288
offers residents a different sort of nature experience to more manicured green spaces
(Seeland et al. 2002; Konijnendijk 2008).
The decisions regarding where green spaces should be located and how they are
managed are complex, with conservation value being one of many factors that must
be taken into consideration. Inevitably, biodiversity will be traded off against other
economic and societal goals (Nilon et al. 2017). However, maximising the size of
green spaces planned for both people and biodiversity is likely to be important for
their success. While it is widely accepted that larger areas are likely to sustain more
species (Beninde et al. 2015), evidence is growing to suggest that the same might be
true for the supply of human health and well-being benefits. For instance, larger
forested areas are preferred for outdoor activities (Tyrväinen et al. 2007).
Another core challenge associated with maximising the human health outcomes
derived from experiencing nature is making sure that biodiversity is in the right
locations for the right people. This is critical because the likelihood of someone
visiting a site drops dramatically with distance, with only the fraction of the population that is already strongly connected to nature willing to travel to experience it
(Shanahan et al. 2015). Indeed, cities are often characterised by a wide array of
inequalities, with those living in deprived communities having the most to gain
from using nearby green spaces (Mitchell and Popham 2008; Kabisch Chap. 5, this
volume; Cook et al. Chap. 11, this volume). If the health and well-being of all urban
residents were prioritised, then one would expect publicly owned green spaces to be
more or less evenly distributed across the spatial extent of towns and cities (Boone
et al. 2009; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Pham et al. 2012). On the other hand, if
green spaces were being used actively as an intervention to promote better human
health and well-being, their placement would mostly likely be adjacent to communities characterised by a high prevalence of health disorders, such as depression and
obesity (Lin et al. 2014). However, either is rarely the case, as individuals from
ethnic/racial minorities (Heynen et al. 2006; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Wolch
et al. 2013) and/or lower socio-economic status (Vaughan et al. 2013) have comparatively worse access to high-quality green space than the rest of the population.
It is therefore vital to ensure that the health benefits that might be derived from
conservation initiatives are not just confined to societal groups that have the financial and/or social means to access them (Wolch et al. 2014).
12.4 Experiencing Nature to Promote Conservation
It is commonly asserted that urbanisation has led to the human population becoming
progressively disconnected from the natural world (Wilson 1984; Pyle 2003; Miller
2005), a phenomenon that has variously been referred to as the ‘extinction of experience’ (Miller 2005), ‘nature deficit disorder’ (Louv 2008) and ‘ecological boredom’ (Monbiot 2013). By exposing people to nature, it is thought that these
experiences can enhance an individual’s connection with nature and, in turn, promote conservation concern and pro-environmental behaviours (see Soga and Gaston
Z. G. Davies et al.
offers residents a different sort of nature experience to more manicured green spaces
(Seeland et al. 2002; Konijnendijk 2008).
The decisions regarding where green spaces should be located and how they are
managed are complex, with conservation value being one of many factors that must
be taken into consideration. Inevitably, biodiversity will be traded off against other
economic and societal goals (Nilon et al. 2017). However, maximising the size of
green spaces planned for both people and biodiversity is likely to be important for
their success. While it is widely accepted that larger areas are likely to sustain more
species (Beninde et al. 2015), evidence is growing to suggest that the same might be
true for the supply of human health and well-being benefits. For instance, larger
forested areas are preferred for outdoor activities (Tyrväinen et al. 2007).
Another core challenge associated with maximising the human health outcomes
derived from experiencing nature is making sure that biodiversity is in the right
locations for the right people. This is critical because the likelihood of someone
visiting a site drops dramatically with distance, with only the fraction of the population that is already strongly connected to nature willing to travel to experience it
(Shanahan et al. 2015). Indeed, cities are often characterised by a wide array of
inequalities, with those living in deprived communities having the most to gain
from using nearby green spaces (Mitchell and Popham 2008; Kabisch Chap. 5, this
volume; Cook et al. Chap. 11, this volume). If the health and well-being of all urban
residents were prioritised, then one would expect publicly owned green spaces to be
more or less evenly distributed across the spatial extent of towns and cities (Boone
et al. 2009; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Pham et al. 2012). On the other hand, if
green spaces were being used actively as an intervention to promote better human
health and well-being, their placement would mostly likely be adjacent to communities characterised by a high prevalence of health disorders, such as depression and
obesity (Lin et al. 2014). However, either is rarely the case, as individuals from
ethnic/racial minorities (Heynen et al. 2006; Landry and Chakroborty 2009; Wolch
et al. 2013) and/or lower socio-economic status (Vaughan et al. 2013) have comparatively worse access to high-quality green space than the rest of the population.
It is therefore vital to ensure that the health benefits that might be derived from
conservation initiatives are not just confined to societal groups that have the financial and/or social means to access them (Wolch et al. 2014).
12.4 Experiencing Nature to Promote Conservation
It is commonly asserted that urbanisation has led to the human population becoming
progressively disconnected from the natural world (Wilson 1984; Pyle 2003; Miller
2005), a phenomenon that has variously been referred to as the ‘extinction of experience’ (Miller 2005), ‘nature deficit disorder’ (Louv 2008) and ‘ecological boredom’ (Monbiot 2013). By exposing people to nature, it is thought that these
experiences can enhance an individual’s connection with nature and, in turn, promote conservation concern and pro-environmental behaviours (see Soga and Gaston
Z. G. Davies et al.