Page - 263 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

263 such guidance was not being implemented by all local authorities and Pauleit et  al. (2003) recommended the standards become flexible to address local contexts. Whilst greenspace standards may be appropriate to promote human health and well- being, these may need to be revised if greenspace is to mitigate the impacts of cli- mate change on urban centres. For additional discussion about how human health is addressed in planning legislation, see Heiland et  al. Chap. 20, this volume. The International Convention on Biodiversity (2017) suggested that there is already sufficient evidence to justify several actions to protect human health, includ- ing integrating biodiverse greenspaces in urban development. It identified the need to address the drivers of ill health and biodiversity loss together (for further discus- sion on policies linking biodiversity, health and climate change, see Korn et  al. Chap. 14, this volume). Governments should invest in research and monitoring, including quantifying the savings from reduced health-care costs and the enhanced productivity that would accompany climate change mitigation (Convention on Biodiversity 2017; Watts et  al. 2015). Internationally, governments must support countries to become low carbon economies as a global endeavour (Watts et  al. 2015), since consumption in wealthier countries drives carbon use in less wealthy countries. Public health professionals need to engage the public as well (Corner et  al. 2014): framing climate change concerns around health and well-being may be more powerful than arguing to conserve the environment without an explicit link to human health (Myers et  al. 2012). 11.4 Public Health Action at a  Local Level Locally, a public health-informed system would encourage cities to support lifestyles that benefit both humans and the environment. Steps to achieve this include the devel- opment of highly energy-efficient sustainable housing; available low-cost active transportation; and increased access to greenspaces. These measures would promote more resilience in human health, whilst also reducing urban pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, rates of diseases associated with poor air quality (Watts et  al. 2015) and diseases associated with a sedentary lifestyle (e.g. cardiovascular disease, cancer, obe- sity, diabetes). Whilst we acknowledge that all such actions are vital to the public health professional’s role, here we focus on access to biodiverse greenspaces. Although cities are places where the benefits of nature have been historically disregarded in favour of clean and hygienic space (Keune et  al. 2013), the concept of greenspace as a resource for public health is long-standing. Access to, and immer- sion with, nature was first championed in 1772 by the English politician, Joseph Addison and later by the founder of nursing, Florence Nightingale (1860). Many Victorian public parks were created as a public health resource (Wheater et  al. 2007). Historically, the visual experiences of rural landscapes as a source of refresh- ment and renewal of physical, mental and spiritual health was thought to comple- ment medical approaches, and this belief influenced the location of asylums in the 19th century (Hickman 2009). The tradition of therapeutic landscapes was sug- gested in 1992 by Wilbert Gesler (Bell et  al. 2018), who described these as natural 11 Biodiversity and  Health in  the  Face of  Climate Change: Implications for  Public…