Exploring the biodiversity–health nexus: how to present biodiversity characteristics to patients in order to foster dialogue in clinical practice?

Context
Nature’s positive impact on health is well documented, yet the more specific role of biodiversity for food security, health, and climate preservation remains underrepresented in public discourse and insufficiently emphasized by healthcare professionals as an important health determinant. This research, conducted in Switzerland and Belgium, explores patients’ perceptions of biodiversity, its preservation, and links to health. High-resolution biodiversity maps are produced and used to assess gaps between individual perceptions and actual biodiversity levels near their homes.

The presentation addresses patients’ perceptions of biodiversity and the differences/similarities between their perception of biodiversity around their living environment and the objective view provided by maps and tools specifically developed to describe biodiversity.

Objective

The study investigates how patients perceive the relationship between contact with biodiversity and health and well-being. It aims to develop arguments and communication strategies to raise awareness among the public, general practitioners, and policymakers about biodiversity–health links from a co-benefit perspective.

Using biodiversity description maps in exchanges with patients has prompted reflection on biodiversity measurable components and how they can be presented to resonate with patients’ lived experiences, fostering meaningful dialogue in clinical practice.

Methods

Qualitative methods include 40-50 semi-structured interviews with patients in Switzerland and Belgium, focus groups to identify communication strategies, and biodiversity description maps (observed biodiversity and its density) to compare perceptions with ecological data. Data are transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results

Preliminary findings highlight the need to make biodiversity description understandable for patients. Patients often do not distinguish biodiversity from “nature” or “environment,” and their perceptions rest on personal experiences. While biodiversity maps provide objective description, they are difficult to interpret, and patients show little awareness of biodiversity’s variations direct effects on physical/mental health. However, they emphasize the benefits of contact with nature—especially for mental health and well-being—based on subjective and empirical experiences rather than scientific metrics.

Discussion & Conclusion

Findings underline the need to better translate biodiversity measurements into accessible concepts that resonate with patients’ lived experiences and integrate biodiversity into health communication. Developing tools based on subjective experiences could support primary care practices and promote co-benefits for health and biodiversity.