Biophobia: why some people hate nature – and what you can do about it

We’re constantly told that spending time in nature is good for the body and the mind alike. A large body of research shows multiple health benefits from contact with nature, ranging from stress reduction to an improved immune system and even improved academic achievement in children.

But not everyone is getting these benefits. Some people have feelings of fear, dislike or disgust towards animals and nature. The phenomenon, biophobia, has been somewhat overlooked in studies of human-nature relationships. This means the concept is poorly understood; it is unclear exactly what causes it and how it can best be treated. What’s more, there are signs it is on the rise.

In my new study with colleagues, we aimed to shed light on biophobia by outlining a conceptual framework of negative relationships with nature that can be applied across scientific disciplines – and systematically reviewing all studies that have been done on the topic.

The flipside of biophobia is called biophilia, an innate affinity for nature. Both of these terms stem from evolutionary psychology, which originally framed positive and negative response to nature as adaptive mechanisms to resources and threats.

Today, biophobia more broadly refers to the aversion towards nature, leading to negative relationships with the natural world. These negative relationships can take many forms, but crucially reduce exposure to the health benefits which are associated with nature, as well as undermining nature conservation efforts. As such, understanding the full range of human-nature relationships – from affinity to aversion – is important.

In total, we found 196 studies on biophobia. These were spread across the world, with some bias toward western countries. Although much fewer than the studies on positive human-nature relationships, we saw a rapid growth in the research subject. These studies were also scattered across a wide variety of research fields, including conservation, social sciences and psychology. One of our key findings was that there are strong silos between fields, with clear biases in terms of what part of nature is studied.

Multiple causes

We found biophobia to be caused by multiple factors. Generally, these can be divided into external and internal ones. External factors include our physical environment, such as our exposure to different species. Social attitudes are another external factor, and can include media narratives around nature – think of how the movie Jaws, for example, created a widespread fear of sharks.

Internal factors, on the other hand, covers personal traits. These include knowledge and age, both of which can mediate our feelings toward nature. For example, having good species knowledge and understanding of how nature works lowers the risk for negative relationships with nature. By contrast, feeling weak or in poor health correlates to a higher fear of large carnivores.

However, it is important to note that these drivers can interact and be intertwined in complex ways. Attitudes, interactions and behaviour towards nature are also affected by the biophobia itself. For example, biophobic individuals may avoid areas where they believe there are species of animals they fear. And this may lead to greater support for culling animals such as wolves, bears and sharks.

Animals typically viewed as threats – snakes, spiders and carnivores – are well studied. But biophobia can also be directed at harmless or even species beneficial to have in our proximity, for example native species of frogs.

Treatments

Given the benefits of spending time in nature, is there any way to treat biophobia? We defined general categories of biophobia treatments, although there’s not a single treatment that will work for everyone.

One line of treatment is exposure. This could range from simply getting used to spending time in nature to actual clinical treatments. For example, people who are scared of spiders can overcome their fears with professional help, starting with looking at picture of spiders and reframing their thinking about them.

Another type of “treament” is education. This could range from formal studies of the natural world to putting up information signs in nature reserves, helping people better understand what’s surrounding them, what species are around, and how these species behave.

Finally, there’s conflict mitigation. This is a technique to reduce negative experiences or compensate for past bad experiences Indeed, it is important to note that nature can be dangerous and, depending on context, negative sentiments can be fully rational. For example, farmers may be negative about wild animals destroying crops. Conflict mitigation will propose ways to reduce such destruction.

The research we examined that came from the fields of psychology and social studies focused on effects on humans, but often defined nature in either very broad strokes or in very narrow terms. Environmental science, on the other hand, had a focus on the impacts on nature conservation, but often oversimplified social contexts and psychological drivers. It is clear to us that researchers must combine these two complementary views on biophobia to better understand and ultimately mitigate it.

If you feel joy and relaxation in the outdoors, you are in the majority. But studies suggest that rates of biophobia are increasing. As we remove ourselves farther from nature, living urban lives where wild animals and plants are becoming a distant echo, it is all the more important to try and preserve a love for nature – especially if we want to retain the health benefits and maintain stable ecosystems.

Opening our eyes to our hate for nature is ultimately crucial in reversing a trend of negative relationships with nature.

Johan Kjellberg Jensen received funding from the strategic research area Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in a Changing Climate (BECC), funded by the Government of Sweden, and funding from The Royal Physiographic Society in Lund, Sweden, to support this research. He is currently affiliated with White arkitekter, an architectural firm that had no involvement in this article, the original research paper, and has no vested interests in its results.