Indicators to support healthy urban gardening in urban management.

Urban gardening is part of a trend towards more parks and green areas in cities, consumption of organic, locally grown products, and a closer relationship with one's own living environment. Our literature review shows that urban gardens provide opportunities for physical activity and allow people to consume homegrown fruit and vegetables. Urban gardens may also reduce stress levels of gardeners and improve social cohesion. In this way, they can help to prevent health problems. Good quality of urban soil and the functioning of soil ecosystems are indispensable prerequisites for these. We developed a framework that shows how ecosystem health and human health are interconnected in urban gardening, by placing it in the context of urban green space management and valuation. This study yields a set of indicators, which can be used to assess soil ecosystem services and health impacts. They may provide a basis for the evolving dialogue in decision-making processes and partnership activities in urban management. Recognizing the potential effects and discussing what is important to whom, might be enough to find synergies. Importantly, the initiators of urban gardens are often citizens, who seek support from other stakeholders. The social network established by gardens may contribute to health-enabling, cohesive communities involved with their living environment. To maximize health benefits, it is useful to make the urban gardens accessible to many people. This study suggests that urban gardens deserve a position in urban green space management as they may help to address societal challenges like urbanization, health and well-being in aging populations and climate adaptation

Not all farming environments protect against the development of asthma and wheeze in children

BACKGROUND: In recent years, studies have shown a protective effect of being raised in a farm environment on the development of hay fever and atopic sensitization. Inconsistent data on the relation of farming to asthma and wheeze have raised some doubt about a true protective effect. OBJECTIVE: We sought to study the differential effects of farm-associated exposures on specific asthma-related health outcomes. METHODS: The cross-sectional Prevention of Allergy Risk Factors for Sensitization in Children Related to Farming and Anthroposophic Lifestyle study included 8263 school-age children from rural areas in 5 European countries. Information on farm-related exposures and health outcomes was obtained by using questionnaires. In subsamples allergen-specific IgE and RNA expression of CD14 and Toll-like receptor genes were measured, and dust from children's mattresses was evaluated for microbial components. RESULTS: Inverse relations with a diagnosis of asthma were found for pig keeping (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86), farm milk consumption (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.99), frequent stay in animal sheds (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95), child's involvement in haying (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81), and use of silage (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98; for nonatopic asthma) and in Germany for agriculture (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.53). Protective factors were related with higher expression levels of genes of the innate immunity. Potential risk factors for asthma and wheeze were also identified in the farm milieu. Levels of endotoxin and extracellular polysaccharides were related to the health outcomes independently of the farm exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of being raised in a farm environment was ascribed to distinct exposures. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The development of atopic sensitization and atopic and nonatopic asthma is most likely determined by different environmental factors, possibly reflecting distinct pathomechanisms