Page - 284 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

284 Highlights • Green spaces vary in their conservation value, depending on the biodiversity present. • Very few are designed  and/or  managed to deliver synergistic conservation and health benefits. • Evidence suggests health might be related to specific, complex natural environments. • These green spaces might be of greater conservation value. • To maximise health, biodiversity must be in the right places for the right people. 12.1 Green Spaces Managed Primarily for  People Green spaces may support dramatically different levels of biodiversity, depending on their location, history, purpose and use by people. At one end of the spectrum are the green spaces that have been designed with human health and well-being primar- ily in mind. Historically, these areas were planned to provide inhabitants with relief from the unsanitary conditions that prevailed in overcrowded industrialised cities (Rayner and Lang 2012) and,  while constructed from nature in the form of vegeta- tion, there was no explicit consideration of whether these areas provided valuable habitats for species. Indeed, this anthropocentric view of managing natural resources for the benefit of people has re-emerged over the past two decades, with an empha- sis on finding nature-based solutions to issues such as heat mitigation, pollution reduction and storm water protection (e.g. MA 2005; TEEB 2010; European Commission 2011; European Commission Horizon 2020 Expert Group 2015). This is particularly true for urban areas where the majority of the human population across the world live, and improving the health and well-being of these city dwellers is a priority in many national and international policy agendas (European Commission Horizon 2020 Expert Group 2015). Urban areas are often characterised from a conservation perspective by the nega- tive impacts they have on the ecosystems they replace and abut (e.g. see the discus- sion in Gaston 2010). Green spaces within cities are often considered too small and isolated from one another to sustain viable species populations (Goddard et  al. 2010), requiring a collaborative effort on the part of different stakeholders to redress the lack of connectivity (Davies et  al. 2009; Dearborn and Kark 2010). One legacy associated with green spaces intended to deliver aesthetic and recreational benefits is the simplification of habitats as a consequence of frequent management (e.g. mowing, pruning of trees and shrubs, removal of deadwood; Aronson et  al. 2017). Likewise, the desire to maximise the multi-functionality of green spaces and infra- structure (e.g. green roofs, sustainable urban drainage systems) has perpetuated this problem further through the planting of horticultural cultivars rather than native species (Haase et  al. 2017). While some of these initiatives can support biodiversity (e.g. non-native flowering species can be beneficial for some bees; MacIvor and Z. G. Davies et al.