New scientific findings warn that biophobia —the fear or aversion to nature— is growing and poses risks to both human health and environmental conservation.

A study from Lund University, published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, reviewed 196 international studies and questioned the idea that humans have an innate affinity for the natural environment.

Biophobia manifests in negative emotions such as fear, discomfort, or disgust towards animals, plants, or landscapes. Although the biophilia hypothesis has guided the understanding of the relationship between people and nature for decades, the recent analysis highlights that biophilia and biophobia are two complementary dimensions of the same psychological reality.

Factors explaining its origin

The study indicates that biophobia can range from clinical phobias towards animals to negative attitudes towards harmless habitats or species. It is estimated that between 4% and 9% of the world’s population suffer from diagnosed animal phobias.

Its origin is complex and responds to internal factors —such as psychological traits, beliefs, anxiety sensitivity, age, sex, or genetic predisposition— and external ones, among which urbanization, limited exposure to nature, and social and cultural influences stand out.

The research highlights that urban childhood and family attitudes can intensify the perception of natural danger, while the media, by spreading negative narratives, reinforce a cycle of distancing from the environment.

Consequences for health and the environment

Biophobia has direct effects on well-being. Contact with nature usually reduces stress and improves school performance, but negative emotions prevent many people from benefiting from these effects. The report associates biophobia with anxiety, nausea, and stress, as well as a lower frequency and quality of outdoor experiences.

In environmental terms, it fosters behaviors contrary to conservation, such as aversion to harmless species or support for the elimination of animals perceived as dangerous. Its advancement constitutes a threat to public health and the sustainability of ecosystems.

Limitations in research

Research on biophobia remains fragmented across disciplines such as psychology, medicine, and environmental sciences, making it difficult to have a comprehensive view. Most studies focus on traditionally feared animals —snakes and spiders— and rarely explore negative responses to plants, habitats, or non-dangerous species.

Additionally, there are geographical and gender biases in the samples, and cross-sectional studies predominate, limiting the understanding of how biophobia evolves over time. The authors call for interdisciplinary approaches, attention to cultural differences, and more longitudinal studies.

Strategies to reverse the trend

Lund University recommends increasing exposure to nature in urban environments through the development of green spaces and the promotion of biodiversity. Providing positive experiences from childhood can prevent the onset of negative emotions.

The study also suggests environmental education, conflict prevention, and exposure therapy —in real or virtual environments— as effective strategies to reduce biophobia. However, it warns that there is no universal solution and that interventions must be adapted to each context and species.

Overcoming biophobia requires interdisciplinary collaboration and renewed attention to the factors that generate negative emotions towards nature. Only then will it be possible to design effective strategies that promote public health and environmental conservation in increasingly urbanized societies.