gms | German Medical Science

Background: Urban green performs significant functions in our cities and is of high value to people. It offers numerous possibilities for use and assumes important functions for our quality of life and health [1]. Multiple studies show the effects on our health. Those effects can be various: reducing air and noise pollution, cooling effects, encouragement for physical activity or promoting social interactions [2], [3].

A transdisciplinary forum on urban health was held at the Hochschule für Gesundheit, University of Applied Science in Bochum. The forum offered a transdisciplinary learning space for scientists, practitioners and interested people from all over the world. The forum dealt with the multiple challenges of the Ruhr Area in the context of urban health and how the region can learn from the experience of other regions worldwide. One session was focused on urban green.

In times of urbanization, urban green has a high impact of decreasing the negative impacts coming along with the rise of urban life [2]. Therefore, the session focused on the benefits of urban green for health and tries to find answers.

Contributions: Different views on urban green and health were presented in the session on urban green. The first presentation by Ellen Hilal discussed the Heinz Nixdorf recall study’s results, focusing on the association between neighbourhood greenness and body mass index. The presentation showed how to combine health data and NDVI. The audience agreed that those approaches need to be integrated more into urban green planning. One interesting thought would be to compare the place of work/and place of residence, but this would be a huge methodical challenge. It needs to be pointed out that NDVI is just one variable, which doesn’t include what kind of green is in the neighbourhood. It makes a difference if there is a public urban park or a private garden that is not open to the public.

The second presentation by Christin Busch and Eva Rademacher was looking at the framework of ecosystem services and health-oriented urban green space planning. Critical discussed were that, with a social media analysis you know nothing about the people who wrote the comments about different green spaces. To deal with this challenge there was a survey afterwards based on the findings from the analysis. It showed that the findings were generally comparable. The main goal was to create a GIS toolbox to show if people’s planning has positive effects.

In addition, practical input on productive green infrastructure for post-industrial urban regeneration was given by Dagmar Knappe. It showed how integrated planning could work in a project like this. The Department of urban renewal worked closely together with the Department for green spaces. Critically discussed could be the lack of participation of the health department as the presented project has an impact on people’s health.

Overall discussion: After the three presentations, there was a general discussion. Different questions were discussed.

In the first step, we talked about the existing knowledge overall and what we learned from the previous presentations. We agreed on knowing a lot about the health benefits (physical and mental health) of urban green. The challenge is the distribution of urban green. One major topic of the discussion was that participation is obligatory. The second presentation showed that needs analysis and transformation of green spaces. The use of inhabitants’ experience and participation is obligatory and still needs to be strengthened. The spatial component of data and the use of those have a high value for improving people’s health.

We still have knowledge gaps regarding different (vulnerable) groups and how to increase their use of urban green. One of the main challenges is to know more about “how to come from know about to come to use it for health”. There is also a gap in regionalised health data.

The needs for action, which are discussed, were to take urban farming and agriculture as part of urban health into consideration. More local rules for greener cities must be implanted. A suggestion for those rules was the “3–30–300” (3 trees from every home, 30% tree cover in every neighbourhood – 300 meters from the nearest green space). An open data pool (health, environment, spatial) is needed. Especially for the Ruhr Area better cooperation between cities is pointed out. For improving inhabitants’ participation those responsible need to talk to and with the people. There still needs to be more integrated planning.

One innovative approach, which was brought up, is to install “urban health managers” similar to already existing climate managers in the municipality, to follow the principal health in all policies. We still need more experts in the intersection of health and planning. Nature-based solutions co-created with actors from different sectors and residents are one way to improve people’s health and a participatory approach, where different interests come together in dialogue. There haven’t always been flagship projects, you can also focus more on the principal “think little”: solutions can be pocket parks/tiny forests or mobile solutions.