Search

This paper presents a novel investigation of a conceptual model, proposing that increased nature exposure may be associated with lower cravings, through reductions in negative affect. A cross-sectional online survey (N = 149) provided an initial exploration of the relationships between various aspects of nature exposure, craving and negative affect. Access to gardens/allotments and residential views incorporating more than 25% greenspace were both associated with reductions in the strength and frequency of cravings. These associations were mediated, to varying degrees, by reductions in negative affect. This novel link could have implications for public health and environmental protection programmes.

Analysis of English census data revealed a positive association between self-reported health and living near the coast. However that analysis was based on cross-sectional data and was unable to control for potential selection effects (e.g. generally healthier, personality types moving to coastal locations). In the current study we have used English panel data to explore the relationship between the proximity to the coast and indicators of generic and mental health for the same individuals over time. This allowed us to control for both time-invariant factors such as personality and compare the strength of any relationship to that of other relationships (e.g. employment vs. unemployment). In support of cross-sectional analysis, individuals reported significantly better general health and mental health when living nearer the coast, controlling for both individual (e.g. employment status) and area (e.g. green space) level factors. No coastal effect on life satisfaction was found. Although individual level coastal proximity effects for general health and mental health were small, their cumulative impact at the community level may be meaningful for policy makers.

It is often assumed that spending time by the coast leads to better health and wellbeing, but there is strikingly little evidence regarding specific effects or mechanisms to support such a view. We analysed small-area census data for the population of England, which indicate that good health is more prevalent the closer one lives to the coast. We also found that, consistent with similar analyses of greenspace accessibility, the positive effects of coastal proximity may be greater amongst more socio-economically deprived communities. We hypothesise that these effects may be due to opportunities for stress reduction and increased physical activity.

In order to understand how blue spaces may influence health-promoting behaviours, a reliable and effective assessment tool is needed. The Blue Health Environment Assessment Tool (BEAT) was developed to meet this need. A two-stage approach to testing the reliability of the tool is presented here. At Stage-1, one common and several different expert assessors rated 16 sites independently and their results compared. In Stage-2, two assessors rated 21 sites independently and their results were compared. The Inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability to both stages. Stage-2 results showed greater reliability after enhanced training of the assessors. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the tool at revealing differences between sites and for identifying health promoting affordances we carried out intra and inter-site comparisons of a subset of six sites for the Stage-1 and 18 sites for Stage-2. The results showed that overall the tool performs consistently and compares well to the reliability shown by other similar tools. The tool is also highly effective in identifying site-specific differences across the test sample of blue spaces. The results demonstrate that the tool can be used reliably (with training and guidance) and that it provides meaningful data to help planners and designers assess different sites.