Biodiversity and Health: Implications for Conservation

Abstract

The human health and well-being benefits of contact with nature are becoming increasingly recognised and well understood, yet the implications of nature experiences for biodiversity conservation are far less clear. Theoretically, there are two plausible pathways that could lead to positive conservation outcomes. The first is a direct win-win scenario where biodiverse areas of high conservation value are also disproportionately beneficial to human health and well-being, meaning that the two sets of objectives can be simultaneously and directly achieved, as long as such green spaces are safeguarded appropriately. The second is that experiencing nature can stimulate people’s interest in biodiversity, concern for its fate, and willingness to take action to protect it, therefore generating conservation gains indirectly. To date, the two pathways have rarely been distinguished and scarcely studied. Here we consider how they may potentially operate in practice, while acknowledging that the mechanisms by which biodiversity might underpin human health and well-being benefits are still being determined.

Full text

283© The Author(s) 2019
M. R. Marselle et al. (eds.), Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate
Change, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02318-8_12
Chapter 12
Biodiversity andHealth: Implications
forConservation
ZoeG.Davies, MartinDallimer, JessicaC.Fisher, andRichardA.Fuller
Abstract The human health and well-being benets of contact with nature are
becoming increasingly recognised and well understood, yet the implications of
nature experiences for biodiversity conservation are far less clear. Theoretically,
there are two plausible pathways that could lead to positive conservation outcomes.
The rst is a direct win-win scenario where biodiverse areas of high conservation
value are also disproportionately benecial to human health and well-being, mean-
ing that the two sets of objectives can be simultaneously and directly achieved, as
long as such green spaces are safeguarded appropriately. The second is that experi-
encing nature can stimulate people’s interest in biodiversity, concern for its fate, and
willingness to take action to protect it, therefore generating conservation gains indi-
rectly. To date, the two pathways have rarely been distinguished and scarcely stud-
ied. Here we consider how they may potentially operate in practice, while
acknowledging that the mechanisms by which biodiversity might underpin human
health and well-being benets are still being determined.
Keywords Extinction of experience · Green space · Human-wildlife interaction ·
Nature connectedness · Protected areas · Well-being
Z. G. Davies (*) · J. C. Fisher
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and
Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK
e-mail: z.g.davies@kent.ac.uk; jcf22@kent.ac.uk
M. Dallimer
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,
Leeds, UK
e-mail: m.dallimer@leeds.ac.uk
R. A. Fuller
School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
e-mail: r.fuller@uq.edu.au

284
Highlights
• Green spaces vary in their conservation value, depending on the biodiversity
present.
• Very few are designedand/or managed to deliver synergistic conservation and
health benets.
• Evidence suggests health might be related to specic, complex natural
environments.
• These green spaces might be of greater conservation value.
• To maximise health, biodiversity must be in the right places for the right
people.
12.1 Green Spaces Managed Primarily forPeople
Green spaces may support dramatically different levels of biodiversity, depending
on their location, history, purpose and use by people. At one end of the spectrum are
the green spaces that have been designed with human health and well-being primar-
ily in mind. Historically, these areas were planned to provide inhabitants with relief
from the unsanitary conditions that prevailed in overcrowded industrialised cities
(Rayner and Lang 2012) and,while constructed from nature in the form of vegeta-
tion, there was no explicit consideration of whether these areas provided valuable
habitats for species. Indeed, this anthropocentric view of managing natural resources
for the benet of people has re-emerged over the past two decades, with an empha-
sis on nding nature-based solutions to issues such as heat mitigation, pollution
reduction and storm water protection (e.g. MA 2005; TEEB 2010; European
Commission 2011; European Commission Horizon 2020 Expert Group 2015). This
is particularly true for urban areas where the majority of the human population
across the world live, and improving the health and well-being of these city dwellers
is a priority in many national and international policy agendas (European
Commission Horizon 2020 Expert Group 2015).
Urban areas are often characterised from a conservation perspective by the nega-
tive impacts they have on the ecosystems they replace and abut (e.g. see the discus-
sion in Gaston 2010). Green spaces within cities are often considered too small and
isolated from one another to sustain viable species populations (Goddard et al.
2010), requiring a collaborative effort on the part of different stakeholders to redress
the lack of connectivity (Davies etal. 2009; Dearborn and Kark 2010). One legacy
associated with green spaces intended to deliver aesthetic and recreational benets
is the simplication of habitats as a consequence of frequent management (e.g.
mowing, pruning of trees and shrubs, removal of deadwood; Aronson etal. 2017).
Likewise, the desire to maximise the multi-functionality of green spaces and infra-
structure (e.g. green roofs, sustainable urban drainage systems) has perpetuated this
problem further through the planting of horticultural cultivars rather than native
species (Haase etal. 2017). While some of these initiatives can support biodiversity
(e.g. non-native owering species can be benecial for some bees; MacIvor and
Z. G. Davies et al.

285
Ksiazek 2015; Salisbury et al. 2015), the use of horticultural cultivars has been
linked to a reduction in the forage value of planting for pollinators in general (Bates
etal. 2011; Salisbury etal. 2015). Moreover, the spread of alien invasive species
from gardens and parks is another signicant issue in many parts of the world
(Reichard and White 2001; Russo et al. 2017). The conservation value of green
spaces that are popular with people can also be limited by signicant levels of dis-
turbance and degradation, which prevent native species from colonising and persist-
ing (Brown and Grant 2005), and result in assemblages dominated by adaptable
generalists (Kowarik 2011) and the homogenisation of urban biodiversity (McKinney
2006). Even for human-nature interactions that people perceive as being good for
wildlife, such as the supplementary feeding of wild birds, we have little evidence as
to whether they deliverbiodiversity conservationbenets (Fuller etal. 2008; Robb
etal. 2008; Jones 2018).
Despite this, suitable habitat within urban areas can support threatened and spe-
cialist species, and warrant conservation attention (Baldock etal. 2015; Ives etal.
2016). In developed regions, where intensive use of the wider landscape, particu-
larly through agriculture, has resulted in species declines, urban areas have become
important for sustaining regional abundances of some species. Substantial propor-
tions of the populations of some previously widespread and common species now
occur in urban green spaces (e.g. Beebee 1997; Gregory and Baillie 1998; Mason
2000; Bland et al. 2004; Peach et al. 2004; Speak et al. 2015; Ives et al. 2016;
Tryjanowski etal. 2017). For instance, over 600 species have been recorded in
Weißensee Jewish Cemetery in Berlin. It supports 25 plants, ve bats and nine birds
that are species of conservation concern, and one of the lichens (Aloxyria ochro-
cheila) present on the site is considered very rare across the wider region. The cem-
etery therefore acts as an unintended refuge for a wide range of taxa (Buchholz etal.
2016).
12.2 Green Spaces Managed Primarily forBiodiversity
At the other end of the green space continuum are formal protected areas, now inter-
preted as a global conservation network, where the objective is to maintain and
enhance biodiversity (see MacKinnon etal. Chap. 16, this volume). Currently, there
are more than 200,000 protected areas globally, after a huge expansion of the net-
work over the past few decades (Watson etal. 2014, Butchart etal. 2015). Some of
the earliest protected areas were preferentially designated inlocations used heavily
for recreation (Pressey 1994), and some protected areas are still managed with
access and use by people as a primary management goal, such as many of the
National Parks in the UK (Smith 2013). However, this is usually the exception
rather than the rule for three inter-related reasons.
First, protected areas have overwhelmingly been established in areas not needed
for economic activity (Pressey 1994), so they are often sited at higher elevations, on
12 Biodiversity andHealth: Implications forConservation

286
steep slopes, on relatively unfertile soils and far away from cities and productive
agricultural land (Pressey etal. 2002; Joppa and Pfaff 2009). Typically, the human
population density is low in these areas and, as such, they are shielded from use by
people by default. Indeed, the physical distance between human settlements and the
location of protected areas can impose a substantial barrier to their recreational use
(Kareiva 2008). Protected areas that are close to or within towns and cities tend to
be smaller, more fragmented and in poorer ecological condition than those in remote
locations (Jones etal. 2018).
Second, there has been a growing emphasis in recent years on proactive conser-
vation strategies, such as those that aim to safeguard the last of the world’s major
wilderness areas (Sanderson et al. 2002; Mittermeier et al. 2003; Watson et al.
2017). This is based on the recognition that the predominant threats to biodiversity
spread contagiously across landscapes (Boakes etal. 2010), suggesting that if an
area can be protected while it is still intact, the risk of eventual habitat clearance or
degradation is much lower (Klein etal. 2009). By denition, the absence of a high
density of people, and the pressure they bring to bear on landscapes, is a key com-
ponent of wilderness quality (Venter etal. 2016), thus further building a case for
protected area designation in places away from human settlements.
Finally, there is often tension among management agencies about permitting rec-
reation inside protected areas that have been designated for biodiversity conserva-
tion, with many viewing the two things as incompatible and preferring that people
are actively excluded (Smith 2013). A prime example of this is mountain biking
where, arguably, the impact on biodiversity is usually minimal, but is perceived as
being much greater by managers and other types of green space user (Hardiman and
Burgin 2013). A further complicating factor is that funds for managing protected
areas for recreation are often derived from different sources to those centred on
biodiversity (Miller etal. 2009). This means that interagency cooperation might be
needed to effectively provide facilities for human use, or zoning congurations that
minimise recreational pressures (Stigner etal. 2016). This can require substantial
investment to deliver and be complex to achieve.
In spite of the historical bias where most protected areas are located away from
regions of intense human activity, there is some evidence that new protected areas
are now being established in closer proximity to towns and cities. Global biodiver-
sity targets mandate protecting threatened species and landscapes that currently lack
formal designation (Butchart etal. 2015), and many of the remaining high conserva-
tion value areas occur in fragmented landscapes nearer to human settlements
(Brooks et al. 2006; McDonald et al. 2008). For example, recently established
Australian protected areas are being preferentially sited in places with high human
population density and large numbers of threatened species (Barr et al. 2016).
Likewise, 32 cities within the European Union contain Natura 2000 sites (ten Brink
etal. 2016).
Some protected areas have successfully integrated human health and well-being
objectives into their remit more proactively. For instance, Secovlje Salina Nature
Park in Slovenia hosts the Lepa Vida Spa, which has generated jobs and income in
both the tourism and health sectors. In turn, this has provided better public access to
Z. G. Davies et al.

287
the park for 50,000 annual visitors, and the habitat quality of the protected area,
which is important for supporting migratory birds, has been improved (ten Brink
etal. 2016). Similarly, Medvednica Nature Park in Zagreb attracts over a million
visitors annually, while also being home to over 20% of Croatia’s entire vascular
ora, including more than 90 strictly protected species. Additionally, the park plays
a role in improving air quality and mitigating urban air temperatures in neighbour-
ing city suburbs (ten Brink etal. 2016).
12.3 Moving Forward withGreen Spaces Planned forBoth
People andBiodiversity
Presently, although there are few sites explicitly designed and managed to deliver
conservation and human health gains in tandem, the potential for synergistic bene-
ts could be substantial. The opportunities to adopt such a strategy are considerable,
given the rapid rates of urbanisation globally and that many regions are yet to be
developed (Nilon etal. 2017). Urbanisation will not be geographically homoge-
nous, chiey taking place in small cities comprising less than 500,000 inhabitants
across the Global South (United Nations 2015). This vast conversion of land to built
infrastructure will undoubtedly pose a threat to biodiversity, not least because most
of it will occur in extremely biodiverse regions such as the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
and Guinean Forests of West Africa (Seto etal. 2012). Formal conservation protec-
tion is therefore imperative to prevent extinctions (Cincotta etal. 2000; Brooks etal.
2006; Venter etal. 2014). Justifying the need to protect natural environments in and
around where people live to deliver a multi-faceted suite of objectives is more likely
to be persuasive to decision-makers than a rationale based solely on conservation.
In already established towns and cities, green spaces can be ‘retrotted’ to provide
complementary conservation and human health gains (for further information, see
Hunter etal. Chap. 17, and Heiland etal. Chap. 19, boththis volume). For example,
initiatives such as the Biophilic Cities network (http://biophiliccities.org/) promote
biodiversity as a central tenet of urban planning and management, so that improve-
ments in human health and well-being arise from co-existence (Beatley and van den
Bosch 2018). Metrics related to levels of biodiversity, wildness, tree cover and
green space accessibility are included as indicators against which the performance
of individual cities can be gauged.
Although not studied extensively thus far, there is evidence to suggest that posi-
tive human health and well-being outcomes might be related to specic and often
complex natural environments, which could be of conservation value. For instance,
people enjoy forests because of their quiet atmosphere, scenery and fresh air, which
helps with stress management and relaxation (Li and Bell 2018). In Zurich, Sihlwald
Forest is a major recreation area for the city. Formerly a timber concession, the
ecosystem is now left to function with minimal human intervention and, therefore,
12 Biodiversity andHealth: Implications forConservation

288
offers residents a different sort of nature experience to more manicured green spaces
(Seeland etal. 2002; Konijnendijk 2008).
The decisions regarding where green spaces should be located and how they are
managed are complex, with conservation value being one of many factors that must
be taken into consideration. Inevitably, biodiversity will be traded off against other
economic and societal goals (Nilon etal. 2017). However, maximising the size of
green spaces planned for both people and biodiversity is likely to be important for
their success. While it is widely accepted that larger areas are likely to sustain more
species (Beninde etal. 2015), evidence is growing to suggest that the same might be
true for the supply of human health and well-being benets. For instance, larger
forested areas are preferred for outdoor activities (Tyrväinen etal. 2007).
Another core challenge associated with maximising the human health outcomes
derived from experiencing nature is making sure that biodiversity is in the right
locations for the right people. This is critical because the likelihood of someone
visiting a site drops dramatically with distance, with only the fraction of the popula-
tion that is already strongly connected to nature willing to travel to experience it
(Shanahan et al. 2015). Indeed, cities are often characterised by a wide array of
inequalities, with those living in deprived communities having the most to gain
from using nearby green spaces (Mitchell and Popham 2008; Kabisch Chap. 5, this
volume; Cook etal. Chap. 11, this volume). If the health and well-being of all urban
residents were prioritised, then one would expect publicly owned green spaces to be
more or less evenly distributed across the spatial extent of towns and cities (Boone
etal. 2009; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Pham etal. 2012). On the other hand, if
green spaces were being used actively as an intervention to promote better human
health and well-being, their placement would mostly likely be adjacent to commu-
nities characterised by a high prevalence of health disorders, such as depression and
obesity (Lin et al. 2014). However, either is rarely the case, as individuals from
ethnic/racial minorities (Heynen etal. 2006; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Wolch
etal. 2013) and/or lower socio-economic status (Vaughan etal. 2013) have com-
paratively worse access to high-quality green space than the rest of the population.
It is therefore vital to ensure that the health benets that might be derived from
conservation initiatives are notjust conned to societal groups that have the nan-
cial and/or social means to access them (Wolch etal. 2014).
12.4 Experiencing Nature toPromote Conservation
It is commonly asserted that urbanisation has led to the human population becoming
progressively disconnected from the natural world (Wilson 1984; Pyle 2003; Miller
2005), a phenomenon that has variously been referred to as the ‘extinction of expe-
rience’ (Miller 2005), ‘nature decit disorder’ (Louv 2008) and ‘ecological bore-
dom’ (Monbiot 2013). By exposing people to nature, it is thought that these
experiences can enhance an individual’s connection with nature and, in turn, pro-
mote conservation concern and pro-environmental behaviours (see Soga and Gaston
Z. G. Davies et al.

289
2016; De Young Chap. 13, this volume). For instance, Rogerson etal. (2017) found
relationships between people experiencing nature and positive environmental
behaviour, such as volunteering with conservation organisations. Likewise, child-
hood experiences of nature have been linked to connectedness to nature in a study
of French adults (Colléony etal. 2017), and individuals who grew up in rural areas
demonstrated a greater preference for gardens containing more owers and wood-
land species than urbanities (Shwartz etal. 2013). Nonetheless, the evidence under-
lying the relationship between nature experience and positive attitudes/behaviours
remains scant and is yet to be fully established (Soga and Gaston 2016).
Individuals may not need to experience biodiversity to want to conserve it
(termed ‘existence value’) (Cooper etal. 2016). This has been shown for coastal
ecosystems on Vancouver Island, Canada (Klain and Chan 2012)and marine pro-
tected areas in the UK (Kenter etal. 2016), and can be a potential mediator between
nature connectedness and well-being (Cleary etal. 2017). Additionally, it is difcult
to draw meaningful lessons from studies due to the level of inconsistency between
the denitions of what constitutes an experience, what comprises nature, and what
attitude or perception is being measured (Clayton et al. 2017; Ives et al. 2017).
Moreover, the ‘extinction of experience’ concept is considered oversimplied
because it fails to acknowledge the multi-dimensionality of people’s experiences of
biodiversity (Clayton etal. 2017), and that some interactions with species can be
negative, frightening or uncomfortable (Bixler and Floyd 1997). Relationships with
nature are likely to be highly specic to individuals, with cultural contexts and
norms also being important and variable across societies (Voigt and Wurster 2014).
For example, feeding wild birds is a very popular human-biodiversity interaction in
both the UK and the USA (Freyfogle 2003; Defra 2011), but negative associations
with birds in Europe may inhibit a connectedness to nature for some individuals
(Ratcliffe et al. 2013). Similarly, a fear of birds (known as ‘ornithophobia’) in
Honduras has been reported to occur where birds are perceived as either pest species
or as negative spiritual symbols (Bonta 2008). This is a fundamental consideration
when designing and maintaining green spaces, as synergistic human health and con-
servation benets will not be delivered successfully if the residents are intolerant of
the biodiversity they support.
12.5 Conclusion
While very few green spaces are implemented explicitly with both conservation and
human health and well-being in mind, the potential for delivering win-win out-
comes is considerable. This is particularly apposite, given the rate and distribution
of future urbanisation predicted across the highly biodiverse regions of the Global
South. However, the rapidly growing body of research examining nature-related
health benets has yet to tease apart the relative value of green spaces that support
different levels of biodiversity and ecosystem complexity. This knowledge gap
12 Biodiversity andHealth: Implications forConservation

290
needs to be addressed, so a strong evidence-base is in place to inform effective
policy and practice.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to our respective funders: ZGD is supported by the European
Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant 726104; MD is supported by the UK Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) grant NE/R002681/1; JCF is supported by the UK
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) scholarship ES/J500148/1; and, RAF is supported
by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship.
References
Aronson MF, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS, Nilon CH, Vargo T
(2017) Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front Ecol
Environ 15:1–8
Baldock KCR, Goddard MA, Hicks DM, Kunin WE, Mitschunas N, Osgathorpe LM, Potts SG,
Robertson KM, Scott AV, Stone GN, Vaughan IP, Memmott J(2015) Where is the UK’s pol-
linator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for ower-visiting insects. Proc R Soc B
Biol Sci 282:20142849
Barr LM, Watson JEM, Possingham HP, Iwamura T, Fuller RA (2016) Progress in improving the
protection of species and habitats in Australia. Biol Conserv 200:184–191
Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ (2011) Changing bee and hover-
y pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS One 6:e23459
Beatley T, van den Bosch KC (2018) Urban landscapes and public health. In: van den Bosch M,
Bird W (eds) Nature and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Beebee TJC (1997) Changes in dewpond numbers and amphibian diversity over 20 years on chalk
downland in Sussex, England. Biol Conserv 81:215–219
Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A (2015) Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of fac-
tors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett 18:581–592
Bixler RD, Floyd MF (1997) Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environ Behav
29:443–467
Bland RL, Tully J, Greenwood JJD (2004) Birds breeding in British gardens: an underestimated
population? Bird Study 51:96–106
Boakes EH, Mace GM, McGowan PJK, Fuller RA (2010) Extreme contagion in global habitat
clearance. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:1081–1085
Bonta M (2008) Valorizing the relationships between people and birds: experiences and lessons
from Honduras. Ornitol Neotropical 19:595–604
Boone GC, Buckley GL, Grove MJ, Sister C (2009) Parks and people: an environmental justice
inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Assoc Am Geogr 99:767–787
Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier
CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science
313:58–61
Brown C, Grant M (2005) Biodiversity and human health: what role for nature in healthy urban
planning? Built Environ 31:326–338
Buchholz S, Blick T, Hannig K, Kowarik I, Lemke A, Otte V, Scharon J, Schonhofer A, Teige T,
von der Lippe M, Seitz B (2016) Biological richness of a large urban cemetery in Berlin: results
of a multi-taxon approach. Biodivers Data J4:e7057
Butchart SHM, Clarke M, Smith RJ, Sykes RE, Scharlemann JPW, Harfoot M, Buchanan GM,
Angulo A, Balmford A, Bertzky B, Brooks TM, Carpenter KE, Comeros-Raynal MT, Cornell
J, Francesco Ficetola G, Fishpool LDC, Fuller RA, Geldmann J, Harwell H, Hilton-Taylor C,
Hoffmann M, Joolia A, Joppa L, Kingston N, May I, Milam A, Polidoro B, Ralph G, Richman
Z. G. Davies et al.

291
N, Rondinini C, Segan D, Skolnik B, Spalding M, Stuart SN, Symes A, Taylor J, Visconti P,
Watson J, Wood L, Burgess ND (2015) Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global
conservation area targets. Conserv Lett 8:329–337
Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots.
Nature 404:990–992
Clayton S, Coll A, Conversy P, Maclouf E, Martin L, Torres A, Truong M, Prevot A (2017)
Transformation of experience: toward a new relationship with nature. Conserv Lett 10:645–651
Cleary A, Fielding KS, Bell SL, Murray Z, Roiko A (2017) Exploring potential mechanisms
involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landsc
Urban Plan 158:119–128
Colléony A, Prévot A-C, Saint Jalme M, Clayton S (2017) What kind of landscape management
can counteract the extinction of experience? Landsc Urban Plan 159:23–31
Cooper N, Brady E, Steen H, Bryce R (2016) Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recog-
nising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosyst Serv
21:218–229
Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH,
Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding asso-
ciations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62:47–55
Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory
of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142:761–771
Dearborn DC, Kark S (2010) Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol
24:432–440
Defra (2011) A biodiversity strategy for England. Measuring progress: 2010 assessment.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London
European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy
to 2020. European Commission, Brussels
European Commission Horizon 2020 Expert Group (2015) Towards an EU research and innova-
tion policy agenda for nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. A report for the European
Commission. European Commission, Brussels
Freyfogle ET (2003) Conservation and the culture war. Conserv Biol 17:354–355
Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benets of
greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394
Fuller RA, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Barbosa O, Gaston KJ (2008) Garden bird feeding predicts
the structure of urban avian assemblages. Divers Distrib 14:131–137
Gaston KJ (2010) Urban ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation
in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98
Gregory RD, Baillie SR (1998) Large-scale habitat use of some declining British birds. JAppl
Ecol 35:785–799
Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A, Andersson E, Banzhaf E, Baró F, Brenck M, Fischer LK,
Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Krellenberg K (2017) Greening cities– To be socially inclusive?
About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int 64:41–48
Hardiman N, Burgin S (2013) Mountain biking: downhill for the environment or chance to up a
gear? Int JEnviron Stud 70:976–986
Heynen N, Perkins HA, Roy P (2006) The political ecology of uneven urban green space. The
impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in
Milwaukee. Urban Aff Rev 42:3–25
Ives CD, Lentini PE, Threlfall CG, Ikin K, Shanahan DF, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, Fuller RA,
Mumaw L, Rayner L, Rowe R, Valentine LE, Kendal D (2016) Cities are hotspots for threat-
ened species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:117–126
Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy
P, Martín-López B, Raymond CM, Kendal D, von Wahrden H (2017) Human–nature connec-
tion: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:106–113
12 Biodiversity andHealth: Implications forConservation

292
Jones D (2018) The birds at my table: why we feed wild birds and why it matters. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca
Jones KR, Venter O, Fuller RA, Allan JR, Maxwell SL, Negret PJ, Watson JEM (2018) One-third
of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360:788–791
Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4:e8273
Kareiva P (2008) Ominous trends in nature recreation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:2757–2758
Kenter JO, Jobstvogt N, Watson V, Irvine KN, Christie M, Bryce R (2016) The impact of informa-
tion, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services:
integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosyst Serv 21:270–290
Klain S, Chan K (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services
for spatial planning. Ecol Econ 82:104–113
Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Watts M, Stein J, Carwardine J, Mackey B, Possingham HP (2009) Spatial
conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: a case study of Australia’s biodiver-
sity. Biol Conserv 142:1282–1290
Konijnendijk CC (2008) The forest and the city– The cultural landscape of urban woodland.
Springer, Berlin
Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut
159:1974–1983
Landry SM, Chakraborty J(2009) Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an
urban amenity. Environ Plan A 41:2651–2670
Li Q, Bell S (2018) The great outdoors: forests, wilderness and public health. In: van den Bosch M,
Bird W (eds) Nature and public health. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lin BB, Fuller RA, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Shanahan DF (2014) Opportunity or orientation? Who
uses urban parks and why. PLoS One 9:e87422
Louv R (2008) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-decit disorder. Atlantic
Books, London
MA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment– ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press,
Washington DC
MacIvor S, Ksiazek K (2015) Invertebrates on green roofs. In: Sutton R (ed) Green roof ecosys-
tems. Springer, Cham
Mason CF (2000) Thrushes now largely restricted to the built environment in eastern England.
Divers Distrib 6:189–194
McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Formana RTT (2008) The implications of current and future urbanization
for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 141:1695–1703
McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv
127:247–260
Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol
20:430–434
Miller JR, Groom M, Hess GR, Steelman T, Stokes DL, Thompson J, Bowman T, Fricke L, King
B, Marquardt R (2009) Biodiversity conservation inlocal planning. Conserv Biol 23:53–63
Mills JG, Weinstein P, Gellie NJC, Weyrich LS, Lowe AJ, Breed MF (2017) Urban habitat restora-
tion provides a human health benet through microbiome rewilding: the Microbiome rewilding
hypothesis. Restor Ecol 25:866–872
Mitchell R, Popham F (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an
observational population study. Lancet 372:1655–1660
Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Brooks TM, Pilgrim JD, Konstant WR, da Fonseca GAB,
Kormos C (2003) Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
100:10309–10313
Monbiot G (2013) Feral: searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. Allen Lane,
Penguin Press, London
Nilon CH, Aronson MFJ, Cilliers SS, Dobbs C, Frazee LJ, Goddard MA, O’Neill KM, Roberts D,
Stander EK, Werner P, Winter M, Yocom KP (2017) Planning for the future of urban biodiver-
sity: a global review of city-scale initiatives. Bioscience 67:332–342
Z. G. Davies et al.

293
Peach WJ, Denny M, Cotton PA, Hill IF, Gruar D, Barritt D, Impet A, Mallord J(2004) Habitat
selection by song thrushes in stable and declining farmland populations. JAppl Ecol 41:275–293
Pett TJ, Shwartz A, Irvine KN, Dallimer M, Davies ZG (2016) Unpacking the people–biodiversity
paradox: a conceptual framework. Bioscience 66:576–583
Pham TTH, Apparicio P, Séguin AM, Landry S, Gagnon M (2012) Spatial distribution of veg-
etation in Montreal: an uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Landsc Urban Plan
107:214–224
Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative
reserve systems? Conserv Biol 8:662–668
Pressey RL, Whish GL, Barrett TW, Watts ME (2002) Effectiveness of protected areas in north-
eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures. Biol Conserv 106:57–69
Pyle RM (2003) Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx 37:206–214
Ratcliffe E, Gatersleben P, Sowden PT (2013) Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived
attention restoration and stress recovery. JEnviron Psychol 36:221–228
Rayner G, Lang T (2012) Ecological public health: reshaping the conditions for good health.
Routledge, Abingdon
Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as pathways of plant introductions in the United States.
Bioscience 51:103–113
Robb GN, McDonald RA, Chamberlain DE, Bearhop S (2008) Food for thought: supplementary
feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations. Front Ecol Environ 6:476–484
Rogerson M, Barton J, Bragg R, Pretty J(2017) The health and wellbeing impacts of volunteering
with the wildlife trusts. University of Essex, Colchester
Russo A, Escobedo FJ, Cirella GT, Zerbe S (2017) Edible green infrastructure: an approach and
review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 242:53–66
Salisbury A, Armitage J, Bostock H, Perry J, Tatchell M, Thompson K (2015) Enhancing gardens
as habitats for ower-visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic spe-
cies? JAppl Ecol 52:1156–1164
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human
footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904
Schwarz N, Moretti M, Bugalho MN, Davies ZG, Haase D, Hack J, Hof A, Melero Y, Pett TJ,
Knapp S (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a
comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst Serv 27:161–171
Seeland K, Moser K, Scheutle H, Kaiser FG (2002) Public acceptance of restrictions imposed on
recreational activities in the per-urban Sihlwald Nature Reserve, Sihlwald, Switzerland. Urban
For Urban Green 1:49–57
Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct
impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:16083–16088
Shanahan DF, Lin BB, Gaston KJ, Bush R, Fuller RA (2015) What is the role of trees and remnant
vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landsc Ecol 30:153–165
Shwartz A, Cheval H, Simon L, Julliard R (2013) Virtual garden computer program for use in
exploring the elements of biodiversity people want in cities. Conserv Biol 27:876–886
Smith J(2013) Protected areas: Origins, criticisms and contemporary issues for outdoor recreation.
Centre for environment and society research. Working paper series no. 15. Birmingham City
University, Birmingham
Soga M, Gaston KJ (2016) Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front
Ecol Environ 14:94–101
Speak AF, Mizgajski A, Borysiak J(2015) Allotment gardens and parks: provision of ecosystem
services with an emphasis on biodiversity. Urban For Urban Green 14:772–781
Stigner MG, Beyer HL, Klein CJ, Fuller RA (2016) Reconciling recreational use and conservation
values in a coastal protected area. JAppl Ecol 53:1206–1214
12 Biodiversity andHealth: Implications forConservation

294
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of
nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Progress
Press, Malta
ten Brink P, Mutafoglu K, Schweitzer J-P, Kettunen M, Twigger-Ross C, Baker J, Kuipers Y,
Emonts M, Tyrväinen L, Hujala T & Ojala A (2016) The Health and Social Benets of Nature
and Biodiversity Protection. A report for the European Commission. Institute for European
Environmental Policy, London/Brussels
Tryjanowski P, Morelli F, Mikula P, Krištín A, Indykiewicz P, Grzywaczewski G, Kronenberg
J, Jerzak L (2017) Bird diversity in urban green space: a large-scale analysis of differences
between parks and cemeteries in Central Europe. Urban For Urban Green 27:264–271
Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J(2007) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands
and other green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 79:5–19
United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects, the 2014 revision. United Nations, NewYork
Vaughan KB, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Besenyi GM, Bergstrom R, Heinrich KM
(2013) Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City,
Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: an environmental justice investigation. Ann Behav Med
45:S28–S38
Venter O, Fuller RA, Segan DB, Carwardine J, Brooks T, Butchart SHM, Di Marco M, Iwamura T,
Joseph L, O’Grady D, Possingham HP, Rondinini C, Smith RJ, Venter M, Watson JEM (2014)
Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol 12:e101891
Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF,
Wood P, Fekete PM, Levy MA, Watson JEM (2016) Sixteen years of change in the global ter-
restrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 7:12558
Voigt A, Wurster D (2014) Does diversity matter? The experience of urban nature’s diversity: case
study and cultural concept. Ecosyst Serv 12:200–208
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of pro-
tected areas. Nature 515:67–73
Watson JEM, Shanahan DF, Di Marco M, Allan J, Laurance WF, Sanderson EW, Mackey B, Venter
O (2017) Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Curr
Biol 26:2929–2934
Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts
Wolch JR, Wilson JP, Fehrenbach J (2013) Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-
mapping analysis. Urban Geogr 26:4–35
Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice:
the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Z. G. Davies et al.