Page - 194 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

194 9.3.1.6 Type of  Contact with  the  Biodiverse Environment Table 9.3 details the type of contact by biodiversity level. In general, authors hypoth- esised that direct or indirect contact with high biodiverse environments would have a positive effect on mental health and well-being. However, the majority of studies investigated the amount of biodiversity near to the home without specifying the type of contact (Annerstedt van den Bosch et  al. 2015; Cox et  al. 2017; Duarte-Tagles et  al. 2015; Jones 2017; Rantakokko et  al. 2018; Saw et  al. 2015; Wheeler et  al. 2015). Five studies, all experimental, considered indirect contact with biodiversity (Cracknell et  al. 2016, 2017; Johansson et  al. 2014; White et  al. 2017; Wolf et  al. 2017). In these studies, participants experienced biodiversity indirectly by viewing photographs (Cracknell et  al. 2017; Johansson et  al. 2014; White et  al. 2017), videos (Wolf et  al. 2017) or an aquarium exhibit (Cracknell et  al. 2016). Four studies con- sidered direct contact with biodiversity by assessing users who were in specific environments (Carrus et  al. 2015; Foo 2016; Marselle et  al. 2015, 2016). The impacts of changes in biodiversity on mental health and well-being were investi- gated in 2 studies. Annerstedt van den Bosch et  al. (2015) assessed the relationship between mental health and moving to a neighbourhood that is perceived to be ‘lush, rich in species’. Jones (2017) examined the mental health and well-being impact of biodiversity loss of North American ash trees due to the invasive species EAB.  None of the studies investigated dose-response relationships of the effect of biodiversity on mental health or well-being. 9.3.1.7 Moderation Analyses Moderation analyses were conducted in 4 studies (Carrus et  al. 2015; Jones 2017; Wheeler et  al. 2015; White et  al. 2017). These were categorised as either personal (e.g. gender, age, socio-economic status) or contextual (e.g. urbanicity), based on previous research (Hartig et  al. 2014; Markevych et  al. 2017). Gender was found to moderate the influence of perceived biodiversity on positive affect and recovery; men reported greater positive affect and recovery from high (perceived) species rich environments (White et  al. 2017). Age moderated the effect of perceived species richness on arousal (White et  al. 2017), and biodiversity loss on life satisfaction (Jones 2017). People less than 35  years old reported more arousal from a perceived species rich environment, than those aged 35 and over (White et  al. 2017). Whilst all age groups reported a reduction in life satisfaction from living in EAB infected areas, the largest (and only statistically significant) impact was for young adults aged 18–24  years old (Jones 2017). Socio-economic status was found to moderate the effect of biodiversity on health; the associations of Shannon Diversity of land cover types and bird species richness on health were the strongest for individuals who lived in the most socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods (Wheeler et  al. 2015). Other personal variables such as being a member of an environmental organ- isation (White et  al. 2017) had no moderating effect. The biodiversity-health rela- tionship was also moderated by urbanicity. In Wheeler et  al.’s (2015) study, Shannon Diversity of land cover types had the strongest association with good health for M. R. Marselle et al.