Biophilia in pieces: Critical approach of a general concept
Vol 8, Issue 3, 2023, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 357 (Abstract) 142 (PDF)
Abstract
This paper pretends to investigate the effectiveness of distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic time. Its objective was to analyze variables that impacted the results of emergency distance education, the challenges that arise for teacher training and comprehensive and inclusive education during and after pandemic periods. It corresponds to a documentary investigation, uses qualitative content analysis, and is framed in a stage of initial results on peer-reviewed academic articles from the Web of Science and websites of institutions relevant to the topic studied. The total sample was 70 articles. The results identify variables mostly studied in the scientific literature that affected distance learning, related to socio-emotional, motivational, self-regulation and executive skills of the students, along with those coming from particular family and social contexts and the organization of schools. It is expected that the conclusions will contribute to educational policy decisions on teacher training and intersectoral actions to face future emergencies that involve school closures and constitute a set of evidence of the main barriers and facilitators of educational work in a period of health emergency available to the educational community, useful for the design of improvements in educational quality for the diversity of students in different scenarios.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Fromm E. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1973.
2. Wilson EO. Biophilia. The Human Bond with Other Species. Harvard University Press; 1984.
3. Bolten B, Barbiero G. Biophilic design: How to enhance physical and psychological health and wellbeing in our built environments. Visions for Sustainability 2020; 2020(13): 11–16. doi: 10.13135/2384-8677/3829
4. Joye Y, van den Berg A. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2011; 10(4): 261–268. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
5. Taylor B, Chapron G, Kopnina H, et al. The need for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 2020; 34(5): 1089–1096. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13541
6. Lin BB, Egerer MH, Ossola A. Urban gardens as a space to engender biophilia: Evidence and ways forward. Frontiers in Built Environment 2018; 4: 79. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2018.00079
7. Andreucci MB, Loder A, Brown M, Brajković J. Exploring challenges and opportunities of biophilic urban design: Evidence from research and experimentation. Sustainability 2021; 13(8): 4323. doi: 10.3390/su13084323
8. Lencastre MPA, Vidal DG, Estrada R, et al. The biophilia hypothesis explored: Regenerative urban green spaces and well-being in a Portuguese sample. International Journal of Environmental Studies 2022; doi: 10.1080/00207233.2022.2067411
9. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2023).
10. Louv R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books; 2005.
11. Wichrowski MJ, Corcoran JR, Haas F, et al. Effects of biophilic nature imagery on indexes of satisfaction in medically complex physical rehabilitation patients: An exploratory study. Health Environments Research and Design Journal 2021; 14(3): 288–304. doi: 10.1177/19375867211004241
12. Beatley T. Biophilic Cities. Island Press Washington, DC; 2011.
13. Mandelli M. Understanding eco-social policies: A proposed definition and typology. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 2022; 28(3): 333–348. doi: 10.1177/10242589221125083
14. Crowley D, Marat-Mendes T, Falanga R, et al. Towards a necessary regenerative urban planning. Insights from community-led initiatives for ecocity transformation. CIDADES Comunidades e Territórios Cidades 2021; 83–104. doi: 10.15847/CCT.20505
15. Buss DM. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 6th ed. Routledge; 2019.
16. Goodall J. The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Belknap Press; 1986.
17. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. Human Ethology, 1st ed. Routledge; 1989.
18. Sussman A, Hollander JB. Nature is our context: Biophilia and biophilic design. In: Sussman A, Hollander JB (editors). Cognitive Architecture, 1st ed. Routledge; 2014. pp. 136–145.
19. McMahan EA, Estes D. The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology 2015; 10(6): 507–519. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.994224
20. Twohig-Bennett C, Jones A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research 2018; 166: 628–637. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030
21. Rabinowitz CB, Coughlin RE. Analysis of Landscape Characteristics Relevant to Preference. Regional Science Research Institute; 1970.
22. Orians GH. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In: Lockard J (editor). The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. Elsevier Science Ltd; 1980. pp. 49–66.
23. Balling JD, Falk JH. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 1982; 14(1): 5–28. doi: 10.1177/0013916582141001
24. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley; 1975.
25. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, et al. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991; 11(3): 201–230. doi: 10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7
26. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 1989.
27. Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press; 1995.
28. Wilson DS, Sober E. Group selection: The theory replaces the bogey man. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1994; 17(4): 639–654. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0003644X
29. Barkow JH, Cosmides L, Tooby J. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press; 1992.
30. Al-Shawaf L, Lewis DMG, Wehbe YS, Buss DM. Context, environment, and learning in evolutionary psychology. In: Shackelford T, Weekes-Shackelford V (editors). Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham; 2018. pp. 1–12.
31. Lieberman D, Tooby J, Cosmides L. The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 2007; 445: 727–731. doi: 10.1038/nature05510
32. Lencastre MPA. Behavior, cognition and language: the contribution of biological phenomenology to the study of body-mind relations (Portuguese). Revista Do Centro de Investigação E Inovação Em Educação 2012; 2(1): 105–123.
33. Bereczkei T, Gyuris P, Weisfeld GE. Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2004; 271(1544): 1129–1134. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2672
34. Barbiero G, Berto R. Biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: An onto- and phylogenetic framework for biophilic design. Frontiers in Psychology 2021; 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700709
35. Kahn PH, Kellert SR. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. MIT Press; 2002.
36. Vidal DG, Seixas EC. Children’s green infrastructure: Children and their rights to nature and the city. Frontiers in Sociology 2022; 7: 804535. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.804535
37. Herzog TR, Black AM, Fountaine KA, Knotts DJ. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997; 17(2): 165–170. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1997.0051
38. Wohlwill JF. The concept of nature. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF (editors). Behavior and the Natural Environment. Springer, Boston, MA; 1983. pp. 5–37.
39. Gelman SA, Markman EM. Young children’s inductions from natural kinds: The role of categories and appearances. Child Development 1987; 58(6): 1532–1541. doi: 10.2307/1130693
40. Atran S. Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge University Press; 1990.
41. Garcia J, Koelling RA. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science 1966; 4(1): 123–124. doi: 10.3758/bf03342209
42. Mineka S, Davidson M, Cook M, Keir R. Observational conditioning of snake fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1984; 93(4): 355–372. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.93.4.355
43. Cook M, Mineka S. Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1990; 16(4): 372–389. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.16.4.372
44. Humphreys RK, Ruxton GD. A review of thanatosis (death feigning) as an anti-predator behaviour. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2018; 72(2): 22. doi: 10.1007/s00265-017-2436-8
45. Gibson JJ. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 1st ed. Psychology Press; 2014.
46. Orians GH, Heerwagen JH. Evolved responses to landscapes. In: Barkow JH, Cosmides L, Tooby J (editors). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press; 1992. pp. 555–579.
47. Ulrich RS. Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems 1977; 7(5): 279–293.
48. Hartmann P, Apaolaza V, Alija P. Nature imagery in advertising. International Journal of Advertising 2013; 32(2): 183–210. doi: 10.2501/IJA-32-2-183-210
49. Dickins TE, Rahman Q. The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012; 279(1740): 2913–2921. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0273
50. Lederbogen F, Kirsch P, Haddad L, et al. City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature 2011; 474: 498–501. doi: 10.1038/nature10190
51. Taylor RP. The potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: A review of experiments and applications. Sustainability 2021; 13(2): 823. doi: 10.3390/su13020823
52. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995; 15(3): 169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
53. Lavdas AA, Schirpke U. Aesthetic preference is related to organized complexity. PLoS ONE 2020; 15(6): e0235257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235257
54. Michalos AC. Forest bathing/Shinrin-yoku. In: Michalos AC (editor). Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht; 2014. pp. 2330–2330.
55. Tsunetsugu Y, Park BJ, Miyazaki Y. Trends in research related to “Shinrin-yoku” (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing) in Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2010; 15: 27–37. doi: 10.1007/s12199-009-0091-z
56. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, et al. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2010; 15: 18–26. doi: 10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
57. Li Q. Shinrin-Yoku: The Art and Science of Forest Bathing. Penguin Life; 2018.
58. Chen CJ, Kumar KJS, Chen YT, et al. Effect of Hinoki and Meniki essential oils on human autonomic nervous system activity and mood states. Natural Product Communications 2015; 10(7): 1305–1308. doi: 10.1177/1934578x1501000742
59. Rowe T. In search of lost time (Portuguese). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2010; 32(6): 537–538. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34520-0
60. Dias BG, Ressler KJ. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nature Neuroscience 2014; 17(1): 89–96. doi: 10.1038/nn.3594
61. Debiec J, Sullivan RM. Intergenerational transmission of emotional trauma through amygdala-dependent mother-to-infant transfer of specific fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2014; 111(33): 12222–12227. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316740111
62. Aletta F, Van Renterghem T. Associations between personal attitudes towards COVID-19 and public space soundscape assessment: An example from Antwerp, Belgium. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021; 18(22): 11774. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211774
63. Williams F. The Nature Fix: Why Nature Makes Us Happier, Healthier, and More Creative. W. W. Norton & Company; 2017.
64. Griefahn B, Bröde P, Marks A, Basner M. Autonomic arousals related to traffic noise during sleep. Sleep 2008; 31(4): 569–577. doi: 10.1093/sleep/31.4.569
65. Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2010; 7(3): 1036–1046. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7031036
66. Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Natural sounds improve mood and productivity. Available online: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150519151217.htm (accessed on 28 September 2023).
67. Chevalier G, Sinatra ST, Oschman JL, et al. Earthing: Health implications of reconnecting the human body to the earth’s surface electrons. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012; 2012: 291541. doi: 10.1155/2012/291541
68. Menigoz W, Latz TT, Ely RA, et al. Integrative and lifestyle medicine strategies should include earthing (grounding): Review of research evidence and clinical observations. Explore 2020; 16(3): 152–160. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2019.10.005
69. Oschman JL, Chevalier G, Brown R. The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Journal of Inflammation Research 2015; 8: 83–96. doi: 10.2147/JIR.S69656
70. Chevalier G, Sinatra ST, Oschman JL, Delany RM. Earthing (grounding) the human body reduces blood viscosity-a major factor in cardiovascular disease. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2013; 19(2): 102–110. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0820
71. Chevalier G, Brown R, Hill M. Grounding after moderate eccentric contractions reduces muscle damage. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine 2015; 2015(6): 305–317. doi: 10.2147/oajsm.s87970
72. Chevalier G, Patel S, Weiss L, et al. The effects of grounding (earthing) on bodyworkers’ pain and overall quality of life: A randomized controlled trial. Explore 2019; 15(3): 181–190. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2018.10.001
73. Trivedi BP. Neuroscience: Hardwired for taste. Nature 2012; 486: S7–S9. doi: 10.1038/486S7a
74. Finger TE, Kinnamon SC. Taste isn’t just for taste buds anymore. F1000 Biology Reports 2011; 3(1): 20. doi: 10.3410/B3-20
75. Rao P, Rodriguez RL, Shoemaker SP. Addressing the sugar, salt, and fat issue the science of food way. npj Science of Food 2018; 2(1): 12. doi: 10.1038/S41538-018-0020-X
76. Román S, Sánchez-Siles LM, Siegrist M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2017; 67: 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
77. Fjørtoft I. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environment 2004; 14(2): 21–44. doi: 10.1353/cye.2004.0054
78. Joye Y, De Block A. ‘Nature and I are two’: A critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values 2001; 20(2): 189–215. doi: 10.3197/096327111X12997574391724
79. 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(4): 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
80. Redies C. A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision 2007; 21(1–2): 97–117. doi: 10.1163/156856807782753886
81. Taylor DE. Racial and ethnic differences in connectedness to nature and landscape preferences among college students. Environmental Justice 2018; 11(3): 118–136. doi: 10.1089/env.2017.0040
82. Holifield R, Porter M, Walker G. Introduction spaces of environmental justice: Frameworks for critical engagement. Antipode 2009; 41(4): 591–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00690.x
83. Holifield R, Chakraborty J, Walker G. The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice, 1st ed. Routledge; 2017. pp. 1–670.
84. Andreucci MB, Loder A, McGee B, et al. Exploring regenerative co-benefits of biophilic design for people and the environment. In: Catalano C, Andreucci MB, Guarino R, et al. (editors). Urban Services to Ecosystems. Springer, Cham; 2021. pp. 391–412.
85. Fadigas L. Urbanism and Nature—The Challenges (Portuguese). Edições Sílabo; 2010.
86. World Health Organization (WHO). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as Adopted by the International Health Conference. WHO; 1948.
87. Groenewegen PP, van den Berg AE, de Vries S, Verheij RA. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health 2006; 6: 149. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-149
88. Sullivan WC, Chang CY. Landscapes and human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017; 14(10): 1212. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14101212
89. Dushkova D, Ignatieva M. New trends in urban environmental health research: From geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens. Geography, Environment, Sustainability 2020; 13(1): 159–171. doi: 10.24057/2071-9388-2019-99
90. Petrosillo I, Aretano R, Zurlini G. Socioecological systems. Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition) 2015; 4: 419–425. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09518-X
91. Wahl DC. Designing Regenerative Cultures. Triarchy Press; 2016.
92. Cole RJ, Oliver A, Robinson J. Regenerative design, socio-ecological systems and co-evolution. Building Research and Information 2013; 41(2): 237–247. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2013.747130
93. Lencastre MPA, Farinha-Marques P. From biophilia to ecotherapy. The importance of urban parks for mental health (Portuguese). Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 2021; 61: 131–155.
94. Semeraro T, Scarano A, Buccolieri R, et al. Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits. Land 2021; 10(2): 105. doi: 10.3390/land10020105
95. Enssle F, Kabisch N. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environmental Science & Policy 2020; 109: 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008
96. Vidal DG, Dias RC, Seixas PC, et al. Measuring environmental concern of urban green spaces users (UGSU) through the application of the new ecological paradigm scale (NEPS): Evidence from a southern European city. In: Leal Filho W, Vidal DG, Dinis MAP, et al. (editors). Sustainable Policies and Practices in Energy, Environment and Health Research. Springer, Cham; 2021. pp. 21–37.
97. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior 2009; 41(5): 715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748
98. Salingaros NA. Biophilia and Healing Environments: Healthy Principles for Designing the Built World. Terrapin and Metropolis; 2015.
99. Mehaffy M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Urban Design and Planning 2012; 165(3): 193. doi: 10.1680/udap.11.00035
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v8i3.1869
(357 Abstract Views, 142 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Marina Prieto Afonso Lencastre, Diogo Guedes Vidal, Hélder Silva Lopes, Maria José Curado
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/