Search

People often visit natural settings for recreation and psychological restoration. This study aims to improve understanding of how exposure to and experiences of mammalian wildlife in local natural settings can permit and promote recreation and restoration. Randomly sampled residents in three regions of Sweden (N = 303) with varying presence of fear-relevant species (wolf, wild boar) and fear-irrelevant species (roe deer, squirrel) completed a questionnaire. Squirrel and roe deer were rated significantly higher than wolf and wild boar for anticipated positive feelings and restoration outcomes, and significantly lower for negative feelings and avoidance of natural settings. The possibility of exposure explained little of the variation in the restoration variables, whereas the experiences anticipated with an animal encounter contributed substantially to explanation. Vulnerability seems to counteract the restorative benefit of fascination. Wildlife conservation efforts and public health initiatives may find practical utility in distinguishing between potential exposure and anticipated experience when designing interventions.

Wildlife might be important to psychologically restorative values and disvalues of nature, as interactions with wildlife could trigger both positive and negative feelings. Research on positive experiences of human–wildlife interactions has largely involved participants who voluntarily sought out wildlife experiences or it has addressed encounters with non-threatening animals in urban green spaces. Less is known about the opportunities for psychological restoration in landscapes shared with mammals that are perceived to pose a threat to human activities and health. This study provides a nuanced understanding of the role of wildlife in public perceptions of the restorative potential and experience of psychological restoration in local natural settings. Twenty-eight participants (15 women, 13 men, 18–75 years) took part in focus group interviews subject to a reflexive thematic analysis. As an analytical framework, we used a theoretical model for how people appraise the relevance, implications, coping potential and norm congruence of human–wildlife interactions and how such appraisals may support or hinder the restoration experienced in local natural settings. Relevance appraisals revealed shifts in consideration of the presence of wildlife from an integrated part of the natural scenery (background) to a distinct figure (foreground). Implication appraisals revealed that wildlife encounters would hinder the experienced psychological restoration if the animal was appraised as dangerous, disgusting, causing a nuisance or destructive. Wildlife encounters would promote restoration if the animal displayed attractive traits, features or fascinating behaviour or movements, and if it opened engaging interaction situations. Coping strategies perceived as feasible to deal with negative implications of wildlife involved avoidance of the local natural setting, preparatory behaviour displayed before a visit and precautionary behaviour displayed during the visit. Important public heal

Work time control may offer opportunities, but also implies risks for employee recovery, influenced by increased work-related ICT use and overtime work. However, this risk-opportunity tradeoff remains understudied. This study aimed to test two different models of associations between work time control, work-related ICT use, overtime work, and the need for recovery. These models were constructed based on data on office workers with flexible work arrangements. Cross-sectional data were obtained with questionnaires (n = 2582) from employees in a Swedish multi-site organization. Regression models treated the three determinants of the need for recovery either as independent, or as linked in a causal sequence. The test of independent determinants confirmed that more work time control was associated with less need for recovery, whereas more ICT use and overtime work were associated with a higher need for recovery. In a test of serial mediation, more work time control contributed to a greater need for recovery through more ICT use and then more overtime work. Work time control also had a competitive, indirect effect through a negative association with overtime work. Our results suggest that work time control is beneficial for employee recovery, but may for some be associated with more work-related ICT use after regular working hours, thus increasing recovery needs. Policies that support work time control can promote recovery, but employers must attend to the risk of excessive use of ICT outside of regular working hours.

Nature-based solutions including urban forests and wetlands can help communities cope better with climate change and other environmental stressors by enhancing social-ecological resilience. Natural ecosystems, settings, elements and affordances can also help individuals become more personally resilient to a variety of stressors, although the mechanisms underpinning individual-level nature-based resilience, and their relations to social-ecological resilience, are not well articulated. We propose ‘nature-based biopsychosocial resilience theory’ (NBRT) to address these gaps. Our framework begins by suggesting that individual-level resilience can refer to both: a) a person's set of adaptive resources; and b) the processes by which these resources are deployed. Drawing on existing nature-health perspectives, we argue that nature contact can support individuals build and maintain biological, psychological, and social (i.e. biopsychosocial) resilience-related resources. Together with nature-based social-ecological resilience, these biopsychosocial resilience resources can: i) reduce the risk of various stressors (preventive resilience); ii) enhance adaptive reactions to stressful circumstances (response resilience), and/or iii) facilitate more rapid and/or complete recovery from stress (recovery resilience). Reference to these three resilience processes supports integration across more familiar pathways involving harm reduction, capacity building, and restoration. Evidence in support of the theory, potential interventions to promote nature-based biopsychosocial resilience, and issues that require further consideration are discussed.