Nature and its constituents are known to affect human well-being in positive and negative ways. Nature can be beneficial for humans by providing, for instance, food, recreation or inspiration. Natural disasters or transmitted diseases are, on the other hand, examples of nature’s detrimental or harmful contributions to human well-being. Such positive as well as negative effects have been termed Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and can be categorized into three different types of contributions: regulating, material and non-material NCP. While regulating and material NCP have been studied extensively, research on the non-material NCP is less common in comparison, especially regarding non-material NCP of biodiversity and wildlife. This dissertation therefore aims at shedding light on the non-material links between biodiversity, wildlife and human well-being. The thesis presents the results of three individual research studies in three separate chapters (CH1, 2 & 3). In the first chapter (CH1) I conduct a systematic literature review on the non-material contributions of wildlife. Several previous reviews have published overviews on the non-material contributions of wildlife. However, only a few of these reviews examine both the positive and negative effects of wildlife in combination. These reviews usually cover few aspects of human well-being (e.g. recreation, health, psychological well-being) or just focus on a specific group of wildlife species (e.g. carnivores, scavengers). In addition, the pathways determining how wildlife affects human well-being are yet little understood. The aim of this review is therefore to create a holistic overview of the current knowledge on non-material contributions of wildlife (WCP), by summarising research on positive and negative effects and disentangling potential channels of human-wildlife experiences. My results show that most studies in scientific literature report negative WCP. However, over the last decade the number of publications on positive WCP has increased, mainly in the Global North. This change in research focus, at the turn of the century, may be related to the newly emerging ideas and perspectives on nature during that time (e.g. Ecosystem Services and NCP). The results may also indicate different research interests across global regions and a focus on positive WCP (especially in the Global North). Surprisingly, the review identifies a lack of joint systematic assessments of positive and negative WCP across taxa, human well-being dimensions and ways (channels) of wildlife experiences. Studies show taxon-specific differences, with predominantly positive WCP reported for birds and predominantly negative WCP published for mammals and reptiles. Physical health was the most examined human well-being dimension, while many others, such as subjective well-being, social well-being, learning, identity or sense of place were rarely studied in comparison. The two channels of wildlife experiences that have been mainly studied or reported are Interaction and Knowing. While Interaction describes multisensory experiences in which people physically interact with wildlife. Knowing describes the metaphysical connection between humans and wildlife that arises through thinking or remembering experiences from wildlife encounters (including knowledge about wildlife). To date, only few published studies examine the relationship between biodiversity and human well-being across larger spatial scales. For instance, little is known about how biodiversity is related to human well-being on the national or continental level. The second and third chapter (CH2 & 3) are thus comprised of two empirical case studies which examine the relationship between biodiversity and human well-being across Germany and Europe, respectively. As indicator for biodiversity, I use different species diversity measures including species richness and abundance. In the second chapter (CH2) I analyse the association between species richness and human health across Germany. The results demonstrate a significant positive relationship between plant and bird species richness and mental health while controlling for a multitude of socio-economic and demographic factors as well as other nature characteristics. In the third chapter (CH3) I conduct the first study on the relationship between species diversity and subjective well-being on the continental level. The results show that bird species richness (unlike mammal, megafauna and tree richness) is positively associated with life-satisfaction, a measure for subjective well-being across Europe. These results are robust while accounting for socio-economic and macro-economic factors. The results of both empirical studies are in correspondence with previous research, conducted on the local and national level. Overall, my dissertation shows that wildlife and biodiversity greatly affect human well-being and provide substantial non-material NCP. ...
Low effect on open-farmland birds of young afforestations in heterogeneous Mediterranean croplands