Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;331:1221-1222 (26 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1221
Ecotherapy could be beneficial, but we need more robust evidence
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
We call animals in their natural habitat wild, implying danger. Research that focuses on risk can foster a fearful attitude towards nature, disabling society's capacity for choice.1 These fearful views from contemporary anthropology contrast sharply with the biological, evolutionary, and ecological view of the influential American zoologist Edward Wilson. Wilson coined the concept of biophilia: "The connection that human beings subconsciously seek and need with the rest of life."2 This view, emphasising connection with nature, builds on behavioural observations by Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel prize winner for medicine.3
The therapeutic implication of biophilia is ecotherapy: restoring health through contact with nature.4 British author Gregory Bateson's theoretical framework for improving health through conserving nature incorporated a "sense of unity of biosphere and humanity" that engenders connection, restoration, and respect for self and planet.5
The Society for Companion Animal Studies promotes pets for health, a topic discussed by McNicholas and colleagues
Ambra Burls, senior lecturer in mental health
(a.burls@apu.ac.uk)
Institute of Health and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ
Woody Caan, professor of public health
Institute of Health and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ
Read all Rapid Responses