Bird diversity and psychological wellbeing: A comparison of green and coastal blue space in a neotropical city.

Accelerating rates of urbanisation are contributing to biodiversity declines worldwide. However, urban green (e.g. parks) and blue spaces (e.g. coast) provide important habitat for species. Emerging evidence also shows that green and blue spaces can benefit human psychological wellbeing, although few studies originate from the Global South and it is unclear whether more biodiverse spaces offer greater wellbeing gains. We examine how bird diversity (abundance, species richness, Shannon diversity, and community composition) in green and coastal blue space in Georgetown, Guyana, is associated with people's wellbeing (positive and negative affect, anxiety) in situ, using point counts and questionnaires. Bird community composition differed between green and coastal sites, and diversity was significantly higher in green sites. Positive affect and anxiety did not differ between green and coastal sites, but negative affect was higher in coastal sites. Mixed-effect models showed no associations between biodiversity and wellbeing, implying other features are contributing to people's positive wellbeing. Despite no association between biodiversity and wellbeing, both green and coastal blue sites are important for wellbeing and supporting different bird communities. City planning authorities and public health professionals should ensure these social and environmental needs are met in developing cities in the Global South.

Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city.

Urban land cover expansion and human population growth are accelerating worldwide. This is resulting in the loss and degradation of green and blue spaces (e.g. parks, waterways, lakes) in cities, which provide resources to sustain biodiversity and improve human wellbeing. The specific characteristics of these spaces (e.g. sounds, species, safety) that enhance or detract from wellbeing are underexplored, yet this knowledge is needed to inform urban planning, management and policies that will ultimately benefit both people and biodiversity. Research of this kind is rarely conducted in the Global South, where rapid urbanisation threatens biodiversity-rich ecosystems of worldwide significance. Here, we examine how perceptions of green, waterway, and dense urban spaces relate to wellbeing in Georgetown, Guyana. Specifically, we use mediation models to test how perceptions of sound, bird species richness, naturalness, and safety concerns contribute to sites being perceived as restorative which, subsequently, influences wellbeing. We assess the accuracy of these site perceptions with objective measures of sound (using a bioacoustic sound index), bird species richness, and percent coverage of vegetation, water, and impervious surfaces. Results showed that if sites were perceived as species rich, containing natural sounds like birdsong, natural rather than artificial, and safe, they were perceived as more restorative, resulting in improved wellbeing. In general, people's perceptions were consistent with objective measures. Green, compared with waterway and dense urban sites, contained more biophonic sounds, higher species richness, greater vegetation and water coverage. Although waterways were biodiverse, they were dominated by anthrophonic sounds, so were perceived as artificial and non-restorative. We shed light on how city planners might augment specific characteristics to improve the wellbeing of urban dwellers, with implications for biodiversity conservation. Our findings provide a scientific evidence base for urban design and management plans that could deliver multiple co-benefits, particularly in biodiversity-rich cities in neotropical regions.