Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework

Abstract

Biodiversity is a cornerstone of human health and well-being. However, while evidence of the contributions of nature to human health is rapidly building, understanding of how biodiversity relates to human health remains limited in important respects. In particular, we need a better grasp on the range of pathways through which biodiversity can influence human health, including those that run through psychological and social processes as well as through biochemical and biophysical processes. Building on evidence from across the natural, social and health sciences, we present a conceptual framework organising the pathways linking biodiversity to human health. Four domains of pathways—both beneficial as well as harmful—link biodiversity with human health: (i) reducing harm (e.g. provision of medicines, decreasing exposure to air and noise pollution); (ii) restoring capacities (e.g. attention restoration and stress reduction); (iii) building capacities (e.g. promoting physical activity, transcendental experiences), and (iv) causing harm (e.g. dangerous wildlife, zoonotic diseases or allergens). We discuss how to test components of the biodiversity-health framework with analytical approaches and existing datasets. In a world with accelerating declines in biodiversity, profound land-use change, and an increase in non-communicable and zoonotic diseases globally, greater understanding of these pathways can reinforce biodiversity conservation as a strategy for the promotion of health for both people and nature. We conclude by identifying research avenues and recommendations for policy and practice to foster biodiversity-focused public health actions.

Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities

“…Yet the most significant methodological limitation affecting these studies was the frequent use of observational cross-sectional designs, which highlights the need for more research using longitudinal, experimental, or quasi-experimental designs. Several other recent reviews on green space and health highlighted a similar limitation among their included studies [ 19 , 20 , 83 , 173 ]. The indeterminate quality of evidence for race/ethnicity signals that these results should be interpreted with caution and emphasizes the need for future attempts to synthesize and add to the available evidence.…”

An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health

“…Finally, urban nature brings physical risks-and fears of risks-such as allergic reactions, vector-and water-borne diseases, excessive sunlight exposure, and injuries. These natural physical risks are generally far smaller in magnitude than the benefits of nature contact, and can be effectively mitigated with appropriate precautions (35,36). In this report, we focus primarily on positive impacts of greenspace, reflecting on the potential harms as moderators of the urban nature-PA relationship.…”

Appraisals of Wildlife During Restorative Opportunities in Local Natural Settings

“…Although Figure 1 severely simplifies a complex reality, it closely resembles other models that have proven useful in organizing and guiding research in other areas within the natureand-health field. For one, it explicitly distinguishes between what actually exists in the environment and what the person comes to experience there; however, rather than more general representations of the environment, such as nature (Hartig et al, 2014;Bratman et al, 2019) and biodiversity (Marselle et al, 2021), our model starts from the wildlife that exists in the environment and the encounters that people may have with that wildlife. The organization of pathways into broad domains follows the example of Markevych et al (2017), who addressed the positive effects of greenspace on health, and the example of Marselle et al (2021), who addressed both positive and negative health effects of biodiversity.…”

“…For one, it explicitly distinguishes between what actually exists in the environment and what the person comes to experience there; however, rather than more general representations of the environment, such as nature (Hartig et al, 2014;Bratman et al, 2019) and biodiversity (Marselle et al, 2021), our model starts from the wildlife that exists in the environment and the encounters that people may have with that wildlife. The organization of pathways into broad domains follows the example of Markevych et al (2017), who addressed the positive effects of greenspace on health, and the example of Marselle et al (2021), who addressed both positive and negative health effects of biodiversity. Our inclusion of a domain of pathways by which wildlife can cause harm follows the example of Marselle et al (2021); however, in contrast to their example, our model acknowledges that wildlife can harm human health without any encounter taking place.…”

“…It has also typically represented what people take to be "nature" in a limited set of contexts, with a particular emphasis on recreational activities (Hartig et al, 2011). At the same time, it has represented "nature" in a coarse manner, for example as green space, without attending to more specific ecological characteristics of the natural environment, including the particulars of the funga, flora and fauna in a given setting (e.g., Velarde et al, 2007;Markevych et al, 2017;Marselle et al, 2021).…”