Elsevier

Health & Place

Volume 30, November 2014, Pages 287-292
Health & Place

Review Essay
Green space, health and wellbeing: making space for individual agency

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Better understanding is needed of how people come to self-identify with green space.

  • Green space studies could usefully consider changes in wellbeing priorities over time.

  • Shifting life circumstances may shape the salience of different green space types.

  • Truly interdisciplinary mixed method approaches situated in the everyday are needed.

Abstract

This essay examines the assumptions of green space use underpinning much existing green space and health research. It considers opportunities to move the field forward through exploring two often overlooked aspects of individual agency: the influence of shifting life circumstances on personal wellbeing priorities and place practices, and the role of personal orientations to nature in shaping how green space wellbeing opportunities are perceived and experienced. It suggests such efforts could provide more nuanced insights into the complex, personal factors that define and drive individual choices regarding the use of green spaces for wellbeing over time, thereby strengthening our understanding of the salutogenic potential (and limits) of green spaces.

Introduction

A significant body of research has accumulated over the last 30 years that, whilst not conclusive, suggests a positive influence of green space exposure on human health and wellbeing. This includes the identification of associations between green space in the living environment, better self reported health (De Vries et al., 2003, Maas et al., 2006, Van Den Berg et al., 2010) and reduced morbidity, stress, obesity, and cardiovascular and respiratory disease (Nielsen and Hansen, 2007, Maas et al., 2009a, Richardson and Mitchell, 2010).

Efforts to explain the processes through which these associations might arise tend to suggest a role for: (a) improved environmental quality, such as reduced air pollution (Hartig et al., 2014); (b) physical activity (Bowler et al., 2010, Thompson-Coon et al., 2011); (c) social interaction (Maas et al., 2009b); (d) direct restoration from stress or fatigue through psycho-neuro-endocrine pathways (Ulrich, 1983, Kaplan, 1995); and (e) emotional and/or spiritual experiences, though these are lesser researched (Warber et al., 2013). Overall, the balance of evidence currently favours the restorative pathway (Silveirinha De Oliveira et al., 2013), is mixed on physical activity, and limited with regards to social interaction (Hartig et al., 2014).

Whilst the evidence base provides valuable insights into the salutogenic potential of green spaces, existing research tends to be underpinned by the assumption that where people have nearby green spaces, they will use them (Hitchings, 2013). This risks equating green space presence (typically within the residential environment) with inevitable wellbeing experience (Conradson, 2005). Although this assumption is increasingly acknowledged as a limitation in much of that research, it does constrain the generation of more nuanced insights into when and why different people do or do not use green spaces and how; it is likely that complex personal factors define and drive our choices regarding the use of different green spaces for wellbeing over time and, therefore, the potential to benefit from ‘use’. Where people do engage with their local green spaces, the nature of their interactions may promote certain dimensions of wellbeing at the expense of others (Collins and Kearns, 2007).

This article examines such assumptions of use alongside opportunities to move the field forward through exploring two often overlooked aspects of individual agency: the influence of shifting life circumstances on personal wellbeing priorities and place practices, and the role of personal orientations to nature in shaping how green space wellbeing affordances are perceived and experienced. It concludes by elaborating on four future research opportunities which could strengthen our understanding of the salutogenic potential (and limits) of green space by facilitating greater consideration of individual agency.

Within the article, agency is understood as “the capacity of individuals to make purposeful choices and transform these into desired actions and outcomes within the social, cultural, economic and political contexts specific to their daily lives” (Bell, 2012: 283). A broad interpretation of green space is adopted, including private and public green and blue spaces, primarily in and around urban areas, ranging from landscaped spaces (such as parks, gardens, allotments) to those considered relatively ‘natural’ (such as woodlands, rivers and beaches) (DTLR, 2002). Whilst the somewhat homogenous ‘green space’ term is used within this article for purposes of brevity, we recognise and support recent calls for greater specificity in our understanding of the diverse health and wellbeing potentials of different green and blue space settings and interactions (Velarde et al., 2007, Van Den Berg et al., 2014).

Section snippets

The limitations of existing assumptions underpinning green space-health studies

Much existing research, a significant proportion of which is carried out at a population-level, makes the assumption that a greater presence of, or proximity to, green space within the living environment will lead to enhanced green space use (Hitchings, 2013) and contribute to improved health outcomes. However the findings of these studies are mixed and often contradictory. For example, a vast and growing body of evidence has examined associations between green space proximity and self-reported

How could a focus on agency address the limitations of existing assumptions?

A renewed focus on individual agency (including capacity and inclination to engage with green spaces) could contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which people do or do not use different green spaces, and the extent to which people associate their green space interactions with wellbeing. Two potentially important aspects of individual agency in this regard are discussed in this section: the role of shifts in life circumstances over time and the development of personal

Conclusions: steps to better integrate agency into future green space and health studies

This review essay has discussed assumptions of green space use that currently underpin much of the green space and health evidence base and identified future research directions aimed at understanding why different green space interactions do or do not become meaningful for wellbeing over time and for whom. In doing so, it suggests value in moving beyond a focus on green space presence and/or proximity to consider more subtle aspects of individual agency that may influence use patterns and

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the European Social Fund Convergence Programme for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for funding Sarah Bell׳s PhD scholarship, as well as Westley Design; a landscape architecture and inclusive design consultancy which has provided valuable practical insights and guidance to the design of this doctoral research project. Thanks also go to two anonymous referees for their valuable and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article.

The European Centre for

References (91)

  • C. Hickman

    ׳To brighten the aspect of our streets and increase the health and enjoyment of our city׳: the national health society and urban green space in late-nineteenth century London

    Landscape Urban Plan

    (2013)
  • M. Hillsdon et al.

    The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity

    Public Health

    (2006)
  • R. Hitchings

    Studying the preoccupations that prevent people from going into green space

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2013)
  • S. Kaplan

    The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework

    J. Environ. Psychol

    (1995)
  • A. Kessel et al.

    Multidisciplinary research in public health: a case study of research on access to green space

    Public Health

    (2009)
  • M. Koohsari et al.

    Effects of access to public open spaces on walking: is proximity enough?

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2013)
  • K. Korpela et al.

    Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favourite places

    Health Place

    (2008)
  • K. Korpela et al.

    Analyzing the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional wellbeing

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (2014)
  • J. Maas et al.

    Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health

    Health Place

    (2009)
  • F. Mayer et al.

    The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature

    J. Environ. Psychol

    (2004)
  • G. McCormack et al.

    Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research

    Health Place

    (2010)
  • C. Milligan et al.

    ׳Cultivating health’: therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2004)
  • C. Milligan et al.

    Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental wellbeing of young adults

    Health Place

    (2007)
  • R. Mitchell

    Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments?

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2013)
  • T. Nielsen et al.

    Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators

    Health Place

    (2007)
  • J. Panter et al.

    Associations between physical activity, perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and access to facilities in an English city

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2008)
  • C. Paquet et al.

    Are accessibility and characteristics of public open spaces associated with better cardiometabolic health?

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2013)
  • M. Petticrew et al.

    Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health

    Public Health

    (2005)
  • C. Phoenix et al.

    Paradigmatic approaches to studying environment and human health: (Forgotten) implications for interdisciplinary research

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2013)
  • R. Pinder et al.

    Exploring perceptions of health and the environment: a qualitative study of Thames Chase Community Forest

    Health Place

    (2009)
  • J. Plane et al.

    Neighbourhood amenities and health: examining the significance of a local park

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2013)
  • E. Richardson et al.

    Gender differences in relationships between urban greenspace and health in the United Kingdom

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2010)
  • E. Rose

    Encountering place: a psychoanalytic approach for understanding how therapeutic landscapes benefit health and wellbeing

    Health Place

    (2012)
  • M. Scopelliti et al.

    Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: a matter of place experience

    J. Environ. Psychol

    (2004)
  • M. Skår

    Forest dear and forest fear: dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2010)
  • J. Spartz et al.

    Place meanings surrounding an urban natural area: a qualitative inquiry

    J. Environ. Psychol

    (2011)
  • M. Townsend

    Feel blue? Touch green! Participation in forest/woodland management as a treatment for depression

    Urban Forestry Urban Greening

    (2006)
  • A. Van Den Berg et al.

    Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2010)
  • A. Van Den Berg et al.

    Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: does setting type make a difference?

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2014)
  • M.D. Velarde et al.

    Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental psychology

    Urban Forestry Urban Greening

    (2007)
  • C. Ward Thompson et al.

    Woodland improvements in deprived urban communities: what impact do they have on people׳s activities and quality of life?

    Landscape Urban Plann

    (2013)
  • J. Wiles et al.

    Older people and their social spaces: a study of well-being and attachment to place in Aotearoa New Zealand

    Soc. Sci. Med

    (2009)
  • S. Alves et al.

    Preferences of older people for environmental attributes of local parks: the use of conjoint analysis

    Facilities

    (2008)
  • S. Asah et al.

    The influence of childhood: operational pathways to adulthood participation in nature-based activities

    Environ. Behav

    (2012)
  • P. Aspinall et al.

    Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people

    Environ. Plann. B

    (2010)
  • Cited by (126)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text