Human-nature interactions and the consequences and drivers of provisioning wildlife

Abstract

Many human populations are undergoing an extinction of experience, with a progressive decline in interactions with nature. This is a consequence both of a loss of opportunity for, and orientation towards, such experiences. The trend is of concern in part because interactions with nature can be good for human health and wellbeing. One potential means of redressing these losses is through the intentional provision of resources to increase wildlife populations in close proximity to people, thereby increasing the potential for positive human-nature experiences, and thence the array of benefits that can result. In this paper, we review the evidence that these resource subsidies have such a cascade of effects. In some Westernized countries, the scale of provision is extraordinarily high, and doubtless leads to both positive and negative impacts for wildlife. In turn, these impacts often lead to more frequent, reliable and closer human-nature interactions, with a greater variety of species. The consequences for human wellbeing remain poorly understood, although benefits documented in the context of human-nature interactions more broadly seem likely to apply. There are also some important feedback loops that need to be better characterized if resource provisioning is to contribute effectively towards averting the extinction of experience.This article is part of the theme issue 'Anthropogenic resource subsidies and host-parasite dynamics in wildlife'.

Keywords: bird feeding; extinction of experience; resource provisioning; urban wildlife; urbanization; wildlife gardening.

Figure 1.

The potential links between urban resource provisioning, wildlife, and human–nature interactions and their consequences. The human consequences can lead to feedback loops in which the consequences accelerate or decelerate further resource provisioning: feedback a, health and wellbeing benefits from experiencing wildlife increase resource provision; feedback b, anticipation of wildlife experiences as yet unrealized increases resource provision; feedback c, a concern for wildlife welfare without experiencing wildlife increases resource provision. Note that the schematic diagram does not represent all potential factors and processes. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 2.

Empirical evidence demonstrating levels of resource provisioning around the home. (a) Feeding wildlife is the most common nature interaction in the USA [37]; (b) in New Zealand people who feed birds are more likely to engage in other resource provisioning activities [38]; (c) trends of wildlife feeding around the home in the USA [37]; and (d) birds are the most observed wildlife around the home in the USA [37]. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 3.

Changing wildlife experiences. (a) Increased bird abundance with feeder density in Sheffield, UK [54]; (b) increased bird species richness with the number of wildlife-friendly features in gardens in Leeds, UK [25]; (c) flight initiation distances of different bird species decrease in the presence of bird feeders in urban areas [83]; and (d) the proportion of people feeding birds decreases in compact urban designs [84]. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 4.

Variation in health and wellbeing benefits associated with nature and nature experiences. (a) A lower population prevalence of depression was associated with higher afternoon abundances of neighbourhood birds in the UK [15]; (b) in the UK people who fed birds regularly felt more connected to nature when they watched birds in their garden [95]; and (c) people who provided resources in Australia had a higher connectedness to nature, than those with ecologically poor gardens [97,98]. (Online version in colour.)