IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/4atsk.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bathing facilities and health phronesis: a preliminary English investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Huston, Simon

    (Coventry University)

Abstract

The Coronavirus pandemic has raised questions about public health system fragility or lack of health phronesis (practical wisdom). The UK is one of the unhealthiest developed nations on the planet with over 35% of its population projected to be obese by 2025. Notwithstanding, local sports infrastructure is patchy, raising the spectre of ‘accumulation by dispossession’. To investigate English obesity problem and its eu̯daemonic impediments the study ignored lines of inquiry involving confectionary vested interests. Instead, it focused on bathing amenities that, since antiquity, signal civilisation. The phronetic bathing health research involved five sequential phases. First, the health issue was identified (1) and then bathing facilities put into historical context (2a). A structured literature review of contemporary facilities and health associations (2b) provided the backdrop for subsequent nomothetical (3a-e) and idiographic investigations (4a-c). The mixed research strands were finally synthesised (5). Statistical analysis of English local area standardised mortality (2013-2017) found a significant association with pool sparsity, controlling for deprivation, obesity and other environmental factors (3a-b). Longitudinal time series modelling of English swimming pool construction data since the Victorian era found that, recently, it has become erratic and diverges from its GDP and population growth fundamentals (3c-e). Idiosyncratically, the study considered three case studies, looking for qualitative insights (4). The closure of Bromley Lido in 1983 raises suspicions that short-termism or agency issues usurped public health phronesis (4a). In Cirencester, mistrust lingers about the privileged beneficiaries of local leisure service outsourcing (4b). An exemplary German pool complex in Ludenscheid illuminates comparative UK public bathing infrastructure deficiencies and intimates paradigm myopia or managerialist neglect (4c). Although the study is preliminary with acknowledged limitations, the literature reviews, nomothetic analyses and case studies impel phronetic deliberations to re-calibrate investment towards ecological public health and resilience in post-COVID ‘doughnut’ economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Huston, Simon, 2020. "Bathing facilities and health phronesis: a preliminary English investigation," OSF Preprints 4atsk, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:4atsk
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4atsk
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ed92493748b0b005f87037d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/4atsk?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antony Young, 2014. "1 + 1 = 3," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Brand Media Strategy, edition 0, chapter 0, pages 81-99, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Pamela Wicker & Kirstin Hallmann & Christoph Breuer, 2013. "Analyzing the impact of sport infrastructure on sport participation using geo-coded data: Evidence from multi-level models," Sport Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 54-67, January.
    3. Anne K Reimers & Matthias Wagner & Seraphim Alvanides & Andreas Steinmayr & Miriam Reiner & Steffen Schmidt & Alexander Woll, 2014. "Proximity to Sports Facilities and Sports Participation for Adolescents in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-7, March.
    4. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    5. Veblen, Thorstein, 1919. "The Vested Interests and the Common Man," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number veblen1919.
    6. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munda, Giuseppe, 2009. "A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 307-322, April.
    2. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Maria Cerretta & Lidia Diappi, 2014. "Adaptive Evaluations in Complex Contexts: Introduction," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 5-22.
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:4atsk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. Raffaele Attardi & Alessandro Bonifazi & Carmelo M. Torre, 2012. "Evaluating Sustainability and Democracy in the Development of Industrial Port Cities: Some Italian Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Malo Larrea, A. & Ambrosi de la Cadena, M. & Collado Ruano, J. & Gallardo Fierro, L., 2024. "Transcending the nature-society dichotomy: A dialogue between the Sumak Kawsay and the epistemology of complexity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    8. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    10. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    11. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    12. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Giuseppe Munda, 2015. "Beyond Gdp: An Overview Of Measurement Issues In Redefining ‘Wealth’," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 403-422, July.
    14. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    16. Cabane Charlotte & Lechner Michael, 2015. "Physical Activity of Adults: A Survey of Correlates, Determinants, and Effects," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(4-5), pages 376-402, August.
    17. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    18. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    19. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Giuseppe Munda, 2012. "Choosing Aggregation Rules for Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 337-354, December.
    21. François Diaz-Maurin & Rodney C. Ewing, 2018. "Mission Impossible? Socio-Technical Integration of Nuclear Waste Geological Disposal Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-39, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:4atsk. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.