Turning over a new leaf: The health-enabling capacities of nature contact in prison

Abstract

In this paper we explore the potential applicability of evidence of health-enabling effects of elements of the built environment - particularly access to nature - deriving from research in healthcare facilities to evidence-based design in the custodial context. Drawing on comparative qualitative research conducted in the UK and the Nordic region, we argue that although available data lack direct comparability, there is evidence that access to nature generates the same health-enabling effects in custody as are recognised in healthcare facilities. Reflecting on the differing political contexts of imprisonment in the two study areas, we conclude by advocating further research both to better understand health-enabling elements of the custodial built environment, and to better enable robust findings from healthcare facilities to be applied in custodial contexts.

Back to nature? Attention restoration theory and the restorative effects of nature contact in prison

“…Mirroring those in previous studies (Nadkarni et al 2017, Moran andTurner, 2018), respondents frequently reported that both types of nature contact helped reduce stress and increased feelings of calm. They described them as relaxing, and supportive of a sense of peace and wellbeing; 'It makes a big difference to how I feel.…”

“…Despite the apposite nature of ART (noted by Söderlund and Newman 2017), this analytical framing has not been widely deployed in prisons, and relevant published studies of the potentially therapeutic effects of nature contact are scarce. Moore's 1981 paper reported fewer sickness calls made by prisoners with a view of nature from their cell, but since then knowledge about the impact of nature contact in prison had advanced relatively little until two recent and significant contributions by Nadkarni et al (2017) and Moran and Turner (2018). In framing their experimental study of the impact of viewing nature videos on solitary-confined prisoners in a US facility, Nadkarni et al (2017) differentiate between direct, indirect, and vicarious nature contact.…”

“…Nadkarni et al (2017, 400) found that nature videos shown in individual sessions to persons otherwise entirely nature-deprived, resulted in self-reported reductions in 'negative emotions such as irritability and agitation', and 'a calming effect that lasted beyond the viewing period, suggesting an enhancement of emotional self-regulation', as well as reductions in violence and improvements in behaviour and communication. Moran and Turner (2018) considered the selfreported effects of nature contact for conventionally-(not solitary-) confined prisoners in two facilities in the UK and Norway. In the Norwegian facility, pre-existing forest had been incorporated at the time of construction, and in both facilities there were park/garden-like areas within prison grounds.…”

“…Studies of levels of stress for serving prisoners are absent, but individuals with a history of incarceration are consistently more likely to be afflicted with stress-related illnesses (Massoglia 2008), and others spending long periods of time in prison, such as prison officers (Jordan 2011), are known to experience high levels of stress (Rutter and Fielding 1988;Keinan and Malach-Pines 2007). Recent qualitative and ethnographic research has complemented pre-existing understandings of the hardships of imprisonment, bringing to light the role of prison environments in their amplification or mitigation (Wener 2012, Moran andJewkes 2015;Moran and Turner 2018). As a result, we are moving closer to understanding the importance of the sociophysical environment of prisons (i.e.…”

Troubling institutions

“…McGeachan notes, however, that such changes in penal policy are difficult to enact and that after years of institutionalisation the agents within such spaces may be troubled by the intervention of caring moments which in this context are described as: “specialist support in a relatively unstructured and non‐punitive environment” (Bottomley et al., , p. 11). Given recent interest in contemporary cycles of therapeutic spaces in prison (Moran & Turner, ), it seems pertinent to reflect on historical geographies of such attempts. Notably, McGeachan observes that despite the introduction of such practices, the prison remains a harsh, punitive environment.…”