IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4312-d362549.html

Biophobia and Urban Restorativeness

Author

Listed:
  • Agnès Patuano

    (Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning Group, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Natural areas are now known to be important resources for the health and wellbeing of urban dwellers, through, for example, the opportunities they provide for cognitive and emotional restoration. However, urban populations have also been found not to engage with these spaces and to display some form of biophobia which may hinder them from perceiving any of these benefits. This concept of biophobia is thought to entail both our innate physiological responses to the perceived danger from non-human threats such as spiders and snakes and our cultural attachment to material comfort. The word is often used with derogatory connotations, even if it is part of an evolutionary mechanism honed over thousands of years to keep humans alive. This review presents the current state of knowledge on urban biophobia as well as evidence of instances in which built and mixed urban environments were found to be more restorative than natural ones for the urban population, in order to assess any connection within the two. A series of recommendations for further research but also for the practical implementation of natural areas in cities capable of attracting a wide variety of people regardless of their fears or preferences are also formulated. Only by investigating the psychological and physiological responses of urban dwellers to their daily environments can we hope to design interventions which will remain relevant for the modern world.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnès Patuano, 2020. "Biophobia and Urban Restorativeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4312-:d:362549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4312/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4312/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:29001 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Timothy Beatley & Peter Newman, 2013. "Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-18, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Derk Jan Stobbelaar & Wim van der Knaap & Joop Spijker, 2021. "Greening the City: How to Get Rid of Garden Pavement! The ‘Steenbreek’ Program as a Dutch Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-30, March.
    2. Fiona J. Clarke & Yasuhiro Kotera & Kirsten McEwan, 2021. "A Qualitative Study Comparing Mindfulness and Shinrin-Yoku (Forest Bathing): Practitioners’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johanne Heesche & Ellen Marie Braae & Gertrud Jørgensen, 2022. "Landscape-Based Transformation of Young Industrial Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    2. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2019. "Edible urbanism 5.0," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Carter, Virginia & Derudder, Ben & Henríquez, Cristián, 2021. "Assessing local governments’ perception of the potential implementation of biophilic urbanism in Chile: A latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Thomas Panagopoulos & Stilianos Tampakis & Paraskevi Karanikola & Aikaterini Karipidou-Kanari & Apostolos Kantartzis, 2018. "The Usage and Perception of Pedestrian and Cycling Streets on Residents’ Well-being in Kalamaria, Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Ming Lu & Zhuolin Tan & Chao Yuan & Yu Dong & Wei Dong, 2023. "Resilience Measurements and Dynamics of Resource-Based Cities in Heilongjiang Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    6. L. E. Bertassello & M. van der Velde & J. Maes & S. Liu & M. Brandt & L. Feyen, 2026. "Assessing European cities with the 3-30-300 rule underscores the need for enhanced urban greening efforts," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Z. Goosen & E. J. Cilliers, 2020. "Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 835-866, August.
    8. Leslie Gillespie‐Marthaler & Katherine Nelson & Hiba Baroud & Mark Abkowitz, 2019. "Selecting Indicators for Assessing Community Sustainable Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2479-2498, November.
    9. Dong, Yuxiang & Liu, Song & Pei, Xinsheng & Wang, Ying, 2025. "Spatially explicit multi-objective optimization tool for green infrastructure planning based on InVEST and NSGA-II towards multifunctionality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    10. Marta Chàfer & Anna Laura Pisello & Cristina Piselli & Luisa F. Cabeza, 2020. "Greenery System for Cooling Down Outdoor Spaces: Results of an Experimental Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Parastoo Parivar & David Quanrud & Ahad Sotoudeh & Mahdieh Abolhasani, 2021. "Evaluation of urban ecological sustainability in arid lands (case study: Yazd-Iran)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2797-2826, February.
    12. Maria Beatrice Andreucci & Alessio Russo & Agnieszka Olszewska-Guizzo, 2019. "Designing Urban Green Blue Infrastructure for Mental Health and Elderly Wellbeing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Saba Alnusairat & Jenan Abu Qadourah & Rawan Khattab, 2023. "Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    14. Christopher Tirri & Hunter Swanson & Mahbubur Meenar, 2021. "Finding the “Heart” in the Green: Conducting a Bibliometric Analysis to Emphasize the Need for Connecting Emotions with Biophilic Urban Planning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-19, September.
    15. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    16. Thomas Beery & K. Ingemar Jönsson & Johan Elmberg, 2015. "From Environmental Connectedness to Sustainable Futures: Topophilia and Human Affiliation with Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Linda Novosadová & Wim van der Knaap, 2021. "The Role of Biophilic Agents in Building a Green Resilient City; the Case of Birmingham, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Stephanie Panlasigui & Erica Spotswood & Erin Beller & Robin Grossinger, 2021. "Biophilia beyond the Building: Applying the Tools of Urban Biodiversity Planning to Create Biophilic Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Peter Newman, 2014. "Density, the Sustainability Multiplier: Some Myths and Truths with Application to Perth, Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Carlos Cobreros & Neyda Medoza-Ruvalcaba & Mariana Flores-García & Rob Roggema, 2023. "Improving Psychological Well-Being in Urban University Districts through Biophilic Design: Two Cases in Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4312-:d:362549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.