John Senior is Manager, Strategic Partnerships, Parks Victoria. Mardie Townsend is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Health and Social Development of Deakin University. Both are based in Melbourne. This paper is based on a presentation by Gerard O’Neill, General Manager, Metropolitan Parks and Bays, Policy and Strategy, Parks Victoria.

Citation: This paper may be cited as: [Authors.] 2005. [Article title.] In Ted Trzyna, ed., The Urban Imperative. California Institute of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California.

In the Australian state of Victoria, Parks Victoria is the state government’s statutory organization uniquely responsible for the management of national (terrestrial and marine) and state parks and reserves, together with a variety of major urban parks and regional open space in Melbourne. It additionally is responsible for the management of recreational use of two bays adjacent to the metropolitan area. In all, Parks Victoria manages over 4 million hectares of land-based parks that attract some 36 million visits annually.

Having this diverse combination of responsibilities enables the organization to understand community aspirations and readily communicate the values and recreational opportunities of the protected areas to city dwellers as part of its urban park management activities.

Over recent years, Parks Victoria has progressively adopted a range of contemporary and innovative management techniques to better undertake its responsibilities into the future. These are not limited to traditional park and recreation responsibilities but embrace social capital considerations.

Parks Victoria recognizes that it has an important responsibility to ensure the areas managed contribute to the quality of life for all Victorians and meet the "Caring Communities" platform of the state government. A sustainable future for Parks Victoria is dependent on the organization’s relevance to community needs and expectations and to its broader contribution.

In 2000, Parks Victoria introduced the slogan "Healthy Parks, Healthy People" as a seemingly logical statement that was immediately successful. A number of partnerships were developed with the health sector. In 2002, in conjunction with a number of other Australasian park agencies, it commissioned the Faculty of Health and Behavioural Science at Deakin University to undertake a literature review of the health benefits of contact with nature in a park context (Maller et al. 2002).

The results of that research and subsequent projects have revealed a range of opportunities for park management agencies to play a significant role in contributing to social capital, as well as in furthering their own park management interests. The principles involved are not unique to Victoria or Australia; to greater or lesser extents they will be valid internationally.

Very recently, Parks Victoria has embarked on a new "Community Partnerships" initiative which broadens the development of a social capital approach beyond the basic social values provided by parks in four key areas: internal capacity building, collaborative programs, building collective community consciousness, and social responsibility.

This paper uses these Parks Victoria initiatives as a case study, but also provides some global context for how they could be more widely applied.

Australia is experiencing many of the same trends as other industrialized countries. It is undergoing significant urban development, both urban sprawl and consolidation, driven by a combination of increasing population and a lifestyle "dream." There are consequent threats to undeveloped land, including open space and natural areas, and an isolation from green space. As elsewhere, the national park estate has been driven by a "purist" nature conservation agenda with invariable interfaces with growing ecotourism and urban recreational desires. The strong environmental concerns of the late 20th century have been overtaken by the policies of recent governments, the self-interests of individuals, and international issues of terrorism and war.

In addition, with park and open-space responsibilities often fragmented and parochially managed, there is often a general absence of a coordinated approach to the needs of people for outdoor recreation and the relationship between remnant or restored vegetation and larger areas such as national and state parks. The associated social values are not fully appreciated or understood.

At the same time, we are universally experiencing a major decline in health standards due to the increasingly sedentary life and work style (computers, television, fast foods) and yet a tendency towards aging populations as health treatments and associated care improve.

There is also the increasing gap between the "haves" and "have nots" that affects how people are able to afford to recreate.

Among all these issues we seem to have forgotten the original purpose of parks. As a consequence we are missing synergistic opportunities for parks and the community.

When parks were first designed in the 19th century, city officials had a strong belief in the possible health advantages that would result from open space . It was hoped that parks would reduce disease, crime, and social unrest, as well as providing "green lungs" for the city and areas for recreation . At this time it was also believed that exposure to nature fostered psychological well-being, reduced the stress associated with urban living, and promoted physical health . These assumptions were used as justification for providing parks and other natural areas in cities, and preserving wilderness areas outside of cities for public use .

In the last few hundred years, however, there has been an extraordinary disengagement of humans from the natural environment, due mostly to an enormous shift of people away from rural areas into cities. Here, contact with nature is often only available via parks. Never have humans spent so little time in physical contact with animals and plants, and the consequences of this are only beginning to be explored . Modern society by its very essence insulates people from outdoor environmental stimuli and regular contact with nature . Detrimental effects on humans of this isolation from nature have been asserted by researchers who believe that too much artificial stimulation and an existence spent in purely human environments may cause exhaustion, or produce a loss of vitality and health

It is internationally accepted that sustainable communities exist where the three capitals, economic, environmental, and social, co-exist and are in balance. It is well recognized that parks and open spaces are major contributors to the environmental capital of a society.

In the last twenty years, there has also been recognition that parks and open space can contribute greatly to a society's economic capital. In Australia, the nature-based tourism industry is worth over a billion Australian dollars a year and many parks such as the internationally renowned Phillip Island Penguin Parade contribute as much as A$100 million a year to Australia's economy.

But do parks contribute to social capital? Social capital is a relatively new and very useful concept. Social commentator Eva Cox popularized it in Australia with her 1995 Boyer Lecture, one of a prestigious series sponsored by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. According to Cox (1995), social capital is "the processes between people which establish networks, norms, social trust and facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit." She goes on to say that "these processes are also known as social fabric or glue" and "we increase social capital by working together voluntarily in egalitarian organizations." Clearly, using this definition, parks can play a significant role in establishing and supporting social capital.

Although parks have not entirely lost their connection with health, the modern emphasis is almost exclusively on their use as a venue for leisure and sport or conservation protection. Although the physical activity opportunities provided by parks have been promoted, little if any recognition has been given to the other potential health benefits offered by access to nature through parks. Aside from leisure and sport purposes, parks in cities tend to be viewed as optional amenities rather than as necessary components of urban infrastructure (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).

Why the benefits of parks, understood by early landscape designers, park engineers, and public health campaigners, have been overlooked in recent decades is a mystery. Research on the benefits of nature carried out over the last two decades indicates that they were right. Data so far have shown that access to "green nature" can reduce crime (Kuo 2001), foster psychological well-being , reduce stress , boost immunity , enhance productivity , promote healing in psychiatric patients , and aid community cohesion and identity (Lewis 1990).

Another factor likely to have contributed to human health problems over recent decades is (according to Putnam 1995) loss of social capital, which is defined by Putnam et al. (1993: 167) as "features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions." Though there are variations in the way it is defined, the concept of social capital is generally accepted as including the level of connectedness or civic engagement within a community, the trust members feel toward others, and the security they feel living within the community (Flower 1997; Putnam 1993; Kawachi and Kennedy 1997; Bourdieu 1985). Rutter (1995) has proposed that the rapidly increasing psychopathology in modern industrialized societies is most likely due to factors including family conflict and break up, as well as increased individualism. This proposed association underscores the need to promote connectedness and civic engagement within such societies.

The role of social capital as a key determinant of health has been highlighted by recent research (Kawachi et al. 1997; Runyan et al. 1998; Leeder and Dominello 1999). Despite this recognition of the importance of social capital for health, Putnam (1995) observes that social connectedness and civic engagement – key aspects of social capital – are in decline.

It is not surprising, therefore, that recent research supports the proposal that social capital may explain differences in mortality and morbidity within and between groups (Runyan et al 1998; Kawachi and Kennedy 1997). For example, a study of the connection between social capital and the presence of emotional and behavioral problems found that, independent of other factors, children from families high in social capital had fewer problems than children from families low in social capital (Runyan et al. 1998). In another study, researchers found a significant relationship between community disinvestment in social capital and mortality (Kawachi and Kennedy 1997).

Given the combination of these two factors – disengagement from nature, or diminished access to "natural capital," defined by Pretty (1998) as the goods and services provided by nature; and declining social capital, it is not surprising that in industrialized countries chronic disease has increasingly replaced acute infectious disease as the major cause of disability and death , and that the WHO Global Burden of Disease study (Murray and Lopez 1996) indicates that by the year 2020 this will be true for every region in the world, with cardiovascular disease and poor mental health as the two biggest contributors. These types of afflictions are often long-term and are potentially much more expensive in terms of health care requirements and cost to the community. Current theories of disease have become more complex, moving from single-cause explanations to ones in which multiple behavioral, environmental, biological, and genetic factors combine over time, resulting in one or more of a number of different diseases .

Yet despite the burgeoning chronic health problems in industrialized nations, and despite the trend away from single-cause explanations of illness and disease, little if any attention has been paid to the potential for the "symbiotic" relationship between social capital and natural capital to be exploited as both a preventive measure and a restorative solution to the diseases prominent in modern society.

Other research has demonstrated the importance of contact with natural environments for human health and well-being (Frumkin 2001; Wilson 2001). Yet, despite its potential health benefits, increasing urbanization results in diminishing contact between humans and natural environments, and health is being deleteriously affected. An example of this is in urban consolidation where infrastructure considerations are driving a vertical development agenda. Singapore is one of the few cities placing increasing importance on greening its urban environment.

These two strands of research into health determinants appear to merge in anecdotal evidence that suggests engagement in civic environmentalism (through volunteers and groups such as "Friends of Parks") has spin-off health benefits, relating to a combination of exposure to natural environments and increased social capital. This link is supported by Furnass (1996) who defines the components of well-being as including: satisfactory human relationships; meaningful occupation; and opportunities for contact with nature, creative expression, and making a positive contribution to human society. However, data are needed to verify this claim.

In many fields of research, including ecology, biology, psychology, and psychiatry, there have been recent attempts to understand the human relationship with nature and how humans might benefit from nature in terms of health and well-being. The research indicates that, contrary to popular thinking, humans may be dependent on nature for psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs that are difficult to satisfy by other means .

Australia spends 8.5 percent of its gross domestic product on health (Ross et al. 1999) and while, by international standards, Australians enjoy good health, it is also true that some experience poorer health than others (AIHW 2000). Obesity in Australia is reaching epidemic proportions and, as elsewhere in the world, cardiovascular disease and mental illness are growing. There are increasing rates of family breakdown, social cohesion is being challenged, and health care costs are rising rapidly. At the same time, environmental degradation is posing major problems in Australia.

The above information summarizes the findings of Deakin University’s literature review on health benefits of nature in park contexts (Maller et al. 2002).

This research demonstrated that natural environments have been found to offer low-cost preventive and remedial opportunities for public health. These findings have led to further research and have major implications for park management. The research underway focuses, among other things, on: the health impacts of highrise living; the health and well-being benefits of "Friends Group" membership; and the value of natural experiences as an intervention in treatment of depression.

In 2000, Parks Victoria successfully introduced the slogan "Healthy Parks, Healthy People" to promote its activities. Having a unique combination of responsibilities enabled the organization, as part of its urban park management activities, to market the values and recreational opportunities of the protected areas within the metropolitan area to the city dwellers who comprise 3.5 million of the state’s 5 million population.

While support for the principle of land being set aside for parks is widespread in Western societies, the rhetoric is not always realized in practice when commercial pressure occurs. The importance of parks is only top-of-mind when the integrity of a well-known park is threatened. So the challenge for Parks Victoria, as for many park agencies, is how to heighten people’s sense of the value of parks. The provision of information and experiential opportunities are obvious, but both need to be cleverly crafted.

However, it is well documented that people need encouragement to recognize relatively easy options that will contribute to their own well-being. Along with the obvious virtues of open space for physical pursuits, parks are refuges from urban stress and places for families to get together for picnics, for people to enjoy a variety of outdoor activities, and for children to safely explore the magic of the natural environment.

Going to a park can be a great adjunct to both traditional and natural health therapies, as almost everyone’s physical and mental well-being can be improved by visiting a park. To encourage Victorians to visit parks, to inspire them to play a role in their care, and to provide "healthy" places for body, mind, and spirit, Parks Victoria de