141
These emotional and behavioural responses to stimuli in the natural environment,
such as the fear/avoidance response to snakes or to approach response to clean water
sources, contribute to survival. This is called biologically prepared learning, in
which, through evolution, humans have retained quick emotional and behavioural
responses to specific natural stimuli (Ulrich 1993). These emotional outcomes and
concomitant behavioural responses (approach vs. avoid) from natural stimuli are
then transmitted through culture (e.g. the cultural symbolism of a snake as dangerous) (Wilson 1993). Biologically prepared learning to avoid certain natural stimuli
is called biophobia (Ulrich 1993).
Criticisms of Biophilia exist (Kahn 1997; Joye and de Block 2011). First, the
Biophilia Hypothesis is considered so general that any research studies on the relationship between human beings and natural environments – from human communication, cognitive and mental development, and aesthetic appreciation, to companion
animals, learning survival skills, and environmental ethics – are considered as evidence for testing the Biophilia Hypothesis, even if the researcher is testing other
theories (Kellert 1993, p. 22). Furthermore, the Biophilia Hypothesis is argued to be
more of a general concept, rather than a theory with testable hypotheses (Joye and
de Block 2011, p. 193); there is no model describing how connection to plants, animals and landscapes influences human communication, cognitive and mental development, and aesthetic appreciation. Whilst learning theory (Wilson 1993; Ulrich
1993) is proposed as a mechanism, it is unclear if learning theory can account for all
outcomes, or if additional mediators are required. Additional criticisms are whether
biophilia is innate (Kahn 1997; Joye and de Block 2011), and if biophobia contradicts the Biophilia Hypothesis (Kahn 1997).
7.2.4.1 Connection to Biodiversity in the Biophilia Hypothesis
The Biophilia Hypothesis emphasises human beings’ positive response to nature,
which can be manifest as a preference for animals, plants and natural landscapes.
Furthermore, the Biophilia Hypothesis also considers the impacts to health and
well-being due to biodiversity loss (Wilson 1993; Ulrich 1993). Unfortunately, the
Biophilia Hypothesis does not specify which species or landscape types best fulfil
people’s biophilic needs (Sundli Tveit et al. 2013). The strongest work on Biophilia
Hypothesis is on its converse, biophobia (Hartig et al. 2011).
Empirical support for Biophilia largely comes from studies investigating biodiversity and preference relationships. People prefer more biodiversity (LindemannMatthies et al. 2010). Hedblom et al. (2014) found preference was greater for
birdsong from seven different species of birds than for birdsong from one bird species. Cracknell et al. (2017) found that people preferred viewing an aquarium with
a high number of different species of fish/crustaceans, compared to the viewing an
aquarium with a low number of different species. Johansson et al. (2014) explored
the effect of three different levels of biodiversity (low, medium and high) in forest
biotopes on preference ratings. An inverted U-shape was found for preference; the
medium biotope was the most preferred followed by the high biotope and the low
biotope (Johansson et al. 2014). This suggests that more biodiversity may be pre7 Theoretical Foundations of Biodiversity and Mental Well-being Relationships
These emotional and behavioural responses to stimuli in the natural environment,
such as the fear/avoidance response to snakes or to approach response to clean water
sources, contribute to survival. This is called biologically prepared learning, in
which, through evolution, humans have retained quick emotional and behavioural
responses to specific natural stimuli (Ulrich 1993). These emotional outcomes and
concomitant behavioural responses (approach vs. avoid) from natural stimuli are
then transmitted through culture (e.g. the cultural symbolism of a snake as dangerous) (Wilson 1993). Biologically prepared learning to avoid certain natural stimuli
is called biophobia (Ulrich 1993).
Criticisms of Biophilia exist (Kahn 1997; Joye and de Block 2011). First, the
Biophilia Hypothesis is considered so general that any research studies on the relationship between human beings and natural environments – from human communication, cognitive and mental development, and aesthetic appreciation, to companion
animals, learning survival skills, and environmental ethics – are considered as evidence for testing the Biophilia Hypothesis, even if the researcher is testing other
theories (Kellert 1993, p. 22). Furthermore, the Biophilia Hypothesis is argued to be
more of a general concept, rather than a theory with testable hypotheses (Joye and
de Block 2011, p. 193); there is no model describing how connection to plants, animals and landscapes influences human communication, cognitive and mental development, and aesthetic appreciation. Whilst learning theory (Wilson 1993; Ulrich
1993) is proposed as a mechanism, it is unclear if learning theory can account for all
outcomes, or if additional mediators are required. Additional criticisms are whether
biophilia is innate (Kahn 1997; Joye and de Block 2011), and if biophobia contradicts the Biophilia Hypothesis (Kahn 1997).
7.2.4.1 Connection to Biodiversity in the Biophilia Hypothesis
The Biophilia Hypothesis emphasises human beings’ positive response to nature,
which can be manifest as a preference for animals, plants and natural landscapes.
Furthermore, the Biophilia Hypothesis also considers the impacts to health and
well-being due to biodiversity loss (Wilson 1993; Ulrich 1993). Unfortunately, the
Biophilia Hypothesis does not specify which species or landscape types best fulfil
people’s biophilic needs (Sundli Tveit et al. 2013). The strongest work on Biophilia
Hypothesis is on its converse, biophobia (Hartig et al. 2011).
Empirical support for Biophilia largely comes from studies investigating biodiversity and preference relationships. People prefer more biodiversity (LindemannMatthies et al. 2010). Hedblom et al. (2014) found preference was greater for
birdsong from seven different species of birds than for birdsong from one bird species. Cracknell et al. (2017) found that people preferred viewing an aquarium with
a high number of different species of fish/crustaceans, compared to the viewing an
aquarium with a low number of different species. Johansson et al. (2014) explored
the effect of three different levels of biodiversity (low, medium and high) in forest
biotopes on preference ratings. An inverted U-shape was found for preference; the
medium biotope was the most preferred followed by the high biotope and the low
biotope (Johansson et al. 2014). This suggests that more biodiversity may be pre7 Theoretical Foundations of Biodiversity and Mental Well-being Relationships