Composition and Lit (2)

Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health & Place

http://d 1353-82

n Corr E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Blue space geographies: Enabling health in place

Ronan Foley a,n, Thomas Kistemann b

a Department of Geography, Maynooth University, Rhetoric House, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland b University of Bonn, Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 29 May 2015 Received in revised form 13 July 2015 Accepted 17 July 2015 Available online 1 August 2015

Keywords: Blue space Health Water Therapeutic landscapes Enabling place Salutogenesis

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.07.003 92/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

esponding author. ail address: [email protected] (R. Foley).

a b s t r a c t

Drawing from research on therapeutic landscapes and relationships between environment, health and wellbeing, we propose the idea of ‘healthy blue space’ as an important new development Com- plementing research on healthy green space, blue space is defined as; ‘health-enabling places and spaces, where water is at the centre of a range of environments with identifiable potential for the promotion of human wellbeing’. Using theoretical ideas from emotional and relational geographies and critical un- derstandings of salutogenesis, the value of blue space to health and wellbeing is recognised and eval- uated. Six individual papers from five different countries consider how health can be enabled in mixed blue space settings. Four sub-themes; embodiment, inter-subjectivity, activity and meaning, document multiple experiences within a range of healthy blue spaces. Finally, we suggest a considerable research agenda – theoretical, methodological and applied – for future work within different forms of blue space. All are suggested as having public health policy relevance in social and public space.

& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Geographies of water and health

There has been a resurgence of interest in water within human geography. Recent writing on oceans, coasts and inland water bodies consider historic and contemporary relations between humans, water and the sea (Wylie 2005; Mack, 2011; Ryan, 2012; Anderson and Peters, 2014; Brown and Humberstone, 2015). New strands in cultural geography document water-based activities, practises and cultures such as surfing and diving (Merchant, 2011; Game and Metcalfe, 2011; Anderson, 2014). Yet this aqueous focus has an established literature in health geography. Relationships between water, health and place were central to early therapeutic landscapes research (Williams, 2007; Foley, 2010). Watering-pla- ces like Bath and Lourdes inspired Wil Gesler's development of a concept associated with the cultural production of places with healing reputations (Gesler, 1992, 1993, 2003). In health geography and environmental psychology, substantial literatures on green space environments emphasise their potential to promote health and wellbeing (Korpela and Hartig, 1996; Mitchell and Popham, 2007; Richardson and Mitchell, 2010, Mitchell, 2013; Mitchell, Pearce and Shortt, 2015). There are frequent incidental reflections of blue space within the green; in rivers, lakes and coasts (Herzog, 1984; Hansen-Ketchum et al. 2011; Richardson et al. 2013; Amoly et al., 2014). Traditional landscape ‘gazes’ are potentially shifting

horizons from green to blue, deepened through embodied en- gagements with waterscapes (Herzog, 1984; Strang, 2004; Wylie 2007; Anderson and Peters, 2014). The time is ripe therefore, to pay more specific attention to blue space and extend the scope spatially, methodologically and in inter-disciplinary ways as part of a broader hydro-social set of therapeutic geographies (Parr, 2011; Rose, 2012; Throsby, 2013; Budds and Linton, 2014).

The specific idea of healthy blue space has been bobbing around for some time within health geography. Research by the Blue Gym project in the South-West of England, has documented the value of the coast for citizen health and wellbeing (Depledge and Bird, 2009; White et al., 2010; Wheeler et al., 2012). Parallel research by the Bonn WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Promoting Water Management emphasised the same for inland water, especially ‘urban blue’ and established initial links to public health practise (Kistemann et al., 2010; Völker et al., 2012; Völker and Kiste- mann's, 2011) review of environmental health and blue space re- cognised literal and metaphorical components of ‘upstream’ health (Antonovsky, 1996). Historically blue space was central to the development of spas, baths and other healing water spaces across a range of cultures and settings (Smith and Puczkó, 2009; Foley, 2010). Experimental work in environmental psychology documented the restorative effects of water while more con- temporary research identified experiential accounts of active and affective healing engagements and encounters in blue space (Herzog, 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995; Conradson, 2005a; Williams, 2007; Foley, 2010; Hansen-Ketchum et al., 2011;

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165158

Rose, 2012). A re-discovery of water within wider public health is evident in the promotion of coasts, rivers and lakes as spaces of leisure, exercise and recovery (Andrews and Kearns, 2005; Con- radson, 2005a; Wylie, 2009; Thompson-Coon et al., 2011). Such spaces can be explored at a range of scales, though critically, specific therapeutic encounters are always contingent and un- certain in their health benefits (Conradson, 2005a; Collins and Kearns, 2007; Duff, 2012). Finally, while green space research has gained traction in public health policy, we feel that blue space has similar potential for enabling health that has been significantly under-explored (De Vries et al., 2003; White et al. 2013).

What do we mean by healthy blue space? We suggest one definition as; ‘health-enabling places and spaces, where water is at the centre of a range of environments with identifiable potential for the promotion of human wellbeing’. The term blue is chosen given its established associations with oceans, seas, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water. We fully recognise the myriad shades and forms (grey, brown, dark, oily, muddy, clear) that are recognisable dimensions of water bodies at different scales. Despite these ‘palettes of place’, we suggest that blue is the colour most people associate with the medium (Strang, 2004). The colours green and blue blur in writings on healthy environments, though we see strong overlap between the two (De Vries et al., 2003; Coombes et al., 2010). Yet there are understandable place differences be- tween parks or woods and lakes or oceans and such nuances are important to consider.

This special issue consists of six papers from Europe and Oceania that explore how blue space has been conceptualised and inhabited for a range of potentially therapeutic outcomes (Foley, 2010). Most draw from therapeutic landscapes research and de- velop the idea in theoretically focused ways. The papers primarily utilise qualitative methodologies though with some quantification (Völker and Kistemann). Two New Zealand-based papers (Cole- man and Kearns; Kearns, Collins and Conradson), focus on is- landness via different routes, namely ageing-in-place and carceral geographies associated with illness recovery (Randall et al., 2014). Papers from Denmark and Germany (Thomas; Völker and Kiste- mann) consider overlaps between green and blue space in Eur- opean urban settings, where informants describe and evaluate the importance of blue space relative to the green; documenting place-specific components that inform how they are differently perceived and used. Two final papers from Ireland and Switzerland (Foley; Lengen), consider physical, emotional and imaginative wellbeing encounters with blue space. All are framed to consider their salutogenic potential, embrace the prospect of bringing the idea of ‘blue space’ into a public arena and reach out to other subjects, especially public health, psychology and urban planning, to develop a working agenda for contemporary and historic re- search on blue space as an enabler of health and wellbeing (Fleuret and Atkinson, 2007).

1 The WHO Collaborating Centre was set up in 2001as a multidisciplinary team from geography, environmental medicine, psychiatry, public health, biology and education.

2. Writing healthy blue space

Therapeutic landscapes have been defined as, ‘a geographic meta- phor for aiding in the understanding of how the healing process works itself out in places (or in situations, locales, settings, milieus)’ (Gesler, 1992: 743). Given many therapeutic landscapes have identifiable ‘blue space’ settings; the working out of healing processes in such spaces is a key starting point (Gesler, 1992; Williams, 1998, 2007; Foley, 2010). Wil Gesler's foundational work on the subject noted that; ‘One particular aspect of the physical environment that has been a source of healing for many societies is water’ (Gesler, 1992: 737). His studies of Bath identified well-established associations between the town's hot springs and its commodification as a healing site. Here the source of health came directly from the water; pumped, both literally and

metaphorically, by different historical users (Roman, Georgian, Victor- ian) for a range of curative/rehabilitative purposes (Gesler, 1998). Other studies, especially of Lourdes, considered how healthy place production was driven by sacred water framed as medicinal (Gesler, 1996).

As the subject developed in scope (Kearns and Gesler 1998; Gesler, 2003), blue space remained a significant part of the narrative (Wil- liams, 1998, 2007). Palka (1999) discussed wilderness as an exemplary therapeutic setting, within which water (lake, river, waterfall) emerged as a significant healing component. Other research identified historical associations between healing and mineral waters within hot springs and wider spa cultures (Geores, 1998; Foley et al., 2011).Ongoing connections between the blue space idea and contemporary spa and wellness research sustain commodifiable links to different forms of water (Smith and Puczkó, 2009). Specific blue space settings for therapeutic encounters were also identified; lakes in Canada (Wilson 2003; Williams, 2007), river banks in Germany (Völker and Kiste- mann, 2011, 2013) and different coasts around the world (Andrews and Kearns, 2005; Collins and Kearns, 2007; Kearns and Collins, 2012).

From environmental psychology research, elements of both green and blue space were identified as significant in showing how nature emerged as a significant component of healing en- vironments (Ulrich, 1979, 1983; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Calo- giuri and Chroni, 2014). In particular, research on attention re- storation theory, landscape preference studies and favourite pla- ces, all identified ways by which natural environments affected wellbeing, including stress reduction, faster illness recovery and long-term improvement in individual health (Herzog, 1984; Ka- plan, 1995; Korpela and Hartig, 1996; Hartig and Staats, 2003; Velarde et al. 2007). For. example, experimental research in Fin- land using a perceived restorativeness scale (PRS), identified a range of specific places, including those associated with water, that were associated with improved wellbeing (Korpela and Hartig, 1996). By providing evidence of their curative efficacy, such green/ blue space elements became influential in the design of formal and informal care settings such as hospitals, clinics and retreats as well as in wider urban design (Kaplan, 1995; Gesler et al., 2004; Con- radson, 2005a, 2005b; Curtis et al., 2007). Different forms of water – still, flowing, raging, spiritually charged – were additional built components, particularly in retreat, CAM and contemporary spa settings (Conradson, 2007; Hoyez, 2007; Lea, 2008; Foley, 2010; Little, 2013). Hoyez's study of ‘yogic landscapes’ showed how therapeutic landscapes were reproduced and globalised; within which sacred water and wider ‘blue settings’ of water and sky were considered essential components in the (re)production of wellbeing. Finally, aspects of the nature of water itself, especially its still contemplative features, have also been prominent in cul- tural geography research on wellness and the restoration of phy- sical and mental health (Strang, 2004; Conradson, 2007; Lea, 2008; Duff, 2011; Foley, 2011).

Research involving authors in this issue has significantly de- veloped the subject. A systematic literature review by the Bonn ‘Blue’ WHO-CC1, summarised relationships between inland water and health/wellbeing and identified strands associated with per- ception and preference, landscape design, emotions, restoration and recreation (Völker and Kistemann, 2011). The cited studies drew from experimental, quantitative and cross-sectional methods but identified a need for more qualitative, multi-faceted and inter- disciplinary work. Völker and Kistemann (2011, 2013) also ex- tended the therapeutic landscape idea theoretically to incorporate four broad space dimensions; active, social, symbolic and experi- ential. The UK-based Blue Gym initiative identified a range of

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165 159

important dimensions of coastal geographies related to mental, physical and social wellbeing (DePledge and Bird, 2009; White et al., 2010, 2011, 2013; Asbullby et al., 2013). Here the English coast was specifically reframed as a public and socially produced space for health promotion, illness prevention and improved health and wellbeing (Wheeler et al., 2012). Methodologically the research drew from national and local surveys to develop em- pirical knowledge on how coastal health was produced and de- veloped; driven by a multi-disciplinary team drawn from health psychology, geography, public health and anthropology. Key out- comes demonstrated how health was linked to reduced stress and increased physical activity (Wheeler et al., 2012). Other health geographers considered relationships between water and health in historic coastal settings (Foley, 2010). Here the reputation of healing waters, evident in historic seaside resorts, demonstrated how blue space therapeutic assemblages developed through a mix of social, economic, entrepreneurial and affective routes (Andrews and Kearns, 2005; Foley, 2010)

Theoretically, there has been a ‘relational turn’ within health geographies research (Parr, 2004; Conradson, 2005a; Cummins et al., 2007; Duff, 2010; Andrews et al., 2014). Through that re- search, the sometimes complex theoretical discourses associated with ANT (actor-network theory), more-than-representational theories and mobilities thinking are slowly acquiring a healthy blue tinge (Lorimer, 2005; Foley, 2011; Gatrell, 2013; Andrews et al., 2014; Kearns, 2014). Clear tensions exist between applied and theoretical health/place work that reflects splits between material descriptive accounts and more critical philosophical writing (Creswell, 2013; Kearns, 2014). Duff (2011) particularly argues for the need for meaningful accounts that merge the the- oretical and empirical to show how place shapes therapeutic outcomes. One area where the two productively meet are emo- tional and psychotherapeutic geographies (Philo and Parr, 2003; Davidson et al., 2009). Through studies focused on phobic/philic geographies, different approaches that combine theory and ma- teriality demonstrate how health may or may not be enabled in place (Duff, 2010; Parr and Davidson, 2010; Doughty, 2013; Philo, 2014). Different culture and condition-specific, embodied, gen- dered and experiential accounts are drawn from within both green and blue space to provide more nuanced understandings of how enabling places work and how theoretical ideas on relational place are central to those articulations (Foley, 2011; Duff, 2012; Mer- chant, 2011; Doughty, 2013; Pitt, 2014).

Post-medical geographies of health have also drawn from in- novative thinking in health philosophy to develop new perspectives. An essential aspect of the cultural turn saw health geography shift from biomedical towards social models (Kearns, 1993). Health pro- motion, developed strategically through the Ottawa Charter (WHO World Health Organisation, 1986), extended that narrow biomedical approach and recognised broader and more critical holistic under- standings of health (Williams, 2010; Lovell et al., 2014). Social, political and socio-ecological models of health and disease have been widely adopted that additionally focus attention on place (Illich, 1976; White, 1981; Kearns and Moon, 2002). Interestingly salutogenesis, a concept developed by Antonovsky (1979) and central to health promotion theory, has so far played a limited role in health geography, in part due to his very limited engagement with place. Antonovsky's key research emphasis was on what causes health (salutogenesis), not disease (pathogenesis). According to Antonovsky (1987) all humans are posi- tioned somewhere on an ease/dis-ease continuum between total ab- sence of health (H�) and total health (Hþ) and conceptually saluto- genesis means the movement towards Hþ. Through two additional concepts, generalised resistance resources and ‘sense of coherence’ (SOC), Antonovsky identified a set of culturally-framed life-course factors that enabled human health. The SOC comprised three com- ponents; comprehensibility (cognitive), manageability (behavioural),

and meaningfulness (emotional); all implicitly but not explicitly con- nected to where people live. Some aspects of the ‘salutogenic um- brella’ have been adopted by health geography, i.e. social capital, cul- tural capital, empowerment, resilience, coping (Benz et al., 2014). But a more direct articulation on how particular types of places or en- vironmental conditions are or become salutogenic is almost com- pletely absent (Ergler et al. 2013; Benz et al., 2014, especially Fig. 1). How blue space can be specifically framed against salutogenesis and extend its geographical potential, underpins many of the papers in this special issue (Lindström and Eriksson, 2005).

Another concern for critical health geography is the need to make research more policy relevant (Parr, 2004). A number of recent inter- national documents have created a robust policy backbone for links between environments and health. WHO Europe, through its Health- For-All (HFA) strategy, adopted a common health policy that re- cognised the dependence of human health on a wide range of en- vironmental factors, covering both direct effects and more indirect psychosocial factors, such as urban development and land use (WHO 1994). According to the European Charter (WHO (World Health Or- ganisation), 1989) every individual was entitled to an environment conducive to the highest attainable level of health and wellbeing. The UN Agenda 21 (UN, 1992) additionally demanded improved environ- mental quality and policies to protect and promote human health worldwide (WHO, 1993). Most recently Shanahan et al. (2015) iden- tified a fundamental shift in public health discourse that encompassed the diverse potential benefits of nature and open spaces. However, limited understanding of which components of nature deliver which health benefits still impedes an effective integration of nature into health policy (Calogiuri and Chroni, 2014). As a result, policy frame- works tend to employ broad provision-based targets such as proximity of natural spaces to residential areas, minimal size, or size per capita (English Department of Health, 2010; Scottish Government Directorate for Built Environment, 2009; US National Park Service Health and Wellness Executive Steering Committee, 2011). We share the vision of Shanahan et al. (2015) in calling for interdisciplinary research that brings together ecologists and health scientists to more fully uncover the mechanisms by which nature benefits human health.

Public Health professionals are increasingly aware of the re- levance of health geography research to their work (Dummer, 2008). Research into the health-promoting effects of blue spaces is a promising area for further engagement as it is already on the agenda of many current planning initiatives through earlier en- vironmental psychology research (Kaplan, 1995). Post-industrial uses for former water sites have received renewed attention within regeneration and sustainability initiatives, especially in urban settings (Hoyle et al., 1988; Kistemann et al., 2010). Planners around the world have recognised the ‘added value’ of water sites (Wakefield, 2007), in part because blue space is relatively cheap to produce and maintain but also due to its potential social and health benefits (Luttik, 2000; Kistemann et al., 2010). A more ex- plicit valuing of the coast may also help position ‘blue space’ re- search as firmly into the public health arena as existing work on green space and obesogenic environments (Collins and Kearns, 2007). This special issue offers practical and theoretical ap- proaches that provide more differentiated understandings of the relevance of blue space for public health policy (Mitchell and Popham, 2007; Richardson et al., 2012; Andrews et al., 2012).

3. Thematic discussion: relational geographies of healthy blue space

All six papers in this special issue are, explicitly or implicitly, inspired by an overarching salutogenic vision of the ‘enabling’ dimensions of blue spaces. If we combine ‘salutogenesis’ and SOC dimensions of cognitive, behavioural and emotional health more

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165160

directly with dimensions of ‘place’, this opens up interesting per- spectives for future health geographical research. In better un- covering how and why blue spaces and places matter for health and wellbeing, we identify four sub-themes; embodiment, inter- subjectivity, activities and meanings, that contribute to more nuanced discussion of salutogenic associations within the papers.

3.1. Geographies of embodiment: a place for healthy/unhealthy bodies

Relationships between the body, health and place remain im- portant in culturally-shaped health geographies (Dorn and Laws, 1994; Hall, 2000; Moss and Dyck, 2003; Longhurst, 2005; Crad- dock and Brown, 2010). Bodies have material, discursive and imaginative components linked to physical and mental health and these are relevant in blue space. A range of intriguing metaphors emerge from the papers in terms of how bodies physically engage with, by and in water (Völker and Kistemann; Foley). Specific ac- tivities are stimulated by mobile and embodied inhabitations of water (Wareham et al., 2002; Duff, 2010). While the physical act of swimming, for example, provides established health benefits as- sociated with exercise, Foley argues there are immersive benefits in being active in blue space that are less measurable, but still speak to the idea of physical health. For Völker and Kistemann, there are self-identified physical benefits for bodies in urban blue spaces that are considered as having different, and conceivably, better effects than in nearby green spaces. Here again there is a blurring of space, as there are green-alongside-blue settings of river and lake-side that incorporate both forms.

Mental associations can also improve wellbeing, especially in blue space settings like lakes or coasts (Kearns and Collins, 2012). The idea of a ‘feel-for-water’ was identified in a number of papers, with Lengen specifically considering the imaginative aspects of blue space encounter. For her respondents, a feel for water, and indeed the colour blue, was not always positive, with darker shades associated with poorer mental health states. Yet the quality of the blue, shaped by light, shade, setting and reflection, were identified in several papers as important positive components that reflected a variety of moods. Associations between mental health, emotion, memory and blue space were also evident (Coleman and Kearns, Lengen), where blue space was a factor in a positive emotional attachment developed across the life course (Casey, 2001; Budruk and Stanis, 2013). For Coleman's respondents on Waiheke Island, the importance of the view of water, or the mark of it on the horizon, gave their lives greater value and meaning and supported a healthy ageing in ‘thick-place’ (Casey, 1993). In the urban settings of Cologne, Düsseldorf and Copenhagen (Völker and Kistemann, Thomas), that feel was evident in preference for the blue linked to the particular character of water and its imaginative impact, reflecting earlier landscape preference research (Herzog, 1984).

Several of the papers considered bodies of difference within blue space (Dorn and Laws, 1994; Hall, 2000; Longhurst, 2005; Chouinard, 2010; Parr and Davidson, 2010). There were a range of healthy/unhealthy bodies involved running across a perceived and measured ‘salutogenic’ range (Andrews et al., 2012). One char- acteristic of blue space is its capacity to embrace bodies of differ- ence in ways that are gently enabling. People with a range of physical disabilities can find it difficult to actively interact with green space; something that research on green space design, walkability and obesogenic environments arguably overlooks (Andrews et al., 2012). Yet bodies of difference can be explicitly enabled in blue space, in part through immersion within water (Foley; Kearns, Collins and Conradson; Coleman and Kearns) or through a more mental immersive engagement with an environ- ment that takes one outside oneself (Thomas; Lengen; Völker and

Kistemann). The papers provide accounts by different bodies from different types of blue space; gendered (Thomas), carceral (Kearns, Collins and Conradson), aged (Coleman and Kearns, Foley) or mentally impaired (Lengen). In those accounts we can better un- derstand the salutogenic continuum through engagements with blue space to envisage more inclusive understandings of multiple bodies of health in place. Finally a concern for how bodies were managed on Rotoroa Island, linked to a specific connection with alcohol abuse (Kearns, Collins and Conradson), referenced the Foucauldian definition of ‘managed/governmental bodies’ and wider debates on representation within embodiment (Foucault, 1979; Longhurst, 2005; Craddock and Brown, 2010). Considering how bodies of difference are enabled in freer ways in blue space is a core concern for most of the papers.

3.2. Relational spaces of inter-subjective encounter

A concern with inter-subjectivity is evident in all the papers. Drawing from relational geographies, the papers explore re- lationships between different subjects and between subjects and place (Cummins et al., 2007; Lorimer, 2008; Pile, 2010; Ash and Simpson, 2014). Such work has had some attention in health geography, especially in relation to emotional geographies (Con- radson, 2005b; Davidson et al., 2009; Wood and Smith, 2004). Yet a concern for inter-subjectivity remains under-developed and the papers provide useful empirical examples that flesh out inter- subjective components of place attachment and orientations to- wards health (Duff, 2010; Budruk and Wilhelm Stanis, 2013). In particular, descriptions of inter-subjective encounters extend thinking around the subject–object relationship to consider mul- tiple subjects relating to multiple objects in blue space (Bingley, 2003; Ash and Simpson, 2014).

For Foley, the exploration of health and wellbeing in swimming places considers how an inter-weaving of individual and group meanings and shared life course histories provide an experiential affective power that emerges specifically from encounters in blue space (Pussard, 2007). Swimmers as subjects swim within water- as-object that is mobile, enclosing and productive in health terms (Evans and Allen-Collinson, 2014). That sense of an inter-sub- jective experience is also evident in the urban papers (Völker and Kistemann, Thomas), where communal interactions also have enabling effects. In walking, sitting, eating and contemplating by the River Rhine, the multiple subjects reflect a mobile blue space that contains embodied flows (Pitt, 2014). For Thomas the en- counter may not always be a positive or health-promoting one, and it is important to recognise that negative aspects of inter- subjectivity associated with the presence of other subjects – en- gendering shame, fear, disapproval – can be by-products of public blue space encounters. All of the studies speak to what Philo (2014) refers to as ‘insecure’ bodies, and this inter-subjective as- pect emerges in many of the accounts.

The remaining papers (Coleman and Kearns, Foley, Lengen and Kearns, Collins and Conradson) identify more affective and emo- tional dimensions of inter-subjectivity (Davidson et al., 2009). For each, place energies that are mobile, material and imaginative, are experienced in blue spaces to produce what Duff (2010) broadly describes as affective atmospheres. For Lengen, her respondents reflect on imagined landscapes that move them; emergent from memory and their own experiences of people and place. For Co- leman and Kearns, the affective power of Waiheke Island as home, community and refuge, sets out a deep affection for blue space through shared feelings of care between subject and object (Casey, 1993). Here Tuan's (1990) term topophilia can be easily re-ren- dered as hydrophilia. Even for a client group of people with alcohol addiction (Kearns, Collins and Conradson) a ‘hard’ love evolved, bounded by more refugitive and redemptive visions of blue space

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165 161

though admittedly one that included institutionalised co- dependency.

Inter-subjectivity was also reflected in a mutual understanding that combined both individual capacities and social domains (Ash and Simpson, 2014). In all papers, individuals reflected on how they saw, valued and enjoyed blue spaces which were public, shared and multiply experienced and encountered. Blue spaces and blue space encounters were rarely fixed or static in place but emerged as nodes within wider networks of place interaction. In health and wellbeing terms, all the identified blue spaces were sought out, either for occasional, temporary or long-term in- habitation, and recognised as places with emotional and life- course resonances that extended well beyond specific single en- counters (Wood and Smith, 2004). People in Copenhagen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Waiheke or Dublin all returned to blue space throughout their lives. Blurring physical/imaginative space in terms of cognitive human interactions identified a fuller place for psychotherapeutic encounter; evident in the work of Lengen, but glimpsed too on Rotoroa (Kearns, Collins and Conradson), where deeper personal traces of addiction, dependency and familial his- tories all shaped a movement toward the blue that was deeply inter-subjective (Parr, 2002; Bingley, 2003; Philo and Parr, 2003; Anderson, 2014). Here the differential imbrications in place mir- rored Conradson's (2007) work on retreat spaces, reflecting how individual histories of place encounter were simultaneously em- bodied (internally) and emplaced (externally).

3.3. Activity spaces

Blue spaces offer versatile and popular places for physical ac- tivity. These activities comprise on the one hand water-specific sport and leisure activities such as bathing, swimming, rowing, paddling, sailing, fishing, and on the other hand associated activ- ities such as walking, running, biking and skating by water (Kis- temann et al., 2010). The papers in this special issue all shared a sense of active engagement with and in blue space, informed also by wider mobilities paradigms (Gatrell, 2013). This was reflected in a range of health behaviours and performances and such mobile and active engagements are at the heart of blue space health in a range of different settings. This is evident in behavioural responses that are both self and institutionally generated, especially in their rehabilitative potential.

The value of green space, as an explicit arena for physical ac- tivity, has recently attracted the interest of public health research (Jones et al., 2007). Exposure to green space has been identified as a factor reducing health inequalities in the UK (Mitchell and Popham, 2007). Physical activity within green spaces has been investigated as a possible mechanism behind the relationship between access to green space and salutogenic effects (Maas et al., 2006, 2008; Macintyre et al., 2008; Coombes et al., 2010; Koohsari et al., 2015; Hunter et al., 2015; Buck et al., 2015). In contrast, outside of environmental psychology, the health-related value of blue space and the role of physical activity within blue spaces have attracted much less attention to date (Herzog, 1984). When men- tioned, blue space has only been included as an element of green open spaces, but not investigated independently. In Copenhagen, Thomas demonstrates that natural blue-green spaces provide key opportunities for physical activity, but that gendered position matters. Women preferred spaces nearer home for their physical activity, while open spaces in the city were linked to more social activities.

Swimming has historically been identified as having active benefits in terms of the treatment of chronic disorders such as rheumatism, arthritis or skin diseases (Foley, 2010). Specific ther- apeutic benefits of swimming were perceived by Foley's re- spondents, as were positive effects for strength and fitness and

mental health. On Rotoroa Island, Kearns, Collins and Conradson identify blue spaces persisting as an arena for physical activity. The New Zealand Salvation Army provided beaches as an opportunity to engage directly with blue space for both staff and residential clients during a century of inebriates' rehabilitation. After con- version to a recreational destination, the island is now advertised as a place to ‘walk, swim, explore’.

Völker and Kistemann identify urban blue spaces as being ac- tivity-promoting. According to their observations, blue spaces primarily support activities with lower physical levels, such as walking. The riverine area of urban blue spaces particularly mo- tivates people to carry out dynamic activities: “the Rhine is a walking and movement zone”. An intersection with contemplative activities such as “looking around” was also evident. Coleman and Kearns' very old island participants recognised a more con- templative passivity. Observing ever-changing views of the water, the sea, the sky and the weather affecting the sea from a window, a conservatory or other favourite places within the home had re- placed former physical activity (Velarde et al., 2007). In terms of appropriative dimensions ‘experienced space’ had replaced ‘ac- tivity space’, wherein contemplation was explicitly linked with an enhancement of disposition (Völker and Kistemann, 2011). Inter- estingly, through their remembered passive contemplation many respondents experienced salutogenic echoes of former active en- gagements with blue spaces – on the beach, in a sailing boat, in the sea. These findings confirm Conradson's (2005a) contention that it is the experience rather than the place itself that is generative of wellbeing, containing both active and passive components.

3.4. Symbolism and meanings

Blue spaces also emerge from the work as having a range of different meanings for different individuals, groups and popula- tions. These symbolic and metaphorical components are empiri- cally important in the work and also tap into aspects of identity. Conradson (2005a: 338) took the therapeutic landscape experi- ence as a relational outcome ‘that emerges through a complex set of transactions between a person and their broader socio-eco- nomic setting.’ In being meaningful, blue spaces become blue places (Relph, 1976; Cresswell, 2004). Following Conradson (2005a), we argue that the meanings of places, which certainly vary between groups and individuals according to their cultural, social, spiritual and individual imprints, substantially contribute to the variation in the therapeutic landscape (space/place) experience.

Examples from the papers include the symbolic role of swim- ming, as one example of an immersive experience within blue space. As Foley emphasises, the images of leaping into and swimming in blue spaces ‘tell a thousand stories and captures an affective, instinctive, non-representational act that has a world- wide resonance for human health and wellbeing’. For Lengen's clients, water is a symbol of change, a metaphor for change in life that may, inter alia, reflect spiritual rituals marking both the be- ginning and end of life. Their blue spaces also represent continuity and symbolise identity: forever changing, yet staying the same. However, the clients also express the ‘deep ambiguity of this stuff’ (Illich, 1986); feelings of fascination as well as fear, which they ascribe to darkness and invisibility.

Following their own conceptual framework, Völker and Kiste- mann identify numerous symbolic processes and association in urban blue spaces; reflecting the meanings of urban waterfront promenades for the visitors: emotional bonding, place depen- dence, ‘Heimat’ (roots), memories, atmosphere, and spirituality. Additionally on Rotoroa, Kearns, Collins and Conradson draw on Duff's (2011) concept of ‘enabling places’ to dissect persisting key connotations of island life, as surrounded by blue space: isolation,

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165162

boundedness, separateness and vulnerability, senses of both smallness and community, but also constriction, exile, and even a sense of intrigue. We suggest that all these aspects contain a strong affective dimension of meaning (Duff, 2011). From another island, Coleman and Kearns demonstrate that diverse meanings and symbolic characteristics of blue spaces offer coping strategies to promote health and wellbeing during ageing-in-place. The watery aspects of Waiheke are perceived as a metaphorical re- source, with spiritual aspects of living at the sea mentioned as being vitally important during this life-stage.

4. Future research: enabling health in blue space

In setting out future agendas for healthy blue space research, we identify theoretical, methodological and applied directions, while also noting the enormous range of specific water-related subjects.2 We confine our suggestions to how health geographies and associated disciplines can develop the subject’s critical and theoretical appeal and gain traction in public health and policy settings. Yet we also acknowledge a wider subject arena that dis- cusses water and the ‘blue’ through more inter-disciplinary en- vironmental routes, where associations with fresh air and sky (important components allied to blue space) and the health of water itself are important for human flourishing (Hartig and Staats, 2003; World Health Organisation, 2015).

We are minded in this special issue to generally (re)present blue space health in a positive light, though all papers show an awareness of unhealthy/risk narratives. This sense of a contested therapeutic geography is well developed (Conradson, 2005a; Col- lins and Kearns, 2007; Milligan and Bingley, 2007; Williams, 2007) and such reflexivity should be maintained in future critical writ- ing. We see this as adding credibility to more positive wellbeing accounts from blue space. Biomedical perspectives value quanti- fiable health outcomes and research that begins to quantify the value of blue space, either through improved physical capabilities or mental health instrument scores, may help progress this (Moon, 1995; Moffat et. al., 2006; Amoly et al., 2014; White et al., 2013). Similarly environmental and health psychology research on per- ceived and measurable benefits of coastal encounters can place blue space research in a positive light (Wylie 2009; Wheeler et al., 2012; Calogiuri and Chroni, 2014; White et al., 2013). In encoura- ging-slightly perversely-work that challenges and even disproves assumed benefits of healthy blue space, future work can be made more critically robust (Duff, 2011). We likewise cannot ignore the pervasiveness of a global water-safety discourse, with a measur- able focus on water-based accidents and illnesses central to how public perceptions of health are defined in relation to water (Collins and Kearns, 2007; Game and Metcalfe, 2011). We would encourage work to critically consider such risk-averse discourses from the ‘new public health’ in more positive and autonomous ways (Brown et al.., 2012).

Theoretically, our papers engage with wider discussions from human and cultural geography, including relational, feminist, emotional and psychotherapeutic geographies (Bingley, 2003; Philo and Parr, 2003; Lorimer, 2005; Conradson, 2007; Pile, 2010; Rose, 2012). Health geographers are engaging with theory in a way that contributes to the wider geographical world (Andrews et al., 2014; Kearns, 2014). As a second and counter-acting incentive, much theoretical writing in human geography can at times seem wilfully complex and devoid of empirical illustration and trans- disciplinary value (Cresswell, 2013). This may be a dominant

2 See also Terje Tvedt’s multi-volume series under the broad banner of A History of Water for an encyclopaedic list (London, I.B. Tauris, 2005–2014 ongoing).

paradigm, but it can also stifle interesting writing that brings theory to life. We would suggest that work on blue space has the capacity to develop new approaches to theoretical writing with an enhanced empirical basis. The papers have considered theoretical terms like affect, inter-subjectivity, difference, rhythm and flow, mobilities and emotion but given them a comprehensible pur- chase in place (Gatrell, 2013). In addition, explicit associations with water are at the forefront of recent cultural geography re- search, and work on blue space can help concretise the place of health geographies in that research (Andrews et al., 2014).

Most of the papers in the special issue employ qualitative methodologies, yet only scratch the surface of a wider research arena utilising a range of methods. Methods chosen by Lengen and Coleman and Kearns in particular, engage in innovative and sen- sitive visual ways with vulnerable populations that highlight the value of blue space in maintaining and restoring health. Innovative methods applicable to blue space should reflect its specific com- positions and forms and extend the more experimental ap- proaches used in environmental psychology with a more experi- ential approach (Ode et al., 2009; Merchant, 2011; Liggins et al., 2013). A balancing quantitative direction should consider more measureable and mappable evidence bases to engender biomedi- cal and public health interest. Combining quantitative and quali- tative methods can help evaluate blue space as a health resource that needs to be protected, developed and managed (Nicholls, 2014). Both routes also offer interesting directions for a range of mental health studies associated with blue space, for example, work with people with severe mental illness and their specific engagements within blue space (Wylie, 2009; Doughty, 2013). The use of new technologies, such as GoPro cameras, accelerometers and GPS/GIS, may help gather affective health specific-responses in and from blue space environments, including the sub-aqual (Merchant, 2011; MacKerron and Mourato, 2013). Additionally, discourse analyses of health and wellbeing policy could measure the impact, if any, that the idea of healthy blue space has made, including the wider arena of sport, leisure and recreation. Any specific mention of the ‘blue’ within health promotion/health education policy may help identify and encourage subtle shift in policy emphasis into the future.

One particular application area that blue space geographies can contribute to is work that considers geographies of difference. There is considerable scope to consider narratives based on ex- periential engagements by gender, age (especially children's geo- graphies), ethnicity/culture, sexuality and class (Wiltse, 2007; Amoly et al., 2014; Lobo, 2014). One can consider in particular how blue space has the capacity to enable, e.g. the capacities of disabled or unfit bodies for immersive and contemplative encounters that almost completely re-cast those capacities (Andrews et al., 2012; Throsby, 2013). In addition, more spiritual encounters in/by water (as transcendental-affective moments) may emerge from a range of natural or built environments (Foley, 2011; Madrell, 2011; Pitt, 2014; Lea et al., 2015). Given that many different groups globally use water in different ways, there is scope for deeper comparative cultural geographies of water associated with spirituality, healing and wellbeing (Smith and Puczkó, 2009; Little, 2013).The potential of blue space to engender and capture a healing intent from a range of social, cultural and embodied perspectives should be more fully articulated.

Access to healthy blue space as a resource can be explored in a range of different ways. At a fundamental level, access to clean healthy water is a human right (United Nations (UN), 2010) and central to development while water-related diseases remain sig- nificant problems (UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and WHO (World Health Organisation) Europe, 2000). Blue space research is especially encouraged in development set- tings (Luginaah et al., 2015). Here competing discourses around

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165 163

risk and functional utility may show blue space to have quite different meanings. More broadly, barriers to access can be criti- cally discussed around a range of rights and equity based per- spectives where ownership of blue spaces in turn constrains or promotes access to healthy activities (Strang, 2004; Wiltse 2007; Kearns and Collins, 2012; Bolton and Martin, 2013; Lobo, 2014). Throughout this introduction we have emphasised the value of blue space for enabling health; yet we must recognise a tension with the commodity value of the blue (Collins and Kearns, 2008; Duff, 2011, 2012). ‘Sea’ and ‘view’ combined are considered to be the two most ‘expensive’ words in the English language. Con- sidering potential clashes between ‘healthy’ and ‘wealthy’ blue space may encourage critical considerations of how these two terms are enacted and experienced in space, especially when ad- ditionally associated with tourism and leisure geographies (Wil- son, 2012; Nelson, 2013).

Finally, framing blue space as a health resource can promote environmental health and the sustainable management of water bodies (De Vries et al., 2003; Duff, 2011; Fonstad, 2013; Pikey and Cooper, 2014). Valuing the ‘blue world’ as a health-enabling re- source is also where environmental and social meanings meet and may extend nature-culture thinking in interesting ways (Anderson and Peters, 2014; Nicholls, 2014). Our blue world is large and open and we hope to see new work that explores all its nooks and crannies, depths and shallows, shades and temperatures, waves and currents, natures and cultures for a continuous uncovering of its enabling value to health and wellbeing (Duff, 2011).

References

Amoly, E., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., López-Vicente, M., Basagaña, X., Julvez, J., Alvarez- Pedrerol, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Sunyer, J., 2014. Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: the BREATHE Project. Environ. Health Perspect. 122, 1351–1358.

Anderson, J., 2014. Exploring the space between words and meaning: under- standing the relational sensibility of surf spaces. Emot. Sp. Soc. 10, 27–34.

Anderson, J., Peters, K., 2014. Water Worlds: Human Geographies of the Ocean. Ashgate, Farnham.

Andrews, G., Chen, S., Myers, S., 2014. The ‘taking place’ of health and wellbeing: Towards non-representational theory. Soc. Sci. Med. 108, 210–222.

Andrews, G., Hall, E., Evans, B., Colls, R., 2012. Moving beyond walkability: On the potential of health geography. Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 1925–1932.

Andrews, G.J., Kearns, R.A., 2005. Everyday health histories and the making of place: the case of an English coastal town. Soc. Sci. Med. 60, 2697–2713.

Antonovsky, A., 1979. Health Stress and Coping. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fran- cisco and London.

Antonovsky, A., 1987. Unraveling the Mystery of Health. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco and London.

Antonovsky, A., 1996. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promot. Int. 11 (1), 11–18.

Ash, J., Simpson, P., 2014. Geography and post-phenomenology. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 1–19.

Asbullby, K., Pahl, S., Webley, P., White, M., 2013. The beach as a setting for families’ health promotion: a qualitative study with parents and children living in coastal regions in Southwest England. Health Place 23, 138–147.

Benz, C., Bull, T., Mittelmark, M., Vaandrager, L., 2014. Culture in salutogenesis: the scholarship of Aaron Antonovsky. Glob. Health Promot. 21 (4), 16–23.

Bingley, A., 2003. In here and out there: sensations between Self and landscape. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 4 (3), 329–345.

Bolton, N., Martin., S., 2013. The policy and politics of free swimming. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit. 5 (3), 445–463.

Brown, T., Craddock, S., Ingram, A., 2012. Critical interventions in global health: governmentality, risk, assemblage. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102, 1182–1189.

Introduction. In: Brown, M., Humberstone, B. (Eds.), Seascapes: Shaped by the Sea. Ashgate, Farnham.

Buck, C., Tkaczick, T., Pitsiladis, Y., De Bourdehaudhuij, I., Reisch, L., Ahrens, W., Pigeot, I., 2015. Objective measures of the built environment and physical ac- tivity in children: from walkability to moveability. J. Urb. Health 92 (1), 24–38.

Budds, J., Linton, J., 2014. The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a rela- tional-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum 57, 167–169.

Budruk, M., Wilhelm Stanis, S., 2013. Place attachment and recreation experience preference: a further exploration of the relationship. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour- ism 1–2, 51–61.

Calogiuri, G., Chroni, S., 2014. The impact of the natural environment on the pro- motion of active living: an integrative systematic review. BMC Public Health 14,

873. Casey, E., 1993. Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the

Place-World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Casey, E., 2001. Between Geography and Philosophy: What does it mean to be in

the Place-World. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91 (4), 683–693. Chouinard, V., 2010. Impairment and Disability. In: Brown, T., McLafferty, S., Moon,

G. (Eds.), A Companion to Medical and Health Geography. Oxford, Wiley- Blackwell, pp. 242–257.

Collins, D., Kearns, R., 2007. Ambiguous landscapes: sun, risk and recreation on New Zealand Beaches. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscapes. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 15–32.

Collins, D., Kearns, R.A., 2008. Uninterrupted Views: Real Estate Advertising and Changing Perspectives on Coastal Property in New Zealand. Environ. Plan. A 40 (12), 2914–2932.

Conradson, D., 2005a. Landscape, care and the relational self: therapeutic en- counters in rural England. Health Place 11, 337–378.

Conradson, D., 2005b. Freedom, space and perspective: moving encounters with other ecologies. In: Davidson, J., Bondi, L., Smith, M. (Eds.), Emot. Geogr.. Ash- gate, Aldershot, pp. 103–116.

Conradson, D., 2007. The experiential economy of stillness: places of retreat in contemporary Britain. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscapes. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 33–48.

Coombes, E., Jones, A.P., Hillsdon, M., 2010. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc. Sci. Med. 70 (6), 816–822.

Craddock, S., Brown, T., 2010. Representing the Un/healthy Body. In: Brown, T., McLafferty, S., Moon, G. (Eds.), A Companion to Medical and Health Geography. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford,, pp. 301–321.

Cresswell, T., 2004. Place. A Short Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Ox- ford, Victoria.

Cresswell, T., 2013. Geographic Thought: A Critical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Cummins, S., Curtis, S., Diez-Roux, A., Macintyre, S., 2007. Understanding and re- presenting ‘place’ in health research: a relational approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 1825–1838.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Fabian, K., Francis, S., Priebe, S., 2007. Therapeutic landscapes in hospital design: a qualitative assessment by staff and service users of the design of a new hospital inpatient unit. Environ. Plan. C 25 (4), 591–610.

Davidson, J., Bondi, L., Smith, M. (Eds.), 2009. Emotional Geographies. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Depledge, M., Bird, W.J., 2009. The Blue Gym: Health and Wellbeing from Our Coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 947–948.

De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., 2003. Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between green space and health. Environ. Plan. A 35 (10), 1717–1731.

Dorn, M., Laws, G., 1994. Social theory, body politics and medical geography: ex- tending Kearns’ invitation. Prof. Geogr. 46 (1), 106–110.

Doughty, K., 2013. Walking together: the embodied and mobile production of a therapeutic landscape. Health Place 24, 140–146.

Duff, C., 2010. On the role of affect and practice in the production of place. Environ. Plan. D 28 (5), 881–895.

Duff, C., 2011. Networks, resources and agencies: on the character and production of enabling places. Health Place 17, 149–156.

Duff, C., 2012. Exploring the role of ‘enabling places’ in promoting recovery from mental illness. A qualitative test of a relational model. Health Place 18, 1388–1395.

Dummer, T.J.B., 2008. Health geography: supporting public health policy and planning. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 178 (9), 1177–1180.

English Department of Health, 2010. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our Strategy for Public Health in England. DOH, London.

Ergler, C., Kearns, R., Witten, K., 2013. Seasonal and locational variations in chil- dren’s play: Implications for wellbeing. Soc. Sci. Med. 91, 178–185.

Evans, A.B., Allen-Collinson, J., 2014. From ‘just a swimmer’ to a ‘swimming mo- ther’: women's embodied experiences of recreational aquatic activity with pre- school children. Leis. Stud., 1–16.

Fleuret, S., Atkinson, S., 2007. Wellbeing, health and geography: a critical review and research agenda. N. Z. Geogr. 63, 106–118.

Foley, R., 2010. Healing Waters: Therapeutic Landscapes in Historic and Con- temporary Ireland. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Foley, R., Wheeler, A., Kearns, R., 2011. Selling the Colonial Spa Town: The Contested Therapeutic Landscapes of Lisdoonvarna and Te Aroha. Irish. Geography 44 (2– 3), 151–172.

Foley, R., 2011. Performing health in place: the holy well as a therapeutic assem- blage. Health Place 17, 470–479.

Fonstad, M.A., 2013. Geographies of water. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103 (2), 251–252. Foucault, M., 1979. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. Allen Lane,

London (1976). Game, A., Metcalfe, A., 2011. ‘My corner of the world’: Bachelard and Bondi Beach.

Emot. Sp. Soc. 4, 42–50. Geores, M.E., 1998. Surviving on metaphor: how ‘Health¼Hot Springs’ created and

sustained a town’. In: Kearns, R., Gesler, W.M. (Eds.), Putting Health into Place: Landscape Identity and Well-Being. Syracuse University Press, pp. 36–52.

Gatrell, A.C., 2013. Therapeutic mobilities: walking and ‘steps’ to wellbeing and health. Health Place 22, 98–106.

Gesler, W., 1992. Therapeutic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc. Sci. Med. 34, 735–746.

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165164

Gesler, W., 1993. Therapeutic landscapes: theory and a case study of Epidaurus, Greece. Environ. Plan. D 11, 171–189.

Gesler, W.M., 1996. Lourdes: Healing in a place of Pilgrimage. Health Place 2, 95–105.

Gesler, W.M., 1998. Bath’s reputation as healing place. In: Kearns, R., Gesler, W. (Eds.), Putting Health into Place: Landscape, Identity and Well-Being. Syracuse University Press, pp. 17–35.

Gesler, W.M., 2003. Healing Places. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. Gesler, W., Bell, M., Curtis, S.E., Hubbard, P., Francis, S., 2004. Therapy by design:

evaluating the UK hospital building program. Health Place 10, 117–128. Hall, E., 2000. ‘Blood, Brain and Bones’: taking the body seriously in the geography

of health and impairment. Area 32 (1), 21–29. Hansen-Ketchum, P., Marck, P., Reuter, L., Halpenny, E., 2011. Strengthening access

to restorative places: findings from a participatory study on engaging with nature in the promotion of heath. Health Place 17, 558–571.

Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2003. Restorative environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 103–107.

Herzog, T.R., 1984. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 5, 225–241.

Hoyez, A.-C., 2007. ‘The ‘world of yoga’: the production and reproduction of ther- apeutic landscapes. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 112–124.

Hoyle, D.S., Pinder, D.A., Husain, M.S., 1988. Revitalising the Waterfront: Interna- tional Dimensions of Dockland Redevelopment. Belhaven, London.

Hunter, R.F., Christian, H., Veitch, J., Astell-Burt, T., Hipp, J.A., Schipperijn, J., 2015. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: a systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc. Sci. Med. 124, 246–256.

Illich, I., 1976. Medical Nemesis. The Expropriation of Health. Pantheon Books, New York.

Illich, I., 1986. H2O and the Waters of Forgetfulness. Marion Boyars Publishers, London and New York.

Jones, A.P., Bentham, G., Foster, C., Hillsdon, M., Panter, J., 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future choices – Obesogenic environments – Evidence review. Government Office for Science. London.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kaplan, R., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative frame- work. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182.

Kearns, R., 1993. Place and health: towards a reformed medical geography. Prof. Geogr. 45 (2), 139–147.

Kearns, R., 2014. The health in ‘life’s infinite doings’: a response to Andrews et al. Soc. Sci. Med. 115, 147–149.

Kearns, R., Collins, D., 2012. Feeling for the coast: the place of emotion in resistance to residential development. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 13 (8), 937–955.

Kearns, R., Gesler, W.M., 1998. Putting Health into Place: Landscape, Identity and Well-Being, Landscape. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.

Kearns, R., Moon, G., 2002. From medical to health geography: theory, novelty and place in a decade of change. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26, 587–607.

Kistemann, T., Völker, S., Lengen, C., 2010. Stadtblau-Die gesundheitlicheBedeutung von GewässernimurbanenRaum. Die Bedeutung von Stadtgrün für die Ge- sundheit. Natur- und Umweltschutz-Akademie des Landes Nordrhein-Westfa- len, Recklinghausen, 61–75 (25.09.08).

Koohsari, M.J., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Sugiyama, T., Badland, H., Kaczynski, A.T., Owen, N., Giles-Corti, B., 2015. Public open space, physical activity, urban de- sign and public health: concepts, methods and research agenda. Health Place 33, 75–82.

Korpela, K., Hartig, T., 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 16, 221–233.

Lea, J., 2008. Retreating to nature: rethinking ‘therapeutic landscapes’. Area 40 (1), 90–98.

Lea, J., Cadman, L., Philo, C., 2015. Changing the habits of a lifetime? Mindfulness meditation and habitual geographies. Cult. Geogr. 22, 49–65.

Liggins, J., Kearns, R., Adams, P.J., 2013. Using autoethnography to reclaim the ‘place of healing’ in mental health care. Soc. Sci. Med. 91, 105–109.

Little, J., 2013. Pampering, well-being and women’s bodies in the therapeutic spaces of the spa. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 14 (1), 41–58.

Lindström, B., Eriksson, M., 2005. Professor Aaron Antonovsky (1923–1994): the father of the salutogenesis. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 59 (6), 511.

Lobo, M., 2014. Affective energies: sensory bodies on the beach in Darwin, Aus- tralia. Emot. Sp. Soc. 12, 101–109.

Longhurst, R., 2005. Fat bodies: developing geographical research agendas. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29 (3), 247–259.

Lorimer, H., 2005. Cultural geography: the busyness of being ‘more-than-re- presentational”. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29 (1), 83–94.

Lorimer, H., 2008. Cultural geography: non-representational conditions and con- cerns’. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 32 (4), 551–559.

Lovell, S., Kearns, R., Prince, R., 2014. Neoliberalism and the contract state: ex- ploring innovation and resistance among New Zealand health promoters. Crit. Public Health 24 (3), 308–320.

Luginaah, I., Bezner Kerr, R., 2015. Geographies of Health and Development. Ash- gate, Farnham.

Luttik, J., 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 48, 161–167.

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Green space, urbanity and health: how strong is the relation. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60, 587–592.

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Spreeuwenberg, P., Groenewegen, P.P., 2008. Physical activity as a possible mechanism behind the relationship between green space and health: a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health 8, 206.

Mack, J., 2011. The Sea: A Cultural History. Reaktion. London. Macintyre, S., Macdonald, L., Ellaway, A., 2008. Lack of agreement between mea-

sured and self-reported distance from public green parks in Glasgow, Scotland. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 5, 26.

MacKerron, G., Mourato, S., 2013. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob. Environ. Change 23 (5), 992–1000.

Maddrell, A., 2011. ‘Praying the Keeills’. Rhythm, meaning and experience on pil- grimage journeys in the Isle of Man. Landabrefið 25, 15–29.

Merchant, S., 2011. The body and the senses: visual methods, videography and the submarine sensorium. Body Soc. 17 (1), 53–72.

Milligan, C., Bingley, A., 2007. Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults. Health Place 13, 799–811.

Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2007. Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 61, 681–683.

Mitchell, R., 2013. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments. Soc. Sci. Med. 9, 130–134.

Mitchell, R., Pearce, J., Shortt, N., 2015. Place, space and health inequalities. In: Smith, K., Bambra, C., Hill, S. (Eds.), Health Inequalities: Critical Perspectives.. OUP, Oxford

Moffatt, S., White, M., Mackintosh, J., Howel, D., 2006. Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research: what happens when mixed methods findings conflict. BMC Health Serv. Res. 6, 28.

Moon, G., 1995. (Re)placing research on health and health care. Health Place 1, 1–4. Moss, P., Dyck, I., 2003. Women, Body, Illness: Space and Identity in the Everyday

Lives of Women With Chronic Illness. Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham. Nelson, V., 2013. An Introduction to the Geography of Tourism. Rowman & Little-

field, Plymouth. Nichols, W.J., 2014. Blue Mind. Little Brown and Company, Boston. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M., Messager, P., Miller, D., 2009. Indicators of perceived

naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 375–383. Palka, E., 1999. Accessible wilderness as therapeutic landscape: experiencing the

nature of Denali National Park, Alaska. In: Williams, A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Landscapes: The Dynamic Between Place and Wellness. Boston, pp. 29–51.

Parr, H., 2002. Medical geography: diagnosing the body in medical and health geography, 1999–2000. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26 (2), 240–251.

Parr, H., 2004. Medical geography: critical medical and health geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28 (2), 246–257.

Parr, H., Davidson, J., 2010. Mental and Emotional Health. In: Brown, T., McLafferty, S., Moon, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Health and Medical Geography. Sage, London, pp. 258–277.

Parr, S., 2011. The Story of Swimming. Dewi Lewis, Stockport. Philo, C., Parr, H., 2003. Introducing psychoanalytic geographies. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 4

(3), 283–293. Philo, C., 2014. Insecure bodies/selves: introduction to theme section. Soc. Cult.

Geogr. 15 (3) (284-29). Pile, S., 2010. Emotions and affect in recent human geography. TIBG 35, 5–20. Pikey, O., Cooper, A., 2014. The Last Beach. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Pitt, H., 2014. Therapeutic experiences of community gardens: putting flow in its

place. Health Place 27, 84–91. Pussard, H., 2007. Historicising the spaces of leisure: open-air swimming and the

lido movement in England. World Leis. J. 49 (4) 178-18. Randall, J.E., Kitchen, P., Muhajarine, N., Newbold, B., Williams, A., Wilson, K., 2014.

Immigrants, islandness and perceptions of quality of life on Prince Edward Is- land, Canada. Island Stud. J. 9 (2), 343–362.

Relph, E., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion, London. Richardson, E., Mitchell, R., 2010. Gender differences in relationships between ur-

ban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Soc. Sci. Med. 71 (3), 568–575.

Richardson, E., Mitchell, R., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Astell-Burt, T., Frumkin, H., 2012. Green cities and health: a question of scale? J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 66 (2), 160–165.

Richardson, E.A., Pearce, J., Mitchell, R., Kingham, S., 2013. The role of physical ac- tivity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 127, 318–324.

Rose, E., 2012. Encountering place: a psychoanalytic approach for understanding how therapeutic landscapes benefit health and wellbeing. Health Place 18, 1381–1387.

Ryan, A., 2012. Where Land Meets Sea: Coastal Explorations of Landscape, Re- presentation and Spatial Experience. Ashgate, Farnham.

Scottish Government Directorate for Built Environment, 2009. National Planning Framework for Scotland 2. Scottish Government. Edinburgh.

Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Dean, J.H., Barber, E., Fuller, R.A., 2015. Towards Improved Public Health Outcomes From Urban Nature. Am. J. Public Health 105 (3), 470–477.

Smith, M., Puczkó, L. (Eds.), 2009. Health and Wellness Tourism. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.

Strang, V., 2004. The Meaning of Water. Berg. Oxford. Thompson-Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J., DePledge, M., 2011.

Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity? A sys- tematic review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (5), 1761–1772.

R. Foley, T. Kistemann / Health & Place 35 (2015) 157–165 165

Throsby, K., 2013. ‘If I go in like a cranky sea-lion, I come out like a smiling dolphin’: marathon swimming and the unexpected pleasures of being a body in water. Fem. Rev. 103, 5–22.

Tuan, Y.-F., 1990. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. Columbia UP, New York.

Ulrich, R.S., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Res. 4, 17–23.

Ulrich, R.S., 1983. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 420, 421.

UN (United Nations), 1992. AGENDA 21. Adopted at the UN Conference on En- vironment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. ⟨https://sustai nabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf⟩.

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and WHO (World Health Organisation) Europe, 2000. Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Con- vention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and Inter- national Lakes. UN Economic and Social Council, Geneva.

United Nations (UN), 2010. The human right to water and sanitation: General Re- solution 64/292. UN. New York.

US National Park Service Health and Wellness Executive Steering Committee, 2011. Healthy parks healthy people: US strategic action plan. US Department of the Interior, Washington DC.

Velarde, M., Fry, G., Tveit, M., 2007. Health effects of viewing landscapes – Land- scape types in environmental psychology. Urb. For. Urb. Green. 6 (4), 199–212.

Völker, S., Kistemann, T., 2011. The impact of blue space on human health and well- being –Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: a review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 214, 449–460.

Völker, S., Claßen, T., Baumeister, H., Kistemann, T., 2012. Stadtblau – die Re- naissance einesgesundheitsförderlichenFaktors. Public Health Forum 20, 2 (21. e1-.e3).

Völker, S., Kistemann, T., 2013. ‘I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!’ Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc. Sci. Med. 78, 113–124.

Wakefield, S., 2007. Great expectations: waterfront redevelopment and the Ha- milton Harbour Waterfront Trail. Cities 24, 298–310.

Wareham, N., Jakes, R., Rennie, K., Mitchell, J., Hennings, S., Day, N., 2002. Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk physical activity questionnaire. Int. J. Epidemiol. 31, 168–174.

Wheeler, B., White, M., Stahl-Timmins, W., Depledge, M., 2012. Does living by the coast improve health and wellbeing. Health Place 18, 1198–1201.

White, N., 1981. Modern health concepts. In: White, N. (Ed.), The Health Con- undrum. TV Ontario, Toronto, pp. 5–18.

White, M., Smith, A., Humphreys, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., Depledge, M., 2010. Blue Space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness

ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 482–493. White, M.P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B., Depledge, B.W., 2011. Coastal proximity, health

and well-being: Results from a longitudinal panel survey. Health Place 23, 97–103.

White, M.P., Pahl, S., Ashbullby, K., Herbert, S., 2013. Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 40–51.

Williams, A, 1998. Therapeutic landscapes in holistic medicine. Soc. Sci. Med. 46 (9), 1193–1203.

Williams, A. (Ed.), 2007. Therapeutic Landscapes. Ashgate, Farnham. Williams, A., 2010. Therapeutic Landscapes as Health Promoting Places. In: Brown,

T., McLafferty, S., Moon, G. (Eds.), A Companion to Medical and Health Geo- graphy. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 207–233.

Wilson, J., 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies. Routledge, Abingdon.

Wilson, K., 2003. Therapeutic Landscapes and First Nations peoples: an exploration of culture, health and place. Health Place 9 (1), 83–93.

Wiltse, J., 2007. Contested Waters. A Social History of Swimming Pools in America. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Wood, N., Smith, S.J., 2004. Instrumental routes to emotional geographies. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 5 (4), 533–548.

WHO (World Health Organisation), 1986. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Adopted at the First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, on 21 November 1986. ⟨http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/ 129532/Ottawa_Charter.pdf⟩.

WHO (World Health Organisation), 1989. European Charter on Environment and Health. Adopted at the First European Conference on Environment and Health, Frankfurt, 7–8 December 1989. ⟨http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0017/136250/ICP_RUD_113.pdf⟩.

WHO (World Health Organisation), 1993. Health for all Targets. The Health Policy for Europe. European Health for all Series No. 4. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Copenhagen.

World Health Organization, 2015. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Health Care Facilities. Status in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and Way Forward. WHO, Geneva.

WHO (World Health Organisation), 1994. Environmental Health Action Plan for Europe. Adopted at the Second European Conference on Environment and Health, Helsinki, 20–22 June 1994. ⟨http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0003/136227/EUR_ICP_CEH_212A.pdf⟩.

Wylie, J.W., 2005. A Single Day's Walking: narrating self and landscape on the Southwest Coast Path. TIBG 30 (2), 234–247.

Wylie, J.W., 2007. Landscape. Routledge, Abingdon. Wylie, J.W., 2009. Landscape, absence and the geographies of love. TIBG 34 (3),

275–289.