Part of this week’s seminar will consist of a group reading exercise, based on the article “Uncommon ground – our new urban oases”, which appeared in The New York Times Sunday magazine last year. You’ll have time to read the piece together, but feel free to take a look in advance as well.
Returning from reading week, lecture focused on methods of understanding and measuring access to urban forests to advance public health. Such interdisciplinary conversations and collaboration are critical to maximizing the potential health benefits of urban forestry. In seminar, there was a guest lecture from Lorien Nesbitt on her research into equity issues in urban greenspace.
One way to advance intersectoral collaborations is by identifying the potential monetary benefits of greenspace interventions, and the article examining the impact of parks and trees in Toronto by Kardan and colleagues achieves just that. The methodology is fairly complex, so you may want to focus on the introduction and discussion sections. If you’re interested in how these findings were translated for a broader audience, take a look at the Washington Post’s summary of the piece.
Offering additional insights into how evidence is put into practice, the BC Provincial Health Services Authority’s Healthy Built Environment Linkages toolkit is directed toward public health professionals, urban planners, and resource managers and explicitly links research to best practices for creating a healthy built environment.
Unpacking research articles can certainly be challenging, but it’s also a critical skill you need to develop both as a student and practitioner. This step-by-step guide to reading a scientific article is an excellent foundation for honing this skill.
Finally, we’re hoping students have found time to review Assignment Two – which is due by 4 p.m. next Thursday, March 9 – so feel free to post any questions about the assignment either here or on the Assessment page. And, as always, your comments on what we’re reading and learning are always appreciated!
Having a personal interest in community planning and policy development, I found today’s lecture to be particularly interesting, specifically with regards to how scientific evidence can be better communicated to decision-makers. Unfortunately, due to the short term structure of our political system, many decision-makers prioritize short term economic gains over the long-term wellbeing of the population. These are easier to quantify and provide tangible evidence that objectives are being met. In order to shift the priorities, I think that there needs to be several changes made on behalf of the scientific community. First, as we discussed in class, scientists must develop the ability to translate findings into policy-friendly terminology and frameworks (such as valuing ecosystem services). Second, scientists must strive to reach the general public with the knowledge that is produced, since the citizens ultimately put decision-makers in power. More generally, scientists across disciplines should work together to formulate coherent messages about issues that overlap. For example, a meteorologist and public health official could work together to present the following statement:
Urban trees can provide pathways to health and reduce the urban heat island effect but run the risk of trapping pollutants near the ground. Therefore, more trees should be incorporated into urban design for population access but preferably not along major roads.
I believe the presence of trails and/or parks within residential areas are an excellent way to combat physical inactivity. As they’re easily accessible to residents in the surrounding area, people are more inclined to use the greenspace. Additionally, both areas can be used by residents of all ages and abilities which is perfect for getting people physically active while outside in nature. Because of this, I believe ample trails and/or parks should exist in all residential areas.
Great comment Blake!
Potential questions:
What hinders urban foresters from communicating and translating science into policy and practice?
What tools can we use to make the communication more effective?