Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 261-268

  Joye, Yannick ^a   van den Berg, Agnes ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biophilia; Evolutionary psychology; Greenery; Phytophilia; Restoration; Stress Recovery Theory

Indexed keywords

CRITICAL ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; GENE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PITFALL TRAP; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH WORK; THEORETICAL STUDY; URBAN FORESTRY;

EID: 81055156900     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape 1975, Wiley, London.
2. Balling J.D., Falk J.H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 1982, 14:5-28.
3. Baumeister R.F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., Vohs K.D. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 2001, 5:323-370.
4. Biederman I., Vessel E.A. Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist 2006, 94:249-255.
5. Blanchette I. Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: how specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2006, 59:1484-1504.
6. Falk J.H., Balling J.D. Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 2010, 42:479-493.
7. Frumkin H. Beyond toxicity. Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2001, 20:234-240.
8. Greene M.R., Oliva A. The briefest of glances: the time course of natural scene understanding. Psychological Science 2009, 20:464-472.
9. Grinde B., Patil G.G. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2009, 6:2332-2343.
10. Hagerhall C.M., Purcell T., Taylor R. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:247-255.
11. Han K.-T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39:529-556.
12. Hartig T., Evans G.W. Psychological foundations of nature experience. Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches 1993, Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 427-457. T. Gärling, R.G. Golledge (Eds.).
13. Hartig T., Staats H. Linking preference for environments with their restorative quality. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application 2005, 279-292. Springer, Dordrecht. B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam (Eds.).
14. Hartig T., Van den Berg A.E., Hagerhall C.M., Tomalak M., Bauer N., Hansmann R., Ojala A., Syngollitou E., Carrus G., Van Herzele A., Bell S., Podesta M.T.C., Waaseth G. Health benefits of nature experience: psychological, social and cultural processes. Forests, Trees and Human Health 2010, 127-168. Springer Science Business and Media, Dordrecht. K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, A. et (Eds.).
15. Hartmann P., Apaolaza-Ibáñez V. Beyond Savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2009, 30:119-128.
16. Haviland-Jones J., Rosario H.H., Wilson P., McGuire T.R. An environmental approach to positive emotion: flowers. Evolutionary Psychology 2005, 3:104-132.
17. Heerwagen J.H., Orians G.H. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. The Biophilia Hypothesis 1993, 138-172. Island Press, Washington. S.R. Kellert, E.O. Wilson (Eds.).
18. Herzog T.R., Rector A.E. Perceived danger and judged likelihood of restoration. Environment and Behavior 2009, 41:387-401.
19. Jaffe E. This side of paradise. Why the human mind needs nature. APS Observer 2010, 23:10-15.
20. Joye Y. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: the case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology 2007, 11:305-328.
21. Joye Y., De Block A. 'Nature and I are two'. A critical analysis of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values 2011, 20:189-215.
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Kaplan S. Environmental preference in knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. The Adapted Mind 1992, 581-598. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (Eds.).
24. Korpela K.M., Klemettilä T., Hietanen J.K. Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment & Behavior 2002, 34:634-650.
25. Kuo F.E. Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment & Behavior 2001, 33:5-34.
26. Laland K.N., Brown G.R. Niche construction, human behaviour and the adaptive lag hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 2006, 15:95-104.
27. Lewis J. Challenges of interdisciplinarity for forest management and landscape perception research. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education, and Application 2005, 83-94. Springer, Dordrecht. B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, A. et (Eds.).
28. Lohr V.I. Benefits of nature: what we are learning about why people respond to nature. Journal of Physiological Anthropology 2007, 26:83-85.
29. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded and conical tree forms. Environment & Behavior 2006, 38:667-688.
30. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 1983, 15:487-511.
31. Martens D., Gutscher H., Bauer N. Walking in "wild" and "tended" urban forests: the impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 31:36-44.
32. Mineka S., Öhman A. Phobias and preparedness: the selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry 2002, 52:927-937.
33. Ode Å., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:375-383.
34. Parsons R., Tassinary L.G., Ulrich R.S., Hebl M.R., Grossman-Alexander M. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18:113-140.
35. Purcell T., Peron E., Berto R. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:93-106.
36. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8:364-382.
37. Redies C. A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision 2007, 21:97-117.
38. Selye H. The Stress of Life 1956, McGraw Hill, New York.
39. Sullivan W.C. The savanna and the city: nature at home. Urban Place: Reconnections with the Natural World 2003, 55-63. Academic Exchange, Atlanta. P. Barlett (Ed.).
40. Tinio, P., 2010. Visual Features, Aesthetic Judgments, and Modulating Factors. Vienna. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Retrieved on 06.10.10 from http://othes.univie.ac.at/9137/1/2010-01-28_0605023.pdf.
41. Todorova A., Asakawa S., Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:403-416.
42. Tooby J., Cosmides L. The psychological foundations of culture. The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture 1992, 19-136. Oxford University Press, New York. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (Eds.).
43. Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 2006, 31:229-255.
44. Ulrich R.S. Natural versus urban scenes-some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior 1991, 13:523-556.
45. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior and Environment 1983, vol. 6:85-125. Plenum Press, New York.
46. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1986, 13:29-44.
47. Ulrich R.S. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The Biophilia Hypothesis 1993, 73-137. Island Press, Washington. S.R. Kellert, E.O. Wilson (Eds.).
48. Ulrich R.S. Effects of gardens on health outcomes: theory and research. Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations 1999, 27-86. John Wiley, New York. C. Cooper-Marcus, M. Barnes (Eds.).
49. Ulrich R.S. Biophilic theory and research for healthcare design. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life 2008, 87-106. John Wiley, Hoboken. S.R. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, M.L. Mador (Eds.).
50. Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991, 11:201-230.
51. Van den Berg A.E. Restorative effects of nature: towards a neurobiological approach. Human Diversity, Design for Life. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Physiological Anthropology, 22-26 August, Delft, The Netherlands 2009, 132-138. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft. T. Louts, M. Reitenbach, J. Molenbroek (Eds.).
52. Van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:79-96.
53. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., Van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:135-146.
54. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes-landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2007, 6:199-212.
55. Wilson E.O. Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species 1984, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
56. Zajonc R. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 1980, 35:151-175.