Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well‐being in adults: a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

Husk, K et al (2016)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - 10.1002/14651858.CD10351.pub2.

Go to publication

Evidence Categories

• Care setting: Environmental Setting
• Population group: Adults
• Intervention: Environment / Policy Intervention
• Outcome: Change in physical activity

Type of Evidence

Systematic Review

Aims

The authors state:

"This systematic review aimed to assess the health and well‐being impacts on adults following participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities."

Findings

The authors state:

"The 19 studies included in the synthesis detailed the impacts to a total of 3,603 participants: 647 from quantitative intervention studies and 2630 from a retrospective cohort study; and 326 from qualitative studies.

Included studies shared the key elements of EECA: intended to improve the outdoor natural or built environment at either a local or wider level; took place in urban or rural locations in any country; involved active participation; and were NOT experienced through paid employment. The range of activities varied considerably. Participants’ characteristics were poorly reported; eight studies did not report gender or age and none reported socio‐economic status.

Three quantitative studies reported that participants were referred through health or social services, or due to mental ill health (five quantitative studies), however participants' engagement routes were often not clear. Whilst the majority of quantitative studies (n = 8) reported no effect on one or more outcomes, positive effects were reported in six quantitative studies relating to short‐term physiological, mental/emotional health, and quality‐of‐life outcomes.

Negative effects were reported in two quantitative studies; one study reported higher levels of anxiety amongst participants, another reported increased mental health stress."

Conclusions

The authors state:

"There is little quantitative evidence of positive or negative health and well‐being benefits from participating in EECA. However, the qualitative research showed high levels of perceived benefit among participants. Quantitative evidence resulted from study designs with high risk of bias, qualitative evidence lacked reporting detail. The majority of included studies were programme evaluations, conducted internally or funded by the provider."