Seite - 289 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

289 2016; De Young Chap. 13, this volume). For instance, Rogerson et  al. (2017) found relationships between people experiencing nature and positive environmental behaviour, such as volunteering with conservation organisations. Likewise, child- hood experiences of nature have been linked to connectedness to nature in a study of French adults (Colléony et  al. 2017), and individuals who grew up in rural areas demonstrated a greater preference for gardens containing more flowers and wood- land species than urbanities (Shwartz et  al. 2013). Nonetheless, the evidence under- lying the relationship between nature experience and positive attitudes/behaviours remains scant and is yet to be fully established (Soga and Gaston 2016). Individuals may not need to experience biodiversity to want to conserve it (termed ‘existence value’) (Cooper et  al. 2016). This has been shown for coastal ecosystems on Vancouver Island, Canada (Klain and Chan 2012)  and marine pro- tected areas in the UK (Kenter et  al. 2016), and can be a potential mediator between nature connectedness and well-being (Cleary et  al. 2017). Additionally, it is difficult to draw meaningful lessons from studies due to the level of inconsistency between the definitions of what constitutes an experience, what comprises nature, and what attitude or perception is being measured (Clayton et  al. 2017; Ives et  al. 2017). Moreover, the ‘extinction of experience’ concept is considered oversimplified because it fails to acknowledge the multi-dimensionality of people’s experiences of biodiversity (Clayton et  al. 2017), and that some interactions with species can be negative, frightening or uncomfortable (Bixler and Floyd 1997). Relationships with nature are likely to be highly specific to individuals, with cultural contexts and norms also being important and variable across societies (Voigt and Wurster 2014). For example, feeding wild birds is a very popular human-biodiversity interaction in both the UK and the USA (Freyfogle 2003; Defra 2011), but negative associations with birds in Europe may inhibit a connectedness to nature for some individuals (Ratcliffe et  al. 2013). Similarly, a fear of birds (known as ‘ornithophobia’) in Honduras has been reported to occur where birds are perceived as either pest species or as negative spiritual symbols (Bonta 2008). This is a fundamental consideration when designing and maintaining green spaces, as synergistic human health and con- servation benefits will not be delivered successfully if the residents are intolerant of the biodiversity they support. 12.5 Conclusion While very few green spaces are implemented explicitly with both conservation and human health and well-being in mind, the potential for delivering win-win out- comes is considerable. This is particularly apposite, given the rate and distribution of future urbanisation predicted across the highly biodiverse regions of the Global South. However, the rapidly growing body of research examining nature-related health benefits has yet to tease apart the relative value of green spaces that support different levels of biodiversity and ecosystem complexity. This knowledge gap 12 Biodiversity and  Health: Implications for  Conservation