Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments (‘greenspace’) enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that “greenspace” is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, “broadleaf woodland”, “arable and horticulture”, “improved grassland”, “saltwater” and “coastal”, after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of “saltwater”. Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. The findings indicate that the type, quality and context of ‘greenspace’ should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

Progress on changing human behaviour to meet the challenges of regional and global sustainability has been slow. Building on theory as well as small-scale survey and experimental evidence that exposure to nature may be associated with greater pro-environmentalism, the aim of the current study was to quantify relationships between exposure to nature (operationalised as neighbourhood greenspace, coastal proximity, and recreational nature visits) as well as appreciation of the natural world, and self-reported pro-environmental behaviour for the adult population of England. Using data from a nationally representative sample (N = 24,204), and controlling for potential confounders, a structural equation model was used to estimate relationships. Indirect effects of neighbourhood exposures via nature visits and nature appreciation were accounted for. We found positive relationships between both recreational nature visits and nature appreciation and pro-environmental behaviour across both the whole sample and key socio-demographic groups. The more individuals visited nature for recreation and the more they appreciated the natural world, the more pro-environmental behaviour they reported. Although rural and coastal dwellers tended to also be more pro-environmental on average, patterns were complex, potentially reflecting situational constraints and opportunities. Importantly, positive associations between pro-environmental behaviours and high neighbourhood greenspace and coastal proximity were present for both high and low socio-economic status households. Improving access to, and contact with, nature, e.g., through better urban planning, may be one approach for meeting sustainability targets.

The rise in greenhouse gas emissions from air travel could be reduced by individuals voluntarily abstaining from, or reducing, flights for leisure and recreational purposes. In theory, we might expect that people with pro-environmental value orientations and concerns about the risks of climate change, and those who engage in more pro-environmental household behaviours, would also be more likely to abstain from such voluntary air travel, or at least to fly less far. Analysis of two large datasets from the United Kingdom, weighted to be representative of the whole population, tested these associations. Using zero-inflated Poisson regression models, we found that, after accounting for potential confounders, there was no association between individuals' environmental attitudes, concern over climate change, or their routine pro-environmental household behaviours, and either their propensity to take non-work related flights, or the distances flown by those who do so. These findings contrasted with those for pro-environmental household behaviours, where associations with environmental attitudes and concern were observed. Our results offer little encouragement for policies aiming to reduce discretionary air travel through pro-environmental advocacy, or through ‘spill-over’ from interventions to improve environmental impacts of household routines.

There is increasing policy interest in the potential for vegetation in urban areas to mitigate harmful effects of air pollution on respiratory health. We aimed to quantify relationships between tree and green space density and asthma-related hospitalisations, and explore how these varied with exposure to background air pollution concentrations. Population standardised asthma hospitalisation rates (1997-2012) for 26,455 urban residential areas of England were merged with area-level data on vegetation and background air pollutant concentrations. We fitted negative binomial regression models using maximum likelihood estimation to obtain estimates of asthma-vegetation relationships at different levels of pollutant exposure. Green space and gardens were associated with reductions in asthma hospitalisation when pollutant exposures were lower but had no significant association when pollutant exposures were higher. In contrast, tree density was associated with reduced asthma hospitalisation when pollutant exposures were higher but had no significant association when pollutant exposures were lower. We found differential effects of natural environments at high and low background pollutant concentrations. These findings can provide evidence for urban planning decisions which aim to leverage health co-benefits from environmental improvements.

Increasingly, the potential short and long-term impacts of climate change on human health and wellbeing are being demonstrated. However, other environmental change factors, particularly relating to the natural environment, need to be taken into account to understand the totality of these interactions and impacts. This paper provides an overview of ongoing research in the Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) on Environmental Change and Health, particularly around the positive and negative effects of the natural environment on human health and well-being and primarily within a UK context. In addition to exploring the potential increasing risks to human health from water-borne and vector-borne diseases and from exposure to aeroallergens such as pollen, this paper also demonstrates the potential opportunities and co-benefits to human physical and mental health from interacting with the natural environment. The involvement of a Health and Environment Public Engagement (HEPE) group as a public forum of “critical friends” has proven useful for prioritising and exploring some of this research; such public involvement is essential to minimise public health risks and maximise the benefits which are identified from this research into environmental change and human health. Research gaps are identified and recommendations made for future research into the risks, benefits and potential opportunities of climate and other environmental change on human and planetary health.