The term 'therapeutic landscapes' was first coined by health geographer, Wilbert Gesler, in 1992 to explore why certain environments seem to contribute to a healing sense of place. Since then, the concept and its applications have evolved and expanded as researchers have examined the dynamic material, affective and socio-cultural roots and routes to experiences of health and wellbeing in specific places. Drawing on a scoping review of studies of these wider therapeutic landscapes published between 2007 and 2016, this paper explores how, where, and to what benefit the 'therapeutic landscapes' concept has been applied to date, and how such applications have contributed to its critical evolution as a relevant and useful concept in health geography. Building on themes included in two earlier (1999, 2007) edited volumes on Therapeutic Landscapes, we summarise the key themes identified in the review, broadly in keeping with the core material, social, spiritual and symbolic dimensions of the concept initially posited by Gesler. Through this process, we identify strengths and limitations of the concept and its applications, as well as knowledge gaps and promising future directions for work in this field, reflecting critically on its value within health geography and its potential contribution to wider interdisciplinary discussions and debates around 'healthy' spaces, places, and related practices.
This commentary addresses the widespread use of racist language in discussions concerning predatory publishing. Examples include terminology such as blacklists, whitelists, and black sheep. The use of such terms does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to legitimize and perpetuate it.
There has been significant growth in ecological/environmental labelling of products and services internationally in recent years. Such efforts have become an integral element of the marketing strategies used by many firms. Concerns have been raised, however, that for some companies, this is little more than 'greenwashing', i.e. a cynical attempt to boost sales without any meaningful underlying sensitivity or change, in practice. Given the extremely negative track record of the global tobacco industry (Big Tobacco), it is essential that health policy makers and anti-smoking campaigners closely monitor this industry's attempts to exploit both growing environmental concerns among consumers and gaps in legislation. Although there is relatively strong legislation in some countries, to prohibit suggestions that cigarettes may be environment friendly, a further tightening of legislation is required. COMMENTARY Tobacco related deaths continue to constitute the largest cause of preventable mortality globally 1,2. Estimates of annual global deaths from tobacco related disease have grown from six million to seven million, with projections of eight million by 2030 3. Such estimates routinely underestimate the actual impact of tobacco, as they ignore both morbidity and the financial consequences associated with smoking, as well as the opportunity cost of tobacco production and purchase 4,5. However, one aspect of the global tobacco industry that is often underplayed is its adverse environmental impact 6,7. Although health researchers routinely understand this in terms of seconhand 8 and thirdhand smoke 9,10 , there is a wider environmental context to such discussions. Significant adverse environmental impacts of the tobacco industry involve: fertilizer and pesticide use; deforestation; water use; waste 11 ; transportation and pollution; and packaging 6,12. Particular attention from an environmental perspective has focussed on the impact of cigarette butts 13-16. The adverse impact of the global tobacco industry has been addressed repeatedly by the World Health Organisation (WHO) 6,17 , and is specifically addressed in Article 18 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) 18. Recent attempts to quantify the significant negative impact of the global tobacco industry include an assessment by Zafeiridou et al. on behalf of the WHO Framework Convention
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.