In the last few hundred years, there has been an extraordinary disengagement of humans from the natural environment (Axelrod and Suedfeld, 1995; Beck and Katcher, 1996; Katcher and Beck, 1987). This is mostly due to the enormous shift of people away from rural areas into cities (Katcher and Beck, 1987). In evolutionary terms, ‘the urban environment is a spontaneous, changeable and historically unfamiliar habitat’ [McMichael, 2001 (p. 252)]. Never in history have humans spent so little time in physical contact with animals and plants, and the consequences are unknown (Katcher and Beck, 1987). Already, some research has shown that too much artificial stimulation and an existence spent in purely human environments may cause exhaustion and produce a loss of vitality and health (Katcher and Beck, 1987; Stilgoe, 2001). Modern society, by its very essence, insulates people from outdoor environmental stimuli (Stilgoe, 2001) and regular contact with nature (Katcher and Beck, 1987). Some believe humans may not be fully adapted to an urban existence (Kellert and Wilson, 1993; Glendinning, 1995; Kellert, 1997; Burns, 1998; McMichael, 2001). With parks and public nature reserves often their only means of accessing nature, the majority of urban-dwelling individuals may have all but forgotten their connections with the natural world.
Whilst
medical technology continues to improve the capacity of nations to
combat the global infectious disease burden, public health strategies
struggle to cope with the rapid changes industrialization and
urbanization have meant. Human, community and cultural well-being has
suffered as a result. Traditional models of public health appear ill
prepared for the new reality of health risks posed to populations. This
has led to a reconsideration of the interdependence between people,
their health, and their physical and social environments (Kickbusch, 1989a).
For
the purposes of this paper, nature is defined as an organic environment
where the majority of ecosystem processes are present (e.g. birth,
death, reproduction, relationships between species). This includes the
spectrum of habitats from wilderness areas to farms and gardens. Nature
also refers to any single element of the natural environment (such as
plants, animals, soil, water or air), and includes domestic and
companion animals as well as cultivated pot plants. Nature can also
refer collectively to the geological, evolutionary, biophysical and
biochemical processes that have occurred throughout time to create the
Earth as it is today. Parks are public natural environments, spaces
reserved for their natural or cultural qualities, usually owned,
managed and administered by public institutions. Parks are utilized for
a range of purposes, including for conservation, recreation and
education. In urban settings, parks are seen to provide the most ready
access to nature for many individuals. This paper focuses on the
benefits of contact with nature in park environments for urban-dwelling
individuals, and explores the potential of contact with nature for the
promotion of health for whole populations.
The
Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion identified the importance of
environments supportive of health, stating that the inextricable links
between people and their environment are the basis for a
socio-ecological approach to health (World Health Organization, 1986).
The Charter advocates for protection of natural and built environments,
and conservation of natural resources as essential in any health
promotion strategy. The central theme was promotion of health by
maximizing the health values of everyday settings. Everyday settings
include, for example, where people learn, live, work, play, etc. (World Health Organization, 1986). An emerging question might be therefore whether the majority of urban-dwelling individuals currently utilize parks and
nature reserves as ‘everyday settings’.
Studies
in disciplines of ecology, biology, psychology and psychiatry have
attempted to empirically examine the human relationship with the
natural world, some concluding that as well as being totally dependent
on nature for material needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) humans also
need nature for psychological, emotional and spiritual needs (Wilson, 1984; Katcher and Beck, 1987; Friedmann and Thomas, 1995; Roszak et al., 1995; Frumkin, 2001; Wilson, 2001).
Yet how dependent humans are on nature for psychological and well-being
needs, and what benefits can be gained from interacting with nature are
just beginning to be investigated.
The
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare identifies seven dimensions
within holistic health and well-being, including: biological and mental
well-being, social well-being, economic well-being, environmental
well-being, life satisfaction, spiritual or existential well-being, and
‘other characteristics valued by humans’ (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1998).
Whilst a growing body of evidence has demonstrated the importance of
social relationships (and social capital) for health, the relationship
between environmental health and human health remains little
understood. As Brown states, sustainable ecosystems in these dimensions
of human health need greater attention and exploration, as well as
inclusion and emphasis in the knowledge
base of public health (Brown, 1996).
