Not All Green Space Is Created Equal: Biodiversity Predicts Psychological Restorative Benefits From Urban Green Space

Emma M. Wood, Alice Harsant, Martin Dallimer, Anna Cronin de Chavez, Rosemary McEachan, Christopher Hassall

Frontiers in Psychology · 2018 · 314 citations · 72 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Contemporary epidemiological studies treat all vegetation cover as equal, yet ecological quality—such as species richness and process integrity—may modulate the health benefits of green space. The authors aimed to examine how green‑space quality predicts psychological restoration in an inner‑city urban population in Bradford, UK. They surveyed 12 parks, conducting botanical and faunal inventories to quantify biodiversity, assessed site facilities, and administered 128 user questionnaires measuring general restoration, attention distraction, escape, and site preference. Results showed that biodiversity was positively linked to site facilities and accounted for 43 % of the variance in restorative benefit, with no effect of age, gender, or ethnicity, highlighting biodiversity’s importance for urban well‑being.

Abstract

Contemporary epidemiological methods testing the associations between green space and psychological well-being treat all vegetation cover as equal. However, there is very good reason to expect that variations in ecological "quality" (number of species, integrity of ecological processes) may influence the link between access to green space and benefits to human health and well-being. We test the relationship between green space quality and restorative benefit in an inner city urban population in Bradford, UK. We selected 12 urban parks for study where we carried out botanical and faunal surveys to quantify biodiversity and assessed the site facilities of the green space (cleanliness, provision of amenities). We also conducted 128 surveys with park users to quantify psychological restoration based on four self-reported measure of general restoration, attention-grabbing distractions, being away from everyday life, and site preference. We present three key results. First, there is a positive association between site facilities and biodiversity. Second, restorative benefit is predicted by biodiversity, which explained 43% of the variance in restorative benefit across the parks, with minimal input from other variables. Third, the benefits accrued through access to green space were unrelated to age, gender, and ethnic background. The results add to a small but growing body of evidence that emphasise the role of nature in contributing to the well-being of urban populations and, hence, the need to consider biodiversity in the design of landscapes that enhance multiple ecosystem services.

References

72