No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionGrowing evidence suggests that close contact with nature brings benefits to human health and well-being, but the proposed mechanisms are still not well understood and the associations with health remain uncertain. The Positive Health Effects of the Natural Outdoor environment in Typical Populations in different regions in Europe (PHENOTYPE) project investigates the interconnections between natural outdoor environments and better human health and well-being.Aims and methodsThe PHENOTYPE project explores the proposed underlying mechanisms at work (stress reduction/restorative function, physical activity, social interaction, exposure to environmental hazards) and examines the associations with health outcomes for different population groups. It implements conventional and new innovative high-tech methods to characterise the natural environment in terms of quality and quantity. Preventive as well as therapeutic effects of contact with the natural environment are being covered. PHENOTYPE further addresses implications for land-use planning and green space management. The main innovative part of the study is the evaluation of possible short-term and long-term associations of green space and health and the possible underlying mechanisms in four different countries (each with quite a different type of green space and a different use), using the same methodology, in one research programme. This type of holistic approach has not been undertaken before. Furthermore there are technological innovations such as the use of remote sensing and smartphones in the assessment of green space.ConclusionsThe project will produce a more robust evidence base on links between exposure to natural outdoor environment and human health and well-being, in addition to a better integration of human health needs into land-use planning and green space management in rural as well as urban areas.

No abstract

he incapacity of many human societies to deal with contemporary environmental questions (such as climate change, health epidemics, land-use, forestry management, renewable and nonrenewable resources, housing, poverty, and urban planning) can be contrasted with the viewpoint of many professionals and politicians who are convinced that they have the "right answers." However, the lack of consensus about climate change, the stock of renewable and non-renewable resources, and the failure of so-called "model" housing estates and urban planning projects constructed since the 1950s in countries with socialist or freemarket economies clearly show that new ideas, working methods, objectives, and criteria are needed in both scientific research and professional practice. The challenges related to dealing with the above-mentioned problems concern their complexity, the compartmentalization of scientific and professional knowledge, the sectorbased division of responsibilities in contemporary society, and the increasingly diverse nature of the societal contexts in which people live. In addition, the lack of effective collaboration between scientists, professionals, and policy decision-makers has led to the "applicability gap" in sectors that deal with both the natural and human-made environment. This article discusses the added value of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contributions as well as the challenges that are commonly confronted by those who wish to implement them to deal with complex real-world issues.