Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41974978›Full record

ArticleAmbio2026

From bathing standards to lived waterscapes: Why we need to rethink inland blue space quality.

David M Oliver, Tony Robertson, Anna Wilson, Paul Hibbard, Jen Dickie, Nick Hanley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David M OliverBiological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. david.oliver@stir.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6200-562X
Tony RobertsonSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Anna WilsonSchool of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Paul HibbardDivision of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Jen DickieBiological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Nick HanleySchool of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the main way that recreational blue space quality is monitored and communicated to potential users is through designated bathing water status, which is evaluated via microbiological standards and epidemiological evidence; however, our experiences of blue spaces extend beyond bathing and microbiology. Interactions across sensory and ecological dynamics are central to recreation in blue spaces where perceived cleanliness, aesthetic appeal, and multisensory richness influence patterns of use, enjoyment and wellbeing outcomes. We propose a need to reconceptualise what we mean by recreational water quality, to better reflect the diversity of 'qualities' associated with inland blue space and their influence on health-related outcomes. In this perspective, we outline why a reconceptualisation of recreational water quality classifications is needed, suggest what could be done to work towards a reconceptualised approach of classifying and communicating recreational inland water quality and consider which institutional mechanisms could support such a shift in approach.

Indexed as

Bathing BeachesRecreationWater QualityHumansWater MicrobiologyBlue-healthHealth-related outcomesMultisensory characteristicsRecreational water qualityWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID41974978
PMCPMC13661860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.