The original theory, arguably, underlying human experience is the notion that 'returning to nature' is good. This could perhaps be called "Garden of Eden" theory.
Throughout the ages, shifting from urbanized, complex environments to more natural environments has seen as valuable for relaxing, calming, healing, re-connecting, and strengthening human beings.
Research findings in health, medicine and psychology also appear to be supportive of the proposition that nature has some inherently positive effects on physical and psychological well-being for humans (and other animals).
Two of the best known researchers in this area are Robert Ulrich from Texas A&M, who has researched the effects of natural vistas on hospital patients, and Dr. Howard S. Frumkin [Google search for "Frumkin effects of nature], who has reviewed the research literature on the physical health benefits of natural environments.
What seems to be lacking, however, is well-developed theory for explaining exactly how natural environments may influence human beings. For example, given the positive findings for viewing natural scenes (even in pictures), can visualizing natural environments provide positive effects? Or are there additional, benefits of real, natural environments?
The most popular, scientific-type "nature is good" hypothesis is Edward O. Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, which proposes that the positive effects are due to our long evolutionary (and consequently genetic) links to having a preference for being in natural environments. Wilson's biophilia hypothesis has been debated and critiqued. One of the issues appears to be that Wilson based his ideas on his study of insects and that the idea is too simplistic to fully account for human's relations with natural environments, since clearly humans have also shown a capacity to adapt to artificial environments.
2007-03-14 05:06:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by kissaled 5
·
0⤊
0⤋