No abstract

No abstract

for additional information. This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A growing number of studies have shown that visiting green spaces and being exposed to natural environments can reduce psychological stress. A number of questions concerning the effects of natural environments on levels of stress remain including, “Are activities engaged in natural environments more or less beneficial at reducing stress when compared to those done in more urban settings?” This study examined this question from the perspective of “levels of nature”. That is, data on levels of stress were collected from three sites, one site having wilderness-like characteristics, a second site representing a municipal-type park, and a third site representing a built environment (indoor exercise facility) within a city. Data were generated using biophysical markers (cortisol and amylase) and a psychological measure within a pre- and post-visit format. Findings suggest that visiting natural environments can be beneficial in reducing both physical and psychological stress levels, with visitors to a natural environment reporting significantly lower levels of stress than their counterparts visiting a more urbanized outdoor setting or indoor exercise facility.

There is an increasing interest in the field of experiential education to move beyond simply documenting the value of experiential education programs and, instead, develop more evidence-based models for experiential education practice (cf., Gass, 2005; Henderson, 2004). Due in part to the diversity of experiential education programs, participants, goals, designs, and specific program experiences, there exists a broad constellation of variables that can impact the results of studies using an evidence-based approach. While many of these variables are accounted for through effective research designs, others are largely uncontrollable, yet remain influential. These uncontrollable variables can often distort or confound the results from research and evaluation efforts. This paper categorizes some of the most common confounding variables into three temporally based categories: Precursor, Concomitant, and Postexperience. Following this, suggestions for researchers and evaluators in addressing these variables are provided.