Health, the Outdoors and Safety

David J Ball,Laurence Ball-King

doi:10.3390/su13084274

Abstract

While the public health benefits accruing from exposure to the outdoors, and especially the natural environment, have gained greater recognition, this has exposed rifts in thinking between those focusing on the pathology of injury and those pursuing a wider health agenda which recognizes the restorative potential of encounters with nature. In retrospect, the classification of injury as a public health issue in the mid-20th century triggered complex societal responses which generated unintended consequences affecting healthful activities. Responses generally aim to reduce or minimize the risk of injury and come in different forms, including formal and informal codes of practice, standards, management systems and regulation. Well-intentioned as these interventions may have been, the new emphasis on harm shifted attention away from what causes health and resulted in increasing control over activities, including those taking place outdoors. This article, which draws on long-term qualitative policy research, describes examples of these on-going tensions in the context of the public enjoyment of the outdoors. In conclusion, the situation presented is considered from a number of theoretical perspectives, and proposals are made for resolving the issues. These include improved communication between sectors and, on the technical side, the introduction of a compensatory decision process which enables policy makers to take account of both the health benefits and risks of exposure to the natural environment.

Highlights

Thompson and Francisca LimaThe natural world is hazardous, and those who venture there are inevitably exposed to some risk of harm, voluntarily or otherwise [1] (p. 12)
This shift prompted an emphasis upon injury prevention [5,6,7] as opposed to the more recent interest in people’s resources and capacity to create health aided by encounters with “restorative environments” [8], including nature
The findings are described in subsections, each providing an account and illustration of a particular situation in which the narrow view of safety, namely, injury prevention, has taken a route which conflicts with the wider health perspective

Summary

Introduction

Thompson and Francisca LimaThe natural world is hazardous, and those who venture there are inevitably exposed to some risk of harm, voluntarily or otherwise [1] (p. 12). Over the last half century, resulting injuries have come to be viewed as a public health problem rather than a consequence of fate [2,3,4] This shift prompted an emphasis upon injury prevention [5,6,7] as opposed to the more recent interest in people’s resources and capacity to create health aided by encounters with “restorative environments” [8], including nature. The exploration of this policy dichotomy through qualitative empirical research is the initial focus of this article, which examines the findings in terms of selected theories prior to making recommendations. The growing body of research supporting the concept of the restorative environment [9], and the greater understanding and appreciation of how exposure to nature benefits health and well-being [10,11,12], has given impetus to the salutogenic perspective which concerns itself with the things which promote health as opposed to those that cause disease [13]

Methods

Results

Conclusion