Connecting Biodiversity With Mental Health and Wellbeing — A Review of Methods and Disciplinary Perspectives (original) (raw)
Related papers
Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings?
Medical Hypotheses, 2011
Globally, the human and economic burdens of mental illness are increasing. As the prevalence and costs associated with mental illness rise, we are progressively more aware that environmental issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss impact on human health. This paper hypothesises that increased biodiversity in urban environments is associated with improved mental health and wellbeing. It proposes the ecological mechanism through which the association may exist, and explores the extant literature to determine the extent of empirical evidence to support our hypothesis. While there is a substantial literature investigating the impact of 'green space' and contact with nature on mental health, we identified only one original research paper that directly investigated the link between biodiversity and mental health. This suggests that the extant evidence considers only 'one part of the story', providing an evidence base which is inadequate to inform policy on biodiversity conservation and public health. Our hypothesised relationship between environmental change and mental health proposes conservation and restoration of biodiversity in urban environments as a form of intervention for improving human health. It also highlights the need for a better evidence base to demonstrate the synergistic benefits of increased biodiversity and mental health to decision makers. Well-designed quantitative epidemiological research is needed to establish the strength of any such causal relationship.
Biodiversity and Mental Health
Biodiversity Enrichment in a Diverse World, 2012
Biodiversity Enrichment in a Diverse World 212 depression. Along the chapter, all relevant information for the association of biodiversity with depression will be referred as to what is found or being done in Mexico. The chapter will end with a conclusion about the need for the conservation of the different forms of biodiversity, not only for aesthetic purposes but for the positive impact on human health, despite the gaps in attributing causal effects. 2. Biodiversity The association between physical environment and health has been known for a long time. In fact, the health and disease process is the result of a permanent interaction of human beings with the environment where they live [10]. The living and physical components of the environment, and the relationships that take place among them, define a particular ecosystem which, when it is disturbed, may produce direct and indirect alterations to the entire set of integrating elements [11]. An ecosystem then, is a complex dynamic group of various living organisms acting as a whole functioning unity [12]. The diverse group of ecosystems, the species living within those ecosystems and the genetic variations within each population, in addition to the process involving their functioning, constitutes what is called biodiversity [13]. Biological diversity or biodiversity refers to the sum of the total biotic variability present in any ecosystem; therefore, it may be estimated in different ways. Although the most common measure is by counting the number of species identified within a time and space frame (known as species richness), there are also other forms of biodiversity measurements. The multidimensional aspect of the concept allows the quantification of biodiversity using three non-exclusive criteria: a) species richness (numeric values of abundance), b) the evenness of their spatial distribution (using biodiversity index), or c) the phenotypic differentiation and genetic variability of the living organisms (at different taxonomic levels) [14]. Approximately, 1.75 millions of species have been identified in the planet, but it is estimated that the real number could be 10 times higher [15]. Ecosystems provide the supporting vital systems for any form of life on Earth, including humans. Not only provide resources for nourishing and fuel, but also they permit the air and water purification, clear and retain toxic substances, degrade waste and recycle nutrients, allow natural and crop pollination, improve soil fertility, buffer out climate change effects, among many other functions and services [1]. With more than 81,000 identified species, and a vast heterogeneity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, Mexico is placed fourth worldwide in biodiversity records. Closed to 10% of the Planet biodiversity lives in Mexican territory, ranking first in reptile diversity and second in mammals, sharing with Brazil the first place in number of ecosystems [16]. In an attempt to estimate the number of species of different taxa (e.g. plants, angiosperms, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.) R Mittermeier created a list of the 17 countries in the world with the greatest diversity, which represents less than 10% of the Planet's surface but host seven out of ten recognised species (Table 1).
Species richness is positively related to mental health – A study for Germany
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021
National epidemiological study on relationship between biodiversity and human health. • Plant and bird species richness are positively related to mental health. • No relationship between plant nor bird species and physical health. • Access to local green space improves both mental and physical health. • Species diversity could be a salutogenic (health promoting) nature characteristic.
Biodiversity, environmental health and human well-being: analysis of linkages and pathways
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2014
Well-being, a condition of positive physical, social and mental state of life, has become a prime focus of research in recent years as people seek to achieve and sustain it. Interacting with the natural environment has been established as a way of acquiring wellbeing benefits. However, the extent to which well-being depends on various aspects of the environment particularly biodiversity has received less attention. This paper examines the relationship between the level of biodiversity in an environment and human well-being. The depression and happiness scale was employed to sample 236 visitors of eight green spaces in Anglesey and Gwynedd, North Wales, while also noting socio-demographic and environmental factors such as perceived naturalness, density of visitors and noise level to establish the relationship. In each green space, the levels of native and introduced plant diversity were estimated. The paper established that level of ecological diversity determines level of people's wellness and happiness derived from a green environment. Visitors to green spaces with higher plant diversity receive higher levels of happiness. Significantly too, diversity of introduced species was a better predictor than native plant diversity. Perceived naturalness, density of visitors and visitors' age was also predictors of happiness. It is concluded that increasing the level of biodiversity in an environment could improve people's well-being. However, the finding about introduced versus native species deserves more attention.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2022
The evidence linking nature and human wellbeing is compelling. Yet, there is a lack of understanding regarding which aspects of nature contribute to wellbeing and the role biodiversity plays specifically. This knowledge gap hampers our ability to understand and manage natural environments from an ecological perspective to improve human wellbeing. To investigate the impact of biodiversity on wellbeing in a range of contexts, there is a need for a psychometric scale. Here, we present BIO-WELL, a novel, reliable and validated self-reported wellbeing scale designed to investigate the biodiversity-health/wellbeing relationship. We describe the conceptual foundation, empirical development and psychometric evaluation of BIO-WELL. We detail five studies, involving 2962 participants, describing the steps taken in the scale's development: (1) a series of deliberative workshops to identify how people conceptualise biodiversity metrics and attributes, and the impact these have on wellbeing; (2) an indepth qualitative analysis of biodiversity-focused stem questions and wellbeing response items, assessed through an expert panel, focus groups and cognitive interviewing techniques; (3) combined methods associated with classical test theory (e.g. factor analysis) and more modern measurement approaches drawn from item response theory to develop the scale; (4) a confirmatory factor analysis alongside classical test and item response theories to evaluate the scale; and (5) scale validation including discriminant/convergent, concurrent and predictive. The studies demonstrate that BIO-WELL is a valid and reliable scale with strong psychometric properties. We discuss ways it could be applied in research, policy and practice to further develop our conceptual and empirical understanding of the biodiversity-health relationship and assess the effectiveness of related interventions.
Climate change, biodiversity and mental health
BJPsych International
Climate change is closely linked to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane due to human activities, and soaring temperatures might themselves pose a risk to natural carbon sequestration in the land. This editorial introduces three papers in the current issue exploring the adverse effects on mental health of climate-related loss of biodiversity and cultural heritage markers and the beneficial effects of adopting a plant-based diet. It also suggest three simple steps that clinicians can themselves take to act against climate change: choosing and recommending a plant-based diet, reducing personal use of fossil fuels and integrating climate change in discourse in all areas of their professional work.
2021
The research consisted of a systematic scoping review and three expert workshops. Mental health was interpreted broadly to include psychiatric illness, mental wellbeing, cognitive development and cognitive decline. A scoping review was used to identify knowledge gaps and provide an overview of approaches and evidence within the identified body of literature. The participatory workshops identified case study examples and informed findings and recommendations. Workshop participants comprised a mixture of environmental and mental health researchers. Literature Synthesis We synthesised global literature (202 final papers) from 2010 to 2020 that included environmental science and mental health. Several robust systematic reviews undertaken on climate change, flooding, air pollution and urban greenspace were identified, warranting exclusion from the scoping review. From these previous reviews, climate change, flooding and air pollution were predominantly associated with poor mental health whilst urban greenspace (proximity to, use of) was often associated with improved mental health. This project considers the potential contribution that environmental science can make to mental health research and innovation, and interrogates exisiting research to identify evidence gaps and opportunities.
International Journal of Wellbeing, 2021
A wealth of literature has evidenced the important role that the greater-than-human natural environment plays in our mental health and wellbeing (reviews by Bratman et al., 2019; Capaldi et al., 2014, 2015; Pritchard et al., 2019). Spending time in nature, engaging with nature directly and indirectly, and a strong sense of nature connectedness (a psychological/emotional connection with nature) have each been shown to positively impact well-being. Few studies, however, have examined the importance that various nature-related factors have on our well-being when examined in concert with each other, and no studies have simultaneously examined the differential influences of nature connectedness and engagement. In the current study, using a national United Kingdom sample of 2,096 adults, we provide new insights into this gap in the literature. Our primary focus was on examining, when considered simultaneously, the patterns and relative predictive importance to hedonic wellbeing (i.e., happiness), eudaimonic wellbeing (i.e., worthwhile life), illbeing (i.e., depression and anxiety), and general physical health of five nature-related factors: (1) nature connectedness, (2) time in nature, (3) engagement with nature through simple everyday activities, (4) indirect engagement with nature, and (5) knowledge and study of nature. A consistent pattern of results emerged across multiple analytical approaches (i.e., correlations, linear regression, dominance analyses, commonality analysis), wherein time in nature was not the main (or significant) predictive nature-related factor for wellbeing. Rather, nature connectedness and engaging with nature through simple activities (e.g., smelling flowers) consistently emerged as being the significant and prominent factors in predicting and explaining variance in mental health and wellbeing. Implications for practical application and policy/programme planning are discussed. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i1.1267