is a research ecologist and research fellow, and Gavin M. 15 Siriwardena is the head of terrestrial ecology and principle ecologist for the British 16

Exposure to nature provides a wide range of health benefits. A significant proportion of these are delivered close to home, because this offers an immediate and easily accessible opportunity for people to experience nature. However, there is limited information to guide recommendations on its management and appropriate use. We apply a nature dose-response framework to quantify the simultaneous association between exposure to nearby nature and multiple health benefits. We surveyed ca. 1000 respondents in Southern England, UK, to determine relationships between (a) nature dose type, that is the frequency and duration (time spent in private green space) and intensity (quantity of neighbourhood vegetation cover) of nature exposure and (b) health outcomes, including mental, physical and social health, physical behaviour and nature orientation. We then modelled dose-response relationships between dose type and self-reported depression. We demonstrate positive relationships between nature dose and mental and social health, increased physical activity and nature orientation. Dose-response analysis showed that lower levels of depression were associated with minimum thresholds of weekly nature dose. Nearby nature is associated with quantifiable health benefits, with potential for lowering the human and financial costs of ill health. Dose-response analysis has the potential to guide minimum and optimum recommendations on the management and use of nearby nature for preventative healthcare.

No abstract

No abstract

The spatial distributions of biodiversity and people vary across landscapes and are critical to the delivery of ecosystem services and disservices. The high densities of people and often of birds in urban areas lead to frequent human–avian interactions, which can be positive or negative for people's well‐being. The identities of the bird species providing these services or disservices tend to be quite different; however, it is unclear how their abundance and richness covary with human population density, and hence with potential recipients of these services and disservices. We surveyed bird populations in 106 tiles (500 × 500 m) across the 174 km2 of an extended urban area in southern England. From the literature, we identified two groups of species: those associated with positive interactions for human well‐being and those that display behaviours that are negative for human well‐being. We estimated the abundance (adjusted for detection probability) and richness of each group and modelled how they covary with human population density. Aggregation of population estimates for the 35 service and nine disservice species observed revealed 593,128 (95% confidence interval: 541,817–657,046) and 225,491 (200,134–235,066) birds respectively. Across the surveyed tiles, there were 1.09 service and 0.42 disservice birds per person. There was a peaking quadratic relationship between service abundance and human population density, but a negative linear relationship between richness and human density. Conversely, there were positive linear relationships for both abundance and richness of disservice species with human density. The ratio of service to disservice birds shifted from 3.5–1 at intermediate human densities to 1–1 in more densely populated areas. Synthesis and applications. Differences in the distributions of service and disservice species, and the extremely low ratios of birds to people particularly in socioeconomically deprived areas, mean that people there have few opportunities for contact with birds, and the contact they do have is equally likely to be negative as positive for human well‐being. We recommend spatial targeting of improvements in green infrastructure, combined with the targeted provisioning of food and nesting places for service species, to promote positive interactions between birds and people.