Discussion

Question 1

Our hypothesis regarding the relationship of the profiles of nature exposure and outdoor activity in nature with occupational well-being?

Answer 1

received support, since the profiles were associated with burnout and work engagement.

Question 2

Which can be considered as favorable profiles regarding nature exposure and outdoor activity in nature?

Answer 2

about 68% of participants belonged to the profiles of high, versatile, and unilateral nature exposure profiles

These profiles can also be considered as favorable profiles in terms of occupational well-being, since these participants reported higher work engagement in the dimensions of vigor and dedication than did the participants in the profile of low exposure.

Question 3

What were the differences between the versatile exposure and unilateral exposure profiles?

Answer 3

Participants in the versatile exposure profile visited natural environments during leisure time and at work as frequently as did the participants in the unilateral exposure profile, but there were differences in the range of their activities in nature environments. Participants who had versatile activities spent time on being in nature (e.g., enjoying scenery and nature, relaxing and dwelling), exercising in nature, engaging in nature trips and travels, and utilized resources of nature such as by picking berries and mushrooms.

The participants with unilateral activity typically engaged in less varied activities: enjoying and being in nature as well as walking. However, participants in both profiles were similar from the perspective of occupational well-being.

Question 4

The association between the profiles and occupational well- being was highlighted in relation to?

Answer 4

the vigor and dedication dimensions of work engagement.

Question 5

The participants in the profiles of favorable nature exposure and outdoor activity in nature reported

Answer 5

higher vigor and dedication compared to the participants in the low exposure profile.

Question 6

Our research

provides further evidence that

Answer 6

more frequent visits to natural
areas can be linked with positive motivational work-related
states. On the basis of the ART and SRT, nature environments may improve concentration
and promote positive affect that presumably play a part in
employees’ resources for experiencing vigor and dedication at
work.

Question 7

The relationships between the profiles and burnout was?

Answer 7

Less prevalent (hallitseva, vallitseva).

Question 8

The participants belonging to the high exposure profile reported?

Answer 8

lower cynicism and inadequacy than did the participants in the low exposure profile. In fact, the participants in the high exposure profile reported on average the lowest burnout in all dimensions of burnout and in conjunction with the highest work engagement.

Question 9

The participants in the high exposure profile reported being exposed to nature environments on average?

Answer 9

Almost daily during their workday.

Question 10

These results suggest?

Answer 10

More frequent exposure to natural environments at work can have beneficial associations with occupational well-being.
However, it should be noted that a high frequency of professional nature visits does not necessarily lead to well-being benefits, since participants in the average exposure profile reported only higher dedication in comparison to the participants in the low exposure profile.

Question 11

The participants in the high exposure profile were more likely?

Answer 11

To have a lower education, a blue-collar position, and to work irregular day shifts.

Question 12

The other participants in the favorable nature exposure profiles (the profiles of versatile and unilateral exposure) were more likely ?

Answer 12

to work regular day shifts. In addition, the participants in the versatile exposure profile were more likely to be white-collar workers. Based on these results, the participants who work in typical office jobs could gain a further boost to their occupational well-being by having access to more exposure to nature during their workday.

Question 13

average level of nature exposure?

Answer 13

These participants visited nature environments during leisure time on average less often in the summer than did the participants in the favorable profiles of exposure and outdoor activity in nature, but more often than did the participants in the low exposure profile during the winter. The participants in this profile of average exposure were similar to the participants in the profile of high exposure in terms of the demographic characteristics. They were more likely to be women and working in irregular day shifts in blue-collar, non- supervisory positions. Also, their work entailed nature exposure more frequently than was the case with the participants in the versatile, unilateral, and low exposure profiles.

Question 14

Overall, the participants in the average exposure profile reported?

Answer 14

average level of occupational well-being as well as higher dedication than did the participants in the low exposure profile. On the basis of our findings, it is possible that the participants in the average exposure profile would benefit from more regular nature exposure during leisure time in order to promote higher-than-average occupational well-being. However, their shift work may restrict their possibility to do that.

Question 15

it could be that gaining a sense of being away may be difficult when?

Answer 15

The nature visits are work-related

The work- related nature experience may be different in quality and not as restorative as experiences during leisure time.

Question 16

Different frequencies may,

Answer 16

offset or amplify experiences of being away and fascination in different ways, and could thus lead to added or diminished well-being benefits.

Question 17

Participants in the low exposure profile, in turn, were more likely to be ?

Answer 17

male, and they reported the lowest work engagement and highest burnout, on average. Our findings also show that these participants had the longest distance to travel to get from home to natural environments. The longer distance from home may restrict the accessibility to nature environments, which is a consideration that is in line with previous research indicating that a longer distance from home to nature environments reduces the number of nature visits

From this perspective, it is recommendable to increase especially such individuals’ exposure to nature.

Question 18

The proximity of nature environments and their accessibility depends not only on an individual’s decisions but also

Answer 18

on regional and environmental supply and planning. Ideally, nature environments should be located near enough to residential and work environments to act as a resource for health and general as well as occupational well-being.

Question 19

This finding is in line with a previous study, in which increasing physical activity?

Answer 19

was not the only explanation for health benefits of nature environments. The well-being effects of a nature environment itself can be significant to some extent, but increased physical activity increases the odds for better well-being.

Question 20

First limitation?

Answer 20

owing to the relatively low response rate, the representativeness of the sample needs to be considered. It is possible that the participants who responded to the survey were more inclined to nature visits. Those participants who failed to respond, in turn, may be utilizing natural environments to a lesser extent. Therefore, the profile of low exposure may have incorporated a larger proportion of employees if the response rate had been higher.

Question 21

Second limitation?

Answer 21

Second, the relationships between nature exposure and occupational well-being should be investigated with a longitudinal, gender-balanced sample of employees in order to get a more representative picture of different development paths. It is possible that those employees who have better occupational well-being also have more resources enabling them to engage in outdoor activities more frequently. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF THIS CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY, INFERENCES REGARDING CAUSAL RELATIONS OF NATURE EXPOSURE AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITY WITH OCCUPATIONAL WELL-BEING CANNOT BE MADE.

Question 22

Third limitation?

Answer 22

the study is based on questionnaire data, and thus additional objective data (e.g., register-based sickness absence) should be collected in order to avoid the limitations of self-report data and same-source bias. In terms of future directions, it would also be valuable to investigate how nature experiences differ in association with the workplace vs. leisure time, since nature exposure in association with work appeared to play a role in the profiles of nature exposure in this study.

Question 23

In conclusion?

Answer 23

these findings highlight how employees’ levels of nature exposure and outdoor activities in nature can contribute to their work engagement and burnout. Frequent opportunities for nature exposure at work as well as during leisure time can be related to higher vigor and dedication, and in turn lower cynicism and professional inadequacy. In line with the theories on the restorative effects of nature environments, employees may seek to engage in various activities in nature to regain their cognitive and psychological resources. However, the current results extend far beyond the restorative environment theories by showing that the relation of nature exposure to occupational well-being exists on a more general experiential level than the short-term effects of stress and attention restoration described by the ART and SRT. It is conceivable that, for example, changes in vigor and dedication require not only recovery of cognitive and emotional resources, but also active emotion- and self-regulation.