202
green spaces had a significant direct, and indirect, effect on general well-being.
Individuals in the high biodiversity condition had greater general well-being scores
than individuals in the low biodiversity condition, and perceived restorativeness
mediated the relationship between biodiversity and well-being (Carrus et al. 2015).
Studies assessing ecosystems/habitats by Scania Green Score ‘lush, rich in species’
(Björk et al. 2008; de Jong et al. 2012; Grahn and Stigsdotter 2010), protected areas
(Saw et al. 2015) and green space types (Jorgensen et al. 2010) on mental wellbeing were all non-significant.
Species Richness
Ten studies examined the effect of species richness (Table 9.5). Three of these investigated the influence of species richness on mental health, with mixed results. Huby
et al. (2006) found positive associations between mental health and greater bird
species richness. Similarly, Wolf et al. (2017) found that participants in the high
species rich conditions of trees and birds, reported less anxiety, compared to participants in the low species rich conditions. However, Cox et al. (2017) found no influence of morning and afternoon bird species richness on depression, anxiety or
stress.
Across the 7 studies that measured mental well-being just over half of results
(55%) were non-significant. Specifically, there was no difference in positive affect
and arousal between low and high species richness conditions of fish/crustaceans
(Cracknell et al. 2016). Additionally, species richness of fish/crustaceans had no
effect on happiness, when species abundance was held constant (Cracknell et al.
2017). There was also no difference in vitality scores between the high and low species richness conditions of birds and trees (Wolf et al. 2017). However, for positive
affect, participants reported higher levels in the high species richness conditions of
trees, and birds, compared to low species richness conditions (Wolf et al. 2017).
Bird species richness was positively associated with good health (Wheeler et al.
2015). However, the negative association between bird species richness and poor
health did not hold when accounting for covariates (Wheeler et al. 2015). Butterfly
species richness had no significant effect (Dallimer et al. 2012; Fuller et al. 2007),
and plant species richness had a negative effect, on psychological well-being
(Dallimer et al. 2012). Greater species richness of birds (Dallimer et al. 2012; Fuller
et al. 2007; Luck et al. 2011) and plants (Fuller et al. 2007) were both associated
with greater mental well-being.
Perceived Species Richness
No study investigated the effect of perceived richness on mental health (see
Table 9.5). Four studies examined the influence of perceived species richness on
mental well-being. Just over half of the results (53%) demonstrated a positive effect.
M. R. Marselle et al.
green spaces had a significant direct, and indirect, effect on general well-being.
Individuals in the high biodiversity condition had greater general well-being scores
than individuals in the low biodiversity condition, and perceived restorativeness
mediated the relationship between biodiversity and well-being (Carrus et al. 2015).
Studies assessing ecosystems/habitats by Scania Green Score ‘lush, rich in species’
(Björk et al. 2008; de Jong et al. 2012; Grahn and Stigsdotter 2010), protected areas
(Saw et al. 2015) and green space types (Jorgensen et al. 2010) on mental wellbeing were all non-significant.
Species Richness
Ten studies examined the effect of species richness (Table 9.5). Three of these investigated the influence of species richness on mental health, with mixed results. Huby
et al. (2006) found positive associations between mental health and greater bird
species richness. Similarly, Wolf et al. (2017) found that participants in the high
species rich conditions of trees and birds, reported less anxiety, compared to participants in the low species rich conditions. However, Cox et al. (2017) found no influence of morning and afternoon bird species richness on depression, anxiety or
stress.
Across the 7 studies that measured mental well-being just over half of results
(55%) were non-significant. Specifically, there was no difference in positive affect
and arousal between low and high species richness conditions of fish/crustaceans
(Cracknell et al. 2016). Additionally, species richness of fish/crustaceans had no
effect on happiness, when species abundance was held constant (Cracknell et al.
2017). There was also no difference in vitality scores between the high and low species richness conditions of birds and trees (Wolf et al. 2017). However, for positive
affect, participants reported higher levels in the high species richness conditions of
trees, and birds, compared to low species richness conditions (Wolf et al. 2017).
Bird species richness was positively associated with good health (Wheeler et al.
2015). However, the negative association between bird species richness and poor
health did not hold when accounting for covariates (Wheeler et al. 2015). Butterfly
species richness had no significant effect (Dallimer et al. 2012; Fuller et al. 2007),
and plant species richness had a negative effect, on psychological well-being
(Dallimer et al. 2012). Greater species richness of birds (Dallimer et al. 2012; Fuller
et al. 2007; Luck et al. 2011) and plants (Fuller et al. 2007) were both associated
with greater mental well-being.
Perceived Species Richness
No study investigated the effect of perceived richness on mental health (see
Table 9.5). Four studies examined the influence of perceived species richness on
mental well-being. Just over half of the results (53%) demonstrated a positive effect.
M. R. Marselle et al.