Introduction
Social wellbeing among older adults is increasingly recognised as a serious public health concern, in particular when it comes to social isolation and loneliness (Liu and Rook, Reference Liu and Rook2013; Cacioppo et al., Reference Cacioppo, Chen and Cacioppo2017; Courtin and Knapp, Reference Courtin and Knapp2017). To illustrate, loneliness not only has a negative impact on mental wellbeing, it can also have detrimental effects on physical health (Sorkin et al., Reference Sorkin, Rook and Lu2002; Hawkley and Cacioppo, Reference Hawkley and Cacioppo2007; Smith and Victor, Reference Smith and Victor2019). Interestingly, research shows that living close to nature can reduce feelings of loneliness and enhance feelings of social support (Maas et al., Reference Maas, van Dillen, Verheij and Groenewegen2009; Bergefurt et al., Reference Bergefurt, Kemperman, van den Berg, Borgers, van der Waerden, Oosterhuis and Hommel2019; Buecker et al., Reference Buecker, Ebert, Götz, Entringer and Luhmann2020). Likewise, when people feel related to nature, they experience a greater sense of connectedness to other people and to the world at large (Zelenski and Nisbet, Reference Zelenski and Nisbet2014). These findings align with a growing body of literature stressing the beneficial effects of nature interaction on general wellbeing, and social and mental dimensions of wellbeing in particular (Kaplan and Kaplan, Reference Kaplan and Kaplan1989; Bratman et al., Reference Bratman, Anderson, Berman, Cochran, de Vries, Flanders, Folke, Frumkin, Gross, Hartig, Kahn, Kuo, Lawler, Levin, Lindahl, Meyer-Lindenberg, Mitchell, Ouyang, Roe, Scarlett, Smith, van den Bosch, Wheeler, White, Zheng and Daily2019).
However, for older adults, nature may not always be around or access to nature may be limited or troublesome due to mobility restrictions. In those situations, the question becomes how to bring nature inside in order to allow older adults to enjoy nature's charms. Interestingly, several studies show that indirect contact with nature, such as exposure to pictures and videos, can have effects comparable to real nature interaction (Beukeboom et al., Reference Beukeboom, Langeveld and Tanja-Dijkstra2012; Keniger et al., Reference Keniger, Gaston, Irvine and Fuller2013; van Rompay and Jol, Reference van Rompay and Jol2016). For instance, even brief exposures to nature videos or awe-evoking nature images during a day can boost people's mood and emotions (Joye and Bolderdijk, Reference Joye and Bolderdijk2014; Browning et al., Reference Browning, Mimnaugh, van Riper, Laurent and LaValle2020).
New technologies, such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), hold particular promise as they allow for the creation of immersive nature scenes accentuating nature characteristics important for social wellbeing. For instance, in a recent study, animated nature projections (depicting fascinating, wide-open landscapes) implemented in a Dutch care centre enhanced social engagement among residents (Ludden et al., Reference Ludden, van Rompay, Niedderer and Tournier2019). Hence, when interaction with real nature is not feasible due to old age and related mobility restrictions or safety concerns, virtual nature could serve as an alternative to interaction with outdoor nature (Battisto et al., Reference Battisto, Vincent, Dye, Pak and Mclaughlin2018; White et al., Reference White, Yeo, Vassiljev, Lundstedt, Wallergård, Albin and Lõhmus2018; Browning et al., Reference Browning, Mimnaugh, van Riper, Laurent and LaValle2020).
However, as of yet, there are no guidelines for the design of digital nature environments, including characteristics such as level of realism, type of nature, tree density, etc. Also, when it comes to the effects of specific nature characteristics on (social) wellbeing measures, research is largely silent. However, recent studies point to the importance of interacting with vast (rather than dense) settings for promoting pro-social behaviour, and related emotions such as awe and wonder (e.g. Piff et al., Reference Piff, Dietze, Feinberg, Stancato and Keltner2015; van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a). As for older adults, research findings indicate that logistic landscape characteristics such as well-maintained paths and facilities to sit down become increasingly important with old age as they provide more opportunities for social interaction, comfort and a sense of safety (Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018).
To explore limitations and restrictions that older adults experience in interacting with nature, and to test the effects of digital nature on wellbeing measures, two studies are reported. Study 1 describes the results of focus group sessions conducted within Dutch care centres. Emphasis during these sessions was on (a) restrictions and limitations that older adults experience when interacting with nature and (b) their preferences for digital nature scenes. In Study 2, digital nature environments were designed (a) to test their potential on (social) wellbeing-related outcome measures and (b) to test whether nature animations varying in terms of spaciousness (based on previous research testifying to the importance of this variable for social wellbeing; van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a) and nature type (i.e. forest or park scenes) would influence the effects of digital nature on outcome measures. To this end, an online survey study was conducted in which respondents (N = 200, aged 55 years old and above) watched immersive nature scenes optimised based on findings of the focus groups.
Before elaborating on the details of the present study, we will first discuss the key notions involved.
Theoretical framework
Social wellbeing among older adults
Loneliness among older adults is a key determinant of social wellbeing and poses a serious public health concern (Liu and Rook, Reference Liu and Rook2013; Cacioppo et al., Reference Cacioppo, Chen and Cacioppo2017; Courtin and Knapp, Reference Courtin and Knapp2017) which does not only affect social and mental wellbeing but also undermines physical health, including greater risk of cardiovascular disease (Sorkin et al., Reference Sorkin, Rook and Lu2002) and accelerated physiological decline (Hawkley and Cacioppo, Reference Hawkley and Cacioppo2007). Various reviews have been undertaken focusing on loneliness among older adults (Courtin and Knapp, Reference Courtin and Knapp2017; Landeiro et al., Reference Landeiro, Barrows, Nuttall Musson, Gray and Leal2017) and possible interventions for preventing or reducing feelings of loneliness (Dickens et al., Reference Dickens, Richards, Greaves and Campbell2011; Fakoya et al., Reference Fakoya, McCorry and Donnelly2020). Factors predicting loneliness among older adults are widowhood, older age, poor mental or physical health, and being new in a community (de Koning et al., Reference de Koning, Stathi and Richards2017).
These findings align with perceptions of older adults with health issues who often perceive the world around them getting smaller, not in the least because of reduced opportunities to engage with the outside world and to maintain their social network (ten Bruggencate et al., Reference ten Bruggencate, Luijkx and Sturm2019). Although bringing nature inside obviously does not enhance frequency of social interactions, it can inspire feelings of connectedness with the ‘world at large’ as also indicated by a recent study conducted during the present COVID-19 pandemic: people felt more connected to their community after (rather than before) watching a four-minute digital nature video (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference Van Houwelingen-Snippe, Van Rompay and Ben Allouch2020b). In sum, bringing nature inside might be a fruitful strategy to improve social wellbeing among frail older adults by enhancing feelings of connectedness and related emotions.
Nature and social wellbeing
Nature is an under-recognised healer, a recent report of the Institute for European Environmental Policy says (Mutafoglu et al., Reference Mutafoglu, Ten Brink, Schweitzer, Jonesh and Blake2017). This claim is supported by a growing body of research showing that exposure to nature is not just pleasant or aesthetically pleasing, but positively influences a wide variety of measures related to wellbeing, including attention restoration (Kaplan and Kaplan, Reference Kaplan and Kaplan1989; Keniger et al., Reference Keniger, Gaston, Irvine and Fuller2013), mental health (Bratman et al., Reference Bratman, Anderson, Berman, Cochran, de Vries, Flanders, Folke, Frumkin, Gross, Hartig, Kahn, Kuo, Lawler, Levin, Lindahl, Meyer-Lindenberg, Mitchell, Ouyang, Roe, Scarlett, Smith, van den Bosch, Wheeler, White, Zheng and Daily2019), recovery after medical procedures (Ulrich, Reference Ulrich1984), and creativity and inspiration (van Rompay and Jol, Reference van Rompay and Jol2016).
A limited number of studies also hint at the potential of nature to enhance social wellbeing (Maas et al., Reference Maas, van Dillen, Verheij and Groenewegen2009; Cartwright et al., Reference Cartwright, White and Clitherow2018). For instance, findings suggest that people living nearby nature generally experience higher levels of social support and experience less loneliness (Maas et al., Reference Maas, van Dillen, Verheij and Groenewegen2009). In line with these findings, loneliness has been shown to correlate with the perceived distance to urban green spaces such as parks and recreational areas (Cartwright et al., Reference Cartwright, White and Clitherow2018; Bergefurt et al., Reference Bergefurt, Kemperman, van den Berg, Borgers, van der Waerden, Oosterhuis and Hommel2019). These findings suggest that having nature around can increase social wellbeing and perceptions of connectedness (Weinstein et al., Reference Weinstein, Przybylski and Ryan2009).
Older adults and nature interaction
Contact with nature and the close proximity of nature play a particularly important role in older adults’ everyday life (Finlay et al., Reference Finlay, Franke, McKay and Sims-Gould2015). By consequence, a relatively large body of research focuses on preferences for nature among older adults (Detweiler et al., Reference Detweiler, Sharma, Detweiler, Murphy, Lane, Carman, Chudhary, Halling and Kim2012; Kabisch et al., Reference Kabisch, van den Bosch and Lafortezza2017; Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018). For instance, older adults who engage in recreational activities in green spaces particularly value naturalness, aesthetics and variety within the scene (Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018). Additionally, findings indicate that older adults evaluate green settings in terms of accessibility, mobility and safety considerations, explaining the perceived importance of well-maintained paths and facilities for social contact in a safe environment (Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018).
In line with the above, therapeutic gardens and horticultural therapy have also been pointed out as particularly suited for older adults, in general (Milligan et al., Reference Milligan, Gatrell and Bingley2004; Detweiler et al., Reference Detweiler, Sharma, Detweiler, Murphy, Lane, Carman, Chudhary, Halling and Kim2012), and to people living with dementia, in particular (Hernandez, Reference Hernandez2007; Murphy et al., Reference Murphy, Miyazaki, Detweiler and Kim2010). For instance, providing care and services in green surroundings have been shown to enhance feelings of connectedness with nature, stimulate social interactions and add a sense of meaning to everyday life (de Bruin et al., Reference de Bruin, Buist, Hassink and Vaandrager2021). However, such care practices are obviously not available at all times, and for many adults with mobility restrictions, they are an exception rather than the norm.
Digital nature as complementary strategy
When it comes to bringing nature inside, various types of nature representations have been used across a wide range of studies (for a review, see Keniger et al., Reference Keniger, Gaston, Irvine and Fuller2013), varying from images, to posters, to videos (Beukeboom et al., Reference Beukeboom, Langeveld and Tanja-Dijkstra2012; van Rompay and Jol, Reference van Rompay and Jol2016). Overall, findings show that such indirect encounters with nature can at least to some extent confer the same benefits as interactions with real nature (Keniger et al., Reference Keniger, Gaston, Irvine and Fuller2013).
As discussed, VR and AR offer particular promise as they allow for enhanced immersion (when compared to watching static images or videos; Chirico and Gaggioli, Reference Chirico and Gaggioli2019), and they can be integrated with various (physical) activities in different settings (Bruun-Pedersen et al., Reference Bruun-Pedersen, Pedersen, Serafin and Kofoed2014, Reference Bruun-Pedersen, Serafin and Kofoed2016; Ludden et al., Reference Ludden, van Rompay, Niedderer and Tournier2019). For instance, inhabitants of a retirement home, who performed a biking exercise while watching an augmented natural environment, reported having had the feeling of being outside and experienced curiosity to explore the environment (Bruun-Pedersen et al., Reference Bruun-Pedersen, Pedersen, Serafin and Kofoed2014). In line with these findings, several review articles show that virtual nature can be a good alternative when real-life nature interaction is not feasible or available (Battisto et al., Reference Battisto, Vincent, Dye, Pak and Mclaughlin2018; White et al., Reference White, Yeo, Vassiljev, Lundstedt, Wallergård, Albin and Lõhmus2018). However, although the potential of immersive technologies for simulating nature is generally acknowledged, research pinpointing essential nature characteristics for stimulating social wellbeing is very limited.
Nature characteristics and social wellbeing
When it comes to preferences of older adults and social wellbeing, it is an open question which nature types are most beneficial. Further underscoring this lack of understanding, a recent study found no difference in wellbeing outcomes between simulated park-like grassland and forest-like woodland (Choe et al., Reference Choe, Jorgensen and Sheffield2020). Likewise, in a study assessing the mental health of local residents as a function of the presence and amount of public green spaces (Wood et al., Reference Wood, Hooper, Foster and Bull2017), a positive correlation was not only found for parks or other green spaces with an explicit nature focus (i.e. green settings with the specific aim of providing contact with nature), but also for green spaces aimed at recreation or practising sports.
When zooming in on social wellbeing, tended nature scenes might be particularly suitable for social interactions as they are readily associated with social presence and hence with safety and security (cf. Staats and Hartig, Reference Staats and Hartig2004), as also indicated by the importance of well-maintained infrastructure and facilities to older adults (Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018).
Additionally, recent studies in emotion research indicate that interactions with vast and wide-open settings inspire awe, defined as a sense of being in the presence of something greater than oneself (Keltner and Haidt, Reference Keltner and Haidt2003; Shiota et al., Reference Shiota, Keltner and Mossman2007; Cohen et al., Reference Cohen, Gruber and Keltner2010). Awe is accompanied by decreased self-focus and increased connectedness with other people, the community and the world at large (Keltner and Haidt, Reference Keltner and Haidt2003). Of particular relevance to the present context, a laboratory study with university students showed that wide-open and spacious (rather than dense) digital landscapes enhanced social aspirations and triggered awe (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a). However, so far, research has not addressed preferences and social benefits of spacious landscapes among older adults.
Research aims
The aim of Study 1 (consisting of focus group sessions conducted within Dutch nursing homes) was to explore limitations that older adults experience in interacting with nature, and to study (related) preferences for digital nature environments (Aim 1). Study 2 presents the results of a quantitative study aimed at testing the effects of enhanced digital nature scenes (varying in terms of spaciousness and type of nature) on measures related to social wellbeing, including social aspirations, awe, fascination and sense of presence (Aim 2).
Study 1: Focus groups
Method
The study received approval from the ethical committee.
Participants
Five focus groups were conducted (pre-COVID-19) within two care centres in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Groups consisted of four to nine older adults, between 69 and 92 years old (mean = 83), with different care needs. Care professionals recruited participants within the care centres who were mentally and physically able to participate in group discussions. Focus groups either comprised residents of the care centres involved or older adults living individually (but nonetheless receiving care or services provided by the care centre; see Appendix 1 for more information on demographics and focus group composition). Prior to participation, informed consent forms were signed by the participants. The focus group sessions took approximately 60–90 minutes (including informal introductions with coffee and tea).
Focus group set-up
The (semi-structured) focus group sessions consisted of two different parts. During the first part, introductory questions were asked to form a picture of how often and in what (social) contexts participants experienced nature. In the second part, different digital nature scenes (for examples, see Figure 1) were shown, and participants were asked for their opinion on style and content. The digital nature scenes were created using an advanced game development platform (Unity; Gaia Package)Footnote 1 and varied in terms of spaciousness and type of nature.
Screen shots of digital nature animations presented during the focus group sessions (left: dense tended nature; right: spacious tended nature).
Methodology
Common themes and concepts were identified by carefully analysing all transcripts. The coding process used a mixed-method approach, such that some of our themes were based on prior knowledge from literature (deductive approach), while other themes emerged directly from the participants’ narratives (inductive approach) (Ryan and Bernard, Reference Ryan and Bernard2003). The authors performed several rounds of coding to compare new codes to previously assigned codes, to make sure the identified themes remained valid and to derive the final set of themes.
Data analysis
The coding process was performed using Atlas.ti 8 software and consisted of three stages, derived from Corbin and Strauss (Reference Corbin and Strauss1990): (a) open coding, in which the themes emerging from the transcripts were coded in vivo using constant comparison; (b) axial coding, where themes were connected and combined into categories; and (c) selective coding, in which a storyline was uncovered based on the recurring themes.
Results Part 1: Context
The data of the first part were structured using four themes, grouped into the two categories ‘nature interaction’ and ‘physical limitations’.
Category ‘nature interaction’
At the start of each focus group, participants were asked whether they considered themselves a ‘nature person’ (conversation starter) which triggered meaningful discussions and revealed an overall desire for more interaction with nature and a perceived lack of contact with nature in their daily lives (elaborated on below).
Desire for nature interaction
A theme that was mentioned numerous times during the focus groups was the expressed desire for nature interaction or a perceived lack thereof. Generally, participants expressed a personal connection with nature and most participants identified themselves as a ‘nature person’. However, often, participants mentioned that they were not able to go into nature as often as they used to or less frequently as they would like:
So, I am a nature person but at the moment that no longer works. (1.1Footnote 2)
I found nature very beautiful, but I hardly ever come there anymore, only on a few occasions. (5.1)
I love nature very much, but I have hardly ever been there in recent years. Because … Yes, everything [gestures, to hands and electric wheelchair]. But I did that a lot, with deer and with the birds. And yes, the little hedgehogs. All those things and stuff. (5.1)
Other responses more specifically reveal a sense of sadness about not being able to go out and enjoy nature:
Yes, I just love nature and I miss it. I also live on the third floor and I often miss [it] sometimes, but I have a nice view though. But uh, I just love nature. (3.4)
The following excerpt likewise illustrates the perceived lack of nature interaction and resulting negative emotions (i.e. frustration and indignation) for participants who cannot go out independently:
Interviewer (I): Do you ever get picked up to go out into nature together?
1.2: No, never!
I: Never? Do you have that desire?
1.2: Yes, walking.
Social activities in nature
Within the context of our study, we were especially interested in what types of social situations participants associate with nature. The following excerpts reveal a connection between spending time with family and going out in nature:
I: Do you sometimes go to the forest or the park with a friend or family member?
2.8: Walking with my son.
I: And will your son come to pick you up to do that? Or do you meet together?
2.8: No, he always picks me up, because it is much too far to walk. We have always done this.
Very coincidentally, last week when my daughter came, we planned to go to the city, she said ‘well, it is such nice weather, we will do something else’. And then we went to the Arboretum [regional nature park] and yes, my husband was able to come too. And it is so beautiful there. We enjoyed it. (3.3)
These quotes highlight the enjoyment participants derive from nature visits but at the same time illustrate that the initiative to go outside often rests with the informal care-giver, as also illustrated by the following excerpt:
I: Are there people to take you outside?
1.4: Two are there, my granddaughters. And I really appreciate that.
I: And when your granddaughter picks you up, do you ask her if she can come?
1.4: No, she says ‘I will pick you up this afternoon’.
Next to social nature interactions with family members, other participants referred to possibilities offered by the care centre (i.e. ‘home care’; care professionals that attend to the care needs of older adults living individually) or associations that allow older adults to engage in physical activities:
I: Who do you go to the forest with then?
2.7: With the home care.
I: And the fishing you just talked about, are you still doing that now?
4.1: Yes, every Monday. But now it is no longer possible, it is getting too cold. We are under the supervision of a fishing association. So, when a fish takes the hook, the rod is pulled behind us by one of them. But I really enjoy it, I like it.
Category ‘physical limitations’
The participants in our focus groups discussed several types of physical limitations as a consequence of ageing. The most frequently voiced concerns were the loss of mobility and the related dependency on others.
Mobility
Lack of mobility (i.e. not being able to go out due to physical limitations) was often seen as a restricting factor for the participants in our study, as illustrated by the following excerpt:
I: And how is that for you, do you ever go out into nature together?
4.1: Well not lately, of course, because you live here internally. But I used to go out a lot. Also going away for a long weekend and then with the children … Out and about; up the trails, down the lanes!
I: But not so often now?
4.1: No, no, no.
I: What is holding you back then?
4.1: That I am old, physically it is no longer possible. Look, I'm in a wheelchair, it is not possible, it doesn't work anymore.
For other participants, electronic wheelchairs turned out to be an important means for going outside and regaining a sense of autonomy and independency:
4.3: I am certainly a nature person and if it no longer works with the bicycle, then I go with the electronic wheelchair. I spend a lot of time outside.
4.3: I love to go out into nature, but then alone.
I: Have you always done this alone?
4.3: Ever since I am alone, I do indeed prefer doing it alone. Because my electronic wheelchair takes me everywhere. And it is not always possible to ask friends or acquaintances like ‘hi, I want to go out, are you coming?’ Because then you have to ask someone on a bike to come along with the electronic wheelchair and then you have to ride one after the other. And then I think: it is much more practical if I just go alone.
Having access to an electronic wheelchair seems to give back some of the mobility or autonomy one might have lost due to (age-related) physical limitations. Participant 4.3 expresses in the above excerpt that her electronic wheelchair takes her everywhere, she therefore does not seem to experience any loss of mobility, although she acknowledges that going outside together has become more complicated by the use of an electronic wheelchair.
Loss of independence and dependence on others
Due to physical limitations, many of the participants in our study expressed some sort of loss of independence and autonomy, which turned out to be quite an emotional theme throughout the focus groups, as illustrated by the following excerpts:
Doing the groceries … I can't go that far anymore. It is difficult though. You have always been independent and then you think about it, don't you? You are dependent on someone else and that is difficult. I find that very difficult to deal with. (1.2)
Because you can do so much for so long and then everything is gone all at once. You can't do anything anymore. (1.3)
I: Do you ever go out into nature together?
1.1: Only a little. We can walk less than two metres without both of us lying on the ground.
I: But do you sometimes get picked up to go with a family member?
1.2: No, no, no!
1.1: No because they all have to work and stuff.
1.2: Family don't do that, and neighbours neither. Nobody does that.
I: Well, that is a pity.
1.1: Yes, that is not nice.
1.2: Yes, and you would like to go for a walk. Even if only for a short time.
However, there were also participants who do not feel dependent on others (access to an electronic wheelchair was frequently mentioned here as well):
I: Do you enjoy doing that [going into nature] together?
1.5: No, no. If you can do it alone, you can do as you please. You don't have to ask anyone ‘do you go here or there?’
I: So, you just enjoy doing that alone?
1.5: Yes, it's nice to go alone.
These findings hint at an important distinction between older adults who are fully dependent on other people for going out in nature (with negative emotions including frustration and sadness as a result) and those who can manage to go out in nature by themselves (oftentimes supported by an electronic wheelchair).
Results Part 2: Digital nature animations
In the second part of the focus groups, digital nature animations were presented, and participants were asked for their opinion.
Reactions towards nature scenes
First reactions to the tended nature scenes were somewhat varied. On the one hand, there were very positive reactions of participants who expressed the desire to be actually present in the scene presented:
I: [Dense tended nature scene] What is your first impression?
1.1: I find this quite beautiful … I would want to go for a walk there.
I: You would want to go for a walk there?
1.1: Yes, lovely. Smelling nature. It all smells so wonderful.
[Spacious tended nature scene] I just think this is really beautiful. The trees and everything. I just really see myself walking on such a path. (3.4)
On the other hand, there were participants who were much more critical, in particular participants who did not suffer from mobility restrictions and were less dependent on others. Common themes of criticism were realism (including depicted movement and the colours of the digital nature animations):
[Dense tended nature] I don't think this is beautiful … The colours are absolutely unnatural. And well, the trees are not finely lined … At least, I don't like this recording. (5.3)
[Dense tended nature] But this has nothing to do with reality. The colours too. (3.2)
[Dense tended nature] However, these bushes are wiggling weirdly … As one piece, then I think, guys that is not right (everyone laughs). It should only be the upper part of a plant that moves a bit, but not the entire bush that wiggles from side to side, then there really has to be quite a storm coming. (5.3)
Somewhat surprisingly, there were no comments or remarks pertaining to the difference between dense and spacious scenes within this category (for an example, see Figure 1), suggesting that this variable was less important to older adults, regardless of mobility constraints.
As for the wild nature scenes, in particular those participants who were rather negative about the tended nature scenes (i.e. those participants who could go out by themselves) seemed to be more positive about the wild nature scenes:
Yes, this is a real forest … I love the roughness. (3.4)
I find this more natural. (2.8)
However, other participants expressed explicit negative emotions or associations with this scene:
Very sad … I don't like this at all. (3.1)
Has there been a fire? No, I do not think the nature there is beautiful. (1.5)
Yes, this is a desolate scene. (4.1)
Overall, a preference was observed for the tended nature scenes. However, findings also suggest a relationship between mobility restrictions, on the one hand, and nature preferences, on the other: participants who experienced a loss of mobility seemed to prefer the tended nature scenes while this was not the case for participants who experienced high levels of autonomy and independence.
Summary Study 1
The aim of the focus groups was to explore limitations older adults experience in interacting with nature, and to study (related) preferences for digital nature environments (Aim 1). Findings suggest that mobility restrictions (and related levels of autonomy and independence) play a crucial role in whether older adults experience a lack of nature interaction. Especially for older adults who experience a lack of nature interaction, digital nature could provide a meaningful addition to everyday life. Furthermore, findings suggest that for these older adults in particular, tended nature scenes are preferred over wild scenes. This finding aligns with literature stressing the importance of accessibility and well-maintained paths (Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018). However, with respect to the distinction between dense and more spacious nature scenes, no clear preferences emerged.
In terms of digital nature characteristics, realism might well be an important factor influencing acceptance, especially among relatively independent older adults. Several participants commented on the use of too bright and artificial colours. This feedback served as input for the development of the digital nature scenes used in Study 2.
Furthermore, findings of Study 1 did not provide insights into the effects of digital nature on subjective wellbeing measures. Arguably, effects of nature scenes are largely implicit and hence do not surface in focus group sessions where participants consciously reflect on differences in nature scenes. In line with this notion, research indicated that awareness of natural surroundings and their effects is no precondition for the restorative effect of green elements (e.g. trees in urban settings) to take place (Lin et al., Reference Lin, Tsai, Sullivan, Chang and Chang2014). Hence, in addition to incorporating preferences of older adults in a next iteration of nature scenes, Study 2 aimed to test the effects of nature type (i.e. tended nature versus wild nature) and spaciousness of digital nature scenes on social wellbeing measures specifically.
Study 2: Online survey
Research aim
In the second study, we aimed to test effects of the enhanced digital nature scenes (varying in terms of spaciousness and type of nature) on measures related to social wellbeing, including social aspirations, awe, fascination and sense of presence (Aim 2).
Method
The study received approval from the ethical committee.
Experimental design
The study employed a 2 (spaciousness: dense versus spacious) × 2 (nature type: wild versus tended nature) mixed design with spaciousness as within-subject variable and nature type as between-subjects variable. In other words, participants were assigned to one of the ‘nature-type’ conditions and watched two videos varying in spaciousness in randomised order.
Stimulus development
Incorporating the feedback of Study 1 (e.g. enhancing realism of the scenes), four different animated nature scenes (dense tended nature, spacious tended nature, dense wild nature, spacious wild nature) were developed using the game development platform (Unity; Gaia Package).Footnote 3 As for the nature-type manipulation, the animations display either a tended scene (i.e. a park-like scene with benches, lampposts and a well-defined path) or a wild nature scene, without any of these objects; see Figure 2). This latter manipulation was based on focus group results hinting at the importance of social affordances (e.g. benches) and the importance of a safe setting (e.g. with lampposts).
Screen shots of digital nature scenes used in the survey (top-left: dense tended nature; top-right: spacious tended nature; bottom-left: dense wild nature; bottom-right: spacious wild nature).
As for the spaciousness manipulation, the spacious condition presents a wide-open view with a limited number of trees whereas in the dense condition, view is restricted by a large number of trees populating the scene. All scenes display a stationary viewpoint and depict subtle movements of vegetation, corresponding shadows and clouds. All conditions were accompanied by the same soundtrack with bird sounds.
Respondents
Respondents (N = 200) were recruited online using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, i.e. a large-scale online tool to recruit respondents meeting specific requirements in exchange for a fair pay. Inclusion criteria were age (55 years or older) and location (northern European countries, Canada and the United States of America (USA)).
Procedure
Prior to participation, respondents filled out an informed consent form and provided basic demographic information. Next, the respondents watched the first online digital nature video, which was embedded within the survey (via the video website Vimeo). Respondents were instructed to turn on their sound and watch the video full screen. After watching the video, a control question was implemented to ensure that respondents actually managed to play the video as instructed. Subsequently, respondents were asked to fill out the first post-exposure survey including the outcome measures. Subsequently, respondents watched the second video and filled out the second (post-exposure) survey. Respondents who watched both videos and completed the entire survey were rewarded with US $4.
Measures
All survey responses were recorded using five-point Likert scales in survey software Qualtrics. For an extensive list of all items used, see Appendix 2.
Social aspirations
Social aspirations were measured with the Social Aspirations Scale (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a), with five items tapping the appropriateness of the nature scene for social interaction as indicated by items such as ‘I would like to show this landscape to someone’ and ‘This landscape is suitable to experience together’ (α = 0.80).
Awe
Awe was measured with the sub-constructs Connectedness, Self-diminishment and Vastness of the original Awe Experience Scale (Yaden et al., Reference Yaden, Kaufman, Hyde, Chirico, Gaggioli, Zhang and Keltner2018), and includes 14 items such as ‘I felt small compared to everything else’ and ‘I experienced a sense of oneness with all things’ (α = 0.96).
Fascination
Fascination was measured with the Fascination construct of the original Perceived Restorativeness Scale (Hartig et al., Reference Hartig, Korpela, Evans and Gärling1997), including five items such as: ‘The setting has fascinating qualities’ and ‘There is much to explore and discover here’ (α = 0.92).
Sense of presence
As immersion (e.g. sense of presence) is considered to be one of the main benefits of digital nature, we included sense of presence in the questionnaire for explorative purposes. Sense of presence was measured with the self-location construct of the original Spatial Presence Experience Scale (Hartmann et al., Reference Hartmann, Wirth, Schramm, Klimmt, Vorderer, Gysbers, Böcking, Ravaja, Laarni, Saari, Gouveia and Sacau2016), and taps the extent to which one feels more or less present in the environment of the video, as indicated by eight items such as ‘I felt like I was actually there in the environment of the video’ and ‘I had the feeling that I was in the middle of the action rather than merely observing’ (α = 0.96).
Results
Demographic profile
Basic demographic information of the respondents is presented in Table 1.
Demographic profile
Analyses of variances
Mixed design analyses of variance tests were conducted with, respectively, social aspirations, awe, fascination and sense of presence as dependent variables, with spaciousness as within-subject factor and type of nature as between-subjects factor.
Social aspirations
The main effect of spaciousness was marginally significant (F(1,198) = 3.2, p = 0.08, η2 = 0.02), suggesting higher social aspiration scores for spacious nature scenes (mean = 3.62, standard deviation (SD) = 0.73) compared to dense nature scenes (mean = 3.52, SD = 0.81).
Moreover, the effect of nature type was significant (F(1,198) = 19.81, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.09), indicating that tended nature scenes (mean = 3.77, SD = 0.63) elicited more social aspirations than wild nature scenes (mean = 3.36, SD = 0.85).
The interaction between type of nature and spaciousness was not significant (F(1,198) = 2.22, p = 0.14, η2 = 0.01).
Fascination
The effect of spaciousness on fascination scores was significant (F(1,198) = 7.32, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.04), showing that dense nature scenes (mean = 3.90, SD = 0.83) elicited higher fascination scores compared to spacious nature scenes (mean = 3.70, SD = 0.88).
Additionally, there was a significant effect of type of nature on fascination (F(1,198) = 4.22, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.02), indicating that tended nature scenes (mean = 3.90, SD = 0.80) elicited higher fascination scores compared to wild nature scenes (mean = 3.70, SD = 0.90).
Again, the interaction between type of nature and spaciousness was not significant (F(1,198) = 1.19, p = 0.28, η2 = 0.01).
Awe
There was no significant effect of spaciousness on awe scores (F(1,198) = 2.61, p = 0.11, η2 = 0.01). However, the effect of type of nature was significant (F(1,198) = 3.96, p < 0.05, = η2 = 0.02): tended nature scenes (mean = 3.09, SD = 0.92) elicited higher awe scores compared to wild nature scenes (mean = 2.84, SD = 0.97). The interaction between nature type and spaciousness was not significant (F < 1, not significant).
Sense of presence
The main effect of spaciousness on sense of presence score was significant (F(1,198) = 5.38, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.03), indicating that dense nature scenes (mean = 3.11, SD = 1.09) elicited a higher sense of presence scores than spacious nature scenes (mean = 3.0, SD = 1.04).
The main effect of type of nature was also significant (F(1,198) = 5.96, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.03), indicating that tended nature scenes (mean = 3.21, SD = 1.05) elicited a higher sense of presence compared to wild nature scenes (mean = 2.87, SD = 1.05).
Finally, the interaction between nature type and spaciousness was not significant (F(1,198) = 1.28, p = 0.26, η2 = 0.01).
Summary Study 2
The aim of Study 2 was to test the effects of the enhanced digital nature scenes (varying in terms of spaciousness and type of nature) on measures related to social wellbeing, including social aspirations, awe, fascination and sense of presence (Aim 2). Results clearly demonstrate the potential of tended (rather than wild) nature for enhancing measures related to social wellbeing. That is, tended nature scenes elicited significantly more social aspirations and positive emotions (fascination and awe), and were more effective in triggering a sense of presence. Effects of spaciousness on social aspirations were marginally significant, suggesting that spacious settings may enhance prosocial aspirations, but in line with the focus group sessions, effects of nature type were much more pronounced. Finally, dense (rather than spacious) nature was considered more fascinating.
General discussion
The findings presented across the two studies underscore the potential of digital nature for enhancing social aspirations and positive emotions. To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to (a) pinpoint specific nature characteristics important to social wellbeing and (b) systematically vary nature characteristics using VR software. Although the potential of VR technology for immersing people in natural settings has been demonstrated previously (e.g. Chirico and Gaggioli, Reference Chirico and Gaggioli2019), previous research used footage of existing nature settings. Clearly, a major benefit of designing nature settings from scratch is that full control over (systematic) variations between nature scenes is possible.
In sum, our findings indicate that immersive technologies hold great promise for reintroducing nature into the lives of people for whom access to nature is difficult or impossible. Furthermore, findings from the focus groups suggest that acceptance and attitude towards digital nature is particularly high for older adults with mobility restrictions and related perceptions of reduced autonomy and independence, which are important determinants of wellbeing (Gabriel and Bowling, Reference Gabriel and Bowling2004). Hence, especially for these people, digital nature can be considered an essential complementary means for interacting with nature. However, when considering the current COVID-19 pandemic and the recent lockdowns, the potential of digital nature is by no means limited to older adults only, as also evidenced by a recent study assessing the effects of digital nature during the worldwide lockdowns (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020b).
When turning to the results of both the focus group sessions and the quantitative survey, our findings indicate that for older adults, tended nature settings are generally preferred over wild nature. In a previous laboratory study among international university students (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a), no such effects of type of nature were found. Arguably, the importance of tended nature (associated with higher levels of comfort and safety) is much more pronounced for older adults, which is not only in line with the findings from the focus group sessions (Study 1) but also with previous research (e.g. Wen et al., Reference Wen, Albert and Von Haaren2018).
The effects of nature type on awe and fascination (showing that tended nature positively influences these affective states) in particular contrast with previous nature studies, rather demonstrating positive effects of wild and more mysterious nature settings (Kaplan and Kaplan, Reference Kaplan and Kaplan1989; Szolosi et al., Reference Szolosi, Watson and Ruddell2014; van Rompay and Jol, Reference van Rompay and Jol2016; Chiang et al., Reference Chiang, Li and Jane2017). Again, these findings might relate to target group characteristics with older (rather than young) adults arguably feeling more at ease and hence more open to experiencing awe and fascination in tended, rather than wild, scenes. Clearly, these findings call for follow-up research in which the role of safety and comfort perceptions as a function of nature type and mobility restrictions is tested.
The main effects of spaciousness on fascination and sense of presence (showing that dense scenes were rated as more fascinating and created a stronger sense of presence compared to spacious scenes) are in line with previous research (Chiang et al., Reference Chiang, Li and Jane2017). However, the effect of spaciousness on social aspirations (showing that spacious landscapes elicited more social aspirations) was only marginally significant, whereas in previous research, the effect of spaciousness on social aspirations was particularly pronounced among young adults (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a). Arguably, the denser (less-spacious) settings trigger a greater sense of intimacy and privacy as they shield one off from the environment and other people present.
Another factor that might explain the difference in effects of spaciousness on social aspirations between the present study and previous research relates to presentation mode. Whereas in previous research, the digital nature scenes were presented on a large and immersive projection wall (van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a), the digital nature scenes in the present study were presented as videos merged into an online survey which participants watched on their own device at home. When also considering the finding that sense of presence was significantly higher in the dense (rather than the spacious) condition, arguably the spaciousness manipulation (and the sense of vastness it aimed to trigger) did not come across as convincingly on a small screen. When enhancing interactivity in future iterations of the digital nature scenes, e.g. by providing ways to move around in the digital nature environment, sense of presence and immersion might be boosted likewise.
Limitations and future research
Although participants of both studies were residing in Western countries, namely the Netherlands and the USA, the two studies described in this article did not use a similar sample of participants. The participants of the focus groups were exclusively Dutch care centre residents or care receivers, whereas the respondents of the online survey study were generally younger and mostly residing in the USA. Future research should point out whether the findings of the online survey are generalisable to a population for whom loneliness and mobility restrictions are particularly pressing issues. Such studies should also provide insight into how demographics, presence of nearby nature and social context (i.e. watching alone or watching with others) shape preferences for different nature scenes. For instance, recent findings indicate that having nature nearby is positively correlated with feelings of connectedness (Cartwright et al., Reference Cartwright, White and Clitherow2018; van Houwelingen-Snippe et al., Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020b), further stressing the importance of introducing digital nature into people's living environments.
Although our findings clearly point at the potential of digital nature for enhancing social aspirations and positive emotions, follow-up research should investigate the effects of digital nature on measures requiring longitudinal research, such as loneliness, quality of life and life satisfaction. Furthermore, previous research showed that people living close to nature experience less feelings of loneliness (Maas et al., Reference Maas, van Dillen, Verheij and Groenewegen2009). These findings warrant studies exploring the relationship between digital nature and loneliness.
Furthermore, the stationary scenes used in this study did not capitalise fully on the potential of VR technology which also allows for more autonomy and interaction (e.g. being able to walk and being in control of factors such as walking direction and speed of movement) and the depiction of social presence (i.e. cues signalling the presence of others such as silhouettes or avatars or the sound of children playing). Considering the focus on social wellbeing, such additions could increase the potential of digital nature further.
When designing digital nature interactions for older adults, the findings of Study 1 seem to suggest that older adults who perceive a lack of nature interactions might benefit most from doses of (digital) nature interactions incorporated into daily activities. On the other hand, users who experience nature more frequently might be drawn to more adventurous technology and/or scenes that add something more exciting or adventurous to what one is exposed to during the day. Since personal needs and preferences vary greatly among the heterogeneous user group, researchers should not aim for a one-size-fits-all product, but rather aim for a person-centred approach (Hendriks et al., Reference Hendriks, Van Vliet, Gerritsen and Dröes2016). Future research should point out how to personalise digital nature scenes based on needs and expectations.
Finally, future studies could explore further the role of being active (versus passive) in nature. Considering that for many, being in nature is usually associated with engagement in a variety of activities (e.g. exercising, gardening, meeting others), whereas for others being in nature might be foremost associated with a more passive mode of experience (e.g. enjoying the view while sitting on a bench), it might be particularly worthwhile to test how more active or passive uses of nature influence social wellbeing measures. Although research findings generally testify to more positive effects for a more active mode of experience (Holt et al., Reference Holt, Lombard, Best, Smiley-Smith and Quinn2019; Rogerson et al., Reference Rogerson, Colbeck, Bragg, Dosumu and Griffin2020; Unruh et al., Reference Unruh, Smith and Scammell2000), it is an open question to what extent this also applies to engagement in digital nature environments where activity might relate to, for instance, active exploration of a digital nature environment using controllers or related means. Clearly, in such cases, digital skills important for navigating virtual environments should be considered as well (Xie, Reference Xie2003).
Conclusion
This research shows that digital nature can elicit social aspirations and enhance social wellbeing among older adults. These findings contribute to the very small base of existing research on effects of wellbeing by pinpointing design considerations for digital nature environments and by indicating how preferences vary with mobility restrictions. Furthermore, our findings shed light on essential nature characteristics and warrant further research and development of digital nature applications for inspiring social connectedness, reducing loneliness and enhancing overall wellbeing.
Financial support
This work was supported by ZonMW (CreateHealth grant number 443001106).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
Studies were approved by the ethical committee of the University of Twente (request numbers 191301 and 200541).
Appendix 1: Focus group participants
Appendix 2: Measures Study 2
Social Aspirations Scale
van Houwelingen-Snippe et al. (Reference van Houwelingen-Snippe, van Rompay, de Jong and Ben Allouch2020a), α = 0.80
(1) I would like to show this landscape to someone.
(2) I would like to meet here with a friend.
(3) I would like to make a spontaneous chat.
(4) This landscape is suitable to experience together.
(5) If I would encounter someone here, I would feel uncomfortable (Reverse).
Perceived Restorativeness Scale
Hartig et al. (Reference Hartig, Korpela, Evans and Gärling1997), α = 0.92
(1) The setting has fascinating qualities.
(2) My attention is drawn to many interesting things.
(3) I would like to get to know this place better.
(4) There is much to explore and discover here.
(5) I would like to spend more time looking at the surroundings.
Awe Experience Scale
Yaden et al. (Reference Yaden, Kaufman, Hyde, Chirico, Gaggioli, Zhang and Keltner2018), α = 0.96
(1) I felt that my sense of self was diminished.
(2) I experienced a reduced sense of self.
(3) I felt my sense of self become somehow smaller.
(4) I felt small compared to everything else.
(5) I had the sense of being connected to everything.
(6) I felt a sense of communion with all living things.
(7) I experienced a sense of oneness with all things.
(8) I felt closely connected to humanity.
(9) I had a sense of complete connectedness.
(10) I felt that I was in the presence of something grand.
(11) I experienced something greater than myself.
(12) I felt in the presence of greatness.
(13) I perceived something that was much larger than me.
(14) I perceived vastness.
Spatial Presence Experience Scale
Hartmann et al. (Reference Hartmann, Wirth, Schramm, Klimmt, Vorderer, Gysbers, Böcking, Ravaja, Laarni, Saari, Gouveia and Sacau2016), α = 0.96
(1) I felt like I was actually there in the environment of the video.
(2) It was as though my true location had shifted into the environment in the video.
(3) I felt as though I was physically present in the environment of the video.
(4) I experienced the environment of the video as though I had stepped into a different place.
(5) I was convinced that things were actually happening around me.
(6) I had the feeling that I was in the middle of the action rather than merely observing.
(7) I felt like the objects in the video surrounded me.
(8) I was convinced that the objects in the video were located on the various sides of my body.
Open access
