Healthy Parks Healthy People (original) (raw)
Related papers
Parks, 2022
In this article, we outline progress and challenges in establishing effective health promotion tied to visitor experiences provided by protected and conserved areas in Canada. Despite an expanding global evidence base, case studies focused on aspects of health and well-being within Canada's protected and conserved areas remain limited. Data pertaining to motivations, barriers and experiences of visitors are often not collected by governing agencies and, if collected, are not made generally available or reported on. There is an obvious, large gap in research and action focused on the needs and rights of groups facing systemic barriers related to a variety of issues including, but not limited to, access, nature experiences, and needs with respect to health and well-being outcomes. Activation of programmes at the site level continue to grow, and Park Prescription programmes, as well as changes to the Accessible Canada Act, represent significant, positive examples of recent cross-sector policy integration. Evaluations of outcomes associated with HPHP programmes have not yet occurred but will be important to adapting interventions and informing cross-sector capacity building. We conclude by providing an overview of gaps in evidence and practice that, if addressed, can lead to more effective human health promotion vis-à-vis nature contact in protected and conserved areas in Canada.
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 2015
Research consistently documents positive links between human contact with nature and health and well-being. Recent work has explored the role of visitation to parks and protected areas in providing health and well-being benefits. This conceptual paper identifies the state-of-the-art research findings on this issue from an interdisciplinary perspective. The results reveal increasing understanding of the positive relationships between park and protected area visitation and the associated health and well-being benefits to the visitors. It also establishes the need for better collaboration between park and protected area and health institutions, which will require new and innovative transdisciplinary partnerships in order to better understand salient issues, realign common interests where appropriate, and effectively integrate empirical evidence into relevant policy, planning and management. Recommendations are made for specific knowledge user groups, such as policy makers, social and health professionals, protected areas professionals, and researchers, with the ultimate objective of better linking human health and well-being and protected areas policies to enhance delivery mechanisms for health promotion activities.
Victoria, 2008
This version focuses on the sections of the monograph most directly related to parks. foreword to its Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report "Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Health Synthesis," the World Health Organization (2005:iii) stated: Nature's goods and services are the ultimate foundations of life and health, even though in modern societies this fundamental dependency may be indirect, displaced in space and time, and therefore poorly recognised. The human relationship with the natural world is deeply intertwined with the human conscious and subconscious mind and is therefore not easy to access for analysis. Nonetheless, in recent years, there have been concerted attempts, particularly in the disciplines of ecology, biology, environmental psychology, and psychiatry, to empirically examine the human relationship with the natural world. Many researchers have come to the conclusion that humans are dependent on nature not only for material needs (food, water, shelter, etc) but perhaps more importantly for psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs (Wilson 1984; Katcher and Beck 1987; Friedmann and Thomas 1995; Roszak et al. 1995; Frumkin 2001; Wilson 2001). Just how dependent on nature humans are, and exactly what benefits can be gained from interacting with nature, are issues that have only just begun to be investigated. Findings so far, however, indicate that parks and other natural environments play a vital role in human health and wellbeing through providing access to nature. This is likely to change the way parks and nature are currently viewed and managed by governments and the wider community. The idea that contact with nature is good for human health and well-being is the subject of research in diverse disciplines such as environmental psychology, environmental health, psychiatry, biology, ecology, landscape preferences, horticulture, leisure and recreation, wilderness, and of course public health policy and medicine. Driving these divergent streams is the central notion that contact with nature is beneficial, perhaps even essential, to human health and well-being. While the strength of the evidence for this assertion varies, due in part to "methodological limitations of [some of ] the research," and the mechanisms by which nature influences health outcomes is generally unknown, nevertheless acceptance of the association of nature with human well-being is increasing (Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and Environment 2005:81). In the last few hundred years, however, there has been an extraordinary disengagement of humans from the natural environment (Katcher and Beck 1987; Axelrod and Suedfeld 1995; Beck and Katcher 1996). This is mostly due to the enormous shift of people away from rural areas into cities (Katcher and Beck 1987). Here, contact with nature is often only available via parks. Never have humans spent so little time in physical contact with animals and plants, and the consequences are unknown (Katcher and Beck 1987). Further to this, modern society, by its very essence, insulates people from outdoor environmental stimuli (Stilgoe 2001) and regular contact with nature (Katcher and Beck 1987). Some researchers believe that too much artificial stimulation and an existence spent in purely human environments may cause exhaustion, or produce a loss of vitality and health (Katcher and Beck 1987; Stilgoe 2001). Parks, nature, and health: What is the connection? The context: Parks and people When parks were first designed in the nineteenth century, city officials had a strong belief in
An Exploration of Psychosocial Pathways of Parks' Effects on Health: A Qualitative Study
Urban green space has been positively associated with psychological and physical health. However, the linkage between exposure to parks and health outcomes remains unclear. The current study examined the meanings that people assign to city parks, as a way to understand the pathways by which parks exert their effects on health. We conducted qualitative interviews with twenty culturally diverse residents in New York City. Thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative data. Results showed that all themes identified were related to parks fulfilling a basic human need for connection to (1) family, loved ones, and friends; (2) community and neighborhood; (3) self; and (4) nature. Based on these data, we proposed a human-centered framework for future research and interventions aimed at catalyzing parks as a vehicle to improve health and wellbeing. A human-centered approach emphasizes targeting the deep-seated needs and values of those we seek to engage and for whom health promotion and disease prevention efforts are designed. Our study shows that park transformations need to incorporate careful considerations of the human need for connection on multiple levels, so that park usage and its consequent health benefits may be optimized.
2020
The GreenEquityHEALTH-project explored ecosystem services provision during recent summer heat and drought periods in two distinct urban parks in Leipzig, Germany, using a interdisciplinary, multi-method approach. In detail, the objectives were to generate empirical evidence on the potential of urban parks to provide cooling under the heat and drought conditions in 2018 and 2019, explore physical activity patterns related to divers park characteristics under the heat and drought conditions in 2018 and analyse analyse physical and mental health effects related o park visits.
Public Park Spaces as a Platform to Promote Healthy Living: Introducing a HealthPark Concept
Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases
The concept of Healthy Living (HL) as a primary medical intervention continues to gain traction, and rightfully so. Being physically active, consuming a nutritious diet, not smoking and maintaining an appropriate body weight constitute the HL polypill, the foundation of HL medicine (HLM). Daily use of the HL polypill, working toward optimal dosages, portends profound health benefits, substantially reducing the risk of chronic disease [i.e., cardiovascular disease (CVD), pulmonary disease, metabolic syndromes, certain cancers, etc.] and associated adverse health consequences. To be effective and proactive, our healthcare system must rethink where its primary intervention, HLM, is delivered. Waiting for individuals to come to the traditional outpatient setting is an ineffective approach as poor lifestyle habits are typically well established by the time care is initiated. Ideally, HLM should be delivered where individuals live, work and go to school, promoting immersion in a culture of health and wellness. To this end, there is a growing interest in the use of public parks as a platform to promote the adoption of HL behaviors. The current perspectives paper provides a brief literature review on the use of public parks for HL interventions and introduces a new HealthPark model being developed in Chicago.
The significance of parks to physical activity and public health:: A conceptual model
American Journal of Preventive …, 2005
Park-based physical activity is a promising means to satisfy current physical activity requirements. However, there is little research concerning what park environmental and policy characteristics might enhance physical activity levels. This study proposes a conceptual model to guide thinking and suggest hypotheses. This framework describes the relationships between park benefits, park use, and physical activity, and the antecedents/correlates of park use. In this classification scheme, the discussion focuses on park environmental characteristics that could be related to physical activity, including park features, condition, access, aesthetics, safety, and policies. Data for these categories should be collected within specific geographic areas in or around the park, including activity areas, supporting areas, the overall park, and the surrounding neighborhood. Future research should focus on how to operationalize specific measures and methodologies for collecting data, as well as measuring associations between individual physical activity levels and specific park characteristics. Collaboration among many disciplines is needed. (Am J Prev Med 2005;28(2S2):159 -168)
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2013
With increasing interest in the use of urban green space to promote human health, there is a need to understand the extent to which park users conceptualize these places as a resource for health and well-being. This study sought to examine park users' own reasons for and benefits from green space usage and compare these with concepts and constructs in existing person-environment-health theories and models of health. Conducted in 13 public green spaces in Sheffield, UK, we undertook a qualitative content analysis of 312 park users' responses to open-ended interview questions and identified a breadth, depth and salience of visit motivators and derived effects. Findings highlight a discrepancy between reasons for visiting and derived effects from the use of urban green space. Motivations emphasized walking, green space qualities, and children. Derived effects highlighted relaxation, positive emotions within the self and towards the place, and spiritual well-being. We generate a taxonomy of motivations and derived effects that could facilitate operationalization within empirical research and articulate a conceptual