191
2015; Carrus et al. 2015; Saw et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2017), as was appraisal theory
(Johansson et al. 2014). Four studies (Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Jones 2017;
Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler et al. 2015) did not articulate a theory for why or
how biodiversity may be related to better health and well-being.
9.3.1.4 Biodiversity Assessment
There was considerable variation across the 16 studies on the organisational level at
which biodiversity was studied, the data collection method used, and the type of
environment/organism investigated (see Table 9.2). Seven studies assessed biodiversity at the ecosystem or habitat level. Measurement across these studies included
use of secondary, geographically-referenced data to determine land cover and land
use diversity using the Shannon Diversity Index (Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler
et al. 2015), eco-region diversity using the Margalef Diversity Index (Duarte-Tagles
et al. 2015) and access to protected areas (Saw et al. 2015). Investigator categorisation of ecosystem/habitat biodiversity was used to classify environments into low,
medium and high biodiversity biotopes (Johansson et al. 2014) or low vs. high biodiverse green spaces (Carrus et al. 2015). Participants’ perception of habitats/ecosystem was used in one study; the Scania Green Score uses interpreted satellite
imagery-derived land use data (i.e. mixed forest and marshes, beaches, sand plains
and bare rock, biotopes and national parks) to map perceived biodiversity (‘lush,
rich in species’) of an environment (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al. 2015). At the
species community level, 6 studies assessed biodiversity in terms of species richness for various taxa (i.e. birds, butterflies, plants, trees, fish/crustaceans). Species
richness was measured using standard ecological field survey techniques (Cox et al.
2017; Cracknell et al. 2016), secondary data (Wheeler et al. 2015) or investigator
categorisation of species richness (e.g. low vs. high based on assessment of content
in images or videos (Cracknell et al. 2017; Wolf et al. 2017)). Participants’ perception of species richness was employed in 3 studies (Marselle et al. 2015, 2016;
White et al. 2017). At the species community level, abundance of a specific taxonomic group (i.e. birds, fish/crustaceans) was also assessed in 2 studies using standard ecological survey techniques (Cox et al. 2017), and investigator categorisation
of stimuli (i.e. low vs. high abundance; Cracknell et al. 2017). At the single species
level, Jones (2017) investigated biodiversity loss and ecosystem health through the
loss of North American ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) following the presence of the invasive species emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis). This was assessed
using secondary data.
9.3.1.5 Mental Health and Well-being Assessment
There was considerable variation in the outcomes considered and the measures used
among the studies (Fig. 9.3). Mental health was assessed in 7 studies (Annerstedt
van den Bosch et al. 2015; Cox et al. 2017; Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Foo 2016;
9 Review of the Mental Health and Well-being Benefits of Biodiversity
2015; Carrus et al. 2015; Saw et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2017), as was appraisal theory
(Johansson et al. 2014). Four studies (Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Jones 2017;
Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler et al. 2015) did not articulate a theory for why or
how biodiversity may be related to better health and well-being.
9.3.1.4 Biodiversity Assessment
There was considerable variation across the 16 studies on the organisational level at
which biodiversity was studied, the data collection method used, and the type of
environment/organism investigated (see Table 9.2). Seven studies assessed biodiversity at the ecosystem or habitat level. Measurement across these studies included
use of secondary, geographically-referenced data to determine land cover and land
use diversity using the Shannon Diversity Index (Rantakokko et al. 2018; Wheeler
et al. 2015), eco-region diversity using the Margalef Diversity Index (Duarte-Tagles
et al. 2015) and access to protected areas (Saw et al. 2015). Investigator categorisation of ecosystem/habitat biodiversity was used to classify environments into low,
medium and high biodiversity biotopes (Johansson et al. 2014) or low vs. high biodiverse green spaces (Carrus et al. 2015). Participants’ perception of habitats/ecosystem was used in one study; the Scania Green Score uses interpreted satellite
imagery-derived land use data (i.e. mixed forest and marshes, beaches, sand plains
and bare rock, biotopes and national parks) to map perceived biodiversity (‘lush,
rich in species’) of an environment (Annerstedt van den Bosch et al. 2015). At the
species community level, 6 studies assessed biodiversity in terms of species richness for various taxa (i.e. birds, butterflies, plants, trees, fish/crustaceans). Species
richness was measured using standard ecological field survey techniques (Cox et al.
2017; Cracknell et al. 2016), secondary data (Wheeler et al. 2015) or investigator
categorisation of species richness (e.g. low vs. high based on assessment of content
in images or videos (Cracknell et al. 2017; Wolf et al. 2017)). Participants’ perception of species richness was employed in 3 studies (Marselle et al. 2015, 2016;
White et al. 2017). At the species community level, abundance of a specific taxonomic group (i.e. birds, fish/crustaceans) was also assessed in 2 studies using standard ecological survey techniques (Cox et al. 2017), and investigator categorisation
of stimuli (i.e. low vs. high abundance; Cracknell et al. 2017). At the single species
level, Jones (2017) investigated biodiversity loss and ecosystem health through the
loss of North American ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) following the presence of the invasive species emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis). This was assessed
using secondary data.
9.3.1.5 Mental Health and Well-being Assessment
There was considerable variation in the outcomes considered and the measures used
among the studies (Fig. 9.3). Mental health was assessed in 7 studies (Annerstedt
van den Bosch et al. 2015; Cox et al. 2017; Duarte-Tagles et al. 2015; Foo 2016;
9 Review of the Mental Health and Well-being Benefits of Biodiversity