What is known about what works in community-involved decision-making relating to urban green and blue spaces? A realist review protocol

BACKGROUND

There is now a relatively well-established evidence base suggesting that greener living environments and time spent in urban green and blue spaces (UGBS) can be beneficial for human health and wellbeing. However, benefits are not universal and there remain widespread social inequalities in access to such resources and experiences, particularly along axes of class, race, ethnicity, age and disability, and in relation to efforts to increase the availability and accessibility of such spaces. These injustices often relate to distributive, procedural and recognition-based processes. There is growing interest in how to ensure that efforts to increase access to or use of UGBS (whether through infrastructural or social programmes) result in equitable outcomes whilst minimising potential for exacerbating existing inequalities and injustices. Community engagement is considered an important step towards more inclusive UGBS decision-making, from planning and design to management and maintenance processes. It is thought to contribute to better and more widely trusted decisions, enhanced democracy, community satisfaction, civic interest and feelings of green space ownership, and greater longevity of UGBS projects. However, uneven representation and barriers to participation can create imbalances and undermine these benefits.

METHODS

An iterative, multi-stage realist-inspired review will be conducted to ask what works, in what context and in what ways relating to the meaningful involvement of communities in UGBS decision-making, focusing on the skills, capacities and capabilities of different stakeholders and the role of contexts and processes. 'Effectiveness' (or what works) will be understood as a multifaceted outcome, encompassing both the processes and results of community engagement efforts. Following a scoping stage to identify initial programme theory, inclusion/exclusion criteria and derive search terms, relevant databases and grey literature will be searched to identify interdisciplinary literature in two phases. The first phase will be used to further develop programme theories, which will be articulated as 'if then' statements. The second phase searches will be used to identify sources to further explore and evidence the programme and formal theory. We will assess all includable evidence for conceptual richness, prioritising more conceptually rich sources if needed.

DISCUSSION

The realist synthesis will explore the key context, mechanism and outcome configurations that appear to explain if and how different approaches to community-involved UGBS decision-making are or are not effective. We will consider factors such as different conceptualisations of community, and if and how they have been involved in UGBS decision-making; the types of tools and approaches used; and the socio-cultural and political or governance structures within which decision-making takes place.

Self-reported benefits and risks of open water swimming to health, wellbeing and the environment: Cross-sectional evidence from a survey of Scottish swimmers

Engaging with natural environments benefits human health by providing opportunities for social interactions, enhancing mental wellbeing and enabling outdoor spaces for physical exercise. Open water swimming has seen a rapid increase in popularity, partly due to the physical health benefits it can provide but also with the growing interest in (re)connecting with nature for environment-health interactions. Using a national-scale online survey of 717 open water swimmers, the aim of this study was to investigate patterns and trends in the perceived benefits and risks of open water swimming to both public health and the environment; and to understand whether these perceived risks and benefits vary across different typologies of swimmers and open water, or 'blue space', environments. Strong associations were found between the most important self-reported benefit associated with open water swimming and both participant age and the categorisation of their typical swim style. All but one of the age-groups surveyed perceived mental wellbeing benefits to be the most important benefit of open water swimming; whilst those aged over 65 identified physical rather than mental wellbeing benefits to be the most important outcome. Participants who preferred lake swimming reported greater concern regarding possible environmental damage caused by the increasing popularity of open water swimming compared to those engaging in river or sea swimming. However, the majority of participants perceived the risks to the environment from open water swimming to be minimal. Our study adds to the growing evidence that open water swimming is perceived by participants as benefitting their mental and physical wellbeing. Improved understanding of the benefits and risks of engaging with blue spaces used for open water swimming can contribute to co-designed policy development to promote safer, healthier and more sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities associated with this increasingly popular outdoor pursuit.

Freshwater blue space and population health: An emerging research agenda

Growing evidence suggests that access and exposure to water bodies or blue spaces can provide a variety of health and well-being benefits. Attempts to quantify these 'blue-health' benefits have largely focused on coastal environments, with freshwater blue spaces receiving far less attention despite over 50% of the global population living within 3 km of a body of freshwater and populations living in landlocked areas having limited coastal access. This critical review identifies opportunities to improve our understanding of the relationship between freshwater blue space and health and well-being and outlines key recommendations to broaden the portfolio of emerging research needs associated with the field of blue-health. Recognising fundamental distinctions in relationships between health outcomes and access and exposure to freshwater versus coastal blue space is critical and further research is required to determine the mechanisms that link exposure to freshwater blue space with tangible health outcomes and to understand how such mechanisms vary across a range of freshwater environments. Furthermore, methodological improvements are necessary as spatial approaches adopted to quantify access and exposure to freshwater blue space often fail to account for the unique physical characteristics of freshwater and come with a variety of limitations. Based on the findings of this review, a suite of research needs are proposed, which can be categorised into three broad themes: (i) establishing a freshwater blue-health methodological framework; (ii) advancing the empirical freshwater blue-health evidence base; and (iii) promoting freshwater blue-health opportunities. When taken together, these research themes offer opportunities to advance current understanding and better integrate freshwater blue space into the wider nature-health research agenda.

Valuing inland blue space: A contingent valuation study of two large freshwater lakes

Water bodies, or blue spaces, offer a range of health and well-being benefits. Many of these benefits occur in waterside spaces and do not require direct water contact. For example, non-water based physical activity (e.g. walking and running) and reduced stress as a result of viewing water from a distance. However, research dedicated to understanding the economic impact of changes to freshwater ecosystems predominantly focuses on water-based recreation and water quality. As a result, the economic impacts of changes to waterside space are often overlooked. This study used the contingent valuation method to determine public preference for the protection of lakeside quality, in terms of lake views, path quality and lakeside access, at two large freshwater lakes in Scotland (Loch Lomond and Loch Leven). The aim of the study was to estimate willingness to pay among a sample of adults in Scotland (n = 1056) for the protection of lakeside quality. Results indicate that the majority of respondents are willing to pay for the preservation of lakeside quality at each lake. Based upon the most conservative estimates obtained, mean willingness to pay for the protection of lakeside quality was £12.06 per household per year at Loch Lomond and £8.44 at Loch Leven. These findings provide valuable economic data and suggest that changes to waterside space at destination water bodies have nationally important economic impacts. Greater consideration of the economic impact of changes to lakeside space is recommended in order to develop cost-effective and socially optimal water resource management policies at large freshwater lakes.