Examining Psychosocial and Economic Barriers to Green Space Access for Racialised Individuals and Families: A Narrative Literature Review of the Evidence to Date

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing (such as green social prescribing), aims to address health disparities cross-culturally to improve well-being. However, evidence highlights racial disparities in relation to access to quality green space (including local/national parks and recreational spaces). This review aimed to identify the psycho-socioeconomic barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families and Black Indigenous People of Colour (BIPOC), to understand what cultural adaptations might be made to help support them to access green social prescribing within the UK.

METHOD

A narrative systematic review was conducted to identify barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families and BIPOC. Searches of publication databases (APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and SCOPUS Preview) were undertaken from January to February 2022, to identify quantitative peer reviewed studies. Of the 4493 abstracts identified, ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for final review.

RESULTS

The results suggest that interpersonal, practical (such as transportation costs, entrance fees and lodging costs) and environmental factors can act as barriers to green space access for racialised individuals/families. Most frequently reported barriers were perceptions of safety and costs associated with travel and accessing green spaces, particularly for families.

CONCLUSION

Factors such as diversity-friendly schemes (e.g., multiple languages on signs and additional prayer spaces in parks), funding and strategies to improve safety should be considered in the design and commissioning of green space and green social prescribing initiatives in primary care. By mitigating these barriers green space can become more accessible and improve inclusivity for racialised individuals/families. Future research could explore the inter-racial differences between racialised populations and which mechanisms reduce barriers to access and in what contexts.

Race biology

BACKGROUND

The founders of Hereditas envisioned that race biology would be a major subject that had social applications with utmost importance in the near future. Anthropometrics was in this context understood to be the pure and eugenics the applied science. Sweden had a long tradition in physical anthropometry. Herman Lundborg, member of the advisory board of Hereditas, united the anthropometric and eugenic approaches in a synthesis. He was the first head of the Institute for Race Biology in Sweden. The contents of Hereditas reflect the development of race biology in the Nordic countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial enthusiasm for applied race biology did not last long. In the 1920's Hereditas carried papers on both physical anthropology and eugenics. Most paper dealt, however, with human genetics without eugenic content. Two papers, published in 1921 and 1939 show how the intellectual climate had changed from positive to negative. Finally only human genetics prevailed as the legitimate study of the human race or humankind. A belated defense of eugenics published in 1951 did not help; geneticists had abandoned anthropometrics for good around the year 1940 and eugenics about a decade later. In spite of that, eugenic legislation was amended astonishingly late, in the 1970's. The development was essentially similar in all Nordic countries.