive social experience for some who find social situations difficult at times” (Framework Housing Association, 2014, p. 7).

=== Cognition ===

There are a number of cognitive benefits that have been linked to spending time in nature. Being outdoors helps individuals learn more about the nearby ecology, and learn skills within this environment, which is good for both cognition and self-esteem (The University of Essex, 2015). Additionally, learning outside is associated with enhanced creativity, an improved respect for nature, and an opportunity to meet the needs of a larger range of learning styles (Council for Learning Outside the Classroom, 2009). For example, participants focussed much better on a Stroop task when they walked in a natural environment, compared to a built up one (Bailey, Allen, Herndon, & Demastus, 2018). The attention restoration theory suggests that the improvements in concentration are due to nature stimulating the mind in a gentle, bottom-up way. It contrasts to the dramatic, and draining form of attention that urban environments often demand, so allows our brain to relax (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008). The differences have also been observed in work environments, as LL.Bean reported that exposing workers to a pop-up outdoor office improved 74% individuals’ mood, lowered stress for 71% and made tasks like brainstorming easier (Global Wellness Summit, 2019). Additionally, a study at the University of Exeter showed that simply adding plants into an office caused a 15% increase in productivity as well as improving attention and wellbeing and reducing stress (University of Exeter, 2014). It demonstrates how nature can be utilised in a variety of different settings, to boost cognitive performance.

=== Nature and Young People ===

Regarding children and young people, increasing volumes of research support the concept that the outdoors is advantageous for them (Ashbullby, Pahl, Webley, & White, 2013; Brockman, Jago, & Fox, 2011; Christian et al., 2015; Greenwood & Gatersleben, 2016; Richardson, Pearce, Shortt, & Mitchell, 2017; Sugiyama et al., 2016; van den Berg & van den Berg, 2011; Wells & Evans, 2003). However, evidence is limited and there have been calls for more focus on the health benefits of nature engagement for youth (King & Church, 2013). Nevertheless, the following summarises research on how nature can influence young people’s wellbeing. An effort is made to compare different types of environment and exposure, as well as discuss how individual differences may affect how someone responds in a natural setting.

=== Type of environment ===

Research discussing the benefits of green space varies in its description of nature, from the deep wilderness, to urban greenery and city parks. Different types of natural environment have different restorative effects on individuals (Han, 2010), so it is important to consider the definition of nature that is used in each publication so we can compare and contrast, and potentially identify which is most effective. It is of particular importance within the context of children and young people, who learn through interacting with their environment, so the setting has a significant impact on what kind of benefit they derive from it (Wilson, 1997). For example, wilder, more natural settings provide an opportunity for exploration and discovery, which has been shown to increase curiosity, imaginative play and sustained attention (Dowdell, Gray, & Malone, 2011). In addition, Munoz argues that children and young people need an environment with a considerable number of natural elements in order for them to gain motor benefits, such as improvements in strength and coordination (Munoz, 2009). Features like “slopes and rocks” present children with “natural obstacles” that they need to learn to overcome (Fjørtoft, 2001, p.111) Research has also importantly discovered that these wild environments are, in fact, favoured by young people aged 10-14 (Elsley, 2004), which makes them more inclined to want to utilise them. However, beyond this, there is limited research that directly compares the quality of natural environments and their effects, especially in children. Some studies suggest that feelings of restoration in adults are not influenced by the type of nature, but instead on whether it is present (Van den Berg, Jorgensen, & Wilson, 2014). Others, however, argue that subjective restoration is always higher in wilder environments that are considered “social”, “serene” and “natural” (referring to the quality of nature, and the appearance of being “wild” and “untouched”; Peschardt & Stigsdotter, 2013). In addition, settings that are richer in biodiversity and plant species have been linked with greater psychological benefits (Fuller, Irvine, Devine-Wright, Warren, & Gaston, 2007), as well as exposure to wildlife, which produces a sense of awe and beneficial distraction (Curtin, 2009). A significant influence on the advantages derived from nature, that is generally agreed upon throughout existing literature, is the accessibility of natural space. For example, a systematic review revealed that children and young people under 18 years old are shown to have higher levels of confidence, cognitive development, academic achievement and emotional wellbeing, as well as improvements in social interactions, if they can easily access nature (McCormick, 2017). In addition, another review references that 17 of the studies evaluated that measured how accessible nature was, displayed a significantly positive link to mental health, with 13 displaying non-significant results (Tillmann, Tobin, Avison, & Gilliland, 2018). It is probably linked to the fact that nearby greenery is more likely to be utilised than any that is hard to reach, which would then allow the plethora of benefits that natural environments generate to be realised. Accordingly, a recent report revealed that 1.7 billion individuals in the UK access nature within one mile of their home, compared to 0.7 billion who go to a green space 3-5 miles away. Statistics also illustrate that most natural environments are reached on foot (64%), in comparison to by car (30%) or (3%) bike (Natural England, 2019). It shows how accessibility is a large factor in the decision to use a natural environment, and likely explains why 72% children under 16 access urban greenspace, compared to 35% who went into the countryside (Natural England, 2019). Therefore, although there is research that does suggest wilder environments may foster larger benefits, this is not always easy for young people to access. Any natural environment is better than none, so often the focus is on getting youth out into nature, no matter it’s type.

=== Type of engagement ===

Another large consideration are the types of engagement – that is, how the benefits differ depending on what an individual does in/with it. The following explains in greater detail the different effects of passive nature engagement (i.e. just being in nature) and active nature engagement (i.e. engaging with nature in an active way, such as through walking, playing or gardening).

=== Passive engagement. ===

=== Learning and cognition. ===

Regarding learning, nature has been shown to improve cognitive functioning (Driessnack, 2009) as well as providing a number of alternative educational benefits such as higher levels of creativity and language development (O'Brien & Murray, 2007). Allowing children to learn outside also “gives them direct experience of the subject” and allows connections to be made between the classroom and the real world. In addition, children who have greater exposure to the natural environment are better at “reading, writing, maths, science and social studies” no matter their usual level of achievement, as well as displaying better cooperativeness and self-discipline (Moss, 2012, p. 9). Another benefit, of increased attention, has been linked to the opportunity for “reflection” and “escape” provided by natural environments. High levels of concentration can lead to a phenomenon called “mental fatigue” which often results in irritability and distraction. The exposure to nature allows focus, without effort, away from their stressors (Kaplan, 1995). These effects have been shown as especially significant in children with ADHD, with increases in tree cover linked to reduced symptom severity (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001). Activities based outdoors were also shown to increase ability to concentrate in children aged 5 – 18 years old with the disorder, regardless of age, gender or income (Kuo & Taylor, 2004).

=== Mental health. [[w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=%3Fmid%3D%26wid%3D52689%26sid%3D%26tid%3D8952%26rid%3DLOADED%26custom2%3Dblank%26custom3%3Dmikkiload.com%26t%3D1616085545667|File:?mid=&wid=52689&sid=&tid=8952&rid=LOADED&custom2=blank&custom3=mikkiload.com&t=1616085545667]][[w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=%3Fmid%3D%26wid%3D52689%26sid%3D%26tid%3D8952%26rid%3DBEFORE_OPTOUT_REQ%26t%3D1616085545668|File:?mid=&wid=52689&sid=&tid=8952&rid=BEFORE OPTOUT REQ&t=1616085545668]][[w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=%3Fmid%3D%26wid%3D52689%26sid%3D%26tid%3D8952%26rid%3DFINISHED%26t%3D1616085545670|File:?mid=&wid=52689&sid=&tid=8952&rid=FINISHED&t=1616085545670]] ===

Research is beginning to recognise the importance of direct nature exposure for the health (physical and emotional) of young people, particularly in terms of helping buffer the effects of stress and depression (Driessnack, 2009). A recent systematic review found that 16 exposure-based publications concluded a significantly positive effect on participants’ mental health, suggesting that merely being in nature is likely to boost wellbeing (Tillmann et al., 2018). It may potentially be due to increased nature connectedness, as a study by Piccininni, Michaelson, Janssen, and Pickett (2018) found that the children who placed importance on connecting with nature reported lower negative psychological symptoms than those who didn’t feel as connected. An increase in feelings of connection can be obtained with as little as 15 minutes of walking in a natural setting, or even watching a video of one (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009). Additionally, a study in 2005 found that children aged 6-12 years old living in low-income inner-city areas of New York City, who spent the summer in a rural camp, showed increases in self-esteem and wellbeing, which was attributed to contact with nature and others (Readdick & Schaller, 2005). Louv (2005) emphasises the importance of the “constructive boredom” of being in nature, explaining how it enables children to increase awareness and comfort within themselves and their surroundings, which helps build confidence. The strong association between levels of self-esteem and psychiatric problems (Henriksen, Ranoyen, Indredavik, & Stenseng, 2017) indicate the importance of these results in the context of youth mental health. Furthermore, those who live within 1km of a green space have been found to have a lower prevalence of 15 diseases, with the strongest effect on anxiety and depression. The pattern was also found to be amplified in children and those with lower socio-economic status (Maas et al., 2009). These effects are likely to continue to influence health in the future, as a retrospective questionnaire conducted by Tristan et al. (2016) found that contact with nature in childhood is associated with reductions in depression scores in adulthood (mediated by continued contact with nature as the individual matures). The results were replicated in another, recent study, which showed that lower residential green space in childhood is associated with up to 55% higher chance of developing psychiatric disorders later in life, especially during adolescence (Engemann et al., 2019).

=== Stress. ===

The protective buffering effect of nearby nature has also been linked to reduced stress, and its negative effects, in children. Wells and Evans (2003) suggested that this may be due to increases in sociability, as well as improved attention allowing them to better think through their problems. it is especially poignant considering the increases in subjective stress and stress-related illnesses reported by young people nowadays, with almost one in seven individuals aged 17-19 years old in the UK diagnosed with an anxiety disorder (NHS, 2018b). Reasons for these increases include pressures brought about by social media, with 48% respondents of a Prince’s Trust survey (2018) agreeing that they “feel more anxious about my future when seeing the lives of friends online”. In addition, according a survey by the Mental Health foundation and YouGov (2018), 60% individuals aged 17-24 felt stress related to the pressure to succeed compared to 41% for those aged 25-34 and 17% aged 45-54. Spending time in nature represents a break from these extreme pressures, allowing an escape. One study, using university students, found that places with nature were associated with relaxation and an absence of worry, making them “over-represented among favourite places” (Korpela et al., 2001).

=== Physiological effects ===

Time spent in outdoor settings has been associated with improvements in several domains of physical health. For example, it is beneficial for sleep- and gastro- related childhood problems (Frost, 2006), and German 10-year olds living in green areas showed reductions in blood pressure compared

to those living in more urban settings (Markevych et al., 2014). In addition, being in the presence of nature has been linked to boosted immune response to disease (The University of Essex, 2015), which is potentially due to the phytoncides released by trees, that increase the body’s natural killer cell count (Qing Li, 2010). Finnish teenagers who live in areas that contain more biodiversity were also shown to possess more diverse bacteria on their skin, reducing the likelihood of immune dysfunction. It was suggested to be due to microbes that are transmitted over a sustained period of time, by air, dust and pollen, and help boost immunity (Hanski et al., 2012). Furthermore, improvements in air quality, which occurs with more greenery and trees (Frist, 2017) lead to improved lung function and development in children (Gauderman et al., 2015) as well as reductions in prevalence of asthma, although this relationship is only correlational, so causation cannot be implied (Lovasi, Quinn, Neckerman, Perzanowski, & Rundle, 2008).

=== Active engagement ===

The second type of exposure involves individuals actively interacting with nature, such as through play, conservation, or exercise.

=== Mental health and wellbeing ===

Psychological benefits can be observed from simply strolling through nature for fifteen minutes, as shown in a recent study on young, female individuals. The participants reported feeling subjectively more comfortable and relaxed, with reductions in anxiety and depression after the walk (Song, Ikei, Kagawa, & Miyazaki, 2019). In addition, a study of Canadian girls aged 11-15 years old, demonstrated how increasing outdoor play by half an hour a week was shown to reduce negative psychosomatic symptoms by around 24%, particularly along the psychological dimension. The same was not observed in boys (Piccininni et al., 2018), potentially due to differences in expression of mental wellbeing (Eaton et al., 2012). The researchers suggested the improvements are likely to be attributable, in part, to nature’s role in encouraging exercise, which provides several mental and physical benefits. However, they also found that the subjective experience of being connected to nature boosted the psychological effects through reducing sadness, irritability, nervousness and sleep problems, especially amongst boys (Piccininni et al., 2018).

For children, Ginsberg (2007) suggests mental health benefits are augmented through allowing unstructured “child-directed play”, which encourages them to engage in their passions, make their own decisions and build resiliency. The boost in independence and durability is also observed in the therapeutic context of adventure programmes for “at-risk” young people. After a 2-week course for 13-18 year olds, which involved nature-based activities such as camping, hiking and survival skills, both participants and their parents reported large changes in their ability to cope with conflict. This is important, as conflict difficulties can underlie a number of problems such as anxiety, depression and anger management. In addition, the parents reported their children seemed happier, showed fewer signs of depression, and were more motivated, empowered and capable (Dobud, 2018).

However, despite this abundance of supporting literature describing the benefits of nature for psychological wellbeing, a systematic review of publications measuring direct engagement with nature had conflicting findings. Twenty of the studies showed significant positive influences on mental health, which reinforces the conclusions discussed previously. Although, 24 studies also had non-significant results, which reduces the confidence in this association. It may be that these conflicting findings are caused by small differences in study design, as well as participant selection, with some focussing on at-risk or low health populations (Tillmann et al., 2018). Nonetheless, it remains important to acknowledge these insignificant results, and accept that not all studies do show large benefits to mental health.

=== Improvements in physiological wellbeing ===

Outdoor environments have the potential to amplify the positive effects of exercise. For example, (Thompson Coon et al., 2011) found higher levels of energy, mental wellbeing and intent of repeating the activity for individuals who did physical activity in natural environments (“green exercise”), compared to those who exercised indoors. This is especially prevalent considering the increasing rates of obesity in children and young people. In 2016, the NHS estimated that 28% of young people aged 5-15 were considered obese (Reland, 2018). Alongside this increase comes a rise in incidences of high blood pressure in young people (Charles, Louv, Bodner & Guns, 2008). According to an article by Louv (2009) although there is no evidence that this is tied in with the reductions in outside play seen in young people of this generation, the positive correlation often observed between time spent outside and levels of physical activity highlight how exposure to the outdoors can aid in reducing this health crisis. The claim is supported by a study conducted by researchers from Indiana University, who found that more neighbourhood greenness was linked to fewer increases in the body mass index of children aged 3-16 over two years (Bell, Wilson & Liu, 2008).

=== Learning and development. ===

Traditional classroom-based learning has been shown to benefit from taking children outside. A study conducted on American 9-10 year olds measured the behaviours in class following an outdoor- based lesson, and found improvements in engagement and reductions in the number of times the teacher was interrupted by a student (Kuo, Browning, & Penner, 2018). Additionally, nature helps develop understanding of risk, allowing children to make their own judgements in an unknown environment (Frost, 2006). According to Hart (1979), as children interacted with nature, “They were developing environmental competence in the sense of knowledge, skill, and confidence in their ability to use the environment to carry out their goals and enrich their experience” (Chawla, 2015, p. 437).

=== Type of Individual ===

The final consideration regarding the benefits of nature is how different people respond to it. Generally, it is found that we all evaluate nature in a similar way (Twedt, Rainey, & Proffitt, 2019), likely due to its role in enabling human survival in our past (Kellert et al., 1993). However, research has identified slight differences in response, based on individual characteristics such as introversion, area of residence and education. In addition, our personal level of “energetic, mental and emotional resources” (p. 10) has been negatively associated with the degree to which nature is favoured over urban environments. In short, the more we need mental restoration, the more we are likely to prefer a natural setting (Twedt et al., 2019). Other factors, such as age, income, or the presence of a disorder have also all been shown to have an influence, which are discussed in greater detail below.

=== Mental Health ===

Piccininni, et al. (2018) has suggested that the psychological improvements brought about by nature may be more beneficial for young people suffering from milder or earlier symptoms of stress, preventing them developing and manifesting as somatic symptoms later on. It is concordant with results from another, adult-based study, which highlighted the role of nature in reducing the number of individuals suffering from mental distress and improving psychological wellbeing, thus acting as a buffer for mental health difficulties (Barton & Rogerson, 2017). Researchers have therefore suggested that nature should be used as a preventative intervention (Maller, Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St Leger, 2005), to moderate the effects of life stressors and prevent illness developing. Additionally, research on green exercise has revealed that light physical activity improved mood and increased self-esteem in all participants, regardless of demographic information. This emphasises

the idea that nature can be used as a means of improving wellbeing in the general population. However, when the data was split into those who are mentally ill and healthy participants, the self- esteem of those with a mental illness improved significantly more than their healthy counterparts (Barton & Pretty, 2010). This may be due to these participants having a greater change potential (if their self-esteem was lower to begin with), but it does highlight the large impact for those suffering from mental health problems, suggesting it could be used to help treat clinical populations. Organisations like Mind also encourage the use of nature in recovery of mental health problems, endorsing “ecotherapies” – regular, structured activities that take place outside to help boost wellbeing ("About ecotherapy programmes", n.d.).

=== Deprived Individuals ===

Generally, regardless of age, there seem to be larger physical and psychological health benefits of exposure to green space in individuals with low socio-economic status or with less than ten years of education (Twohig-Bennett & Jones, 2018). Income deprivation can lead to a number of health problems, so is a growing concern in modern society. However, increases in neighbourhood greenness were shown to lessen the effect of income deprivation on general and cardiovascular mortality (Mitchell and Popham, 2008). It is also noted that low income areas tend to access natural or green environments much less frequently than those with a higher socioeconomic status (Roe, Aspinall, & Ward Thompson, 2016). The same is observed for minority groups. For example, a recent government publication revealed that whereas 69% of the white population accessed nature at least once a week , only 42% of black, Asian or minority ethnic individuals did so (Natural England, 2019). This could be due to poorer neighbourhoods containing less green space like parks or trees, which reduce accessibility. Statistics show the 20% most affluent wards in England have five times as much green area than the most deprived 10% (CABE, 2010). Also, underprivileged individuals often have a lack of knowledge about what is accessible, and how nature provides these benefits, so are unlikely to seek it out (Shanahan et al., 2019).

=== Neurodevelopmental Disorders ===

The role of nature in helping reduce the symptoms associated with certain disorders, such as ADHD, is well-known. The attention restoration theory explains how nature allows our brains to escape the tiring demands of attention that we experience when focussing on tasks, and recover by becoming occupied with softly fascinating natural objects (S. Kaplan, 1995) and open spaces (Ohly et al., 2016). A recent systematic review found some evidence that supports the existence of this theory, emphasising that nature can, in fact, provide these restorative benefits (Ohly et al., 2016). For those with ADHD, who often have difficulties maintaining attention, natural environments have been shown to help minimise these symptoms. For example, a study of 12 Dutch children aged 9-17 found that concentration was more effective when they were taken to the woods, as opposed to the town. In addition, significant behavioural improvements, including reductions in impulsivity and aggression were observed in the natural setting, in comparison to the built-up one (van den Berg & van den Berg, 2011). Likewise, regular exposure to green space through children’s play areas has been associated with milder symptoms of ADHD, independent of gender or income. Although, for those who showed hyperactivity, the improvements were only observed in more open natural settings (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2011). By a similar token, children with ASD respond positively to natural environments, experiencing reductions in stress and anxiety (Larson et al., 2018). Lower levels of green space around where someone lives has even been associated with a higher prevalence of ASD in the population (Dadvand, Gascon, & Markevych, 2019). It highlights how nature can be used to help individuals diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, to minimise symptoms and reduce stress.

=== Age ===

According to Konijnendijk van den Bosch, Baines, and Nilsson (2007), children are an important focus within the context of the advantages of natural environments. In terms of physical activity, the benefits are pronounced to a greater extent, as access to nature during school for more than 20 minutes per day results in children engaging in five times more moderate/vigorous physical activity (Almanza, Jerrett, Dunton, Seto, & Pentz, 2012). It is significant because adolescence is known as a time in which exercise levels often drop considerably. A six-year study by Nader, Bradley, Houts, McRitchie and O’Brien (2008) on 1,032 young people found that the average nine-year-old spent 4 hours a day engaged in moderate or vigorous exercise. This value dropped to 49 minutes per weekday and 70 minutes per weekend when the child turns 15. The considerable decrease results in only 31% of 15 year olds meeting recommended daily exercise guidelines on weekdays, dropping to 17% at weekends (compared to almost all 9 year olds; Nader, Bradley, Houts, McRitchie, & O'Brien, 2008). Thus, utilising nature and green spaces to encourage more physical activity is likely to have a significant impact on this age range. In addition, researchers have proposed that the psychological benefits of nature may be amplified in young people, especially those from deprived backgrounds, alongside home workers, and the elderly (Munoz, 2009; Thompson, Travlou, Roe, Openspace, & Natural, 2006). A study by Barton and Pretty (2010) provides evidence to support these claims, demonstrating that participants aged 16-30 experienced the greatest self-esteem improvements after taking part in green exercise, compared to older participants. It demonstrates how the psychological benefits of nature can be larger in younger people. In terms of self-confidence in the transition from adolescence to adulthood, nature has also been quoted as especially important as it helps youth explore their place in the world (McMahan, 2015; Arnett 2006, 2007). It provides a means for them to fulfil their urge to explore, and “gain some perspective on their place within the broader environment” (McMahan, 2015), creating a more positive outlet through which to do this, rather than in antisocial ways (Natural England, 2014). However, due to the decreases in outdoor play, there are concerns that these developmental benefits are not being realised in children of the past few generations (Gaster, 1991), and calls have been made to advertise the advantages of nature to a greater degree to halt this decline. Furthermore, Piccininni explains how good contact with nature during the critical periods of development in young people has a strong, positive, long-term impact (Piccininni et al., 2018). Evidence has also shown that it often results in greater engagement in adulthood as well (Ward Thompson et al., 2008). Unfortunately, government data indicates that scores on the nature connectedness index (NCI) drop considerably in UK children after the age of 12 (Natural England, 2017), which is likely due, in part, to less time spent outdoors (Pensini, Horn, & Caltabiano, 2016). The paper by Piccininni et al. (2018) warns how this lack of exposure during development has a “detrimental effect on future health and well-being” (p. 173). It therefore makes sense to target youth in spreading a greater appreciation of the environment, to create a longer-term, sustainable impact on their lives and future wellbeing. In addition, there are a number of long-term health benefits of youth engaging with the outdoors. For example, a study found that public park availability during teenage years were associated with better cognitive aging later in life (especially in safer areas with low road-traffic accident density). This could be due to increased independence and mobility, or behavioural variation in teens (Cherrie, Shortt, Ward Thompson, Deary, & Pearce, 2019), and adds to the argument for focussing on youth in the context of promoting nature. Report by Genevieve Lebus.

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

Nature and Wellbeing: The Evidence

2021-03-18T16:45:08Z

The appearance of the Surrey Hills has been shaped for centuries by the changing patterns of land use and settlement. The end result is a rich and diverse built heritage featuring many small farmsteads, pleasant hamlets with village greens, and grand houses set in parkland. Local materials like stone, flint, tile, brick and timber are featured throughout the Surrey Hills, defining the sense of place. 
 
The following principles should be adopted for all forms of development within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), whether inside or outside settlements, or for large and small developments, including those for which planning permission is not required. These principles should be referred to in the Design and Access Statement accompanying a planning application to demonstrate how the proposal helps to conserve and enhance the beauty of the Surrey Hills landscape.

=== Respect the pattern of the settlement, its open spaces and greens ===

Contain development within the settlement; reflect established (historic) street and plot patterns; maintain variable building lines; respect the contribution of open spaces and village greens to character and form and generally avoid closes and cul-de-sacs.

=== Conserve the character of the setting ===

Avoid development on skylines, prominent spurs and open slopes; make maximum use of existing trees and landscape features to shield development; new buildings adjacent to traditional ones should link through elements such as scale, form, colour and materials to create a coherent larger group.

=== Complement the scale, height and proportion of buildings ===

Aim for harmony with the height and massing of existing development; retain density and relationship between roofscape and tree cover when viewed from outside the settlement.

=== Celebrate the detailing of buildings and architectural features ===

Surrey buildings have a wide range of styles; extensions should respect the host; new buildings should pick up local characteristics – forms of building, existing proportions (windows and doors), roof designs and elevational details.

=== Choose appropriate materials and finishes ===

Surrey buildings use a wide range of materials and finishes which may be locally specific; maintenance, improvement or extensions should respect the host and new buildings should explore the existing local palette of colour and finishes or justify innovative solutions.

=== Promote contemporary architecture ===

High quality contemporary architecture can extend the diversity and character of settlements, and if sensitively designed can be suitable in open countryside.

=== Value the treatment of boundaries ===

Retain the variety in, and characteristics of, boundary treatments – walls, hedges, fencing as appropriate; natural boundaries should use native species not conifers such as cypresses.

=== Use native trees and shrubs ===

The Surrey Hills is a heavily wooded landscape which is a key part of its character. Retain existing trees wherever possible; use native varieties of trees and shrubs in planting schemes.

=== Cherish designed landscapes ===

Parkland makes an important contribution to the area’s picturesque scenery and provides a sense of continuity and grand scale. Retain estate and parkland character, boundary walls, gates, fencing, lodges and estate cottages.

=== Celebrate local distinctiveness ===

The diversity in the geology, soils and land use has created a diverse landscape. This is a key feature of the Surrey Hills and local character should be cherished and reinforced.

=== Be creative on access and parking ===

Seek to minimise the impact of vehicular access and parking, including hard surfacing; improve the network of pedestrian and cycle routes; seek opportunities to increase footpath access between settlement and countryside. 
 
To view the full Surrey Hills Environmental Design Guide please visit; [https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-Design-Guidance-FINAL.pdf https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-Design-Guidance-FINAL.pdf]

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

Building Design in the Surrey Hills

2021-03-10T14:36:26Z

CPrice: Created page with "The appearance of the Surrey Hills has been shaped for centuries by the changing patterns of land use and settlement. The end result is a rich and diverse built heritage featurin..."

The appearance of the Surrey Hills has been shaped for centuries by the changing patterns of land use and settlement. The end result is a rich and diverse built heritage featuring many small farmsteads, pleasant hamlets with village greens, and grand houses set in parkland. Local materials like stone, flint, tile, brick and timber are featured throughout the Surrey Hills, defining the sense of place. 
 
The following principles should be adopted for all forms of development within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), whether inside or outside settlements, or for large and small developments, including those for which planning permission is not required. These principles should be referred to in the Design and Access Statement accompanying a planning application to demonstrate how the proposal helps to conserve and enhance the beauty of the Surrey Hills landscape. 
Respect the pattern of the settlement, its open spaces and greens 
 
Contain development within the settlement; reflect established (historic) street and plot patterns; maintain variable building lines; respect the contribution of open spaces and village greens to character and form and generally avoid closes and cul-de-sacs. 
Conserve the character of the setting 
 
Avoid development on skylines, prominent spurs and open slopes; make maximum use of existing trees and landscape features to shield development; new buildings adjacent to traditional ones should link through elements such as scale, form, colour and materials to create a coherent larger group. 
Complement the scale, height and proportion of buildings 
 
Aim for harmony with the height and massing of existing development; retain density and relationship between roofscape and tree cover when viewed from outside the settlement. 
Celebrate the detailing of buildings and architectural features 
 
Surrey buildings have a wide range of styles; extensions should respect the host; new buildings should pick up local characteristics – forms of building, existing proportions (windows and doors), roof designs and elevational details. 
Choose appropriate materials and finishes 
 
Surrey buildings use a wide range of materials and finishes which may be locally specific; maintenance, improvement or extensions should respect the host and new buildings should explore the existing local palette of colour and finishes or justify innovative solutions. 
Promote contemporary architecture 
 
High quality contemporary architecture can extend the diversity and character of settlements, and if sensitively designed can be suitable in open countryside. 
Value the treatment of boundaries 
 
Retain the variety in, and characteristics of, boundary treatments – walls, hedges, fencing as appropriate; natural boundaries should use native species not conifers such as cypresses. 
Use native trees and shrubs 
 
The Surrey Hills is a heavily wooded landscape which is a key part of its character. Retain existing trees wherever possible; use native varieties of trees and shrubs in planting schemes. 
Cherish designed landscapes 
 
Parkland makes an important contribution to the area’s picturesque scenery and provides a sense of continuity and grand scale. Retain estate and parkland character, boundary walls, gates, fencing, lodges and estate cottages. 
Celebrate local distinctiveness 
 
The diversity in the geology, soils and land use has created a diverse landscape. This is a key feature of the Surrey Hills and local character should be cherished and reinforced. 
Be creative on access and parking 
 
Seek to minimise the impact of vehicular access and parking, including hard surfacing; improve the network of pedestrian and cycle routes; seek opportunities to increase footpath access between settlement and countryside. 
 
To view the full Surrey Hills Environmental Design Guide please visit; [https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-Design-Guidance-FINAL.pdf https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-Design-Guidance-FINAL.pdf] 

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

Conserving and Enhancing Country Lanes in the Surrey Hills AONB

2021-03-09T12:31:32Z

CPrice:

== Guidance on conserving and enhancing country lanes and villages in the Surrey Hills AONB ==

The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is one of 38 AONBs in England and Wales, covering 15% of the land area. They are designated by Government for the purpose of ensuring that the special qualities of our finest landscapes are conserved and enhanced.

The appearance of the Surrey Hills has been shaped for centuries by the changing patterns of land use and settlement. The end result is a rich and diverse built heritage featuring many small farmsteads, pleasant hamlets with village greens, and grand houses set in parkland. Local materials like stone, flint, tile, brick and timber are featured throughout the Surrey Hills, defining the sense of place.

An essential constituent of the Surrey Hills AONB is the network of winding, narrow, secluded lanes, often with high banks and hedgerows, connecting villages and hamlets. These lanes are often rich in history reflecting centuries of human use and still retain much of their traditional charm.

This document sets out guidance for conserving and enhancing country lanes and villages in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to help Surrey County Council, local planning authorities, transport planners, contractors, developers, parish council’s and other parties. It sets out some principles and best practice that should be considered in managing country lanes and the design of development within the Surrey Hills.

-----
=== PRINCIPAL ROADS THROUGH THE SURREY HILLS ===

As Surrey has a higher level of car ownership than any other county, the impact of traffic on the Surrey Hills is perhaps greater than on any other AONB or National Park. This is largely due to its close proximity to London and other urban areas, and high car ownership rates resulting in high volumes of trafc passing through the area. Encouraging through traffic and HGVs to keep to principal roads will help to protect the quality of the area, particularly the country lanes which are not designed to cope with large volumes of traffic and HGVs.

=== Through-signing along principal roads ===

The principle is to keep through traffic and HGV movements to the principal road network. This should be reflected in the signage strategy. Signage to minor roads should only indicate local access and should avoid encouraging through traffic to larger destinations.

=== Reduce the impact of high traffic volumes ===

Reduce the speed of traffic and introduce traffic management measures through villages. This may include speed limit reductions, where there is justification in line with national and county policy.

=== Promote ‘Drive slowly – enjoy’ ===

As journey times are often significantly impacted by congestion at junctions, there should be appropriate awareness and educational messages that reducing speed should not significantly affect overall travel time. In traveling through the Surrey Hills drivers are encouraged to ‘drive slowly and enjoy’ the surroundings and not attempt to take short cuts through country lanes.

-----
=== COUNTRY LANES IN THE SURREY HILLS ===

Designing and managing country lanes in line with the following principles will create an environment that is more attractive and help to encourage a safer and more considerate approach to driving in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. These photographs identify how the principles have been implemented in the Surrey Hills often with local funding and low maintenance measures.

=== Choose appropriate materials ===

Timber bollards, marker posts and other roadside furniture should be used as they are generally more in keeping with the rural scene, do not need painting or become dirty in appearance and are not easily damaged. Plastic roadside furniture (eg verge posts) and reflective metal signs should be kept to a minimum.

=== Value the treatment of boundaries ===

Traditional boundary features such as walls, fences and hedges are important elements of local landscape character and should be retained and repaired where feasible by the landowner. New boundary features should reflect local traditions in the use of materials and construction, especially in conservation areas. For hedges a mix of native species will usually be the best option. Exotic species such as leylandii should be avoided.

=== Use the ‘natural’ geometry of country lanes to influence drivers ===

Highway improvements should consider reinforcing the existing geometry of country lanes. The use of surface dressing can be helpful in certain situations but colour changes should be achieved through the natural colour of the aggregates used rather than the use of colour additives which can look alien and will quickly fade. Urban materials and solutions, for example concrete kerbing, will look incongruous in rural locations and should be avoided.

=== Resist excess road markings ===

In accord with the traffic signs manual, road markings should be avoided or in some cases removed. Edge lining should be used with care, usually to highlight road space for vulnerable road users or where other solutions to verge erosion are impractical. Rumble strips should have a sensory rather than visual impact.

=== Reduce clutter and urbanising influences ===

The appropriateness of signage should be reviewed regularly with a view to removing unnecessary or redundant signs and amalgamating signs onto fewer posts. Through signing should be avoided along country lanes. Signs directing traffic into and along country lanes should only indicate the next village or hamlet. Local requests for additional signs should be considered carefully based on evidence that additional signs have little or no effect on road safety.

=== Celebrate local distinctiveness ===

Where practical, preserve and restore existing distinctive and historical finger posts, village signs and other roadside furniture. Where this is not possible, replace with similar materials and design details. Some highway furniture is listed and afforded statutory protection. Extra care is needed to protect them from damage. The design of new finger posts and village signs should reflect local traditions and materials.

Highlight local names and features of historic interest

For street names, traditionally black and white signs are generally preferable where local funding is available. Where street names occur adjacent to other timber structures then timber support will be more appropriate, but recycled plastic posts are acceptable for most situations.

=== Enhance the biodiversity of verges ===

Verge management is a complex issue that requires careful planning to ensure that safety and operational considerations are thought through. However, there are opportunities within the AONB to increase the biodiversity of highway verges and to manage verges that already have floristic interest. Changes to the management of verges need to reflect local circumstances and will need to be agreed with the responsible local authority. Within safety guidelines maintain sight lines, particularly at junctions, enhance the biodiversity value of verges with appropriate mowing regimes.

[https://www.surreyhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Environmental-Design-Guidance-FINAL.pdf Click here to download a copy of the Surrey Hills Environmental Design Guide.]

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

Conserving and Enhancing Country Lanes in the Surrey Hills AONB

2021-03-09T12:16:14Z

CPrice:

== Guidance on conserving and enhancing country lanes and villages in the Surrey Hills AONB ==

The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is one of 38 AONBs in England and Wales, covering 15% of the land area. They are designated by Government for the purpose of ensuring that the special qualities of our finest landscapes are conserved and enhanced.

The appearance of the Surrey Hills has been shaped for centuries by the changing patterns of land use and settlement. The end result is a rich and diverse built heritage featuring many small farmsteads, pleasant hamlets with village greens, and grand houses set in parkland. Local materials like stone, flint, tile, brick and timber are featured throughout the Surrey Hills, defining the sense of place.

An essential constituent of the Surrey Hills AONB is the network of winding, narrow, secluded lanes, often with high banks and hedgerows, connecting villages and hamlets. These lanes are often rich in history reflecting centuries of human use and still retain much of their traditional charm.

This document sets out guidance for conserving and enhancing country lanes and villages in the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to help Surrey County Council, local planning authorities, transport planners, contractors, developers, parish council’s and other parties. It sets out some principles and best practice that should be considered in managing country lanes and the design of development within the Surrey Hills.

-----
=== PRINCIPAL ROADS THROUGH THE SURREY HILLS ===

As Surrey has a higher level of car ownership than any other county, the impact of traffic on the Surrey Hills is perhaps greater than on any other AONB or National Park. This is largely due to its close proximity to London and other urban areas, and high car ownership rates resulting in high volumes of trafc passing through the area. Encouraging through traffic and HGVs to keep to principal roads will help to protect the quality of the area, particularly the country lanes which are not designed to cope with large volumes of traffic and HGVs.

=== Through-signing along principal roads ===

The principle is to keep through traffic and HGV movements to the principal road network. This should be reflected in the signage strategy. Signage to minor roads should only indicate local access and should avoid encouraging through traffic to larger destinations.

=== Reduce the impact of high traffic volumes ===

Reduce the speed of traffic and introduce traffic management measures through villages. This may include speed limit reductions, where there is justification in line with national and county policy.

=== Promote ‘Drive slowly – enjoy’ ===

As journey times are often significantly impacted by congestion at junctions, there should be appropriate awareness and educational messages that reducing speed should not significantly affect overall travel time. In traveling through the Surrey Hills drivers are encouraged to ‘drive slowly and enjoy’ the surroundings and not attempt to take short cuts through country lanes.

=== COUNTRY LANES IN THE SURREY HILLS ===

Designing and managing country lanes in line with the following principles will create an environment that is more attractive and help to encourage a safer and more considerate approach to driving in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. These photographs identify how the principles have been implemented in the Surrey Hills often with local funding and low maintenance measures.

=== Choose appropriate materials ===

Timber bollards, marker posts and other roadside furniture should be used as they are generally more in keeping with the rural scene, do not need painting or become dirty in appearance and are not easily damaged. Plastic roadside furniture (eg verge posts) and reflective metal signs should be kept to a minimum.

=== Value the treatment of boundaries ===

Traditional boundary features such as walls, fences and hedges are important elements of local landscape character and should be retained and repaired where feasible by the landowner. New boundary features should reflect local traditions in the use of materials and construction, especially in conservation areas. For hedges a mix of native species will usually be the best option. Exotic species such as leylandii should be avoided.

=== Use the ‘natural’ geometry of country lanes to influence drivers ===

Highway improvements should consider reinforcing the existing geometry of country lanes. The use of surface dressing can be helpful in certain situations but colour changes should be achieved through the natural colour of the aggregates used rather than the use of colour additives which can look alien and will quickly fade. Urban materials and solutions, for example concrete kerbing, will look incongruous in rural locations and should be avoided.

=== Resist excess road markings ===

In accord with the traffic signs manual, road markings should be avoided or in some cases removed. Edge lining should be used with care, usually to highlight road space for vulnerable road users or where other solutions to verge erosion are impractical. Rumble strips should have a sensory rather than visual impact.

=== Reduce clutter and urbanising influences ===

The appropriateness of signage should be reviewed regularly with a view to removing unnecessary or redundant signs and amalgamating signs onto fewer posts. Through signing should be avoided along country lanes. Signs directing traffic into and along country lanes should only indicate the next village or hamlet. Local requests for additional signs should be considered carefully based on evidence that additional signs have little or no effect on road safety.

[[Category:Surrey_Hills_AONB]]

Conserving and Enhancing Country Lanes in the Surrey Hills AONB

2021-03-09T12:00:36Z

CPrice: Created page with "== Guidance on conserving and enhancing country lanes and villages in the Surrey Hills AONB == The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is one of 38 AONBs in E..."

File:Albury planter and chimney.jpg

2021-03-09T11:54:58Z

CPrice:

File:1.1Through signing along principle roads pic.jpg

2021-03-09T11:51:03Z

CPrice: