Search

Human well‐being is dependent on the health of our planet. Biodiversity‐related citizen science supports conservation research, and there is increasing interest in its potential as a health co‐benefits intervention. This randomized controlled study investigates the health co‐benefits of biodiversity citizen science participation. Seventy participants were randomly assigned to a citizen science project or control group for an 8‐month period. Both groups completed pre‐ and post‐intervention surveys, evaluating nature relatedness, self‐efficacy related to biodiversity loss, subjective well‐being, and climate change anxiety. A subset (N = 13) of participants engaged in the citizen science project also took part in focus group discussions. The intervention group reported a significant increase in nature relatedness and self‐efficacy to help address issues of biodiversity loss. Although no significant changes were observed for other well‐being or anxiety scales, most participants reported positive outcomes related to mental or physical well‐being in focus groups. There were stronger positive effects for participants without previous environmental volunteering experience. These results suggest that citizen science participation has the potential to contribute to Planetary Health goals, with sustained co‐benefits for well‐being and nature relatedness. Future interventions evaluating co‐benefits should consider previous environmental volunteering experience and focus on participants with little experience to maximize health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the sustainability of the food culture at Deakin University and to determine what the barriers to increasing the sustainability of food on the Burwood campus may be. Design/methodology/approach: An online survey of staff and students from the Faculty of Health at the Burwood campus of Deakin University (n = 697) was undertaken. The survey included questions relating to eating habits on campus, views on the current food culture, food security, food disposal, visions for the future and demographic information. In addition, a short paper-based survey was developed for the ten food outlets on campus. Findings: The results show that although sustainability considerations are important to staff and students, cost is the main issue and is a significant barrier to the development of a more sustainable food culture. It is also a significant barrier to staff and students making healthy choices when it comes to the purchase of food on campus. However, sustainable food initiatives such as community gardens could help alleviate this barrier and also contribute to improving student engagement. Research limitations/implications: The online survey was limited to the Faculty of Health, and, therefore, a potential bias exists towards individuals who may have an interest in health. This should be considered when interpreting the results. Originality/value: This research demonstrates that although cost may be a barrier to universities improving the sustainability of their food culture, there are other ways in which universities can create an environment that embraces sustainable food production to benefit both the environment and the university community.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, New Urban Agenda and Paris Agreement on Climate Change are blueprints for health promotion action that mandate human health is linked inextricably to the health of the environment. In the Anthropocene, new indicators are required to promote community engagement with, and measurement of, healthy and sustainable wellbeing for people and planet. This study explored the need for a metric such as the Happy Planet Index that explicitly links human health to health of the environment for a local level scale in Australia. The project arose from an international coalition of health promoters advocating for 'planetary health' approaches. Qualitative description methods guided the study design involving key informant interviews (n = 17) and four focus groups (n = 27 participants) with health and/or sustainability academics, practitioners and policy-makers. Document analysis of health and environment indices and policy mandates augmented the analysis. Qualitative content analysis techniques were used to analyse the findings. There was strong interest for a local level composite indicator, such as a rescaled Happy Planet Index (life expectancy × life satisfaction × equity adjustment/ecological footprint) for use at a local level. The value of a composite index was: its ability to promote community engagement with planetary health thinking; an advocacy tool for joint health and sustainability policy; to justify programs on health and environmental co-benefits; and to provide a mechanism for correlative comparisons between local governments and national comparisons. However, disciplinary silos currently limit partnerships for health promotion and planetary health and a local composite index could help bridge these divides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]