Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390-394
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. Biology letters
(Impact Factor: 3.25).
09/2007; 3(4):390-4. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
The world's human population is becoming concentrated into cities, giving rise to concerns that it is becoming increasingly isolated from nature. Urban public greenspaces form the arena of many people's daily contact with nature and such contact has measurable physical and psychological benefits. Here we show that these psychological benefits increase with the species richness of urban greenspaces. Moreover, we demonstrate that greenspace users can more or less accurately perceive species richness depending on the taxonomic group in question. These results indicate that successful management of urban greenspaces should emphasize biological complexity to enhance human well-being in addition to biodiversity conservation.
Available from: Sandra Luque
- "where P j is the total share of population who can reach the cell j, L is maximum travelled distance, lx is the distance of the cell from the origin population cell x, calculated as cost function on the road network, c is set at 50,000, and px is number of people leaving in the x cell.main habitats types related to CES benefits (Martínez Pastur et al., 2015;Richards and Friess, 2015) as well as habitat diversity (Fuller et al., 2007;Kienast et al., 2012;Richards and Friess, 2015) as main habitat attributes. Additional different terrain variables were selected, including: (i) view points and summits (Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2014;Kienast et al., 2012;Termansen et al., 2004;Zandersen et al., 2007); (ii) slopes (Bestard and Font, 2009;Colson et al., 2010;Kienast et al., 2012;Zandersen et al., 2007); (iii) elevation (Bestard and Font, 2009;Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2014). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Integrating cultural dimensions into the ecosystem service framework is essential for appraising non-material benefits stemming from different human–environment interactions. This study investigates how the actual provision of cultural services is distributed across the landscape according to spatially varying relationships. The final aim was to analyse how landscape settings are associated to people's preferences and perceptions related to cultural ecosystem services in mountain landscapes. We demonstrated a spatially explicit method based on geo-tagged images from popular social media to assess revealed preferences. A spatially weighted regression showed that specific variables correspond to prominent drivers of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale. The results of this explanatory approach can be used to integrate the cultural service dimension into land planning by taking into account specific benefiting areas and by setting priorities on the ecosystems and landscape characteristics which affect the service supply. We finally concluded that the use of crowdsourced data allows identifying spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem service preferences and their association with landscape settings.
- "Moreover, cultural ES have started to be mapped, using different approaches: mapping cultural ES to understand their association to landscapes (Palomo et al., 2014;Plieninger et al., 2013); mapping ES under land use change scenarios (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2014); mapping hot and cold spots of ES using abiotic variables and plant traits (Lavorel et al., 2011); and mapping potential for outdoor recreation using multiple regression and landscape metrics (Weyland and Laterra, 2014). At the same time, people's perceptions and values have been studied in order to determine the real and/or perceived benefits of BD (Barau et al., 2013;Brancalion et al., 2014;Cosquer et al., 2012;Dallimer et al., 2012;Shwartz et al., 2014); the perception of significance of various types of landscapes (Allendorf et al., 2014;Barthel et al., 2013;Calvet-Mir et al., 2012;García-Llorente et al., 2012;Iwata et al., 2011;Martin-Martin et al., 2011;Taylor and Lovell, 2014); the perception of HWB and health from interactions with nature (Dallimer et al., 2012;Fuller et al., 2007;Hough, 2014); and the perception of value from performing recreational activities (Curtin, 2009;Jordan et al., 2012;Rees et al., 2010;Ressurreição et al., 2012;Ruiz-Frau et al., 2013; Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez and SuárezAlonso, 2013;Zander et al., 2013). Nevertheless, key questions still remain unresolved, such as the mechanisms that are important for delivering these benefits (e.g. which are the features of natural settings that trigger a beneficial interaction, and how do these features vary between different geographical and socio-cultural realities;Keniger et al., 2013). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Even-though the last years have seen a “blossoming” of initiatives aiming to clarify the link between biodiversity (BD)-ecosystem functions (EF)-ecosystem services (ES)-human well-being (HWB), there is still a need for integrating the knowledge obtained by various research, making it useful for decision-makers. This contribution aims to show ways of gathering, representing and modelling these linkages to enable better decision-making based on available knowledge. This is achieved by: (i) conducting a systematic-review of contributions describing the links between BD–EF–ES–HWB and gathering the information into a database; (ii) organizing that information in a mind-map; (iii) showing, as an example, how a Bayesian Network model and scenarios can be built using the mind-map and database information. We show how gathering information into mind-maps works as a first step to the creation of a unified knowledge base, while Bayesian Network models allow for a better management of data uncertainty, commonly associated with the representation of complex models, as well as providing the possibility of creating future scenarios where assumptions can be tested. Thus, this contribution shows how available knowledge can be linked to improve our understanding of complex issues.
Available from: Joelle Salomon Cavin
- "L'idée de « nouvelle nature » (Sanderson et Huron, 2011) ou de « seconde nature » (Zimmerer, 2000) est alors mobilisée pour signifier la transformation par l'homme de la nature. Parmi ces approches, certains auteurs s'attachent à identifier les avantages sociaux de la biodiversité et plus généralement les différents types de services associés à la nature urbaine (Chiesura, 2004 ; Fuller et al., 2007 ; Savard, Clergeau, et Mennechez, 2000). Cette intégration de critères autres qu'écologiques pour évaluer les écosystèmes complexifie singulièrement l'évaluation de la valeur des milieux ainsi que l'identification des mesures nécessaires à leur conservation (Elmqvist et al., 2004 ; Kowarik, 2011). "
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.