460
health professionals should care about biodiversity loss and climate change, and
support nature conservation and climate change legislation. At a local level, public
health professionals could better link with local policies and practitioners to encourage greater access to and use of biodiverse urban green spaces through ‘naturebased activities’ like walking groups and gardening. The authors demonstrate how
access to and use of natural environments can reduce social inequalities in health, a
key goal of modern public health policies and programmes. However, individuals
from socio-economically deprived areas are often less likely to be exposed to, and
experience the benefits of, green spaces. As such, the authors highlight ‘naturebased social prescriptions’ as a public health intervention to facilitate contact with
biodiverse natural environments for those who are less well-off in society. Specific
recommendations by the authors that help implement biodiversity and climate
change impacts into public health practice include linking nature conservation, public health and climate change priorities in existing local, national and international
policies. In addition, working with planners and managers to ensure that green
spaces are evenly distributed in urban areas is needed to avoid social inequalities in
health, and robust evaluations of ‘nature-based’ interventions are vital in order to
demonstrate causality.
Zoe Davies and co-authors discuss the impact that different nature conservation
management options can have for both biodiversity and human health. The first
management option, managing green spaces for people, involves no or little explicit
consideration of the biodiversity quality of those spaces. These green spaces are
typically in cities and designed for people rather than nature, which often results in
small, isolated islands of green space that contain paved paths, recreation equipment, easy-to-maintain plants, and frequent pruning and mowing. The second management option, green spaces managed for biodiversity, involves explicit
consideration of biodiversity conservation. These spaces tend to be protected areas
that can be geographically distant from cities. Recreational activities of humans in
protected areas are mainly managed to protect biodiversity. The authors highlight
that the third management option, nature for people and nature, is rare, and discuss
opportunities to manage green spaces in cities for both biodiversity and human
health. For example, nature conservation professionals could work with city planners and landscape architects to add biodiversity into urban green spaces.
Recommendations for managing nature for people and biodiversity from the authors
include: maximizing the size of urban green spaces to sustain more species and
contribute to greater health outcomes; maximizing the health benefits of nature by
creating smaller urban green spaces that can be accessed and used by people; and a
more international scope to understand how biodiversity and health relationships
differ by cultural context.
As the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss will require humans
to change their behaviour to consume far fewer resources, Raymond De Young discusses how to initiate long-term behaviour change. This new behavioural context –
characterised by the necessity for fundamental change across multiple behaviours
and a lack of clarity about what future behaviours will be needed – requires a differM. R. Marselle et al.
health professionals should care about biodiversity loss and climate change, and
support nature conservation and climate change legislation. At a local level, public
health professionals could better link with local policies and practitioners to encourage greater access to and use of biodiverse urban green spaces through ‘naturebased activities’ like walking groups and gardening. The authors demonstrate how
access to and use of natural environments can reduce social inequalities in health, a
key goal of modern public health policies and programmes. However, individuals
from socio-economically deprived areas are often less likely to be exposed to, and
experience the benefits of, green spaces. As such, the authors highlight ‘naturebased social prescriptions’ as a public health intervention to facilitate contact with
biodiverse natural environments for those who are less well-off in society. Specific
recommendations by the authors that help implement biodiversity and climate
change impacts into public health practice include linking nature conservation, public health and climate change priorities in existing local, national and international
policies. In addition, working with planners and managers to ensure that green
spaces are evenly distributed in urban areas is needed to avoid social inequalities in
health, and robust evaluations of ‘nature-based’ interventions are vital in order to
demonstrate causality.
Zoe Davies and co-authors discuss the impact that different nature conservation
management options can have for both biodiversity and human health. The first
management option, managing green spaces for people, involves no or little explicit
consideration of the biodiversity quality of those spaces. These green spaces are
typically in cities and designed for people rather than nature, which often results in
small, isolated islands of green space that contain paved paths, recreation equipment, easy-to-maintain plants, and frequent pruning and mowing. The second management option, green spaces managed for biodiversity, involves explicit
consideration of biodiversity conservation. These spaces tend to be protected areas
that can be geographically distant from cities. Recreational activities of humans in
protected areas are mainly managed to protect biodiversity. The authors highlight
that the third management option, nature for people and nature, is rare, and discuss
opportunities to manage green spaces in cities for both biodiversity and human
health. For example, nature conservation professionals could work with city planners and landscape architects to add biodiversity into urban green spaces.
Recommendations for managing nature for people and biodiversity from the authors
include: maximizing the size of urban green spaces to sustain more species and
contribute to greater health outcomes; maximizing the health benefits of nature by
creating smaller urban green spaces that can be accessed and used by people; and a
more international scope to understand how biodiversity and health relationships
differ by cultural context.
As the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss will require humans
to change their behaviour to consume far fewer resources, Raymond De Young discusses how to initiate long-term behaviour change. This new behavioural context –
characterised by the necessity for fundamental change across multiple behaviours
and a lack of clarity about what future behaviours will be needed – requires a differM. R. Marselle et al.