Biophilia

SAGE – Green Cities Biophilia word count = 1,328 (including bibliography and cross references) Introduction Do humans have a genetic predisposition towards natural environments? Over the past three decades, a growing body of scholars have responded to the global decline in biodiversity (resulting from human activities e.g. land clearing for agriculture, pollution etc.) by searching for evidence of such a trait. Scholars from diverse disciplines such as psychology, biology, geography, philosophy, planning and economics have advanced an argument that humans are inherently ‘ecocentric’ animals – that is we are drawn to natural environments. This entry considers these arguments. The meaning(s) of biophilia Biophilia refers to a purportedly instinctive drive that impels humans to favor certain aspects of natural environments. While the term has been attributed to psychologist and philosopher Erich Fromm – who referred to ‘a psychological affinity for life’ – it was renowned entomologist E.O. Wilson who popularized (and slightly modified) the term in his widely cited book of the same name. Wilson has defined biophilia as ‘an innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes’ suggesting that from infancy humans are attracted to living things ‘like moths to a porch light’. Moreover, animals seem to have played a pivotal role in human evolution; interactions with animals appear to have shaped our cognitive capabilities. Joined by social ecologist Stephen Kellert, Wilson sparked an efflorescence of research into whether there might be a genetic underpinning for human attitudes towards nature. They and others have since argued that because humans have evolved within ‘nature’ (here meaning biotic environments), and since the human mind is an evolutionary construct, humans may be genetically driven to value or seek out (some) natural environments. Biophilia research Numerous studies investigating this ‘biophilia hypothesis’ have tended to confirm Wilson and Kellert’s assertions. Empirically grounded evidence suggests that humans are intrinsically drawn to at least some types of natural environments, supporting the idea that we may have a genetically inherited predisposition towards life. Many studies have shown for example that people with a view of – or access to – natural environments recover faster from illness and surgery, are better able to resist mental illness, are more affable, are better socially adjusted, can manage their life affairs better, can concentrate longer on difficult tasks, recover faster from exposure to stress, and become ill less often than their counterparts who lack access to nature. Seeking a genetic explanation for these observations some anthropologists, geographers, biologists and psychologists among others, have argued that a preference for the natural environments in which early humans evolved may have become encoded into our genes. Termed the ‘savannah hypothesis’ this explanation suggests that early humans (hominids) thrived within habitats that were free from predators and which offered them the greatest prospects of finding food and shelter, thus increasing survival rates and concomitantly the chances of reproducing, subsequently conferring 1 SAGE – Green Cities a preference for such environments upon their offspring. These preferences are said to have been inherited by modern humans, genetically encoded into our cognitive capabilities, thus enabling us to recognize such environments as ‘beneficial’ and predisposing us towards them. Contestations and disputes But it appears there are some limitations to the biophilia hypothesis, not the least of which is the fact that humans seem to have a greater propensity for environmental harm rather than protection – evidenced by numerous global environmental problems. First, evidence from paleontologists suggests that early hominids thrived within a range of habitats throughout the long evolution to modern humans – including forests and woodlands, somewhat undermining the savannah hypothesis. Second, even if humans are predisposed towards some elements of the natural environment as proponents of biophilia assert (e.g. park-like landscapes consisting of calm water, grasslands and scattered copses of trees with hilly outcrops), this does not mean that humans are predisposed to valuing all life. For instance many people fear animals like spiders and snakes or have an aversion to densely vegetated areas. It may also mean that we value the environment as a resource to be exploited rather than conserved. Third, research from animal geography has shown that human behaviours towards animals are characterized by both antimony and affection. There has been a long history of human exploitation of plants and animals including widespread acts of cruelty. Fourth, such explanations may paradoxically entrench and continue a longstanding philosophical schism that separates humans from nature. By casting urban environments as bad, harmful or even ‘unnatural’ such explanations unwittingly posit urban areas as being outside nature and unnatural. But as the dominant habitat of humanity, cities would also seem to confer an adaptive advantage – in cities we can easily access food, shelter, health care etc. and thus prosper – the burgeoning human population attests to this. And cities themselves are rarely ‘dead zones’ they oftentimes harbor a wide variety of non-human organisms, some of which prosper better than their wildland conspecifics (due to an abundance of food and reduced predation). Finally, genetic explanations for human behavior towards ‘natural environments’ tend to discount the equally important role of learning and culture – researchers have found it difficult to prove that an affinity for natural places is genetically ‘hardwired’ rather than learned, and their findings thus remain inconclusive. Worse still, assertions that humans are instinctively driven to ‘explore, hunt and garden’ may naturalize behaviors such as colonialism, exploitation and oppression, legitimizing them as simply ‘human nature’. Application to built environment research and practice Some scholars have recently suggested that there is a need to modify built environments to increase the presence of greenery and animals so as to remedy contemporary urban diseases such as obesity, stress, coronary heart disease, anxiety and depression. Increased access to urban greenspace, they argue, will result in healthier urban populations. Other scholars have begun to radically reconceptualize the long-standing dualism between city and nature. Critically interrogating the notion that cities are ‘dead zones’, they point to the myriad urban ecologies that exist within 2 SAGE – Green Cities human life-worlds. Their work has profoundly disrupted the binary of wild nature and cultured humanity to reformulate a more nuanced understanding of the role of humans in nature. Cities have been recast as the habitat of humanity and as inherently natural – not artificial entities. This is not to say that urban environments do not harm nonhuman species and their biogeochemical requisites – for they do in numerous ways (e.g. chemical pollutants like endocrine disruptors, acidification of waterbodies, widespread erosion etc). But any biophilic explanation for human behaviors must also recognize that as the dominant habitat of humanity, cities should be taken seriously as ‘ecological’ not just socio-cultural entities. Dr Jason Byrne School of Environment Griffith University, Australia Further reading (Bibliography) Burgess, J., Harrisson, C.M. and Limb, M. “People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city”. Urban Studies (v. 25, 1988) Byrne, J. & Wolch, J. “Urban habitats / nature,” in Thrift, N. & Kitchin, R. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Urban Geography. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009 Joye, Y. “Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: the case of biophilic architecture”. Review of General Psychology (v. 11, 2007) Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O. (eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993 Kellert, S.R. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997 Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P. and St. Leger, L. “Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations”. Health Promotion International (v. 21/1, 2005) Merchant, C. Radical Ecology: The Search for a More Livable World. New York: Routledge, 1992 Shephard, P. Thinking Animals: Animals and the Development of Human Intelligence. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1978 Tuan, Y-F, Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 2004 Wilson, E.O. Biophilia, Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1984 Wolch, J. and Emal, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands. London: Verso, 1998. Cross references Biodiversity 3 SAGE – Green Cities Environmental Planning Greening Suburbia Habitat Conservation and Restoration Madsar Eco-city Natural Capital Parks, Greenways and Open Space Sustainable Development Urban Forests 4