'Nature and I are Two': A Critical Examination of the Biophilia Hypothesis

What the study found

Argues that the biophilia hypothesis is open to various and even conflicting interpretations, that empirical findings which seem to support a well-defined version can often be explained by alternative hypotheses, and that its evolutionary reasoning is often unclear and sometimes inaccurate.

Limitations

Written for environmental ethics; it critiques the hypothesis rather than testing it.

Neurodesign interpretation

Counterevidence to keep in the library. Nature effects can be real while the biophilia explanation for them stays weak.

Possible design implications

Biophilic design claims should rest on measured effects rather than on the evolutionary story alone.

Study design

Critical review of theory and evidence

Population

Not applicable (conceptual analysis).

Setting

Not applicable

Field

Biophilic design, philosophy of science

Mechanism

Biophilia (critique)

Spatial variable

Nature exposure (general)

Keywords

biophilia, critique, evolution, nature preference

Notes and follow-up

Related records: ND-0028, ND-0156, ND-0154.