Seasonal Variations in the Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Nature

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess whether the outcomes of immersive virtual nature (IVN) varies between seasons. Background: IVN has received increased interest in recent years due to its potential applications within health and design. However, factors influencing people’s responses to IVN are largely unknown. Seasons affect a variety of human processes and behaviors including levels of affect and blood pressure, also in the context of human–nature interactions. These seasonal variations might influence how people interact and respond to IVN, especially since IVN allow for representations of nature that are not representative of the current real-life season. Methods: A secondary analysis of data retrieved from two previous studies, which included three IVN conditions, was conducted. All IVNs represented late spring conditions. Measures included perceived environmental restorativeness, affect, enjoyment, heart rate, and blood pressure. A meta-analytic approach was used to assess whether there were consistent differences between participants who were exposed to the IVN in spring/summer (early June to mid-September) and autumn/winter (mid-September to December) across the three different conditions. Results: There was a consistent effect of season only for one component of affect (fatigue), with larger reductions in fatigue when exposed to IVN during autumn/winter compared to spring/summer. No other significant effects of season were observed. Conclusion: IVNs are feasible to use across all seasons but might be more effective in reducing the feeling of fatigue during autumn and winter compared to other seasons.

Daily exposure to virtual nature reduces symptoms of anxiety in college students

“…Students who participated during the pandemic may have been particularly sensitive to changes in mental health from our intervention. Still, the confounding effects of conducting a study over three semesters with multiple calendar seasons may have influenced our results 66 . Last, we did not test for the possibility of negative emotional responses, such as boredom or fear, from virtual nature exposure.…”