This is how it is for me. Feeling anxious, stressed, depressed or nervous? Even on a 30F day I can head to the beach and feel at peace. Until obnoxious types start showing up that is, and it's as simple as moving and I easily re-find my calm.
Contrast that to say, my backyard or a park. Quiet and calm and I feel good. Let a dog bark for a few minutes or an obnoxious person nearby and my peace is "destroyed" and I have to leave.
I scanned the whole article for mention of how visits to the coast are obviously related to affluence. They mention that all socioeconomic classes can justify a visit (this is false, the contradiction being myself) but don’t go into any detail at that mention. Did I miss this anywhere else?
I’m not calling b.s. on the article; I am curious if any other HNers have parsed the surrounding research and seen discussion of this (isn’t it blatantly obvious?) correlation between affluence and wellbeing.
You're not a socioeconomic class, you're a single individual.
I'm visiting "blue spaces" every year, multiple times (I live in a landlocked country). I know for a fact (worked in tourism industry) that literally every socioeconomic class here spends a significant amount of their income to visit "blue spaces".
Yeah, the more affluent people can afford better places with more people working for their comfort, but that doesn't change a thing about the poorest just packing their car and going by themselves, staying in a tent right next to the "blue space" if they have to.
I commented because the article is good enough that there might be discussion nearby that covers the benefits of the coast controlling for socioeconomic class. It’s not in the article, and it’s relevant to whether or not I justify a trip/s to the coast. The implied benefits sound wonderful obviously.
If you’re in the tourism industry, maybe you can help? I find your comment antagonistic and my feelings are hurt, but I also understand that internet culture sucks and/or you may not have meant it as such.
If this is true, then why are many of Britain's coastal towns such as Blackpool, Grimsby, Great Yarmouth etc also the areas of the country with the poorest health? Because it's bullshit, that's why.
Maybe if you can afford to live and work somewhere where there are lots of work and recreational opportunities with decent paying jobs that allow you to afford and balance a career with regular trips to forests, coasts and lakes then yes, maybe spending time near water is part of the key to happiness. But I can tell you from personal experience that if you are stuck in one of these coastal towns then no, being near the water is not some magical happy pill. If anything it's the opposite. You're hemmed in at the end of the road and it's hard to escape.
If you feel like you're trapped on a desert island the ocean is an oppressor, not a friend.
I think the fair comparison is: if you’re living someplace with any given level of economic opportunity (and the other things you mention) would you be happier if it was on the water than if it was not.
It seems for you the answer is no, but that’s not necessarily the typical response.
Yeah I get what you’re saying but I am so fed up of articles like this proclaiming x to be the secret to happiness or y to be the cure for mental health issues when the reality is that it is political and socioeconomic economic causes at the root of the majority of problems in this country. If people are mentally unwell, they should be able to access a therapist not told to go take a trip to the beach.
"The movement of the waves, of winds, of the earth is ever in the same lasting harmony. We do not stand on the beach and inquire of the ocean what was its movement of the past and what will be its movement of the future. We realize that the movement peculiar to its nature is eternal to its nature." (Isadora Duncan)
16 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 41.9 ms ] threadContrast that to say, my backyard or a park. Quiet and calm and I feel good. Let a dog bark for a few minutes or an obnoxious person nearby and my peace is "destroyed" and I have to leave.
I’m not calling b.s. on the article; I am curious if any other HNers have parsed the surrounding research and seen discussion of this (isn’t it blatantly obvious?) correlation between affluence and wellbeing.
I'm visiting "blue spaces" every year, multiple times (I live in a landlocked country). I know for a fact (worked in tourism industry) that literally every socioeconomic class here spends a significant amount of their income to visit "blue spaces".
Yeah, the more affluent people can afford better places with more people working for their comfort, but that doesn't change a thing about the poorest just packing their car and going by themselves, staying in a tent right next to the "blue space" if they have to.
If you’re in the tourism industry, maybe you can help? I find your comment antagonistic and my feelings are hurt, but I also understand that internet culture sucks and/or you may not have meant it as such.
Maybe if you can afford to live and work somewhere where there are lots of work and recreational opportunities with decent paying jobs that allow you to afford and balance a career with regular trips to forests, coasts and lakes then yes, maybe spending time near water is part of the key to happiness. But I can tell you from personal experience that if you are stuck in one of these coastal towns then no, being near the water is not some magical happy pill. If anything it's the opposite. You're hemmed in at the end of the road and it's hard to escape.
If you feel like you're trapped on a desert island the ocean is an oppressor, not a friend.
It seems for you the answer is no, but that’s not necessarily the typical response.
"The movement of the waves, of winds, of the earth is ever in the same lasting harmony. We do not stand on the beach and inquire of the ocean what was its movement of the past and what will be its movement of the future. We realize that the movement peculiar to its nature is eternal to its nature." (Isadora Duncan)