The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) advocates a pluralistic approach to valuation, focusing among others on quality of life (QoL) as endpoint. We take this latter suggestion forward and outline a QoL-approach to the valuation of changes in ecosystems and their services, based on subjective wellbeing. Although such an approach is not new, it has hardly been applied to the valuation of nature. We start with the definition of QoL and distinguish two dimensions, hedonistic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Furthermore, we show how a QoL-approach to valuation can take instrumental, relational, and even intrinsic values of nature into account, based on how we define these values. An open question is how to arrive from a valuation at the individual level to one a the collective level, taking distributive and intergenerational justice issues into account. In applying a QoL-approach, the operationalization of QoL itself is of paramount importance and the common use of a single question on life satisfaction is questioned. Strengths and limitations of the suggested approach are briefly discussed. Even though there are several issues that need addressing, we think that a QoL-approach will complement existing economic approaches to the valuation of nature.

Greenspace can promote health via diverse pathways. A common approach to assessing greenspace exposure is to estimate vegetation availability within buffers surrounding locations where people reside or spend time. However, no clear framework for informed buffer selection exists, and choices made show considerable heterogeneity, impeding evidence synthesis and causal inference. In this Personal View conducted by an interdisciplinary panel of experts, we aimed to establish a framework for informed buffer selection for epidemiological studies on greenspace. We began by reviewing available approaches for the selection of buffer types, which range from single fixed-location approaches to high-resolution mobility-based activity-space approaches, as well as different buffer sizes. We then summarised the determinants of buffer type and size selection including health outcomes and underlying mechanisms, study population, contextual factors, and data characteristics. Finally, based on these determinants, we developed recommendations for future research. Buffer type and size selection should be hypothesis driven, reflecting presumed greenspace-health mechanisms. Buffer selection should target activity-based approaches where feasible, and multiple buffer sizes should be tested. Overall, the assessment of greenspace exposure should shift from ad-hoc approaches to personalised, multiscale, and context-specific methods. We call for standardising and reporting the rationale for buffer selection to minimise bias and enhance comparability and evidence synthesis across studies.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies observed predominantly positive associations between the amount of nearby green space and a variety of health outcomes. Although nearness is assumed to be an important aspect of this association, the presence of own private green space is rarely studied. We investigated cross-sectional associations between the amount of domestic garden greenery and the prevalence of 21 health conditions. METHODS:Electronic health records of general practitioners, providing data on health conditions of individuals and where they lived for the year 2018, were linked with data from the same year on garden presence and size derived from the Netherlands' Cadastre, Land registry and Mapping Agency. Amount of garden greenery was assessed with high resolution aerial photographs. Data were available for about 800,000 persons from 294 practices. We performed multi-level logistic regression analyses with practice as second level, adjusting for multiple covariates, including socioeconomic status at individual and neighbourhood level. FINDINGS:Prevalence of 16 of the 21 health conditions was lower for at least the highest classes of garden greenery. The inverse association was strongest for intestinal tract infections, with an over 20 % lower prevalence if the garden contained at least 50 m2 greenery versus no garden. Including the overall amount of greenery within 125 m of the home in the analyses did not attenuate the results. Sex was an important moderator, with many associations being stronger for women. CONCLUSIONS:Own private green space is inversely associated with the prevalence of many health conditions, more so than other nearby green space. Responsible pathways are unclear. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to identify the pathways underlying the cross-sectional associations. Information on pathways may also offer clues on how to compensate for the absence of a domestic garden, which is likely to become more common due to urban densification.

This study explores the feasibility of modelling the presence of birds in domestic gardens with a sufficiently high degree of accuracy to be of use for investigating the added predictive value of bird presence in residential environments, in addition to that of greenery in those environments, for the well-being of the residents. On the one hand, this feasibility concerns the (preferably nationally) available data on environmental characteristics with predictive value for bird presence. On the other hand, it concerns the availability of sufficient data on actual bird presence to calibrate (and preferably validate) such a model. In particular, this latter concern is an issue which is explored in this report.

In the period 2019–2020, the effect of plants in the workspace on (a) the physical indoor climate, (b) the perception of the workspace by office workers, and (c) their health, well-being and functioning was investigated in nine organizations. This paper reports the outcomes of the latter part. A conceptual model describing the short-term, medium and long-term effect of plants on people was formulated, containing 18 outcome variables. A “Before After Control Impact” quasi-experimental research design was used. A control workspace and an intervention workspace were selected in each of the organizations. A pre-measurement was conducted in both. Correlational analyses, based on the pre-measurements in all organizations and workspaces, confirmed the associations proposed by the conceptual model to a large extent. After placing plants in the intervention workspace, a maximum of two post-intervention measurements were conducted (due to COVID-19 not in all nine organizations), the last one at least 4 months after the introduction of the plants. Overall significant effects were found on complaints about dry air (fewer), the sense of privacy (higher), the attractiveness of the workspace (higher), satisfaction with the workspace (greater) and having a health-related complaint, especially when at work (fewer). The first three effects were already observed in the analyses only including the first post-measurement. The latter two effects only showed up in the analyses including two post-measurements. No direct effect of the plants could be demonstrated on the 13 other outcome variables. The observed effects mainly concern outcome variables that are positioned at the beginning of the proposed causal chain, starting with plants and ending with mental health, absenteeism and job satisfaction.

This study investigates the association between having a domestic garden or not and the amount of greenery in this garden, and the prevalence of several types of diseases and disorders, as known by one’s general practitioner. Data on garden ownership and the amount of garden greenery, as well as on health, are available for about 800,000 people, all living within city limits. In the statistical analyses, the associations are corrected for, among other things, the socioeconomic status of the individual and its neighbourhood, but also for the local air quality and noise exposure. The results show that for a large number of diseases and disorders having a garden, and especially having more greenery in that garden, is associated with a lower prevalence.

Abstract Green space matters for mental health but is under constant pressure in an increasingly urbanising world. Often there is little space available in cities for green areas, so it is vital to optimise the design and usage of these available green spaces. To achieve this, experts in planning, design and nature conservation need to know which types and characteristics of green spaces are most beneficial for residents' mental health. A scoping review of studies that compare different green space types and characteristics on mental health was conducted. A total of 215 (experimental, observational and qualitative) papers were included in the scoping review. This review highlights a high level of heterogeneity in study design, geographical locations, mental health outcomes and green space measures. Few of the included studies were specifically designed to enable direct comparisons between green space types and characteristics (e.g. between parks and forests). The included studies have predominantly experimental research designs looking at the effects of short‐term exposure to green space on short‐term mental health outcomes (e.g. affect and physiological stress). More studies enabled only indirect comparisons, either within the same study or between different studies. Analysis of the direction of the mental health outcomes (positive, neutral, negative) from exposure to various types and characteristics of green space found positive (i.e. beneficial) effects across all green space types. However, green space characteristics did appear to render more diverse effects on mental health, which is especially the case for vegetation characteristics (e.g. higher vegetation density can be negative for mental health). The scoping review reveals gaps in the present evidence base, with a specific need for more studies directly comparing green space types and characteristics within the same study. Proposed future research directions include the use of longitudinal research designs focusing on green space characteristics, considering actual exposure and systematically addressing heterogeneity in factors influencing the relation between green spaces and mental health (e.g. type of interaction, user experience). Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

In the period 2019-2020, research was conducted at nine organizations on the effect of plants in the workspace on a) the physical indoor climate and b) the perception of the workspace by office workers and their health and well-being. A conceptual model describing the short-term, medium and long-term effect of plants on the indoor climate and health and well-being of people underlies this research. The effect of plants on the physical indoor climate was measured by sensors, the effect on the health and well-being of employees by questionnaires. A ‘Before After Control Impact’ research design was used. A control workspace and an intervention workspace were selected for each location. A pre-measurement was conducted in both. After placing plants in the intervention workspace, a maximum of two post-intervention measurements were conducted. The outbreak of COVID-19 led to this abbreviated and modified design: originally 6 post- measurements were planned to take place and a cross-over would be implemented at a number of organizations after 3 measurements, by transferring plants from the (original) intervention workspace to the (original) control workspace. Overall significant effects were found on the relative humidity (higher), complaints about dry air (fewer), the sense of privacy (higher), the attractiveness of the workspace (higher) and satisfaction with the workspace (greater). No direct effect of the plants could be demonstrated on a large number of other outcome measures. The observed effects mainly concern outcome measures that are positioned at the beginning of the assumed causal chain, starting with plants and ending with mental health, absenteeism and job satisfaction.

This project investigated the importance assigned to urban green space in national and local policies with respect to the following three issues: climate change, biodiversity, and public health and wellbeing. The study concentrated primarily on the health and wellbeing effects of green space. This was done by conducting interviews. Our conclusion is that green space has received increasing policy attention in recent decades, motivated by climate change, biodiversity loss and concern for the quality of life in urban areas. The Covid-19 pandemic has provided an additional impetus. Using green space to mitigate the effects of climate change appears to be the most concrete policy objective. Policymaking authorities are still looking to improve their knowledge on how green spaces can be designed to deliver the greatest wellbeing benefits and on the size of the health and wellbeing benefits that can be obtained in this way. Based on literature research, this appears not to be a case of the required scientific evidence not yet having found its way into policymaking circles, but rather of such evidence not (yet) being available. For the time being, the best approach would appear to be to provide ample, varied and well maintained green space within residential areas; this should not be restricted to green areas, but should also include smaller green elements in the streetscape---In dit project is onderzocht hoe binnen het rijks- en het gemeentelijke beleid wordt gedacht over het belang van groen in de stedelijke omgeving m.b.t. klimaatverandering, biodiversiteit, gezondheid en welzijn van burgers. Daarbij is met name ingezoomd op het belang van de gezondheids- en welzijnsbevorderende werking van groen. Dit is gedaan door middel van interviews. Conclusie is dat de beleidsmatige aandacht voor groen de laatste decennia is toegenomen. De coronapandemie heeft hier een extra impuls aan gegeven. Het inzetten van groen met het oog op de klimaatverandering lijkt het meest concreet uitgewerkt. Er is behoefte aan meer kennis omtrent hoe het groen het beste vormgegeven kan worden met het oog op de welzijnsfunctie, alsook aan kennis omtrent de omvang van de gezondheids- en welzijnsbaten van groene interventies. Op grond van literatuuronderzoek lijkt daarbij niet zozeer sprake van wetenschappelijke kennis die zijn weg naar de beleidspraktijk nog niet heeft gevonden, maar veeleer van het nog niet voorhanden zijn van dergelijke kennis. Vooralsnog lijkt een ruim, gevarieerd en goed onderhouden groenaanbod in de woonomgeving aanbevelenswaardig; daarbij gaat het niet alleen om groengebieden, maar ook om kleinere groenelementen in het straatbeeld.

Nature’s mental health benefits are well-established in the literature, but there is little research on which types and characteristics of urban greenery are most relevant for mental well-being in general, and during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular. This study examined the link between having a (green) garden or a green view from the main window of the home, as well as the perceived quantity and quality of neighbourhood green areas and streetscape greenery, and the self-reported change in mental well-being since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adults residing in the Netherlands (N = 521, 67% female) completed an online survey in December 2020 and January 2021. It included items on the frequency of contact with the aforementioned outdoor spaces, as well as their quantity, natural features, and quality. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the quantity of the greenery mattered, but the quality was more strongly associated with well-being. In particular, well-maintained, attractive, and varied streetscape greenery was just as relevant as a garden with diverse plants. This beneficial association between streetscape greenery and mental well-being was stronger for female participants. Understanding the benefits of the different types and characteristics of urban greenery, and who they are most relevant for, can assist policymakers and planners in designing cities that promote health and resilience.

As part of the expertise development within the WOT, and in collaboration with a number of other knowledge institutes, we worked in recent years on the Natural Capital Model. This model consists of a set of ecosystem service models and is designed to determining the biophysical state of the natural capital in the Netherlands (mapping), as well as estimating the effects of existing and new policy and future developments on this natural capital (modelling). The model determines the potential societal demand for goods and services and to what extent ecosystems in the Netherlands meet this demand. The aim of this report is to present the technical underpinning of the latest version of the Natural Capital Model, including model assumptions, data requirements and data outputs. With the right input, the model can generate figures and spatial maps for the thirteen ecosystem services provided by urban, rural and natural areas: drinking water production, wood production, biomass for energy production, pollination, soil fertility, water retention, urban cooling, water purification, pest control, carbon sequestration, air quality regulation, outdoor recreation and natural heritage. This report is written following the Status A quality criteria of the WUR. Status A quality is about model quality, describing the model, assumptions, and assessing validation, calibration and uncertainty analysis. Actually obtaining Status A, applying the model and improving the individual ecosystem service models will be a priority for the coming years.

Several studies have observed an inverse relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related behavior of children, as reported by parents or teachers, and the amount of green space in their residential environment. Research using other, more objective measures to determine ADHD prevalence is scarce and could strengthen the evidence base considerably. In this study, it is investigated whether a similar beneficial association will be observed if the use of ADHD-related medication is selected as an outcome measure. More specifically, registry data from a health insurance company on the reimbursement of ADHD-related medication in 2011 were available for 248,270 children between 5 and 12 years of age. Amounts of green space within 250 and 500 m of the home address were calculated. Multilevel logistic regression analyses for the prevalence of use were conducted, including the following covariates: sex, age, urbanity of the neighborhood, neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), and percentage of people with a non-Western migration background in the neighborhood population. Results showed that the amount of green space was inversely related to the prevalence of use of ADHD medication. Moreover, the relationship was strongest among children living in the least wealthy neighborhoods and absent among those living in the wealthiest neighborhoods. Results also show that in less wealthy neighborhoods, there is, on average, less green space available nearby: children who are likely to benefit most from nearby green space tend to have the least of it.

The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health has been closely following the research on green and blue spaces because of their importance in addressing human and ecosystem health in urban planning, especially in the context of climate change. Particular attention has been paid to the mental health effects of such spaces. The EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on Biodiversity and Mental Health conducted two systematic reviews on the types and characteristics of green and blue spaces, in relation to a broad set of mental health aspects. The reviews demonstrated the overall positive relationship between green and blue spaces and mental health. This report summarizes the key findings of the systematic reviews, briefly looks at the relevant WHO tools and strategies, and reflects on future needs for research and action. The comparisons of the different green space types and characteristics produced mixed results, indicating that there is no one single space type or characteristic that is a “gold standard” that works best for everyone, everywhere and at any time. For blue spaces, few high-quality papers were available, with little systematic variation in the type of blue space exposure. This prevented the formulation of firm conclusions and recommendations. Finally, the role of access to green and blue spaces, as a refuge for people to relax and socially interact, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is discussed

Urban green space plays an important role in the mental and physical health of urbanites, as well as of people working in or visiting urban areas (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2016). But green space can be very diverse in its typology, including for instance urban forests, parks, playgrounds, allotments and urban farming locations. These green space types can also differ greatly in their defining characteristics; for instance, parks can differ in scenic beauty, vegetative composition or openness. Globally, continuing urbanization, as well as climate change, is increasingly putting pressure on the existence of green spaces within urban areas (e.g. Dallimer et al., 2011; Richards & Belcher, 2020). The scarcity of urban green space and the desire to create liveable cities requires in-depth knowledge on how different green space types and characteristics influence mental health, to facilitate well-informed design and planning choices.

Biodiversity is a cornerstone of human health and well-being. However, while evidence of the contributions of nature to human health is rapidly building, research into how biodiversity relates to human health remains limited in important respects. In particular, a better mechanistic understanding of the range of pathways through which biodiversity can influence human health is needed. These pathways relate to both psychological and social processes as well as biophysical processes. Building on evidence from across the natural, social and health sciences, we present a conceptual framework organizing 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, stress reduction); (iii) building capacities (e.g. promoting physical activity, transcendent experiences); and (iv) causing harm (e.g. dangerous wildlife, zoonotic diseases, allergens). We discuss how to test components of the biodiversity-health framework with available 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.

Nature underpins human well-being in critical ways, especially in health. Nature provides pollination of nutritious crops, purification of drinking water, protection from floods, and climate security, among other well-studied health benefits. A crucial, yet challenging, research frontier is clarifying how nature promotes physical activity for its many mental and physical health benefits, particularly in densely populated cities with scarce and dwindling access to nature. Here we frame this frontier by conceptually developing a spatial decision-support tool that shows where, how, and for whom urban nature promotes physical activity, to inform urban greening efforts and broader health assessments. We synthesize what is known, present a model framework, and detail the model steps and data needs that can yield generalizable spatial models and an effective tool for assessing the urban nature–physical activity relationship. Current knowledge supports an initial model that can distinguish broad trends and enrich urban planning, spatial policy, and public health decisions. New, iterative research and application will reveal the importance of different types of urban nature, the different subpopulations who will benefit from it, and nature’s potential contribution to creating more equitable, green, livable cities with active inhabitants.