BackgroundMany studies suggest that exposure to natural environments (‘greenspace’) enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that “greenspace” is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents.MethodsThis ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics.ResultsPositive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, “broadleaf woodland”, “arable and horticulture”, “improved grassland”, “saltwater” and “coastal”, after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of “saltwater”. Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the type, quality and context of ‘greenspace’ should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

Recent ecosystem service models have placed biodiversity as a central factor in the processes which link the natural environment to health. While it is recognized that disturbed ecosystems might negatively affect human wellbeing it is not clear whether biodiversity is related to or can promote 'good' human health and wellbeing. The aim of this study was to systematically identify, summarize and synthesize research which had examined whether biodiverse environments are health promoting. The objectives were twofold: 1) to map the interdisciplinary field of enquiry and, 2) assess whether current evidence enables us to characterize the relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of available evidence a narrative synthesis approach was used, which is textual rather than statistical. Extensive searches identified 17 papers which met the inclusion criteria: 15 quantitative and two qualitative. The evidence was varied in disciplinary origin with authors Critical Reviews, 17:1, 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2013 2 approaching the question using different study designs and methods, and conceptualizations ofbiodiversity, health and wellbeing. There is some evidence to suggest that biodiverse natural environments promote better health through exposure to pleasant environments or the encouragement of health-promoting behaviors. There was also evidence of inverse relationships, particularly at a larger scale (global analyses). However, overall the evidence is inconclusive and fails to identify a specific role for biodiversity in the promotion of better health. High quality interdisciplinary research is needed to produce a more reliable evidence base. Of particular importance is identifying the specific ecosystem services, goods and processes through which biodiversity may generate good health and wellbeing.Post-peer review pre-publication version. Published as: Rebecca Lovell , Benedict W. Wheeler , Sahran L. Higgins , Katherine N. Irvine & Michael H. Depledge (2014) A Systematic Review of the Health and Well-Being Benefits of Biodiverse Environments, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B:Published at: http://dx

No abstract

Direct contact with biodiversity is culturally important in a range of contexts. Many people even join conservation organisations to protect biodiversity that they will never encounter first-hand. Despite this, we have little idea how biodiversity affects people's well-being and health through these cultural pathways. Human health is sensitive to apparently trivial psychological stimuli, negatively affected by the risk of environmental degradation, and positively affected by contact with natural spaces. This suggests that well-being and health should be affected by biodiversity change, but few studies have begun to explore these relationships. Here, we develop a framework for linking biodiversity change with human cultural values, well-being, and health. We argue that better understanding these relations might be profoundly important for biodiversity conservation and public health.