Perception assessment of environmental factors related to leisure-time physical activity in an urban stream corridor

Gargiulo, Irene; Benages-Albert, Marta; Garcia, Xavier; Vall-Casas, Pere

doi:10.1080/02614367.2020.1743742

Cited by 7 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These looked at people with autism [66], neurological disabilities [73, 78], mental disorders [75, 84, 87] or those undergoing stroke rehabilitation [64]. Noteworthy are the studies that selected participants based on their existing use of natural environments, such as regular swimmers or members of outdoor associations in blue spaces [55, 56, 83], or through involvement in the conservation of green spaces [89]. Finally, eight reviews (20%) did not specify any sample populations [68-71, 77, 79, 80, 82].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Green spaces encompassed both urban and rural environments, and most studies described green spaces as urban parks [57, 62, 65, 69, 74, 82, 85, 88, 91], natural environments [63, 68, 70, 72, 86] urban forests [53, 62, 78, 81] or as gardens [64, 73, 74, 78]. Other areas or features of green spaces were used less often, such as farms [53, 66, 78], micro-features of green spaces [57, 74], national parks or reserves [60, 89], a game reserve [61], urban stream corridor [55], playground [72], meadows [54], bog [89], or neighbourhood greenness [77]. Similarly, blue spaces also covered urban and rural environments and were characterised by the terms: sea [56, 90], blue environments [70, 86], river [53], fountain/ seawall [74], coastal area [59], loch [61], wetlands [87], wilderness [90], ocean and beaches [83].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All reported outcomes and their associated enablers are listed in S1_Table4. Almost all of the studies included at least one psychological health outcome [53, 54, 56–66, 68–87, 89–91], except for three that focused solely on physical activity [55, 88] and cardiovascular outcomes [67]. Many studies used multiple outcomes, and each of these is reviewed and discussed in the following order: (i) mental health outcomes, (ii) physical health outcomes, (iii) physiological outcomes, and (iv) cognitive health outcomes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structural processes were the second most common enablers discussed in this scoping review (37%). Among them, good accessibility was most commonly reported (24%), as it facilitated improvements in perceived mental health [57], overall health [72], positive affect [70], physical activity in NOEs [55, 57, 74, 82] and in attention restoration [72], as well as reducing social isolation [74], motor disability [74], behavioural problems and psychological distress [80]. Similarly, geographic proximity to NOEs was also mentioned several times (11%) as facilitating wellbeing [76], physical activity [60, 69, 76], cognitive functioning and spatial working memory [72].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There exist a variety of example practices, for instance, the creation and maintenance of long-distance trails [102], increasing the sense of ‘wild’ in urban green spaces [83, 85, 87] and a departure from meticulous park management [55, 70, 73, 74, 80]. These approaches result in increased ‘quality’, accessibility and biodiversity, leading to plausible health gains through greater NOE engagement [55, 70, 73, 74, 80, 83, 85, 87, 102].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Enabling Health Outcomes of Nature-based Interventions: A Systematic Scoping Review

Nejade

Grace

Bowman

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The burden of poor mental health and non-communicable disease is increasing, and some practitioners are turning to nature to provide the solution. Nature-based interventions could offer cost-effective solutions that benefit both human health and the environment by reconnecting individuals with nature. Importantly, the relative success of these interventions depends upon the accessibility of green and blue spaces, and the way in which people engage with them. Aims and Objectives A scoping review was conducted to establish the evidence base for nature-based interventions as a treatment for poor mental and physical health, and to assess whether and how enablers influence engagement with natural outdoor environments. Methods This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR and the associated Cochrane guidelines for scoping reviews. A literature search was performed across five databases and the grey literature, and articles were selected based on key inclusion and exclusion criteria. Exposure was the active engagement with natural environments. The primary outcome was mental health and the secondary outcome was physical health, both defined using established metrics. All data was extracted to a charting table and reported as a narrative synthesis. Results The final analysis included thirty-nine studies. Most of these focused on green spaces, with only five dedicated to blue spaces. Six nature-based health intervention types were identified: (i) educational interventions, (ii) physical activity in nature, (iii) wilderness therapy, (iv) leisure activities, (v) gardening and (vi) changes to the built environment. Of the 39 studies, 92.2% demonstrated consistent improvements across health outcomes when individuals engaged with natural outdoor environments (NOEs). Furthermore, of 153 enablers that were found to influence engagement, 78% facilitated engagement while 22% reduced engagement. Aspects such as the sense of wilderness, accessibility, opportunities for physical activity and the absence of noise/ air pollution all increased engagement. Conclusion Further research is still needed to establish the magnitude and relative effect of nature-based interventions, as well as to quantify the compounding effect of enablers on mental and physical health. This must be accompanied by a global improvement in study design. Nevertheless, this review has documented the increasing body of heterogeneous evidence in support of NBIs as effective tools to improve mental, physical, and cognitive health outcomes. Enablers that facilitate greater engagement with natural outdoor environments, such as improved biodiversity, sense of wilderness and accessibility, as well as opportunities for physical activity and an absence of pollution, will likely improve the impact of nature-based interventions and further reduce public health inequalities.

show abstract