Many physiotherapists recommend that their patients actively use nature to aid in recovery. It is important to engage in primary prevention and health promotion efforts to secure easily accessible natural spaces, such as old, pristine forests. This may include participating in debates on industrial forestry methods.
This piece builds on an article published by the authors in Health Promotion International (Nesbakken, Rønningen, & Torp, 2024)
Forests as Health-Promoting Settings
The United Nations has declared that global ecosystem degradation poses a danger to human health. Outdoor recreation is well known to have positive effects on both physical and mental health, and forests are perhaps the most accessible type of natural environment for most people (Bowler et al., 2010; Maller et al., 2005). However, not all forests are the same. Old, pristine forests are regarded as healthier ecosystems compared to young, industrial forests because they offer greater biodiversity, providing better living conditions for insects, birds, and mammals (Botanic Gardens Conservation International Descanso House, 2021). Forests are frequently used for activities such as exercise, relaxation, and berry picking. Studies show that people prefer forests with large, old trees (Gundersen & Frivold, 2008), and that the health-promoting effects of old, pristine forests are greater than those of younger, managed forests (Simkin, Ojala, & Tyrväinen, 2020).
Forestry as an Important Industry
In addition to being a habitat for wildlife and a setting for human recreation, forests are also valuable for industry, providing goods such as paper, firewood, and materials for furniture and construction. The most common forestry method is clear-cutting, where all trees in a given area are felled simultaneously and new trees are replanted. These forests are typically harvested again after approximately 70 years. The Norwegian government supports this type of forestry, arguing that it is the most financially efficient and beneficial for climate concerns (Aspøy et al., 2021; Gomo, 2021). However, this view is heavily disputed, with conservationists claiming that clear-cutting reduces biodiversity and that uniform, same-aged forests sequester less CO2 compared to those harvested with alternative methods (Andersen, 2021; Aspøy et al., 2021; Gregersen, 2023). More sustainable practices, such as selective logging, have been successfully implemented in some areas, like the forests managed by Oslo municipality (Andersen, 2021).
Steffen Torp (PT, PhD)
Professor
Steffen is a physiotherapist, professor, and member of the Research Group for Health Promotion in Settings at the Department of Health-, Social- and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway.
Solvor Nesbakken (PT, MSc)
Solvor is a physiotherapist and holds a master’s degree in health promotion (MSc). She is an associate member of the Research Group for Health Promotion in Settings at the Department of Health-, Social- and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway.
Grete Eide Rønningen (PhD)
Associate Professor
Grete is a social pedagogue, associate professor and member of the Research Group for Health Promotion in Settings at the Department of Health-, Social- and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway
Photo by Peter Robbins on Unsplash
People’s Reactions to Loss of Nature from Clear-Cutting
The debate on forestry often focuses on biodiversity and climate change, which are critical for the future of our planet. However, it is also important to consider how people use forests and their emotional reactions when these areas are lost. Through in-depth interviews with forest enthusiasts, we explored how individuals react when their local forests are abruptly removed due to clear-cutting (Nesbakken, Rønningen, & Torp, 2024). The analysis identified two main themes: Emotional Reactions to Clear-Cutting and A Desire to Influence.
One emotional reaction was grief due to the personal loss of a recreational area that was important for physical and emotional well-being, described as “Grief on behalf of oneself.” Interviewees characterized their use of the forest as a form of “self-medication.” While physical activity was important for some, all emphasized the stress-reducing effects of slow walking, reflective thinking, and experiencing natural elements such as weather, flowers, birdsong, and wildlife.
Another reaction was “Grief on behalf of nature,” reflecting concern for the loss of habitats and the worsening global climate, an emotion closely linked to the broader climate crisis and known as eco-grief (Ojala et al., 2021). Many interviewees also expressed reluctance to share their emotional responses publicly (“Emotional avoidance”), feeling that such sentiments were often dismissed as invalid in the forestry debate.
Participants expressed a strong desire to influence forest management practices to better support the health of flora, fauna, and people (“Action strategies”). However, they often felt powerless against the complex systems involving forest owners and public authorities (“Powerlessness”).
The role of physiotherapists
Physiotherapists are advocates for physical activity in nature and, more broadly, for the health benefits of nature experiences. They should participate in public health planning and engage in political discussions that aim to preserve access to health-promoting natural spaces. Given that clear-cutting reduces the availability of accessible nature in local communities, forestry practices are indeed a relevant public health issue for physiotherapists, both privately and professionally.
In Norway, many physiotherapists serve as public health coordinators in municipalities, positioning them close to political decisions regarding nature preservation and allowing them to influence decision-makers. Other physiotherapists can bring this issue to the forefront by collaborating with public health coordinators or other key figures within the municipality responsible for nature and public health. Raising public awareness of local forestry practices can begin with engaging local political parties. Physiotherapists can reach out directly to political parties, encouraging them to prioritize nature preservation on their agendas and emphasize the public health implications of natural spaces.
Matters for the Municipal Council to consider might include requiring forest owners to report when and where they plan to cut down forests, enabling municipalities and citizens to respond to these plans, and/or implementing bans on clear-cutting of publicly owned forests.
References
Header image by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash
Andersen, G. (2021). Nytt skogbruk! [New forestry!]. Ford forlag.
Aspøy, H., Stokland, H., Lein, U., Krange, O., & Skogen, K. (2021, 28.12.21). Maktkamp om skogbrukets klimaeffekt [Power struggle about the climate effects of forstry]. Morgenbladet. https://www.morgenbladet.no/ideer/essay/2021/12/28/maktkamp-om-skogbrukets-klimaeffekt/
Botanic Gardens Conservation International Descanso House. (2021). State of the world’s trees. https://www.bgci.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FINAL-GTAReportMedRes-1.pdf
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10, 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Gomo, R. (2021, 11.3.2021). Tilskudd til aktiviteter i skogbruket. NIBIO. Retrieved 20.3.2024 from https://www.skogbruk.nibio.no/tilskudd-til-aktiviteter-i-skogbruket
Gregersen, R. (2023, 8.11.23). Skogeier vil tilby «økologisk» tømmer [Forest owner wants to offer “ecological” timber]. Nrk.no. https://www.nrk.no/innlandet/skogeier-anders-lovig-i-asnes-vil-tilby-_okologisk_-tommer-for-a-stimulere-til-mindre-flatehugst-1.16619400
Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(4), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2005). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int, 21(1), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai032
Nesbakken, S., Rønningen, G. E., & Torp S. (2024). How loss of nature through clear-cutting forstry affects well-being. Health Promot Int, 39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae110
Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C., & Middleton, J. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: A narrative review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716
Simkin, J., Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen, L. (2020). Restorative effects of mature and young commercial forests, pristine old-growth forest and urban recreation forest – A field experiment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126567
(The text has benefited from language editing assistance provided by an open AI language model)