The health and well-being impacts of protected areas in Finland

Background There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes. Results Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies. Conclusions Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.

There is mounting empirical evidence that interacting with nature delivers measurable benefits to people. Reviews of this topic have generally focused on a specific type of benefit, been limited to a single discipline, or covered the benefits delivered from a particular type of interaction. Here we construct novel typologies of the settings, interactions and potential benefits of people-nature experiences, and use these to organise an assessment of the benefits of interacting with nature. We discover that evidence for the benefits of interacting with nature is geographically biased towards high latitudes and Western societies, potentially contributing to a focus on certain types of settings and benefits. Social scientists have been the most active researchers in this field. Contributions from ecologists are few in number, perhaps hindering the identification of key ecological features of the natural environment that deliver human benefits. Although many types of benefits have been studied, benefits to physical health, cognitive performance and psychological well-being have received much more attention than the social or spiritual benefits of interacting with nature, despite the potential for important consequences arising from the latter. The evidence for most benefits is correlational, and although there are several experimental studies, little as yet is known about the mechanisms that are important for delivering these benefits. For example, we do not know which characteristics of natural settings (e.g., biodiversity, level of disturbance, proximity, accessibility) are most important for triggering a beneficial interaction, and how these characteristics vary in importance among cultures, geographic regions and socio-economic groups. These are key directions for future research if we are to design landscapes that promote high quality interactions between people and nature in a rapidly urbanising world.

Enjoyment of nature, much of it in protected areas (PAs), is recognised as the most prominent cultural ecosystem service [1–3], yet we still lack even a rough understanding of its global magnitude and economic significance. Large-scale assessments have been restricted to regional or biome-specific investigations [4–8] (but see [9]). There are good reasons for this. Information on visit rates is limited, widely scattered, and confounded by variation in methods [10,11]. Likewise, estimates of the value of visits vary greatly—geographically, among methods, and depending on the component of value being measured [12–14]. Until now, these problems have prevented data-driven analysis of the worldwide scale of nature-based recreation and tourism. But with almost all the world’s governments committed (through the Aichi Biodiversity Targets [15]) to integrating biodiversity into national accounts, policymakers require such gaps in our knowledge of natural capital to be filled. We tackled this shortfall in our understanding of a major ecosystem service by focusing on terrestrial PAs, which cover one-eighth of the land [16] and are a major focus of nature-based recreation and tourism. We compiled data on visit rates to over 500 PAs and built region-specific models, which predicted variation in visitation in relation to the properties of PAs and to local socioeconomic conditions. Next, we used these models to estimate visit rates to all but the smallest of the world’s terrestrial PAs. Last, by summing these estimates by region and combining the totals with region-specific medians for the value of nature visits obtained from the literature, we derived approximate estimates of the global extent and economic significance of PA visitation. Given the scarcity of data on visits to PAs, our approach was to use all available information (although we excluded marine and Antarctic sites, and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category I PAs where tourism is typically discouraged; for further details of data collection and analysis see Materials and Methods). This generated a database of visitor records for 556 PAs spread across 51 countries and included 2,663 records of annual visit numbers over our best-sampled ten-year period (1998–2007) (S1 Table). Mean annual visit rates for individual PAs in this sample ranged from zero to over 10 million visits/y, with a median across all sampled PAs of 20,333 visits/y. We explored this variation by modelling it in relation to a series of biophysical and socioeconomic variables that might plausibly predict visit rates (after refs [6,7,17]): PA size, local population size, PA remoteness, a simple measure of the attractiveness of the PA’s natural features, and national income (see Materials and Methods for a priori predictions). For each of five major regions, we performed univariate regressions (S2 Table) and then built generalised linear models (GLMs) in an effort to predict variation in observed visit rates. While the GLMs had modest explanatory power within regions (S3 Table), together they accounted for 52.9% of observed global variation in visit rates. Associations with individual GLM variables—controlling for the effects of other variables—differed regionally in their strength but broadly matched our predictions (S1 Fig.). Visit rates increased with local population size (in Europe), decreased with remoteness (everywhere apart from Asia/Australasia), increased with natural attractiveness (in North and Latin America), and increased with national income (everywhere else). Controlling for these variables, visit rates were highest in North America, lower in Asia/Australasia and Europe, and lowest in Africa and Latin America. To quantify how often people visit PAs as a whole, we used our region-specific GLMs to estimate visit rates to 94,238 sites listed in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [18]). We again excluded marine, Antarctic, and Category I PAs, as well as almost 40,000 extremely small sites which were below the size (10 ha) of the smallest PA in our sample (S2 Fig.). The limited power of our GLMs and significant errors in the WDPA mean our estimates of visit rates should be treated with caution for individual sites or (when aggregated to national level) for smaller countries. However, the larger-scale patterns they reveal are marked. Estimated median visit rates per PA (averaged within countries) are lowest in Africa (at around 3,000/y) and Latin America (4,000/y), and greatest in North America (350,000/y) (S3 Table). When visit rates are aggregated across all PAs within a country, pronounced regional differences in the numbers of PAs (with relatively few in Africa and Latin America) magnify these patterns and indicate that while many African countries have 1 billion visits/y (albeit many of them cultural rather than nature-based) to China’s National Parks in 2006 [19], and 3.2–3.9 billion visits/y to all British “ecosystems” (most of which are not in PAs) in 2010 [7]. Finally, what can be inferred about the economic significance of visits on this scale? Economists working on tourism distinguish two main, non-overlapping components of value [12]: direct expenditure by visitors (an element of economic impact, calculated from spending on fees, travel, accommodation, etc.); and consumer surplus (a measure of economic value which arises because many visitors would be prepared to pay more for their visit than they actually have to, and which is defined as the difference between what visitors would be prepared to pay for a visit and what they actually spend; consumer surplus is typically quantified using travel cost or contingent valuation methods). We conducted an extensive literature search to derive median (but conservative) figures for each type of value for each region (S4 Table). Applying these to our corresponding estimates of visit rates and summing across regions yields an estimate of global gross direct expenditure associated with PA visits (within-country only, and excluding indirect and induced expenditure) of ~US $600 billion/y worldwide (at 2014 prices). The corresponding figure for global consumer surplus is ~US $250 billion/y. Such numbers are unavoidably imprecise. Uncertainty in our modelled visit rates and the wide variation in published estimates of expenditure and consumer surplus mean that they could be out by a factor of two or more. However, comparison with calculations that visits to North American PAs alone have an economic impact of $350–550 billion/y [4] and that direct expenditure on all travel and tourism worldwide runs at $2,000 billion/y [20] suggests our figures are of the correct order of magnitude, and that the value of PA visitation runs into hundreds of billions of dollars annually. These results quantify, we believe for the first time, the scale of visits to the world’s PAs and their approximate economic significance. We currently spend <$10 billion/y in safeguarding PAs [21]—a figure which is widely regarded as grossly insufficient [21–25]. Even without considering the many other benefits which PAs provide [22], our estimates of the economic impact and value of PA visitation dwarf current expenditure—highlighting the risks of underinvestment in conservation, and suggesting substantially increased investments in protected area maintenance and expansion would yield substantial returns. Supporting Information S1 Fig Visit rates plotted against each predictor variable. Plots show observed visit rates (adjusted for every other predictor variable) against each predictor variable (top to bottom) for each region (left to right). Values for mean visit rate, PA size, local population size, remoteness, and national income are all log10-transformed (after adding one to all values of mean visit rate and local population size and remoteness). Red lines show the relationships summarised in part A of S3 Table. In the Europe plots, blue symbols and lines show the data (and relationships) for the United Kingdom National Parks. (TIF) Click here for additional data file. S2 Fig The representativeness of our sample PAs. Histograms show the values of each of our predictor variables (top to bottom) for all terrestrial PAs in each region (left to right; excluding marine and IUCN Category I PAs), compared with the range represented in our sample of PAs (red vertical lines). For each predictor, the range of observed values is well covered by our sample, except for PA size, where we sampled no PAs <10 ha in area (black vertical lines); we therefore excluded these extremely small PAs from further analysis. Values for PA size, local population size, remoteness, and national income are all log10-transformed (after adding one to all values of mean visit rate, local population size, and remoteness). (TIF) Click here for additional data file. S1 Table Annual visit data for PAs, 1998–2007. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S2 Table Univariate regressions between observed visit rates and potential predictor variables for each region. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S3 Table Results of GLMs of PA visit rates in each region. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S4 Table Empirically-derived estimates of the values of visits to terrestrial PAs or similar natural sites. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. S1 Text Materials and methods. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file.