A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies confirms what we all know—more sounds of nature and less noise from human activity is good for us. Should we incorporate these sounds into our photography for healthcare? Can we?
In the April 2021 Proceedings of the National Acadnonnn of Sciences researchers reviewed 18 published studies from 11 different countries that examined the effect of natural sounds on study participants. About 20% of the studies measured conventional health metrics (heart rate, blood pressure, cortisol levels, perceived pain, etc). The majority (80%) of the studies measured factors that could lead to adverse health metrics—things like perception, mood, and cognitive performance.
A photograph of summer cascade in Olympic National Park may help reduce stress in the viewer. Would the addition of natural sounds (rushing water, birdsong) be better? Photo: © Donald J. Rommes
Most of the studies were done in a laboratory setting with healthy people. The result of the analysis clearly showed that nature sounds had a positive effect on health metrics and affect, while reducing stress and annoyance.
The details of the analysis and the compete discussion can be read here.
In the discussion, the authors state:
"Results from our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that exposure to natural sounds improves health outcomes and positive affect and decreases stress and annoyance. These results align with many studies documenting the health benefits of exposure to nature through other sensory stimuli. Our review showed that natural sounds alone can confer health benefits."
The authors point out that "water sounds had the largest effect on health and positive affective outcomes, while bird sounds had the largest effect on alleviating stress and annoyance."
These results are not surprising. They undoubtedly confirm the beliefs of the majority of people who have ever experienced a natural environment.
Natural sounds—like images of nature—may be able to be used an intervention to promote well-being. From the author's discussion:
"Nature-based health interventions are increasingly numerous (37), including a growing number of community collaboration projects and a national park prescription program [www.parkrx.org/ (38)]. However, explicit consideration of the acoustic environment is rare in these initiatives."
The question is whether exposure to natural sounds will have a positive effect on short and long term health outcomes. If so, what is the dose? What should be the frequency of exposure? Are certain nature sounds more effective than others?
Using the Goldilocks analogy: Is the sound of a trickling stream too little? Is a thundering waterfall too much? Perhaps a gentle cascade is just right?
I am sure these answers will come. Meanwhile, while we have been focused on what types of images are best for patient rooms, perhaps now is the time for artists and art consultants to think about whether and how to incorporate natural sounds in our nature photography.
Natural smells are a natural extension of that thought. They will undoubtedly come next.
Comments