A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

Missed opportunities? Locating health promotion within multidisciplinary public health.

This paper examines the complex interconnections between the development of health promotion and multidisciplinary public health, respectively. Health promotion takes a distinctive interdisciplinary and multiprofessional perspective on health. Historically, it has brought together practitioners from varied disciplinary backgrounds, education and training. It therefore brings real advantages to the public health enterprise, where the goal is to bridge organisations, professions and partners to collectively address key determinants of health in the most effective manner. This paper debates the contribution health promotion has made to the development of multidisciplinary public health over the past 30 years and explores the principles, values, professional bases and practices of both. It is argued that health promotion's contribution to the development of 'the new public health' was critical, while its status and role within multidisciplinary public health remain problematic and unresolved. The nature of these dilemmas is discussed, reflecting on missed opportunities and possible resolutions.

A short history of the Multidisciplinary Public Health Forum.

The Multidisciplinary Public Health Forum (MPHF) was a 'network of networks' that was formed through grass roots public conferences held during the mid 1990s. It championed the development of a trained, developed and accredited multidisciplinary public health workforce in the UK. This paper draws on documentary evidence and from a series of semi-formal interviews held with individuals who were involved in the development and work of the Forum, to explore why the Forum was influential, the key milestones of the journey and the lessons that we might learn for the continued development of the public health function.

The need for evidence-based conservation.

Much of current conservation practice is based upon anecdote and myth rather than upon the systematic appraisal of the evidence, including experience of others who have tackled the same problem. We suggest that this is a major problem for conservationists and requires a rethinking of the manner in which conservation operates. There is an urgent need for mechanisms that review available information and make recommendations to practitioners. We suggest a format for web-based databases that could provide the required information in accessible form.