Seite - 288 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

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 popula- tion 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 commu- nities 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 com- paratively 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 finan- cial 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 expe- rience’ (Miller 2005), ‘nature deficit disorder’ (Louv 2008) and ‘ecological bore- dom’ (Monbiot 2013). By exposing people to nature, it is thought that these experiences can enhance an individual’s connection with nature and, in turn, pro- mote conservation concern and pro-environmental behaviours (see Soga and Gaston Z. G. Davies et al.