Are Blue spaces better than green spaces?

In our recent lecture with Mr.Tim Townshend, we had a very interesting discussion on health and well-being and their importance in urban design. To start with health, it deals with the physical and mental, and social well-being of people (WHO, 1948). On the other hand, well-being is mostly about the psychological and mental aspects of a person or a group. The concept of ‘health’ is related to a ‘place’, started many centuries ago. In ancient Greek cities, special places (like Epidaurus) are used for healing (mind, body, spirit) and health. The Romans developed sophisticated water treatments such as the Georgian bath, which much more later turned into a fashionable spa town optimizing health and well-being is the theme of the town. The famous Garden City movement has health at the core of the city by providing a greener breathing space. In the modernist era, behind the idea of Corbusier’s skyscrapers is health. It is such that every floor has direct light and ventilation and an enormous amount of green space around the structure.

Gradually, the focus shifted from health and well-being to economic flexibility. With many greater inventions started much bigger issues to deal with. In which the key areas of concern to urban designers are car-focused cities, poor quality housing, poor or inadequate green space, toxic high streets.  The impacts of car-focused design are air and water pollution, reduced physical activity, death & injury, increased stress (Bloom et al., 2011, WHO 2013). As an alternate for car pollution electric vehicle is not a choice that is apt. Inactivity has become a risk factor for an increase in mortality rate. The availability of spaces is directly related to the inducing of outdoor physical activity (Guthold et al.,2018). This has an impact on the lifestyle which may cause so-called ‘lifestyle’ diseases (obesity, type – II diabetes) (WHO, 2018). The poor housing conditions and lack of adequate green spaces can have an impact, particularly during the pandemic of covid 19.

Now that we have all the problems, what can we as urban designers do to solve these issues? Any change to start globally should start small and in this case, it is addressing the issues at a neighborhood scale. These could be the possible outcomes for all the problems mentioned above.

1. Creating walkable (cycle-able) neighborhoods
2. Connectivity (lesser cul-de-sacs and wider roads)
3. Impact of the residential densities (consistency required)
4. Well-designed pedestrian realm (good-quality public realm supports higher levels of walking and physical activity)
5. Reprioritising the pedestrian (create legible, distinctive, accessible, comfortable and safe routes)
6. Enhancing cycle routes (than car-dominated lifestyle) through cycle infrastructure
7. Urban greenways – increase physical activity and walkability
8. Creating greener environments
9. Garden allotments and community gardens
10. Potential of ‘blue’ spaces

If you build it, people will come

The connection of green spaces with health and well-being has greater health outcomes. It results in improved mental health, increased physical activity, improved social cohesion, improved air quality. Green spaces in relation with the above stress reduction and restoration; green exercise; enhancing social interaction and reducing crime; reduction of pollution, improved immune systems, noise buffering, and vitamin D exposure.

There are a lot of research and models for how to build better green spaces. Did we ever consider the potential of blue spaces on health and well-being? I was very much interested in how much a blue space can be explored in this aspect as green spaces. There is quite a little research that speaks about various aspects of blue spaces. Mostly, the earlier models all tried to take reference from the green space health/well-being model. This is a conceptual model. To deconstruct blue space exposure or contact into four types (Keniger et al. 2013):

1. Home/work proximity
2. Indirect exposure (window views)
3. Incidental exposure (main activity is a different purpose)
4. Intentional exposure (purposeful visit for work or recreation)

It is harder to separate green and blue spaces because they co-exist and are tangled in most scenarios. So, few links connect blue spaces to green spaces and they have the common outcomes. They are (Markevych et al. 2017):

1. Mitigation (reduction of harm like urban heat island effect)
2. Instoration (improved mood or greater physical activity) and
3. Restoration (recovery from stress)

We can also adapt two sets to bring a change (Hartig et al. 2014). They are:

1. Situational (access, quality, weather, culture) and
2. Individual (age, gender)

In other words, people who live closer to blue spaces tend to have more exposure than those who live inland areas (Wiistemann et al., 2017).  But proximity need not be essential (Nutsford et al., 2016) it could be viewed from the top of a hill can increase blue spaces views. Studies in many countries (Elliott et al., 2020) conclude that the closer one lives to blue spaces, the more frequently one visits.

People who lived within 2km of the coast were more satisfied with their life than people living >5km away (Brereton et al., 2008).  A review of 35 different studies rated 22 to be good quality (Gascon et al. 2017). A positive association between greater exposure to outdoor blue spaces and both benefits to mental health and well-being and levels of physical activity. In conclusion, as much as the green spaces are prominent the blue spaces play (if not more but equally) an important role in the process of health and well-being.