健康与自然:对支持变革叙述的历史观点的批判性审查。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Miquel Amengual-Moreno, Lucinda Cash-Gibson, Laila Vivas, Eliana Martínez-Herrera, Adrián Almazán, Juan M Pericàs, Joan Benach
{"title":"健康与自然:对支持变革叙述的历史观点的批判性审查。","authors":"Miquel Amengual-Moreno, Lucinda Cash-Gibson, Laila Vivas, Eliana Martínez-Herrera, Adrián Almazán, Juan M Pericàs, Joan Benach","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02550-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ongoing ecosocial crisis threatens the health of our planet, as ecological boundaries are overreached and social needs remain unmet. Achieving health equity and sustainable development requires re-evaluating the interconnections between nature and health, including the social narratives shaping this relationship. The ways in which we construct and adopt these narratives-consciously or not-translates into different implications for research, policy and practice. This study critically analyses the historical evolution of how the health-nature relationship is conceptualised in the scientific literature, and classifies the different eco-social values and theoretical considerations embedded within each emerging perspective. By raising awareness of the diverse perspectives used and their implications for research, policy and practice, the findings aim to provide a conceptual guide for narratives that aim to drive change towards health equity and sustainable practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a critical review to identify the main perspectives of the health-nature relationship in the scientific literature over the past 60 years, and to categorize them based on their ecological theoretical positions, ranging from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric. Snowballing techniques were applied to include other relevant literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review identified eight main perspectives on the health-nature relationship during this time period: Environmental health, Ecology of health, Holistic medicine, Political ecology of health, Eco Health, One Health, Planetary Health, and Indigenous traditions. We then classified them by their consideration of nature, and ecological positions.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our results found diverse and evolving perspectives on the health-nature relationships, with anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric ecological theoretical positions embedded within them. When selecting and applying perspectives to support transformation, researchers and policymakers should have a clear idea of the implicit and explicit theoretical positions embedded within them. Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners should carefully consider these findings when selecting frameworks to guide narratives of change, and interventions aiming to address the political, ecological, economic, and cultural drivers of environmental degradation, human and natural exploitation, and social and health inequalities that our planet is struggling with. Recognizing these varied perspectives presents an opportunity to embrace diverse epistemologies that can inspire positive ecosocial change and foster a more sustainable and equitable relation between human societies with nature.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"247"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486497/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health & nature: a critical review of historical perspectives to support narratives for change.\",\"authors\":\"Miquel Amengual-Moreno, Lucinda Cash-Gibson, Laila Vivas, Eliana Martínez-Herrera, Adrián Almazán, Juan M Pericàs, Joan Benach\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12939-025-02550-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ongoing ecosocial crisis threatens the health of our planet, as ecological boundaries are overreached and social needs remain unmet. Achieving health equity and sustainable development requires re-evaluating the interconnections between nature and health, including the social narratives shaping this relationship. The ways in which we construct and adopt these narratives-consciously or not-translates into different implications for research, policy and practice. This study critically analyses the historical evolution of how the health-nature relationship is conceptualised in the scientific literature, and classifies the different eco-social values and theoretical considerations embedded within each emerging perspective. By raising awareness of the diverse perspectives used and their implications for research, policy and practice, the findings aim to provide a conceptual guide for narratives that aim to drive change towards health equity and sustainable practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a critical review to identify the main perspectives of the health-nature relationship in the scientific literature over the past 60 years, and to categorize them based on their ecological theoretical positions, ranging from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric. Snowballing techniques were applied to include other relevant literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review identified eight main perspectives on the health-nature relationship during this time period: Environmental health, Ecology of health, Holistic medicine, Political ecology of health, Eco Health, One Health, Planetary Health, and Indigenous traditions. We then classified them by their consideration of nature, and ecological positions.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our results found diverse and evolving perspectives on the health-nature relationships, with anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric ecological theoretical positions embedded within them. When selecting and applying perspectives to support transformation, researchers and policymakers should have a clear idea of the implicit and explicit theoretical positions embedded within them. Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners should carefully consider these findings when selecting frameworks to guide narratives of change, and interventions aiming to address the political, ecological, economic, and cultural drivers of environmental degradation, human and natural exploitation, and social and health inequalities that our planet is struggling with. Recognizing these varied perspectives presents an opportunity to embrace diverse epistemologies that can inspire positive ecosocial change and foster a more sustainable and equitable relation between human societies with nature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Equity in Health\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12486497/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Equity in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02550-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02550-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:持续的生态社会危机威胁着我们星球的健康,因为生态边界被超越,社会需求仍然得不到满足。实现卫生公平和可持续发展需要重新评估自然与健康之间的相互联系,包括形成这种关系的社会叙述。我们有意识或无意识地构建和采用这些叙事的方式会对研究、政策和实践产生不同的影响。本研究批判性地分析了健康-自然关系在科学文献中如何概念化的历史演变,并对每个新兴观点中嵌入的不同生态社会价值和理论考虑进行了分类。通过提高对所使用的不同观点及其对研究、政策和实践的影响的认识,调查结果旨在为旨在推动卫生公平和可持续做法的变革的叙述提供概念指南。方法:对近60年来科学文献中关于健康与自然关系的主要观点进行综述,并根据其生态学理论立场对其进行分类,从人类中心主义到非人类中心主义。采用滚雪球法纳入其他相关文献。结果:我们的综述确定了这一时期健康与自然关系的八个主要观点:环境健康、健康生态学、整体医学、健康政治生态学、生态健康、一体健康、行星健康和土著传统。然后,我们根据他们对自然和生态位置的考虑对他们进行分类。讨论和结论:我们的研究结果发现了健康与自然关系的不同和不断发展的观点,其中包含了人类中心主义和非人类中心主义的生态理论立场。在选择和应用支持转型的观点时,研究人员和政策制定者应该清楚地了解其中隐含的和明确的理论立场。研究人员、政策制定者和从业者在选择框架来指导变革叙事时,以及在选择干预措施时,应仔细考虑这些发现,这些干预措施旨在解决环境退化、人类和自然剥削以及我们的星球正在努力应对的社会和健康不平等的政治、生态、经济和文化驱动因素。认识到这些不同的观点为拥抱不同的认识论提供了机会,这些认识论可以激发积极的生态社会变革,并促进人类社会与自然之间更可持续和公平的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Health & nature: a critical review of historical perspectives to support narratives for change.

Health & nature: a critical review of historical perspectives to support narratives for change.

Health & nature: a critical review of historical perspectives to support narratives for change.

Introduction: The ongoing ecosocial crisis threatens the health of our planet, as ecological boundaries are overreached and social needs remain unmet. Achieving health equity and sustainable development requires re-evaluating the interconnections between nature and health, including the social narratives shaping this relationship. The ways in which we construct and adopt these narratives-consciously or not-translates into different implications for research, policy and practice. This study critically analyses the historical evolution of how the health-nature relationship is conceptualised in the scientific literature, and classifies the different eco-social values and theoretical considerations embedded within each emerging perspective. By raising awareness of the diverse perspectives used and their implications for research, policy and practice, the findings aim to provide a conceptual guide for narratives that aim to drive change towards health equity and sustainable practices.

Methods: We conducted a critical review to identify the main perspectives of the health-nature relationship in the scientific literature over the past 60 years, and to categorize them based on their ecological theoretical positions, ranging from anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric. Snowballing techniques were applied to include other relevant literature.

Results: Our review identified eight main perspectives on the health-nature relationship during this time period: Environmental health, Ecology of health, Holistic medicine, Political ecology of health, Eco Health, One Health, Planetary Health, and Indigenous traditions. We then classified them by their consideration of nature, and ecological positions.

Discussion and conclusions: Our results found diverse and evolving perspectives on the health-nature relationships, with anthropocentric to non-anthropocentric ecological theoretical positions embedded within them. When selecting and applying perspectives to support transformation, researchers and policymakers should have a clear idea of the implicit and explicit theoretical positions embedded within them. Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners should carefully consider these findings when selecting frameworks to guide narratives of change, and interventions aiming to address the political, ecological, economic, and cultural drivers of environmental degradation, human and natural exploitation, and social and health inequalities that our planet is struggling with. Recognizing these varied perspectives presents an opportunity to embrace diverse epistemologies that can inspire positive ecosocial change and foster a more sustainable and equitable relation between human societies with nature.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信