Health-Oriented Environmental Categories, Individual Health Environments, and the Concept of Environment in Public Health.

The term 'environment' is not uniformly defined in the public health sciences, which causes crucial inconsistencies in research, health policy, and practice. As we shall indicate, this is somewhat entangled with diverging pathogenic and salutogenic perspectives (research and policy priorities) concerning environmental health. We emphasise two distinct concepts of environment in use by the World Health Organisation. One significant way these concepts differ concerns whether the social environment is included. Divergence on this matter has profound consequences for the understanding of health and disease, for measures derived from that understanding targeting health promotion and disease prevention, and consequently, for epistemic structures and concept development in scientific practice. We hope to improve the given situation in public health by uncovering these differences and by developing a fruitful way of thinking about environment. Firstly, we side with the salutogenic conception of environment as a health resource (as well as a source of health risks). Secondly, we subdivide the concept of environment into four health-oriented environmental categories (viz., natural, built-material, socio-cultural, and psychosocial) and we link these with other theoretical notions proposed in the health sciences literature. Thirdly, we propose that in public health 'environment' should be understood as consisting of all extrinsic factors that influence or are influenced by the health, well-being, and development of an individual. Consequently, none of the four categories should be excluded from the concept of environment. We point out the practical relevance and fruitfulness of the conception of environment as a health source and frame this in causal terms, representing individual health environments as causal networks. Throughout, we side with the view that for the design of human health-promoting settings, increased attention and consideration of environmental resources of salutogenic potential is particularly pressing.

Not by signalling alone: Music's mosaicism undermines the search for a proper function.

Mehr et al. seek to explain music's evolution in terms of a unitary proper function - signalling cooperative intent - which they cash out in two guises, coalition signalling and (allo)parental attention signalling. Although we recognize the role signalling almost certainly played in the evolution of music, we reject "ultimate" causal explanations which focus on a unidirectional, narrow range of causal factors.