No abstract

Immersive virtual environments (IVEs) were used to test the effects of biodiversity on recovery from induced stress. Three natural environments and one urban environment were used to represent ordinal levels of biodiversity (none, low, moderate, and high). The four IVEs comprised visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli. An additional high biodiversity IVE without auditory or olfactory stimuli was also included to study the effects of multisensory stimulation per se on recovery from stress and perceptions of biodiversity. Following stress induction via a novel IVE Trier Social Stress Test (TSST-IVE), heart rate and five self-reported well-being measures were used to assess participants’ recovery after immersion in one of the five IVEs. The results showed consistent well-being responses across both self-reported and physiological measures, suggesting biodiversity does directly affect human well-being. However, the relationship was not linear. For most measures of well-being, stress recovery was least effective in the urban IVE, consistent with past research. The low biodiversity IVE elicited the greatest improvement in all well-being measures except self-reported calmness. One could speculate that the landscape features of the least biodiverse IVE may elicit subconscious preferences toward savanna-like landscapes, as suggested by previous studies. The IVE depicting a moderate level of biodiversity was the least restorative of the natural environments. A multisensory experience was associated with better recovery in all measures of well-being than a visual-only experience, and perceptions of landscape components significantly differed between two identical nature scenes when auditory and olfactory stimuli were removed. Nuances in the data and implications of the findings are discussed. The results signal a need for caution and question the assumption that cultural ecosystem services align with positive outcomes for biodiversity conservation.

There are few studies examining the wellbeing benefits from exposure to natural environments differing in ecological attributes, such as biodiversity, and they have not had consistent results. This study progresses our understanding of the nuanced relationship between nature and wellbeing by analyzing the self-reported benefits derived from urban green spaces varying in a range of objectively measured biodiversity attributes such as bird species richness, habitat diversity, and structural heterogeneity. Respondents’ (n = 840) perceptions of biodiversity and naturalness were also examined. We identified the biodiversity attributes most strongly associated with particular benefits, as well as the types of parks where those benefits were significantly more likely to occur. Findings suggest that perceived, rather than objective measures of biodiversity are better predictors of subjective wellbeing benefits. Of the assessed biodiversity attributes, vegetation cover consistently correlated most strongly with psychological benefits. Stress reduction and mood improvement were greatest in nature parks and lowest in pocket parks. Increases in each biodiversity attribute significantly affected psychological wellbeing at different thresholds, suggesting the relationship between biodiversity and wellbeing is not linear. Thresholds of sensitivity for park attributes are discussed, with vegetation cover, naturalness, structural heterogeneity, and park type emerging as the most useful differentiators for studying human responses to nature. Our findings can help inform green space planning to maximize environmental benefits and health benefits concurrently.

Although the restorative benefits of nature are widely acknowledged, there is a limited understanding of the attributes of natural environments that are fundamental to restorative experiences. Faced with growing human populations and a greater awareness of the wellbeing benefits natural environments provide, park agencies and planners are increasingly challenged with balancing human and ecological outcomes in natural areas. This study examines the physical and experiential qualities of natural environments people referred to when describing their connection to their most valued natural environments in an online questionnaire. Recruited primarily via a public radio program, respondents were asked to identify their favorite places and explain what they loved about those places. Favorite places are considered exemplars of restorative environments and were classified based on an existing park typology. Reasons people liked particular sites were classified into three domains: setting, activity, or benefit. Content analysis was used to identify the attributes most commonly associated with favorite places. These attributes were then related to the four components of restorative environments according to Attention Restoration Theory. In contrast to previous research, we found that “fascination” was the most important component of favorite places. Possible reasons for this contrast, namely, respondents' median age, and the likelihood of a high degree of ecological literacy amongst the study population are discussed. South Australians' favorite environments comprise primarily hilly, wooded nature parks, and botanical gardens, in stark contrast to the vast arid areas that dominate the state. Micro-variables such as birds, plants, wildlife, native species, and biodiversity appear particularly important elements used to explain people's love of these sites. We discuss the implications of these findings and their potential value as an anchor for marketing campaigns seeking to encourage contact with nature, as well as education programs designed to improve people's understanding of important but intangible concepts such as biodiversity. The findings have clear, practical implications for park managers given the modifiable nature of many of the attributes identified as being most important to our respondents, and we believe attention to such elements has the potential to simultaneously enhance people's nature experiences, optimize restorative outcomes, and improve environmental stewardship.

No abstract