内容正文:
“ So itll come as no surprise that theres research
showing that spending time in nature is good. There are
dozens of papers showing that,” University of Exeter
Medical School researcher Mathew P. White said. “We get
this idea—patients are coming to us and they are asking,
‘Doctor, how long should I spend?’ And the doctor is
saying, ‘I dont really know. ’”
So White and his team decided to find out by using
data collected from nearly 20, 000 people in England
through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural
Environment Survey. And their answer is two hours a week.
People who spent at least that much time in nature either all
at once or totaled over several shorter visits were more likely
to report good health and psychological well-being than
those with no nature exposure.
Remarkably the two-hour standard applied to men and
women, to older and younger folks, to people from different
ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic
levels, and so on. Even people with long-term illnesses or
disabilities benefited from time spent in nature—as long as
it was least 120 minutes per week.
While the findings are based on a vast number of
people, White cautions that its really just a correlation.
Nobody knows why or how nature has this benefit, or whether
the findings will stand up to a more strict investigation.
“I want to be really clear about this. This is in very
early stages. Were not saying everybody has to spend 120
minutes. This is really to start the conversation, saying,
what would a threshold look like? What research do we need
to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true
confidence to work with their patients? But its certainly a
starting point. ”
4. What does White want to figure out in the survey? B
A. The benefits of being outside.
B. How long we should stay in nature.
C. The significance of outdoor activities.
D. Whether the British spend enough time in nature.
5. What can we learn from the last two paragraphs?
A. The