Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 14
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Desha, Angela Chenoweth Reeve, Pete, Cheryl and Littke, Hélène 2016. Becoming biophilic. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 5, Issue. 1, p. 15.

    Schetke, Sophie Qureshi, Salman Lautenbach, Sven and Kabisch, Nadja 2016. What determines the use of urban green spaces in highly urbanized areas? – Examples from two fast growing Asian cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 16, p. 150.

    Hengst-Ehrhart, Yvonne and Schraml, Ulrich 2013. Attitudes and Behaviors of Neopagans Toward Nature. Ecopsychology, Vol. 5, Issue. 4, p. 255.

    Arnould, Paul Le Lay, Yves-François Dodane, Clément and Méliani, Inès 2011. La nature en ville : l'improbable biodiversité. Géographie, économie, société, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, p. 45.

    van den Born, Riyan J.G. 2008. Rethinking Nature: Public Visions in the Netherlands. Environmental Values, Vol. 17, Issue. 1, p. 83.

    Thompson, Ross and Starzomski, Brian M. 2007. What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 16, Issue. 5, p. 1359.

    Vermeulen, Sonja and Sheil, Douglas 2007. Partnerships for tropical conservation. Oryx, Vol. 41, Issue. 04,

    Buijs, Arjen E. Pedroli, Bas and Luginbühl, Yves 2006. From Hiking Through Farmland to Farming in a Leisure Landscape: Changing Social Perceptions of the European Landscape. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 375.

    Campbell, Lisa M. and Smith, Christy 2006. What Makes Them Pay? Values of Volunteer Tourists Working for Sea Turtle Conservation. Environmental Management, Vol. 38, Issue. 1, p. 84.

    Hovardas, Tasos and Stamou, George P. 2006. Structural and Narrative Reconstruction of Rural Residents’ Representations of ‘Nature’, ‘Wildlife’, and ‘Landscape’. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 15, Issue. 5, p. 1745.

    Smits, A. J. M. Nienhuis, P. H. and Saeijs, H. L. F. 2006. Changing Estuaries, Changing Views. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 565, Issue. 1, p. 339.

    Stamou, Anastasia G. and Paraskevopoulos, Stephanos 2006. Representing protected areas: a critical discourse analysis of tourism destination building in a Greek travel magazine. International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 8, Issue. 6, p. 431.

    Korfiatis, Kostas J. Stamou, Anastasia G. and Paraskevopoulos, Stephanos 2004. Images of nature in greek primary school textbooks. Science Education, Vol. 88, Issue. 1, p. 72.

    Bekoff, Marc 2003. Minding Animals, Minding Earth: Old Brains, New Bottlenecks. Zygon?, Vol. 38, Issue. 4, p. 911.


The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries

  • Riyan J.G. van den Born (a1), Rob H.J. Lenders (a2), Wouter T. de Groot (a3) and Ellen Huijsman (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 May 2002

Visions of nature are the subject of much philosophical and policy debate. The present paper focuses, however, on the visions of nature held by people not professionally involved in the issue, namely those of the general public. These visions constitute the democratic basis of environmental conservation and the frame for effective two-way communication between professionals and communities on nature protection and management. It appears that the general public in Europe and the USA has developed a strong general ‘biophilia’ (nature-friendliness). One indicator of this is that in quantitative research, 70–90% of the population recognize the right of nature to exist even if not useful to humans in any way. In qualitative research settings, lay people reveal a remarkable richness and depth of views and experiences of nature. A quantitative survey on images and values of nature, and a qualitative study consisting of in-depth interviews on the relationship between childhood experiences in nature and adult visions of nature were conducted in the Netherlands. A factor analysis revealed a classification of types of nature, which included ‘wild nature’, ‘arcadian nature’, ‘penetrative nature’ and other such images that, with wild nature in the lead, were ascribed a smoothly decreasing degree of naturalness. Asked to rank the values and functions of nature, the top three were formed by the value for human health, the intrinsic value and the value for future generations. In the qualitative interviews, indications were found that more intense childhood experiences with nature could be associated with later ascription of a high degree of naturalness to wild nature, and less intense experiences with later ascription of a high degree of naturalness to arcadian nature. Many significant experiences took place beyond the reach of parental supervision. Findings such as these are of obvious relevance for environmental education and the design of ‘experiential nature’ in and around protected areas. Social science research concerning nature protection is often triggered by frictions between local people and protected area authorities. Such situations tend to be dominated by the airing of grievances, demands for economic compensation and so on, and these then also tend to dominate the research findings. Taking place away from these specific hot spots of conflict, social science research of the types discussed in this paper shows that many non-conflictual lines of communication are open for nature protection agencies.

Corresponding author
Correspondence: Riyan Van den Born Tel +31 243615771 Fax +31 123615957 e-mail
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environmental Conservation
  • ISSN: 0376-8929
  • EISSN: 1469-4387
  • URL: /core/journals/environmental-conservation
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *