Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Biodiversity (3)
- Ecosystem services (2)
- Birds (1)
- Common Agricultural Policy (1)
- Ecosystem Services (1)
- European Green Deal (1)
- Human health (1)
- Human well-being (1)
- Life-Satisfaction (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Nature (1)
- Nature Contributions to People (1)
- Nature Valuation (1)
- Nature contributions to people (1)
- Plants (1)
- Public health (1)
- SMART targets (1)
- Subjective Well-Being (1)
- agriculture (1)
- biodiversity (1)
- climate change (1)
- evidence-based policy (1)
- public goods (1)
Making agriculture sustainable is a global challenge. In the European Union (EU), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is failing with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, land degradation as well as socio‐economic challenges.
The European Commission's proposal for a CAP post‐2020 provides a scope for enhanced sustainability. However, it also allows Member States to choose low‐ambition implementation pathways. It therefore remains essential to address citizens' demands for sustainable agriculture and rectify systemic weaknesses in the CAP, using the full breadth of available scientific evidence and knowledge.
Concerned about current attempts to dilute the environmental ambition of the future CAP, and the lack of concrete proposals for improving the CAP in the draft of the European Green Deal, we call on the European Parliament, Council and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points for delivering sustainable food production, biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation.
Knowledge is available to help moving towards evidence‐based, sustainable European agriculture that can benefit people, nature and their joint futures.
The statements made in this article have the broad support of the scientific community, as expressed by above 3,600 signatories to the preprint version of this manuscript. The list can be found here (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3685632).
A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
Nature benefits human health. To date, however, little is known whether biodiversity relates to human health. While some local and city level studies show that species diversity, as a measure of biodiversity, can have positive effects, there is a lack of studies about the relationship between different species diversity measures and human health, especially at larger spatial scales. Here, we conduct cross-sectional analyses of the association between species diversity and human health across Germany, while controlling for socio-economic factors and other nature characteristics. As indicators for human health, we use the mental (MCS) and physical health (PCS) component scales of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, Short Form Health Questionnaire – SF12). For species diversity, we use species richness and abundance estimates of two species groups: plants and birds. We phrase the following hypotheses: plant and bird species are positively associated with mental and physical health (H1 & H3); bird abundance is positively related to mental health (H2). Our results demonstrate a significant positive relationship between plant and bird species richness and mental health across all model variations controlling for a multitude of other factors. These results highlight the importance for species diversity for people’s mental health and well-being. Therefore, policy makers, landscape planners and greenspace managers on the local and national level should consider supporting biodiverse environments to promote mental health and wellbeing. For this purpose, we propose to use species diversity measures as indicators for salutogenic (health promoting) characteristics of nature, landscape and urban green space.
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 affects human well-being in multiple ways. However, the association between species diversity and human well-being at larger spatial scales remains largely unexplored. Here, we examine the relationship between species diversity and human well-being at the continental scale, while controlling for other known drivers of well-being. We related socio-economic data from more than 26,000 European citizens across 26 countries with macroecological data on species diversity and nature characteristics for Europe. Human well-being was measured as self-reported life-satisfaction and species diversity as the species richness of several taxonomic groups (e.g. birds, mammals and trees). Our results show that bird species richness is positively associated with life-satisfaction across Europe. We found a relatively strong relationship, indicating that the effect of bird species richness on life-satisfaction may be of similar magnitude to that of income. We discuss two, non-exclusive pathways for this relationship: the direct multisensory experience of birds, and beneficial landscape properties which promote both bird diversity and people's well-being. Based on these results, this study argues that management actions for the protection of birds and the landscapes that support them would benefit humans. We suggest that political and societal decision-making should consider the critical role of species diversity for human well-being.