People and green spaces: promoting public health and mental well‐being through ecotherapy
| Date | 01 September 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200700018 |
| Published date | 01 September 2007 |
| Pages | 24-39 |
| Author | Ambra Burls |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Ambra Burls
Senior lecturer
Anglia Ruskin University
Correspondence to:
Ambra Burls
Institute of Health and
Social Care
Anglia Ruskin University
Bishop Hall Lane
Chelmsford CM1 1SQ
a.burls@
btopenworld.com
RESEARCH
24 journal of public mental health
vol 6 • issue 3
© Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd
Drawing on the author’s multi-method research on the viability of specific ecotherapy practitioner
training and curriculum design, this paper debates how the use of ecotherapeutic approaches can
provide a two-pronged system to achieve both individual health (at micro level) and public and
environment health outcomes (at macro level).The research sought the views of service users,
practitioners and educationalists through use of interviews, focus groups,a nominal group, and an
ethnographic case study group.This research raised other considerations: namely, that people seeking
personal recovery also, through stewardship of green spaces, may achieve unanticipated social capital
and natural capital outcomes and thereby meet current multi-disciplinary policy targets.This added
social value has not been previously considered as an important dimension in people’s well-being
and recovery from ill health or social exclusion. Such outcomes emerge from the idea of green spaces
becoming a ‘product’delivered to the community by people whose pursuit of personal recover y also
directly contributes to improved public mental health.
People and green spaces:
promoting public health and
mental well-being through
ecotherapy
There is growing evidence that the
quality of our relationship with nature
impacts on our mental health. More
than 80% of people in the UK live in
urban areas (DEFRA, 2004), and there
is evidence that ‘less green nature means reduced
mental well-being, or at least less opportunity to
recover from mental stress’ (Pretty et al, 2005a; p2).
This evidence does not, however, seem to have
greatly influenced town and country planners; nor
has it predisposed the establishment of public health
policies that are inclusive of nature.
This situation seems to require a concerted effort
and more broad-spectrum solutions (English Nature,
2003a). John Sorrell, chair of the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE),
affirms that ‘a positive and creative relationship
between all concerned is of critical importance’, and
that this would ‘enable agencies, organisations and
individuals with different objectives… to work
together to a common and successful end’ (Sorrell,
2006; p254). Morris et al (2006) assert the need for
a more strategic public health approach. They
highlight that ‘in Western societies, the relevance of
the environment to health has become obscured…
[and] even when this is not the case, the perspective
is usually narrow, centring on specific toxic,
infectious or allergenic agents in particular
environmental compartments’ (p889). They
emphasise the need for shared concerns across
disciplines and sectors.
Barton and Grant (2006) have presented an
updated version of the World Health Organization
(WHO) health map, introducing the global
ecosystem, natural environment and biodiversity to
the range of determinants of health and well-being
in our neighbourhoods. They state that concerns
about physical and mental health problems and
Keywords
ecohealth
ecotherapy
biophilia
social capital
natural capital
25
journal of public mental health
vol 6 • issue 3
© Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd
People and green spaces:promoting public health and mental well-being through ecotherapy
inequalities have forced town planning to take
account of factors previously divorced from health
agendas. The map (figure 1) was designed to be a
‘dynamic tool’ to ‘provide a focus for collaboration
across practitioner professions and across topics’
(p253) directly related to sustainable development
of healthy neighbourhoods.
National and international policy supports the
inclusion of the natural environment in holistic
health promotion. For example, the WHO
Twenty Steps for Developing Healthy Cities
Projects (WHO, 1997) document sets out a multi-
pronged planning strategy based on intersectorial
action, alongside health awareness and healthy
public policy, community participation and
innovation. Similarly, the WHO Health Impact
Assessment Toolkit for Cities (WHO, 2005a)
offers a means to quantify the benefits of green
spaces in terms of:
●greater involvement in the processes of making
policy and decisions
●potential to extend the democratic process,
especially to excluded groups in society
●empowerment
●the development of skills
●consideration of how to reduce sources of
disadvantage or inequality
●the development and provision of services that
better meet the needs of local people.
These actions would pave the way towards more
comprehensive public mental health policies.
However, they would be served well by the inclusion
of the concept of ecohealth.
The concept of ecohealth
Ecological perspectives have played a part in health
promotion models and constructs of health
(Hancock & Perkins, 1985; Kickbusch, 1989). These
have informed the development of health promotion
strategies and practices such as healthy cities, schools
and work places. But St Leger (2003) remarks that
even these holistic frameworks put more emphasis on
health promotion as a way of addressing specific
mortality and morbidity outcomes, and that there is
generally a tendency to work with the immediate
problems of the individual. Specific actions are
aimed at creating change in behaviours and life
styles, but rarely include the bringing about of
tangible change in the natural world around us.
Figure 1: The determinants of health and well-being in our neighbourhoods (Barton & Grant, 2006)
To continue reading
Request your trial