Objective: To systematically identify and describe studies that have evaluated the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. A secondary objective was to use this evidence to build evidence-based logic models to guide health strategy decision making about gardens and gardening as a non-medical, social prescription. Design: Scoping review of the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. Gardens include private spaces and those open to the public or part of hospitals, care homes, hospices or third sector organisations. Data sources: A range of biomedical and health management journals was searched including Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs, Greenfile, Environment Complete and a number of indicative websites were searched to locate context-specific data and grey literature. We searched from 1990 to November 2019. Eligibility criteria: We included research studies (including systematic reviews) that assessed the effect, value or impact of any garden that met the gardening definition. Data extraction and synthesis: Three reviewers jointly screened 50 records by titles and abstracts to ensure calibration. Each record title was screened independently by 2 out of 3 members of the project team and each abstract was screened by 1 member of a team of 3. Random checks on abstract and full-text screening were conducted by a fourth member of the team and any discrepancies were resolved through double-checking and discussion. Results: From the 8896 papers located, a total of 77 ^* studies was included. Over 35 validated health, well-being and functional biometric outcome measures were reported. Interventions ranged from viewing gardens, taking part in gardening or undertaking therapeutic activities. The findings demonstrated links between gardens and improved mental well-being, increased physical activity and a reduction in social isolation enabling the development of 2 logic models. Conclusions: Gardens and gardening can improve the health and well-being for people with a range of health and social needs. The benefits of gardens and gardening could be used as a ‘social prescription’ globally, for people with long-term conditions (LTCs). Our logic models provide an evidence-based illustration that can guide health strategy decision making about the referral of people with LTCs to socially prescribed, non-medical interventions involving gardens and gardening.

The spaces where countryside meets town are often amongst society's most valued and pressured places which together form the rural–urban fringe (RUF). A ‘messy’ yet opportunistic space in policy and decision making processes, the RUF remains confused and ‘disintegrated’ lacking sufficient understanding and explicit attention for sustainable management as places in their own right. This paper exposes the scope, nature and reasons leading towards policy disintegration within the RUF with critical attention on the separate lenses of the Ecosystem Approach and Spatial Planning frameworks reflecting a marked natural and built environment divide. Using research funded by the Rural Economy and Land Use programme, three ‘bridging’ concepts were identified within which improved integration is explored: Time, Connections and Values. Using team member thoughtpieces and workshops, together with visioning exercises in two rural–urban fringes, a series of narratives are presented within which the RUF opportunity is re-discovered set within a hybridised theory of spatial and environmental planning. In so doing the paper challenges established economic and planning models of urban development and expansion with more holistic ideas and approaches. One size-fits-all solutions such as greenbelts, regionalism or localism are rejected within an approach that champions multi-scalar and sectoral perspectives set within a governance framework that achieves social and economic well-being through maintaining and enhancing ecosystem functions and services. We conclude by arguing that policy strands within environment and planning must be better connected allowing the RUF to be developed as an opportunity space for testing and experimentation

Despite an emerging literature on guerrilla gardening as a political practice in public spaces, with few exceptions, these accounts theorise it as working against many corporate and bureaucratic forms of power. Using the example of ‘F Troop’—a group of gardeners operating on a site in an English midland city—this paper focuses on the practices of urban guerrilla gardening in order to illustrate that these are perhaps not as ‘resistant’ or ‘celebratory’ as previous accounts have suggested. Rather, this paper draws on ethnographic data to focus attention on the micro politics of garden activism, arguing that the social backgrounds and motivations of those involved in guerrilla gardening and their relationship with other users of the space surrounding the dig site are also important—but largely underacknowledged—aspects of guerrilla gardening.

This paper develops a framework for improved mainstreaming of ecosystem science in policy and decision-making within a spatial planning context. Ecosystem science is advanced as a collective umbrella to capture a body of work and approaches rooted in social-ecological systems thinking, spawning a distinctive ecosystem terminology: ecosystem approach, ecosystem services, ecosystem services framework and natural capital. The interface between spatial planning and ecosystem science is explored as a theoretical opportunity space to improve mainstreaming processes adapting Rogers’ (2003) diffusion model. We introduce the twin concepts of hooks (linking ecosystem science to a key policy or legislative term, duty or priority that relate to a particular user group) and ‘bridges’ (linking ecosystem science to a term, concept or policy priority that is used and readily understood across multiple groups and publics) as translational mechanisms in transdisciplinary mainstreaming settings. We argue that ecosystem science can be embedded into the existing work priorities and vocabularies of spatial planning practice using these hooks and bridges. The resultant framework for mainstreaming is then tested, drawing on research funded as part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On programme (2012–2014), within 4 case studies; each reflecting different capacities, capabilities, opportunities and barriers. The results reveal the importance of leadership, political buy in, willingness to experiment outside established comfort zones and social learning as core drivers supporting mainstreaming processes. Whilst there are still significant challenges in mainstreaming in spatial planning settings, the identification and use of hooks and bridges collectively, enables traction to be gained for further advances; moving beyond the status quo to generate additionality and potential behaviour change within different modes of mainstreaming practice. This pragmatic approach has global application to help improve the way nature is respected and taken account of in planning systems nationally and globally

The literature on guerrilla gardening is developing rapidly. The majority of these accounts currently derive from North America, with little academic exploration apparent beyond this context: they focus explicitly on the grass-roots gardeners and show little regard for those surrounding the action's location. Guerrilla gardeners often colonise land not only without the permission from authorities, but also with little regard for those who surround the space; transforming areas without consulting with the local communities. This paper explores those affected by guerrilla gardening; grounding our argument in evidence gathered from the activities of three guerrilla groups. In doing so, we investigate the public's views of several informal gardening projects, questioning their value and impact on the surrounding areas. The emerging responses are very mixed, ranging from positive comments about improving aesthetics, to negative remarks surrounding the practices of some groups. Ultimately, this paper demonstrates how, although often promoted and perceived to be a constructive activity, guerrilla gardening can result in adverse impacts on those who surround colonised sites. © 2014 Taylor & Francis