Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans?

Abstract

Urban green space can help mitigate the negative impacts of urban living and provide positive effects on citizens' mood, health and well-being. Questions remain, however, as to whether all types of green space are equally beneficial, and if not, what landscape forms or key features optimise the desired benefits. For example, it has been cited that urban landscapes rich in wildlife (high biodiversity) may promote more positive emotions and enhance well-being. This research utilised a mobile phone App, employed to assess people's emotions when they entered any one of 945 green spaces within the city of Sheffield, UK. Emotional responses were correlated to key traits of the individual green spaces, including levels of biodiversity the participant perceived around them. For a subsample of these green spaces, actual levels of biodiversity were assessed through avian and habitat surveys. Results demonstrated strong correlations between levels of avian biodiversity within a green space and human emotional response to that space. Respondents reported being happier in sites with greater avian biodiversity (p < 0.01, r = 0.78) and a greater variety of habitats (p < 0.02, r = 0.72). Relationships were strengthened when emotions were linked to perceptions of overall biodiversity (p < 0.001, r = 0.89). So, when participants thought the site was wildlife rich, they reported more positive emotions, even when actual avian biodiversity levels were not necessarily enhanced. The data strengthens the arguments that nature enhances well-being through positive affect, and that increased 'engagement with nature' may help support human health within urban environments. The results have strong implications for city planning with respect to the design, management and use of city green spaces.

Exploring Perceived Well-Being from Urban Parks: Insights from a Megacity in Latin America

“…This can also be useful in urban environments, where knowledge can help mitigate conflicts related to urban green infrastructure. However, future research should aim to discriminate preferences between different vegetative life forms (i.e., grasslands, shrubs, or trees), as recent studies have shown that spatial heterogeneity of urban green areas may be related to psychological response [20]. Therefore, assessing this relationship is crucial to better understand the case of Chile, since most of the urban parks of the metropolitan area are of the "Savanna type": a simple structure with grass and isolated trees.…”

Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework

“…When data on actual biodiversity are not available, a proxy measure may be used (Cameron et al, 2020). The proxy measure, perceived biodiversity, is a person's subjective assessment of the biodiversity that they think is present in an environment (Fuller et al, 2007;Dallimer et al, 2012).…”

“…Perceived biodiversity is measured by asking people for their individual assessment of the species identity or richness in an environment through self-report questionnaires (Fuller et al, 2007;Dallimer et al, 2012;Marselle et al, 2016;Southon et al, 2018;Cameron et al, 2020). Perceived biodiversity has stronger correlations with well-being than actual biodiversity (Dallimer et al, 2012;Cameron et al, 2020;Meyer-Grandbastien et al, 2020). However, the proxy measure of perceived biodiversity cannot replace a measure of actual biodiversity (Hoyle, 2020).…”

“…However, the proxy measure of perceived biodiversity cannot replace a measure of actual biodiversity (Hoyle, 2020). While perceived biodiversity assessments have been shown to be correlated with actual biodiversity measures (Fuller et al, 2007;Southon et al, 2018;Cameron et al, 2020;Meyer-Grandbastien et al, 2020), other studies have found no relationship between the two measures (Dallimer et al, 2012;Shwartz et al, 2014). Perceived biodiversity assessments may over or underestimate the amount of actual biodiversity in a location (Shwartz et al, 2014).…”

“…Data on frequency and duration of exposure can be obtained with smartphone apps that use ecological momentary assessment with location tracking (e.g. de Vries et al, no date;MacKerron and Mourato, 2013;Beute, de Kort and IJsselsteijn, 2016;Tost et al, 2019;Cameron et al, 2020) or self-report questionnaires (e.g. Marselle et al, 2015Marselle et al, , 2016.…”