18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Benefits of Outdoor Sports for Society. A Systematic Literature Review and Reflections on Evidence

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The combination of physical activity and being in nature is recognized as providing a range of significant benefits. The objective of this literature review was to compile an overview of the social benefits and costs associated with outdoor sports within the academic literature and to reflect on the quality of underlying evidence that supports the relationship. A systematic review was carried out with seven partners from different European countries, including Bulgaria, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. From a total of 17,560 studies identified, 133 studies were selected with relevant data extracted to standardized forms. The selected studies have been analyzed with qualitative research methods. A meta-analysis could not be conducted due to the heterogeneity of the study designs and outcome measures. As a result, the review gives an overview of the social impacts associated with outdoor sports which have been clustered to six broad categories: physical health, mental health and wellbeing, education and lifelong learning, active citizenship, crime reduction, and anti-social behavior, as well as additional benefits. The review furthermore revealed gaps in the evidence base which are especially notable in the long-term effects that outdoor sports can have on personal and social development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references109

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation.

          Urbanization has many benefits, but it also is associated with increased levels of mental illness, including depression. It has been suggested that decreased nature experience may help to explain the link between urbanization and mental illness. This suggestion is supported by a growing body of correlational and experimental evidence, which raises a further question: what mechanism(s) link decreased nature experience to the development of mental illness? One such mechanism might be the impact of nature exposure on rumination, a maladaptive pattern of self-referential thought that is associated with heightened risk for depression and other mental illnesses. We show in healthy participants that a brief nature experience, a 90-min walk in a natural setting, decreases both self-reported rumination and neural activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex (sgPFC), whereas a 90-min walk in an urban setting has no such effects on self-reported rumination or neural activity. In other studies, the sgPFC has been associated with a self-focused behavioral withdrawal linked to rumination in both depressed and healthy individuals. This study reveals a pathway by which nature experience may improve mental well-being and suggests that accessible natural areas within urban contexts may be a critical resource for mental health in our rapidly urbanizing world.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis

              Objective To assess the health benefits of outdoor walking groups. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of walking group interventions examining differences in commonly used physiological, psychological and well-being outcomes between baseline and intervention end. Data sources Seven electronic databases, clinical trial registers, grey literature and reference lists in English language up to November 2013. Eligibility criteria Adults, group walking outdoors with outcomes directly attributable to the walking intervention. Results Forty-two studies were identified involving 1843 participants. There is evidence that walking groups have wide-ranging health benefits. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reductions in mean difference for systolic blood pressure −3.72 mm Hg (−5.28 to −2.17) and diastolic blood pressure −3.14 mm Hg (−4.15 to −2.13); resting heart rate −2.88 bpm (−4.13 to −1.64); body fat −1.31% (−2.10 to −0.52), body mass index −0.71 kg/m2 (−1.19 to −0.23), total cholesterol −0.11 mmol/L (−0.22 to −0.01) and statistically significant mean increases in VO2 max of 2.66 mL/kg/min (1.67–3.65), the SF-36 (physical functioning) score 6.02 (0.51 to 11.53) and a 6 min walk time of 79.6 m (53.37–105.84). A standardised mean difference showed a reduction in depression scores with an effect size of −0.67 (−0.97 to −0.38). The evidence was less clear for other outcomes such as waist circumference fasting glucose, SF-36 (mental health) and serum lipids such as high-density lipids. There were no notable adverse side effects reported in any of the studies. Conclusions Walking groups are effective and safe with good adherence and wide-ranging health benefits. They could be a promising intervention as an adjunct to other healthcare or as a proactive health-promoting activity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                15 March 2019
                March 2019
                : 16
                : 6
                : 937
                Affiliations
                [1 ]TUM Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, 80992 München, Germany; andreas.thomann@ 123456tum.de
                [2 ]Sport Northern Ireland, c/o Tollymore National Outdoor Centre, 32 Hilltown Road, Bryansford, Newcastle BT33 0PZ, UK; mikemcclure@ 123456sportni.net
                [3 ]Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK; l.e.davies@ 123456shu.ac.uk (L.D.); m.gregory@ 123456shu.ac.uk (M.G.)
                [4 ]Universitetet i Stavanger, Kjell Arholms gate 41, 4021 Stavanger, Norway; ulrich.dettweiler@ 123456uis.no
                [5 ]National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Barcelona (UB), Av. Estadi 12-22, 08038 Barcelona, Spain; eduard.ingles@ 123456gencat.cat
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-7507
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-0298
                Article
                ijerph-16-00937
                10.3390/ijerph16060937
                6466442
                30875938
                37d6e417-50d0-4637-b341-8b3e4343d3ce
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 09 February 2019
                : 08 March 2019
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                outdoor sports,outdoor recreation,health enhancing physical activity,social benefits and costs or social impacts,outdoor education

                Comments

                Comment on this article