Bird Diversity Unconsciously Increases People’s Satisfaction with Where They Live
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that exposure to nature increases human well-being, including in urban areas. However, relatively few studies have linked subjective satisfaction to objective features of the environment. In this study we explore the links among objective environmental features (tree cover, water, and bird diversity) and subjective judgements of satisfaction. We surveyed residents of Ottawa, Canada (n = 1035) about their satisfaction with their local neighbourhoods. We then compared the survey responses to measures of nature near their homes, including bird diversity (number of bird species), tree canopy cover, and distance to water. After controlling for effects of income and subjective happiness, residents’ neighbourhood satisfaction was positively related to the number of bird species nearby, even before participants were prompted to consider nature. Residents’ appreciation of their local neigbourhood relative to others also increased with tree canopy cover and nearness to water. Unsolicited comments from participants following the survey indicated that while residents consciously appreciate trees and water, the relationship between bird diversity and neighbourhood satisfaction appears to be unconscious; very few of the participants mentioned birds. Based on these results, we speculate that a diverse local bird community may provoke feelings of satisfaction through their presence, activity, and songs. Our results create a compelling argument for city planners and individual residents to maintain bird-friendly spaces in urban areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".