Blue space in urban and peri-urban areas and mental health: which blue space types and characteristics are most beneficial?

There is an increasing awareness that besides green spaces, blue spaces can also positively influence mental as well as physical health (see for example, Völker & Kistemann, 2011; Gascon et al., 2017). Blue spaces are: “outdoor environments – either natural or manmade – that prominently feature water and are accessible to humans either proximally (being in, on or near water) or distally/virtually (being able to see, hear or otherwise sense water)” (Grellier et al., 2017, p. 3). Examples include coasts, lakes, ponds and pond systems, wadis systems, artificial buffer basins and water courses. Together with green spaces they form the green-blue infrastructure. Therefore, a second systematic review focused on effects of blue spaces on mental health

Green space in urban and peri-urban areas and mental health: which green space types and characteristics are most beneficial?

Urban green space plays an important role in the mental and physical health of urbanites, as well as of people working in or visiting urban areas (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2016). But green space can be very diverse in its typology, including for instance urban forests, parks, playgrounds, allotments and urban farming locations. These green space types can also differ greatly in their defining characteristics; for instance, parks can differ in scenic beauty, vegetative composition or openness. Globally, continuing urbanization, as well as climate change, is increasingly putting pressure on the existence of green spaces within urban areas (e.g. Dallimer et al., 2011; Richards & Belcher, 2020). The scarcity of urban green space and the desire to create liveable cities requires in-depth knowledge on how different green space types and characteristics influence mental health, to facilitate well-informed design and planning choices

Green space in urban and peri-urban areas and mental health: which green space types and characteristics are most beneficial?

Urban green space plays an important role in the mental and physical health of urbanites, as well as of people working in or visiting urban areas (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2016). But green space can be very diverse in its typology, including for instance urban forests, parks, playgrounds, allotments and urban farming locations. These green space types can also differ greatly in their defining characteristics; for instance, parks can differ in scenic beauty, vegetative composition or openness. Globally, continuing urbanization, as well as climate change, is increasingly putting pressure on the existence of green spaces within urban areas (e.g. Dallimer et al., 2011; Richards & Belcher, 2020). The scarcity of urban green space and the desire to create liveable cities requires in-depth knowledge on how different green space types and characteristics influence mental health, to facilitate well-informed design and planning choices

Biodiversity post-2020: Closing the gap between global targets and national-level implementation

National and local governments need to step up efforts to effectively implement the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity to halt and reverse worsening biodiversity trends. Drawing on recent advances in interdisciplinary biodiversity science, we propose a framework for improved implementation by national and subnational governments. First, the identification of actions and the promotion of ownership across stakeholders need to recognize the multiple values of biodiversity and account for remote responsibility. Second, cross-sectorial implementation and mainstreaming should adopt scalable and multifunctional ecosystem restoration approaches and target positive futures for nature and people. Third, assessment of progress and adaptive management can be informed by novel biodiversity monitoring and modeling approaches handling the multidimensionality of biodiversity change

Growing Resilience through Interaction with Nature: Can Group Walks in Nature Buffer the Effects of Stressful Life Events on Mental Health?

Nature-based activities have been used as therapeutic interventions for those experiencing stress and mental ill health. This study investigates whether group walks could be a nature-based intervention to foster resilience, by buffering the effects of recent stressful life events on mental health. An observational research design with propensity score-matched samples compared the mental health of individuals who did (Nature Group Walkers, n = 1081) or did not (Non-Group Walkers, n = 435) attend nature group walks. A sub-sample of Frequent Nature Group Walkers (at least once per week, n = 631) was also investigated. Data were analyzed using multiple regression with an interaction term. All analyses were controlled for age, gender, and recent physical activity. Results showed that neither nature group walking, nor doing this frequently, moderated the effects of stressful life events on mental health. Using a main effects model, the positive associations of group walks in nature were at a greater magnitude than the negative associations of stressful life events on depression, positive affect, and mental well-being, suggesting an ‘undoing’ effect of nature group walks. Group walking schemes in natural environments may be an important public health promotion intervention for mental health

The UK WTC9/11 Evacuation Study: An Overview of the Methodologies Employed and some Preliminary Analysis

This paper briefly describes the methodologies employed in the collection and storage of first-hand accounts of evacuation experiences derived from face-to-face interviews with evacuees from the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers complex on 11 September 2001 and the development of the High-rise Evacuation Evaluation Database (HEED). The main focus of the paper is to present a preliminary analysis of data derived from the evacuation of the North Tower

Group Outdoor Health Walks Using Activity Trackers: Measurement and Implementation Insight from a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

Outdoor walking groups are nature-based interventions (NBIs) that promote health and wellbeing by modifying individual behaviour. The challenges of such NBIs include the motivation of inactive adults to participate and measurement issues. This feasibility study investigates a 12-week group outdoor health walk (GOHW) incorporating activity trackers and use of a holistic health and wellbeing measure, the Self-sasessment of Change (SAC) scale. A mixed methods design explored participant recruitment and retention, programme delivery, and measures of physical activity and health and wellbeing. Walker data included: pre-post questionnaires, daily step counts, and interviews. Programme delivery information included: weekly checklists, staff reflections, stakeholder meeting minutes, and a report. Thirteen adults (age 63–81, 76% female) joined and completed the activity tracker GOHW. Activity trackers motivated walkers to join and be more active but complicated programme delivery. Activity trackers allowed the quantification of physical activity and the SAC health and wellbeing measure was easy to use. By week 12, all participants met national physical activity guidelines. Clinically relevant changes on the SAC scale included: sleeping well, experiencing vibrant senses, and feeling energised, focused, joyful, calm and whole. Results illustrate the feasibility of using activity trackers to motivate engagement in and provide a measure of physical activity from GOHWs. The SAC scale offers a promising measure for nature–health research. A conceptual model is provided for the development of future large-scale studies of NBIs, such as group outdoor health walks

Species richness is positively related to mental health – a study for Germany

Nature benefits human health. To date, however, little is known whether biodiversity relates to human health. While some local and city level studies show that species diversity, as a measure of biodiversity, can have positive effects, there is a lack of studies about the relationship between different species diversity measures and human health, especially at larger spatial scales. Here, we conduct cross-sectional analyses of the association between species diversity and human health across Germany, while controlling for socio-economic factors and other nature characteristics. As indicators for human health, we use the mental (MCS) and physical health (PCS) component scales of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, Short Form Health Questionnaire – SF12). For species diversity, we use species richness and abundance estimates of two species groups: plants and birds. We phrase the following hypotheses: plant and bird species are positively associated with mental and physical health (H1 & H3); bird abundance is positively related to mental health (H2). Our results demonstrate a significant positive relationship between plant and bird species richness and mental health across all model variations controlling for a multitude of other factors. These results highlight the importance for species diversity for people’s mental health and well-being. Therefore, policy makers, landscape planners and greenspace managers on the local and national level should consider supporting biodiverse environments to promote mental health and wellbeing. For this purpose, we propose to use species diversity measures as indicators for salutogenic (health promoting) characteristics of nature, landscape and urban green space