 positively related to the biodiversity of all three taxonomic groups. However, in an unforeseen twist, the relevant value was not actual biodiversity, as assessed by the researchers themselves, but the perceived biodiversity reported by survey respondents. Surprisingly, the relationships between well-being and actual species richness were inconsistent: While people responded positively to higher levels of avian biodiversity, they responded negatively to plant diversity and neutrally to fluctuations in butterfly numbers.
In reality, numbers of bird, butterfly, and plant species varied independently of each other across the sites. Values estimated by visitors were highly correlated, though, suggesting that greenspace users may use one set of cues to estimate the diversity of all classes of local species. The authors of the study suggest that visitors' estimates may reflect awareness of certain key environmental features--the presence of a particular charismatic species, for instance, or abundance of wildlife rather than diversity; the exact mechanism still requires clarification. Regardless, one pattern is clear: Sheffield's citizens are not very well informed about their local flora and fauna. Of all people surveyed, only 2 could correctly identify all species shown to them in a series of 12 photographs (4 each of birds, butterflies, and plants); approximately a quarter of those questioned were unable to name even one.
(A wren, Troglodytes troglodytes--one of the most common and widespread species of birds found across the 34 study sites. Blackbirds, Turdus merula, and wood-pigeons, Columba palumbus, were also frequently observed. Common plant species included bramble, Rubus fruticosus, dandelion, Taraxacum agg., and sycamore, Acer pseudoplatanus, while whites, Pieris spp., and the speckled wood, Pararge aegeria, were the most encountered butterfly species.)
Importantly (though not surprisingly), the researchers found a clear correlation between an individual's identification skills and his/her ability to accurately estimate biodiversity in the study site. This suggests that there could be a tangible benefit to preserving or improving biodiversity in public greenspaces--but only if such efforts are coupled with education programs equipping people with basic species recognition skills. Under such scenarios, visitors would be better able to assess the richness of local wildlife species such that, in areas with higher levels of biodiversity, they would experience greater improvements to well-being. As the authors put it, this would "[unlock] win-win scenarios in which the design and management of greenspaces [could] maximize both biodiversity conservation and human well-being."
With a larger proportion of the population able to perform basic species identification, a beneficial side effect of natural history education might be a more widespread recognition of the often depauperate nature of urbanized habitats. This awareness could fuel, and/or add momentum to, further conservation efforts.
Dallimer, M., Irvine, K.N., Skinner, a.M.J., Davies, Z.G., Rouquette, J.R., Maltby, L.L., Warren, P.H., Armsworth, P.R., and Gaston, K.J. 2012. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 62(1): 47-55.
Thanks to the following websites for providing the images used in this post: