Variation in ecological scorecards and their potential for wider use.

Ecological monitoring is a vital tool to help us assess habitat condition and understand the mechanism(s) for habitat change. Yet many countries struggle to meet their monitoring requirements in part due to the high assessment workload. Rapid ecological assessment methods may have an important role to play in this regard. Following their success within several European habitats (e.g., semi-natural grasslands), they are now being developed for additional habitats such as heathlands, peatlands, and other agri-associated areas. Whilst some rapid assessments using ecological scorecards have been shown to be accurate compared to traditional ecological monitoring, less is known about the functionality of these scorecards in heterogenous landscapes. In this study, we selected four existing scorecards to test alongside a prototype. We assessed how these different scorecards measured habitat condition on the same heathland sites. We found that the choice of metrics, their score weighting, and the thresholds used for categorical scores cause scorecards to assess the same site with substantial variation (37%). Vegetation metrics were the primary cause of score variation, with vegetation structure and positive indicator species being the leading causes. Our study indicates that whilst current scorecards may be representative of project-specific goals, they may not be suitable for wider monitoring uses in their current form. Ecological scorecards have great potential to drastically increase the extent of monitoring, but caution is needed before adapting existing scorecards beyond the purposes from which they were designed.

Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing.

There is increasing interest in the potential use of outdoor water environments, or blue space, in the promotion of human health and wellbeing. However, therapeutic nature-based practices are currently outpacing policy and the evidence base for health or wellbeing benefits of therapeutic interventions within blue space has not been systematically assessed. This systematic review aims to address the gap in understanding the impacts of blue space within existing interventions for targeted individuals. A systematic review was carried out, searching Google Scholar, SCOPUS, PubMed, etc. through to August 2017. Only blue space interventions were included that were specifically designed and structured with a therapeutic purpose for individuals with a defined need and did not include nature-based promotion projects or casual recreation in the outdoors. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Overall, the studies suggest that blue care can have direct benefit for health, especially mental health and psycho-social wellbeing. The majority of papers found a positive or weak association between blue care and health and wellbeing indicators. There was also some evidence for greater social connectedness during and after interventions, but results were inconsistent and mixed across studies with very few findings for physical health. This is the first systematic review of the literature on blue care. In summary, it has been shown that mental health, especially psycho-social wellbeing, can be improved with investment in blue spaces. Key areas for future research include improving understanding of the mechanisms through which blue care can improve public health promotion.