Seite - 426 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

426 • Planning ‘greenways for mobility’ is an appropriate way to include health issues. • Landscape planning must tackle key societal problems to be socially acknowledged. 19.1 Introduction Multiple studies now suggest that access to green or natural environments may play an important role in supporting public health, including mitigating air and water pollution, offering opportunities for healthy activities and contributing to better mental health (WHO 2016). This has been triggered in part by the challenges of climate change, especially increases in the urban heat-island effect, and the effects of urban densification in an increasingly urbanised society, which may have both positive and negative consequences for the health of urban residents. To tackle these challenges, health issues must be integrated into spatial and urban as well as land- scape planning, taking into account the potential for multiple positive health effects from urban green spaces and elements. However, there are many difficulties in determining how to guide and regulate such plans in the context of other demands for sustainable and cost-effective urban development (Wolch et  al. 2014). While green spaces exert many positive effects on human health, or at least have the potential to do so, they can at the same time be of great importance for protect- ing developing biodiversity. However, it should be noted that ‘green’ space, espe- cially in urban areas, does not necessarily contribute to biodiversity (especially its in situ protection) as it comprises, for example, sport grounds, intensively used grassland, private gardens and monoculture cropland or forests. Nonetheless, even sites like these, despite certain adverse environmental effects (e.g. groundwater pol- lution), can also have positive environmental and human health benefits that should not be overlooked, even if they often could be enhanced, especially in terms of biodiversity. In this chapter, health is understood according to the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO) as a state of complete physical, mental and social well- being (WHO 2017a). Consequently, for the purpose of our interest in environment- health links, health can be divided into social, mental, physical and aesthetic-symbolic components (the last category meaning that urban green could, for example, sym- bolise good human-nature relationships to a person, which might support their well- being), which need to be considered equally (Rittel et  al. 2014, 2016).1 Moreover, health promotion should be distinguished from health protection: health protection refers to preventing potential health risks and diseases, whereas health promotion focuses on maintaining health, strengthening health resources and establishing health-promoting environments (ibid.). 1 The publications by Rittel et  al. (2014, 2016) are identical, the version from 2016 is the English translation of the original publication in German (2014). From here on we quote only Rittel et  al. (2016). S. Heiland et al.