428
acknowledged that conflicts in landscape planning might also appear, for example,
regarding the use of allergenic plants or the promotion of vector-borne diseases as
an unintended side effect of promoting urban green (Damialis et al. Chap. 3, this
volume; WHO 2016).
Consequently, there is considerable evidence that addressing health issues in
landscape planning is helpful, indeed necessary, in order for planning authorities to
be able to cope with future developments, and in order to make use of potential
synergies and to mitigate conflicts and unintended negative side effects of planning.
Furthermore, under conditions of increasing climate change impacts and accelerating societal changes, landscape planning, landscape architecture and nature conservation will only play a significant role for politicians and decision-makers if such
disciplines are able to contribute to the solution of urgent societal challenges – such
as health protection and promotion (see Heiland 2017, 183ff.). As Prüss-Ustün et al.
(2017, p. 474) have said, “Investing in environmental interventions pays off for governments; it reduces the transfer of hidden costs from other sectors to the health
sector”. Conversely, there will be no future for landscape planning if it concentrates
only on biodiversity, as it will always take a backseat against other interests – however important from an expert’s perspective – such as health, social issues, drinking
water supply and economic questions for the broader public and in politics.
It is important, therefore, to underline the need for interdisciplinary cooperation
between landscape planning and the health sector (see Cook et al. Chap. 11, this
volume). A mere consideration of health in landscape planning is not sufficient;
there are greater opportunities for both sides from fuller collaborative working, and
these should therefore be a priority: “While a new environmental conceptualisation
of health [Ecological Public Health] might seem a difficult and complex task, that is
the 21st century’s unavoidable task” (Rayner and Lang 2012, p. 52). Nonetheless: It
is a challenging task as it requires cooperation across disciplines and administrations with different approaches, aims, values and languages. For example, whereas
landscape planners’ thinking is primarily spatially based, the approach of health
promotion is oriented towards the individual (Rittel et al. 2016, p. 20). As shown by
Rittel et al. (2016) in the example of four case-study municipalities in Germany, an
intensified cooperation between authorities responsible for nature conservation,
landscape and green space planning on the one hand and health authorities on the
other is hampered by factors that differ according to the size of municipality: in
smaller municipalities, health authorities do not exist (as they are located at a county
level), whereas in bigger cities they exist in a very differentiated, non-standardised
way, which makes it difficult to identify the appropriate contact person for every
planning issue. Furthermore, public health planning and longer term visions for supporting health may be beyond the usual concern of the relevant tier of health authority, e.g. of local clinical commissioning groups in the UK, which manage delivery
of local health services. In the UK, landscape planning issues may be better understood at a national level, e.g. by Public Health England. Limited resources and competence are additional reasons that make cooperation difficult, factors that may well
apply to other countries as well as the UK and Germany. Nonetheless: “The ‘healthy
city’ (…) can only be understood as an interdisciplinary task and as the product of a
S. Heiland et al.
acknowledged that conflicts in landscape planning might also appear, for example,
regarding the use of allergenic plants or the promotion of vector-borne diseases as
an unintended side effect of promoting urban green (Damialis et al. Chap. 3, this
volume; WHO 2016).
Consequently, there is considerable evidence that addressing health issues in
landscape planning is helpful, indeed necessary, in order for planning authorities to
be able to cope with future developments, and in order to make use of potential
synergies and to mitigate conflicts and unintended negative side effects of planning.
Furthermore, under conditions of increasing climate change impacts and accelerating societal changes, landscape planning, landscape architecture and nature conservation will only play a significant role for politicians and decision-makers if such
disciplines are able to contribute to the solution of urgent societal challenges – such
as health protection and promotion (see Heiland 2017, 183ff.). As Prüss-Ustün et al.
(2017, p. 474) have said, “Investing in environmental interventions pays off for governments; it reduces the transfer of hidden costs from other sectors to the health
sector”. Conversely, there will be no future for landscape planning if it concentrates
only on biodiversity, as it will always take a backseat against other interests – however important from an expert’s perspective – such as health, social issues, drinking
water supply and economic questions for the broader public and in politics.
It is important, therefore, to underline the need for interdisciplinary cooperation
between landscape planning and the health sector (see Cook et al. Chap. 11, this
volume). A mere consideration of health in landscape planning is not sufficient;
there are greater opportunities for both sides from fuller collaborative working, and
these should therefore be a priority: “While a new environmental conceptualisation
of health [Ecological Public Health] might seem a difficult and complex task, that is
the 21st century’s unavoidable task” (Rayner and Lang 2012, p. 52). Nonetheless: It
is a challenging task as it requires cooperation across disciplines and administrations with different approaches, aims, values and languages. For example, whereas
landscape planners’ thinking is primarily spatially based, the approach of health
promotion is oriented towards the individual (Rittel et al. 2016, p. 20). As shown by
Rittel et al. (2016) in the example of four case-study municipalities in Germany, an
intensified cooperation between authorities responsible for nature conservation,
landscape and green space planning on the one hand and health authorities on the
other is hampered by factors that differ according to the size of municipality: in
smaller municipalities, health authorities do not exist (as they are located at a county
level), whereas in bigger cities they exist in a very differentiated, non-standardised
way, which makes it difficult to identify the appropriate contact person for every
planning issue. Furthermore, public health planning and longer term visions for supporting health may be beyond the usual concern of the relevant tier of health authority, e.g. of local clinical commissioning groups in the UK, which manage delivery
of local health services. In the UK, landscape planning issues may be better understood at a national level, e.g. by Public Health England. Limited resources and competence are additional reasons that make cooperation difficult, factors that may well
apply to other countries as well as the UK and Germany. Nonetheless: “The ‘healthy
city’ (…) can only be understood as an interdisciplinary task and as the product of a
S. Heiland et al.