ABSTRACT

Empirical research has long shown positive connections between urban green spaces and their users’ wellbeing. But compelling evidence does not always lead to appropriate investment. In a study of the contribution of urban nature to mental wellbeing in Sheffield, UK, the authors identified greenspace investments that could lead to improved wellbeing and discussed their implementation with local stakeholders. However, this qualitative study also revealed a series of reasons why stakeholders in Sheffield would not proceed with such investments. Using the concept of ‘logics of inaction’ to examine stakeholders’ reasoning, this paper considers why such logics arise. It finds a mismatch between available evidence and the evidence practitioners say they need to justify investments. One consequence is that practitioners’ capacity to act on new knowledge is reduced, limiting innovation and potential benefits.

摘要

实证研究长期以来一直表明城市绿地与其使用者的福祉之间存在积极的联系。但令人信服的证据并不总是导致适当的投资。在英国谢菲尔德的一项关于城市自然对心理健康的贡献的研究中，作者确定了可以改善幸福感的绿色空间投资，并与当地利益相关者讨论了这些投资的实施。然而，这项定性研究也揭示了谢菲尔德利益相关者不愿进行此类投资的一系列原因。使用“不作为的逻辑”的概念来检查利益相关者的推理，本文考虑了为什么会出现这种逻辑。它发现现有证据与从业者所说的他们需要证明投资的证据之间存在不匹配。