Cited by 221Urban Green Space and HealthLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesUrban and spatial planning

A systematic review of the health and well-being benefits of biodiverse environments.

Open access
Lovell, Rebecca, Wheeler, Benedict W., Higgins, Sahran L., Irvine, Katherine N., Depledge, Michael H.·2014·Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B

Abstract

Recent ecosystem service models have placed biodiversity as a central factor in the processes that link the natural environment to health. While it is recognized that disturbed ecosystems might negatively affect human well-being, it is not clear whether biodiversity is related to or can promote "good" human health and well-being. The aim of this study was to systematically identify, summarize, and synthesize research that had examined whether biodiverse environments are health promoting. The objectives were twofold: (1) to map the interdisciplinary field of enquiry and (2) to assess whether current evidence enables us to characterize the relationship. Due to the heterogeneity of available evidence a narrative synthesis approach was used, which is textual rather than statistical. Extensive searches identified 17 papers that met the inclusion criteria: 15 quantitative and 2 qualitative. The evidence was varied in disciplinary origin, with authors approaching the question using different study designs and methods, and conceptualizations of biodiversity, health, and well-being. There is some evidence to suggest that biodiverse natural environments promote better health through exposure to pleasant environments or the encouragement of health-promoting behaviors. There was also evidence of inverse relationships, particularly at a larger scale (global analyses). However, overall the evidence is inconclusive and fails to identify a specific role for biodiversity in the promotion of better health. High-quality interdisciplinary research is needed to produce a more reliable evidence base. Of particular importance is identifying the specific ecosystem services, goods, and processes through which biodiversity may generate good health and well-being.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10937404.2013.856361

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Church, A., J. Burgess, and N. Ravenscroft. 2011. Cultural Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK.
  2. Croucher, K., L. Myers, and J. Bretherton. 2007. The links between green space and health: a critical literature review. Greenspace Scotland. Stirling, UK. Published at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2013.856361
  3. Jorgensen, A., E. Wilson, and A. van den Berg. 2010. Evaluating stress relief in urban green and open spaces: Does perceived naturalness make a difference? Paper presented at 'Trees and Forests in British Society' Conference. April 13th to April 15th 2010, Heriott Watt University. Edinburgh, UK.
  4. Kellert, S., and E. O. Wilson 1995. The Biophillia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington.
  5. Norris, K. 2011. Biodiversity in the Context of Ecosystem Services UK National Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Published at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2013.856361
  6. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lovell, R., Wheeler, B. W., Higgins, S. L., Irvine, K. N., & Depledge, M. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • James Hutton Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Lovell, Rebecca
Venue
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B
Published
2014-01-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 1093-7404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-6950
OpenAlex
W1997819511
Cited by
221
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Exeter
  • European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Urban and spatial planning
Keywords
biodiversity, human health, well-being, ecosystem services, health-promoting behaviors, environmental exposure, ecosystem disturbance, interdisciplinary research
MeSH terms
Animals, Environmental Health, Humans, Public Health, Ecosystem, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review