Is Human And Animal Coexistance The Same Thing As Adaptations
Introduction
During the concluding century, research has been increasingly drawn toward understanding the human–nature relationship (1, 2) and has revealed the many ways humans are linked with the natural surroundings (iii). Some examples of these include humans' preference for scenes dominated past natural elements (iv), the sustainability of natural resources (5, 6), and the health benefits associated with engaging with nature (7–9).
Of these examples, the impacts of the man–nature relationship on people's wellness have grown with involvement as evidence for a connection accumulates in research literature (x). Such connectedness has underpinned a host of theoretical and empirical inquiry in fields, which until now accept largely remained as divide entities.
Since the late nineteenth century a number of descriptive models have attempted to encapsulate the dimensions of human and ecosystem health as well as their interrelationships. These include the Environment of Health (11), the Mandala of Health (12), the Wheel of Fundamental Homo Needs (xiii), the Good for you Communities (14), the One Wellness (15), and the bioecological systems theory (16). Each, nevertheless, have not fully incorporated all relevant dimensions, balancing between the biological, social, and spatial perspectives (17, 18). In part this is due to the challenges of the already circuitous research base in relation to its concept, bear witness base, measurement, and strategic framework. Further attention to the complexities of these aspects, interlinkages, processes, and relations is required for a deeper sense of agreement and causal directions to be identified (19).
This article reviews the interconnectivities betwixt the human–nature human relationship and homo wellness. It begins by reviewing the each of their concepts and methodological approaches. These concepts volition exist converged to identify areas of overlap as well every bit existing inquiry on the potential health impacts in relation to humanity's degree of relationship to nature and lifestyle choices. From this, a developing conceptual model is proposed, to be inclusive of the human-centered perspective of health, viewing animals and the wider environment within the context of their relationship to humans. The model combines theoretical concepts and methodological approaches from those research fields examined in this review, to facilitate a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved for improving human being health.
Defining the Human–Nature Human relationship
It is across the scope of this paper to review the various connections at the intersect of humanity and the natural surround. Instead, I summarize cardinal concepts and approaches from those four research fields (Evolutionary Biology, Social Economics, Evolutionary Psychology, and Environmentalism) outlined beneath, which have paid almost attention to studying this enquiry area. I so summarize areas of convergence between these connections in an try to describe the human–nature relationship, which will serve every bit groundwork to this review.
Information technology is anticipated that through drawing on these different fields of knowledge, a deeper level of understanding tin be brought to the growing issue of humanity's relationship with nature and its bear upon on health. This is considering examining the homo–nature relationship from a single disciplinary perspective could lead to fractional findings that neglect other important sources equally well as the complexities that exist between interlinkages, causal directions, processes, and relations.
Evolutionary Biology
Evolutionary biological science is a branch of research that shortly followed Darwin's (xx) Theory of Evolution. Information technology concerns the adaptive nature of variation in all brute and establish life, shaped by genetic architecture and developmental processes over time and space (21). Since its emergence over a century agone, the field has made some significant advances in scientific noesis, but with intense debate nevertheless remaining among its cardinal questions, including the charge per unit of evolutionary alter, the nature of its transitional processes (e.thou., natural choice) (22). This in office owes to the research field'due south interdisciplinary structure, formulated on the foundations of genetics, molecular biology, phylogeny, systematics, physiology, ecology, and population dynamics, integrating a diverging range of disciplines thus producing a host of challenging endeavors (23, 24). Spanning each of these, human evolution centers on humanity's life history since the lineage split from our ancestral primates and our adaptive synergy with nature.
In the last four decades, evolutionary biology has focused much attention on the cultural–genetic interaction and how these 2 inherent systems interrelate in relation to lifestyle and dietary choices [Culturgen Evolution (25); Semi-Independent (26); Dual-Inheritance model (27)]. Some of the well-known examples include humans' physiological adaptation to agricultural sustenance (28), the gradual increase in lactose tolerance (29) likewise as the susceptibility of allergic diseases (e.chiliad., asthma and hay fever) in relation to decreasing microbial exposure (xxx).
This coevolutionary perspective between human being accommodation and nature has been further conceptualized by Gual and Norgaard (31) as embedding three integrated systems (biophysical, biotic, and cultural). In this, culture is both constrained and promoted past the human genetics via a dynamic two-way interaction. However, bridging the gap between these research fields continues to generate much controversy, particularly as the nature of these evolutionary development processes differs widely (e.g., internal and external factors). This ongoing discussion is fueled by diverse scholars from multiple disciplines. Some have argued that one cannot presume all evolutionary mechanisms can be carried over into other areas (32, 33), where genomes cannot evolve as chop-chop to meet modernistic lifestyle and dietary requirements (34). Conversely, others believe that humans accept not entirely escaped the mechanisms of biological evolution in response to our cultural and technological progressions (35).
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary psychology is a recently adult field of study, which has grown exponentially with interest since the 1980s. It centers on the adaptation of psychological characteristics said to accept evolved over time in response to social and ecological circumstances inside humanity'southward bequeathed environments (36–38). This reverse technology approach to understanding the pattern of the man heed was first kindled by evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin (20) in the final few pages of Origin of Species;
In the distant hereafter … Psychology volition be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation [p. 447].
As such, evolutionary psychology is viewed by some to offer a metatheory that dissolves the traditional boundaries held in psychology (e.g., cognitive, social, personality, and development). Within this metatheory, all psychological theories implicitly believed by some to unify nether this umbrella (37). Still, the application of evolution to the study of psychology has not been without controversial contend in areas relating to cognitive adaptation, testability of hypotheses, and the uniformity of human being nature (39).
During the past few decades, the field has presented numerous concepts and measures to describe human connexion to nature. These include Deep Ecology (xl), Extinction of Experience (41), Inclusion of Nature in Cocky (42), and Connection to Nature (43). Even so, the Biophilia hypothesis (44) remains the most substantially contributed to theory and argues for the instinctive esthetic preference for natural environments and hidden affiliation for other living organisms. Supportive findings include humans' preference for scenes dominated by natural elements (four), improved cognitive performance through connectivity with nature (45) equally well as instinctive responses to specific natural stimuli or cues (eastward.1000., a common phobia of snakes) (46). More recently, evidence is emerging to suggest that connectivity to nature can generate positive impacts on i'due south health, increasing with intensity and duration (47).
The underpinning of the Biophilia hypothesis centers on humanity's source of attachment to nature beyond those on the surface particulars. Instead, it reflects thousands of years of evolutionary experience closely bonding with other living organisms (44). Such process is mediated by the rules of prepared and counter-prepared learning that shape our cognitive and emotional apparatus; evolving by natural selection via a cultural context (48). This innate value for nature is suggested to be reflected in the choices we make, experiences expressed too equally our longstanding actions to maintain our connectedness to nature (49). Nevertheless, many accept gone on to recognize the research field'south need for revision and farther evidentiary support through empirical analysis (50). Similarly, as other researchers take argued, these innate values should be viewed in complementary to other drivers and affinities from dissimilar sources that can also be acquired (e.g., technology and urban landscapes). This is because at the commonest level, as Orr (51) explains, humanity can learn to love what becomes familiar, a notion likewise reflected in the Topophilia ("love of place") hypothesis (52).
Social Economics
Social economics is a metadiscipline in which economics is embedded in social, political, and cultural behaviors. Information technology examines institutions, choice beliefs, rationality as well as values in relation to markets (53). Owing to its diverse structure, the man–nature relationship has been explored in various contexts. These include the reflections of society's values and identities in natural landscapes (54), condition of placelessness (55), and humanity's growing ecosynchronous tendencies (56) as well every bit how the relationship has evolved with historical context (57–59). While the dynamics of man and nature coupled systems has get a growing interdisciplinary field of research, by work within social economics has remained more theoretical than empirically based (59).
The connectedness between the start of industrialized societies and the dynamically evolving human–nature relationship has been discussed by many (lx), revealing a host of economical–nature conflicts. One instance includes those metaphorically outlined in the frequently cited commodity "The Tragedy of the Commons." In this, it argues that the four laws of ecology are counter intuitive with the four laws of capitalism (5, six). Based on this perspective, the homo–nature relationship is simplified to one of exchange value, where agin costs to the environs are rarely factored into the equation (6). Even so, this is not to say that humanity's increasing specialization and complexity in almost contemporary societies are distinct from nature but still depend on nature to exert (61).
Cardinal to the tenets outlined in Tragedy of the Commons is the idea of "gradually diminishing freedom" where a population tin increasingly exceed the limits of its resource if avoidance measures are not implemented (e.g., privatization or publicly owned property with rights of entry) (5, 62). However, such avoidance measures tin be seen to reflect emerging arguments in the field of environmental justice, which researches the inequalities at the intersection between environmental quality, accessibility, and social hierarchies (63). These arguments derive from the growing evidence that suggests the human–nature relationship is seemingly disproportionate to those vulnerable groups in society (e.thousand., lack of dark-green spaces and poor air quality), something public health researchers believe to exist a contributing factor to health inequities (64). As such, conflicts between both private and collective interests remain a challenge for hereafter social economical development (65). This was explored more than fully in Ostrom's (66) enquiry on managing a common pool of resource.
Environmentalism
Environmentalism can be broadly divers as an ideology or social movement. It focuses on fundamental environmental concerns as well as associated underlying social, political, and economical issues stemming from humanity'due south interactions affecting the natural surroundings (67, 68). In this context, the human–nature relationship has been explored through various man-related activities, from natural resource extraction and environmental hazards to habitat direction and restoration. Inside each of these reflects a common aspect of "ability" visible in much of the literature that centers on ecology history (69). Some examples included agricultural engineering (70), the extinction of animals through over hunting (71) as well equally the ecological plummet on Easter Island from human overexploitation of natural resource, since disproven (72–74). Even so, in the last decade, the field's presupposed dichotomy between humans and nature in relation to power has been critically challenged past Radkau (75) who regards this perspective as misleading without conscientious examination. Instead, they advise the relationship to be more closely in synchrony.
Ability tin be characterized as "A person, institution, physical issue or idea … because it has an affect on society: It affects what people do, think and how they live" (76). Though frequently debated in other disciplines, in the context of the homo–nature relationship, the concept of "power" can be exerted by both nature and humanity. In regards to nature'south power confronting humanity, information technology has the ability to sustain society as well every bit emphasize its provisional awareness, ecology constraints, and fragilities (77). In contrast, humanity's ability against nature tin take the form of institutions, artifacts, practices, procedures, and techniques (lxx). In the context of this review, it focuses on nature'south powers against humanity.
It has been argued that human power over nature has altered and weakened in authorisation (75) since the emergence of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962, and later concepts of Gaia (78), Deep Ecology (xl), and Sustainable Development (79). Instead, humanity'due south power toward nature has become one of a moral sense of protectionism or the safeguarding of the environment (80). This conservative behavior (e.g., natural defenses, habitat management, and ecological restoration) can exist termed "Urgent Biophilia" (81) and is the conscious urge to express analogousness for nature awaiting an environmental disaster. As Radkau (69) suggests, with warnings of climatic change, biodiversity loss, and depletions in natural resources, this poses a threat to humanity. As such, this will somewhen generate a turning point where homo ability is overwhelmed by the power of nature, bringing nature and power into a sustainable residue. Nonetheless, equally many too highlight, humanity'south responses to environmental disasters can direct impinge on an array of multi-causalities of intervening variables (e.g., resource depletion and social economics) and the complexity of outcomes (82).
An Interdisciplinary Perspective of the Human–Nature Human relationship
Through exploring the primal concepts found in evolutionary biology, social economics, evolutionary psychology, and environmentalism, this has enabled a broader understanding of the various ways humans are connected to the natural environment. Each should not be viewed equally separate entities, but rather that they share commonalities in terms of common or conjoint information and agile research areas where similarities can occur (see Tabular array 1 below). For example, in that location is a clear connectedness between social economics, evolutionary psychology, and biology in areas of health, lifestyle, and biophilic nature (xl, 53, 81) also as between social economics and the surroundings in regards to balancing relationships of power (5, 75). Similarly, economic–nature conflicts can occur between disciplines evolutionary psychology and social economic science in relation to people's affiliation for nature and industrial growth.
Table ane. A summarized overview of human–nature human relationship connections between those research fields explored.
Our understanding of the human–nature human relationship and its underlying mechanisms could be farther understood from an interdisciplinary perspective. In essence, the human–nature relationship can be understood through the Biophilia concept of humanity's affiliation with nature equally well equally related concepts and measures to describe human connectedness to nature (49–53). As, Orr'southward (51) perspective that at the commonest level humans can acquire other affinities to or acquire to love different elements than those of the natural earth (due east.1000., technology and urban environments) adds to this understanding. Further, while humanity, and indeed nature also, has non entirely escaped modify, information technology cannot be assumed that all accept been shaped by evolutionary mechanisms (42, 44). Some accept been shaped by what Radkau (75) terms as the ability shift between humans and nature, which is evolving, as information technology has and will go on on doing. As such, the human–nature human relationship goes beyond the extent to which an individual believes or feels they are role of nature. Information technology can also be understood as, and inclusive of, our adaptive synergy with nature as well equally our longstanding actions and experiences that connect us to nature. Over time, as research and scientific knowledge progresses, it is anticipated that this definition of the human–nature relationship will adapt, featuring the addition of other emerging research fields and avenues.
Defining Health
Conceptualizing "health" has frequently generated complex debates across dissimilar disciplines owing to its multidimensional and dynamic nature (83). It is, however, beyond the scope of this paper to review the many ways these concepts have been previously explored (84–86). Instead, "health" is reviewed and viewed more more often than not through the lens of the Globe Wellness System 1948 definition.
The World Health Organization defined "health" just as the concrete, social, and mental well-beingness of humanity, in which "health" was widened beyond those biomedical aspects (e.g., disease and illness) to encompass the socioeconomic and psychological domains (85). This classical definition advocated health's shift toward a holistic perspective, with emphasis on more positive attributes (84, 87) and was not simply "the mere absence of disease and infirmity" [(83), p. 1]. Information technology also reflected people'southward ambitious outlook after the Second Globe State of war, when health and peace were seen as inseparable (83, 84). Since then, this shift has seen a major growth in the final xxx years, primarily in areas of positive wellness and psychology (88–92).
Despite its broad perspective of human health, the definition has as well encountered criticism in relation to its description and its overall reflectance of modern order. For example, the apply of the term "completeness" when describing optimal health has been regarded by many equally impractical. Instead, Huber et al (83) propose health to be the "power to adapt and to self-manage" and invite the continuation of further discussions and proposals of this definition to be characterized also as measured through its three interrelated dimensions; physical, mental, and social wellness. Similarly, others have highlighted the demand to distinguish health from happiness (84) or its inability to fully reflect modern transformations in cognition and development (e.g., technology, medicine, genomics besides as physical and social environments) (86). As such, there have been calls to reconceptualize this definition, to ensure further clarity and relevance for our adaptive societies (83).
Broadly, health has been measured through ii theoretical approaches; subjective and objective (85). The subjective approach is based on individual's perceived physical, emotional, and cognitive experiences or performance. By contrast, the objective approach measures those variables, which are existing and measurable external to an private's internal feel such as living conditions or human being needs that enable people to pb a good life (e.g., health markers, education, surround, occupational attainment, and civic involvement) (85). Together, these approaches provide a more comprehensive moving-picture show of a person's health status, which are applicable beyond its 3 wellness components (physical, mental, and social), every bit described below.
First, physical wellness is divers every bit a healthy organism capable of maintaining physiological fettle through protective or adaptive responses during irresolute circumstances (83). While information technology centers on health-related behaviors and fitness (including lifestyle and dietary choices), physiological fitness is considered ane of the well-nigh of import wellness markers thought to be an integral measure of most bodily functions involved in the performance of daily physical do (93). These can be measured through various means, with examples including questionnaires, behavioral observations, motility sensors, and physiological markers (e.1000., heart rate) (94).
Second, mental health is often regarded as a broad concept to define, encapsulating both mental illness and well-beingness. It can be characterized as the positive state of well-being and the capacity of a person to cope with life stresses equally well as contribute to customs date activities (83, 95). It has the ability to both determine as well as be adamant past a host of multifaceted wellness and social factors being inextricably linked to overall health, inclusive of diet, exercise, and ecology weather condition. As a result, in that location are no single definitive indicators used to capture its overall measurement. This owes in part to the breadth of methods and tends to represent hedonic (east.g., life satisfaction and happiness) and eudaimonic (due east.thou., virtuous activity) aspects of well-existence, each known to be useful predictors of concrete wellness components (96).
Tertiary, social health can be generalized equally the ability to lead life with some caste of independence and participate in social activities (83). Indicators of the concept revolve around social relationships, social cohesion, and participation in customs activities. Further, such mechanisms are closely linked to improving physical and mental well-existence as well as forming constructs, which underline social capital letter. Owing to its complexity, its measurement focuses on strengths of primary networks or relationships (eastward.chiliad., family, friends, neighborliness, and volunteering in the community) at local, neighborhood, and national levels (97).
Electric current Knowledge on the Human–Nature Human relationship and Health
This section summarizes existing theoretical and literature research at the intersection of the human–nature relationship and health, every bit defined in this review. This has been explored through three Subsections "Physical Health," "Mental Health," and "Social Health." It aims to place areas of convergence as well as gaps and limitations.
Physical Health
Though it is widely established that healthy eating and regular practise have major impacts on physical health (98), inside the past 30 years enquiry has also identified that exposure to nature (east.yard., visual, multisensory, or past agile engagement) is equally constructive for regulating our diurnal trunk rhythms to ensure physical vitality (99). Such notion stems from Wilson's (44) proposed "Three Pillars of Biophilia" experience categories (Nature of Space, Natural Analogs, and Nature in Space), which relate to natural materials and patterns experienced in nature, inducing a positive impact on wellness (nine). Empirical inquiry in this domain was first carried out by Ulrich (46) who institute that those hospital patients exposed to natural scenery from a window view experienced decreased levels of pain and shorter recovery fourth dimension after surgery. Following this, research in this academic field has grown exponentially and encompasses a large literature base on nature's health benefits. These include improvements in neurological and circadian rhythms relating to exposures to natural sunlight (100, 101), undergoing "Earthing" or physical contact with the Earth'southward surface regulates diurnal trunk rhythms (102) besides equally walking activities in forest environments reducing blood pressure level levels (8).
In spite of its increasing findings, some have suggested the need for farther objective research at the intersect of nature-based parameters and human wellness (9). 1 reason for this is that virtually studies take yet to exist scrutinized to empirical scientific assay (55, 103) attributable to the research area's reliance on self-reported measures with the need for inclusion of more quantitative forms of data (east.g., physiological and biochemical indicators). This presents inherent difficulty in comparing cess measures or unlike data types relative to the size and scale of the variables existence evaluated (nine). Further, there nevertheless remain evidence gaps in data on what activities might increase levels of physical health equally well as limited amount of longitudinal datasets from which the frequency, duration, and causal directions could exist inferred (104).
Mental Wellness
Mental health studies in the context of connecting with nature accept also generated a growing research base of operations since the emergence of the Biophilia concept in the mid-1980s (45). Much of its inquiry within the Evolutionary Psychology subject area examines the recuperative furnishings of nature on well-being and its benign properties post-obit researcher's arguments of humanity's affiliation for nature (105). Supporting research has been well documented in literature during the last few decades. These include "Heraclitean motion" or natural movement (xiv), natural sounds (106), children's appointment activities inside green settings (7, 107) too equally esthetic preferences for nature and natural forms (4, 49).
Criticisms of this research area center on the inability to decipher causal effects and management of such benefits and in part relates to its predominant focus on "recuperative mensurate" than that of detecting its "source" (105). In light of this, reviewers repeatedly remark on researchers' tendencies to focus on outcomes of well-beingness, neglecting the intervening mechanisms that sustain or inhibit well-being (108). Similarly, farther mixed-method approaches and larger sample sizes are needed in this inquiry field. This would enhance existing show gaps to enhance existing knowledge of variable interlinkages with other important sources (e.1000., physical and social health aspects) likewise as the variety that exists between individuals (104).
Social Health
In the last two decades, the human relationship between people and place in the context of green spaces has received much attention in academic literature in regards to its importance for the vitality of communities and their surrounding environments (109). As studies have shown, the presence of green space can promote social cohesion and grouping-based activities, aspects that are crucial for maintaining social ties, developing communities, and increasing individual'south well-beingness (east.grand., horticulture and ecological restoration) (110). Examples of findings include usage of outdoor space exponentially increases with number and locality of copse (111), children's activities in dark-green spaces improves social development (7) besides as accessibility to dark-green spaces enhances social bonds in communities (112).
1 of the principal limitations inside this field relates to the generally perceived idea that public dark-green spaces are freely open to anybody in all capacities (113). This limitation has been, as already, highlighted from the emerging arguments in the field of environmental justice and economic–nature conflicts (63). Every bit such, many researchers highlight the need to maintain awareness of other barriers that might hinder cohesion and community participation (e.g., semi-public space and social exclusion). Further, at that place still remains a gap between bookish research and local knowledge, which would otherwise pb to more than constructive interventions. However, without implementing participatory engagement, many studies risk misrepresenting the true social, economic, and political diversity that would increment both our understanding of "real life" problems of concern besides every bit bringing depth to data collected (114). Withal, for such approach to exist implemented requires sufficient time, cost, and an adequate scale of resources to ensure for aspects of coordination, communication, and data validation (115).
Impacts of the Human–Nature Relationship on Health
During the by four decades, researchers, health practitioners, and environmentalists alike have begun to explore the potential link between the man–nature relationship and its bear on people's health (x). This in part owes to the increasing evidence accumulating in research literature centering on the relationships between the following areas: chronic diseases and urbanization, nature connexion and happiness, health implications of gimmicky social club's lifestyle choices also as the adverse impacts of environmental quality on the wellness of humans and non-humans akin (116, 117).
Such health-related effects that accept been alluded to include chronic diseases, social isolation, emotional well-being every bit well every bit other psychiatric disorders (e.g., attention deficit disorders and anxiety) and associated physical symptoms (7, 118). Reasons for these proposed links have been suggested to stalk from diverse behavioral patterns (e.grand., unhealthy diets and indoor lifestyles) associated with consumerism, urbanization, and anthropogenic polluting activities (117, 119). Farther, these suggested links have been inferred, past some, to exist visible in other species (east.yard., insects, mice, and amphibians) as a effect to living in unnatural habitats or enclosures (120–122). All the same, research within this field remains speculative with few counter examples (eastward.g., some species of wildlife adapting to urban environments), requiring farther empirical assay (108).
With a growing tendency in the number of chronic diseases and psychiatric disorders, costs to the U. G.'s National Health Service (NHS) could rise as the utilise of prescriptive drugs and medical interventions increases (123). However, this anticipated trend is considered to be both undesirable and expensive to the already overwhelmed health-care system (124). In concurrence are the associated impacts on wellness equity (125, 126), equating to further productivity and tax losses every year in add-on to a growing gap in health inequalities (127).
Furthermore, population growth in urbanized areas is expected to bear upon future accessibility to and overall loss of natural spaces. Not only would this have a directly detrimental effect on the health of both humans and non-humans merely equally the functioning and integrity of ecosystem services that sustain our economic productivity (128). Thereby, costs of sustaining our human-engineered components of social–ecological systems could rise, having an indirect impact on our economical growth and associated pathways connecting to health (129, 130). As such, researchers have highlighted the importance of implementing all characteristics when bookkeeping ecosystem services, particularly the inclusion of natural and health-related capital letter, as well as their intervening mechanisms. This is an surface area, which at present remains difficult to synthesize owing to fragmented studies from a host of disciplines that are more conceptually rather than empirically based (131).
Toward an Interdisciplinary Perspective of Human and Ecosystem Health
Since the belatedly nineteenth century, a number of descriptive models have been adult to encapsulate the dimensions of human health and the natural environment every bit well every bit their interrelationships (17). These include the Environment of Wellness (11), the Mandala of Wellness (12), the Bike of Fundamental Human Needs (13), and the Healthy Communities (14). As VanLeeuwen et al (17) highlight in their review, each have not fully incorporated all relevant characteristics of ecosystems (e.k., multiple species, merchandise-offs, and feedback loops, as well as the complex interrelationships between socioeconomic and biophysical environments). Further, the Bioecological systems theory model encapsulates the biopsychological characteristics of an evolving theoretical arrangement for scientific report of human development over fourth dimension (16, 132). However, the model has been suggested past some (133, 134) to be static and compartmentalized in nature, emphasizing instead the importance of evolving synergies between biology, culture, and technology.
More recently, the concept "Ane Health" has gradually evolved and increased with momentum across diverse disciplines (xv). Information technology is broadly defined every bit the attainment of optimal health across the human–animal–environmental interfaces at local, national, and global levels. It calls for a holistic and universal arroyo to researching wellness, an ideology said to exist traceable to pathologist Rudolf Virchow in 1858 (eighteen). Yet, the concept has received criticisms regarding its prominence toward the more than biological phenomena (east.yard., infectious diseases) than those of a social science and spatial perspective (eighteen, 135). Some have therefore suggested its need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved (xiii).
To address these limitations identified in the in a higher place models, a suggested conceptual model has been outlined below (Figure 1). Information technology is both inclusive of all relevant characteristics of ecosystems, their continuously evolving synergies with human wellness too as a balance betwixt the biological, social, and spatial perspectives. This is accomplished through combining the perspective of the human–nature relationship, as summarized in Section "Defining the Human–Nature Relationship" of this review, with those human being-centered components of wellness (physical, mental, and social), equally defined past the Earth Health Organization in 1948 in Section "Defining Wellness." It aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved for attaining optimal human health (xix). I will at present draw the conceptual model.
Figure 1. Interdisciplinary perspective of human and ecosystem wellness [prototype on the within circle is past Baird (136) with the background image, added text, and embedded illustrations being the author's own work].
First, the outer circle is representative of "nature" that both encompasses and interconnects with the three man-centered components of health (concrete, mental, and social). Through this information technology emphasizes humanity'south interrelationship with the environs. As identified in Section "Defining the Human–Nature Relationship" of this review, the human–nature relationship can be experienced through various biological, ecological, and behavioral connections. For instance, social, political, and economic issues stemming from humanity's interactions affecting the natural surround (e.g., natural resources, ecology hazards, habitat management, and restoration), every bit explored in Subsections "Social Economics" and "Environmentalism."
Second, in the inner circumvolve, the three components of man wellness (physical, mental, and social) are interconnected through a cohesive triangle to reflect their interdisciplinary and dynamic natures, as outlined in Section "Defining Wellness." Further, this cohesive triangle acts on two levels. First, as a single construct of wellness based on these components combined. 2d, the underlying intervening mechanisms that sustain or inhibit health, which can derive from each of these separately (105). Thereby, it non but focuses on the outcomes or "recuperative measure" of wellness but besides the source of such outcomes and their directions, as highlighted in Section "Mental Health" (104).
The eye circumvolve represents the interconnected relationship between humanity and the natural surround with relevance to human being health (come across Current Knowledge on the Human–Nature Human relationship and Health). This has been indicated by the ii-way arrows and incorporates Gual and Norgaard'southward (31) coevolutionary perspective betwixt human accommodation and the natural surround. In this style, the relationship is continually interconnected via ii-manner physical and perceptual interactions. These are embedded within 3 integrated systems (biophysical, biotic, and cultural), with all humanity knows of the world comes through such mediums (31). As such, the human being–nature relationship goes beyond the extent to which an individual believes or feels they are affiliated with nature (e.g., Biophilia concept). It tin also be understood equally, and inclusive of, our adaptive synergy with nature likewise equally our longstanding actions and experiences that connect us to nature.
Utilizing this developing conceptual model, methodological approaches can be employed from those research fields explored in this review, enabling a more than interdisciplinary framework. The characteristics, descriptions, implications, and practicalities of this are detailed in Tabular array 2 below. The advantage of this is that a multitude of knowledge from both rigorous scientific analysis as well as collaborative participatory enquiry can be combined bringing a greater depth to information nerveless (114). This could be achieved through using more mixed-method approaches and adopting a pragmatic outlook in research. In this way, the truthful social, economic, and political variety of "real life" too as the optimal human being health at the human–environmental interface tin be identified. As such, a more than multidimensional perspective of human wellness would be gained, noesis that could be implemented to address those issues identified in Department "Impacts of the Homo–Nature Human relationship on Health" (due east.g., improving nature and health ecosystem service bookkeeping). Nonetheless, adopting a pragmatic outlook brings its own challenges, as explored by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (137), with several researchers proposing frameworks that could be implemented to address these concerns (138, 139).
Table two. A summarized overview of human and ecosystem wellness from an interdisciplinary perspective.
Summary and Decision
One of the imperatives for this article is to review existing theoretical and enquiry literature on the many means that humans are linked with the natural environment within diverse disciplines. Although widely discussed across the main four research fields – evolutionary psychology, environmentalism, evolutionary biological science, and social economics – there has been comparatively little discussion of convergence between them on defining the human–nature human relationship. This paper therefore attempts to redefine the human–nature relationship to bring further understanding of humanity'south relationship with the natural environment from an interdisciplinary perspective. The paper also highlights important complex debates both within and beyond these disciplines.
The cardinal discussion was to explore the interrelationships betwixt the human–nature human relationship and its impact on human being health. In questioning the causal human relationship, this paper addresses existing research on potential adverse and beneficial impacts in relation to humanity's caste of human relationship to nature and lifestyle choices. The paper also acknowledged current gaps and limitations of this link relative to the different types of health (concrete, mental, and social), as characterized by the Earth Health Arrangement in 1948. Well-nigh of these relate to research at the intersect of nature-based parameters and human being wellness being in its relative infancy. It has too been highlighted that the reorientation of health toward a well-being perspective brings its own challenges to the already complex research base in relation to its concept, measurement, and strategic framework. For a deeper sense of understanding and causal directions to be identified requires further attention to the complexities of these aspects' interlinkages, processes, and relations.
Finally, a developing conceptual model of human being and ecosystem health that is inclusive of the homo-centered perspective is proposed. Information technology is based on an interdisciplinary outlook at the intersection of the human–nature human relationship and homo wellness, addressing the limitations identified in existing models. To accomplish this, it combines theoretical concepts and methodological approaches from those research fields examined in this review, bringing a greater depth to data collected. In attempting this, a balance betwixt both rigorous scientific assay too every bit collaborative participatory research will be required, adopting a pragmatic outlook. In this style, an interdisciplinary approach tin facilitate a deeper agreement of the complexities involved for attaining optimal health at the human–environmental interface.
Author Contributions
The author confirms existence the sole contributor of this work and approved information technology for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The author would similar to thank the post-obit people for their advice and feedback during the writing of this manuscript: Muki Haklay, Pippa Bark-Williams, Mike Forest, Peter J. Burt, Catherine Holloway, Jenny Mindell, Claire Ellul, Elizabeth H. Boakes, Gianfranco Gliozzo, Chris Spears, Louisa Hooper, and Roberta Antonica. Academy College London and The Conservation Volunteers sponsored this research.
References
1. Guiney MS, Oberhauser KS. Conservation volunteer'south connection to nature. Ecoposychology (2009) 1(4):187–97. doi:x.1089/eco.2009.0030
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
3. Davis JL, Dark-green JD, Reed A. Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and ecology behaviour. J Environ Psychol (2009) 29:173–eighty. doi:x.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
4. Kaplan R, Kaplan Southward. The Experience of Nature. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press (1989).
Google Scholar
vi. Foster JB. The Four Laws of Ecology and the Iv Anti-Ecological Laws of Commercialism. New York: Monthly Review Printing (2012).
Google Scholar
vii. Louv R. Last Kid in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Agonquin Books (2005).
Google Scholar
8. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. The physiological furnishings of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ Health Prev Med (2010) xv:18–26. doi:10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
nine. Ryan CO, Browning WD, Clancy JO, Andrews SL, Kallianparkar NB. Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for wellness and wellbeing in the built environment. Int J Curvation Res (2014) 8(two):62–76.
Google Scholar
x. Thompson Coon KJ, Boddy K, Stein Chiliad, Whear R, Barton J, Depledge MH. Does participating in concrete activity in outdoor natural environments take a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ Sci Technol (2011) 45(5):1761–2. doi:10.1021/es102947t
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xi. Blum HL. Planning for Wellness: Developmental Application of Social Alter Theory. New York: Homo Sciences Press (1974).
Google Scholar
12. Hancock T, Perkins F. The Mandala of Health: a conceptual model and didactics tool. Health Educ (1985) 24:eight–x.
Google Scholar
13. Max-Neef MA. Human Calibration Evolution: Formulation, Application and Further Reflections. London: The Apex Press (1992).
Google Scholar
14. Hancock T. Health, human evolution and the community ecosystem: three ecological models. Health Promot Int (1993) 8:41–6. doi:ten.1093/heapro/eight.one.41
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xv. Zinsstag J, Mackenzie JS, Jeggo 1000, Heymann DC, Patz JA, Daszak P. Mainstreaming One Health. Ecohealth (2012) 9:107–x. doi:10.1007/s10393-012-0772-8
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
16. Brofenbrenner U. Developmental ecology through space and time: a time to come perspective. In: Moen P, Elder GH, Luscher K, editors. Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Environmental of Human Development. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association (1995). p. 619–47.
Google Scholar
17. VanLeeuwen JA, Waltner-Toews D, Abernathy T, Smit B. Evolving models of human health toward and ecosystem context. Ecosyst Wellness (1999) 5(3):204–nineteen. doi:10.1046/j.1526-0992.1999.09931.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
18. Wolf M. Is there really such a affair every bit "One Health"? Thinking about a more than human being world from the perspective of cultural anthropology. Soc Sci Med (2014) 129:v–eleven. doi:ten.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.018
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
19. Min B, Allen-Scott LK, Buntain B. Transdisciplinary enquiry for complex One Health issues: a scoping review of key concepts. Prev Vet Med (2013) 112:222–9. doi:x.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.010
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
20. Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Ways of Natural Selection. London: John Murray (1859).
Google Scholar
21. Badyaev AV. Origin of the fittest: link between the emergent variation and biological science evolutionary change equally a critical question in evolutionary biology. Proc Soc Biol (2011) 278:1921–9. doi:ten.1098/rspb.2011.0548
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
25. Lumsden CJ, Wilson EO. Theory of cistron-culture coevolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U Due south A (1980) 77:4382–half dozen. doi:x.1073/pnas.77.7.4382
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
26. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton: Princeton Academy Press (1981).
Google Scholar
27. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. Civilization and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Printing (1988).
Google Scholar
28. Cohen MN, Armelagos GJ. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agronomics. Florida: University Press of Florida (1984).
Google Scholar
29. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Myles S. How civilisation shaped the human genome: bringing genetic and human sciences together. Nat Rev (2010) eleven:137–45. doi:10.1038/nrg2734
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
30. Bloomfield SF, Stanwell-Smith R, Crevel RWR, Pickup J. Too clean, or not too make clean: the hygiene hypothesis and habitation hygiene. Clin Exp Allergy (2006) 36:402–25. doi:x.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.ten
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
31. Gual MA, Norgaard RB. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: a review and proposal. Ecol Econ (2010) 69(iv):707–17. doi:x.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
32. Simon HA. The behavioral and social sciences. Sci Centennial Issue (1980) 209(4452):72–eight.
Google Scholar
33. Nelson RR. Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. J Evol Econ (2006) sixteen:491–510. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0025-5
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
34. Carrera-Bastos P, Fontes-Villalba M, O'Keefe JH, Lindeberg South, Cordain L. The western diet and lifestyle and diseases of civilization. Res Rep Clin Cardiol (2011) 2:15–33. doi:x.2147/RRCC.S16919
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
36. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Cerebral adaptations for social commutation. In: Barkow J, Cosmides L, Tooby J, editors. The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press (1992). p. 163–228.
Google Scholar
37. Buss DW. How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspect Psychol Sci (1995) 4(iv):359–66. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
38. Ploeger A, van der Maas HLJ, Raijmakers EJ. Is evolutionary psychology a metatheory for psychology? A discussion of 4 major issues in psychology from an evolutionary developmental perspective. Psychol Inq (2008) 19:1–xviii. doi:10.1080/10478400701774006
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
40. Naess A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: a summary. Inquiry (1973) 16:95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
41. Pyle RM. The extinction of feel. Horticulture (1978) 56:64–7.
Google Scholar
42. Schultz Prisoner of war. Assessing the structure of environmental concern: concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol (2001) 21:327–39. doi:x.1006/jevp.2001.0227
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
43. Mayer FS, Frantz CM. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol (2004) 24:503–15. doi:ten.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
44. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1984).
Google Scholar
45. Howell AJ, Dopko RL, Passmore HA, Buro K. Nature connexion: associations with well-beingness and mindfulness. Pers Individ Dif (2011) 51:166–71. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
46. Ulrich RS. View from a window may influence recovery from surgery. Scientific discipline (1984) 224(4647):420–1. doi:10.1126/science.6143402
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
47. Barton J, Pretty J. What is the best dose of nature and green practise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol (2010) 44:3947–55. doi:10.1021/es903183r
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
48. Gullone E. The Biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: increasing mental health or increasing pathology? J Happiness Stud (2000) ane:293–321. doi:x.1023/A:1010043827986
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
49. Depledge MH, Rock RJ, Bird WJ. Can natural and virtual environments be used to promote improved homo health and wellbeing? Environ Sci Technol (2011) 45:4660–v. doi:10.1021/es103907m
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
fifty. Joye Y, van den Berg A. Is love for greenish in our genes? A disquisitional analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments inquiry. Urban For Urban Light-green (2011) 10(4):261–8. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
51. Orr DW. Love it or lose it: the Biophilia revolution. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press (1993). p. 415–xl.
Google Scholar
52. Tuan Y-F. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Columbia: Columbia University Press (1974).
Google Scholar
54. Stedman RC. Is it really merely a social structure? The contribution of the physical surroundings to Sense of lace. Soc Nat Resour (2003) 16:671–85. doi:10.1080/08941920309189
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
55. Relph EC. Place and Placelessness. California: Pion Limited (1976).
Google Scholar
56. Hay R. Condign ecosynchronous, part one: the root causes of our unsustainable way of life. Sustain Dev (2005) xiii:311–25. doi:10.1002/sd.256
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
57. Glacken CJ. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Aboriginal Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkley: Academy of California Press (1967).
Google Scholar
58. O'Brien East. Homo values and their function in the evolution of forestry policy in Britain. Forestry (2003) 76:3–17. doi:10.1093/forestry/76.i.3
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
lx. Buckeridge JS. The ongoing evolution of humanness: perspectives from Darwin to de Chardin. South Afr J Sci (2009) 105:427–31.
Google Scholar
61. Pocket-sized B, Jollands J. Technology and ecological economics: promethean engineering, Pandorian potential. Ecol Econ (2006) 56:343–58. doi:x.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.013
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
63. Pellow DN. Ecology inequality formation: toward a theory of environmental injustice. Am Behav Sci (2000) 43:581–601. doi:x.1177/0002764200043004004
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
64. Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental injustice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health (2006) 27:3.ane–3.22. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
65. Van Vugt M. Averting the tragedy of the eatables: using social psychological scientific discipline to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci (2009) 18(iii):169–73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01630.x
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
66. Ostrom E. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu Rev Polit Sci (Palo Alto) (1999) 2:493–535. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
68. Mulihill PR. Endless paradox: environmentalism in transition. Futures (2009) 41:502–vi. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.01.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
69. Radkau J. Nature and power: an intimate and ambiguous connection. Soc Sci Hist (2013) 37(3):325–45. doi:10.1215/01455532-2209402
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
70. Foucault 1000. The Guild of Discourse. London: Picador (1981).
Google Scholar
71. Richards JF. The Unending Frontier: An Environmental History of the Early Modern World. Berkeley: Academy of California Printing (2003).
Google Scholar
72. Bahn PG, Flenley JR. Easter Island, Globe Island. New York: Thames and Hudson (1991).
Google Scholar
73. Diamond JM. Collapse: How Societies Cull to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking (2005).
Google Scholar
75. Radkau J. Nature and Ability: A Global History of the Surround. New York: Cambridge University Printing (2008).
Google Scholar
76. Turner JC. Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory. Eur J Soc Psychol (2005) 35:i–22. doi:ten.1002/ejsp.244
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
79. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Surroundings and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1987).
Google Scholar
80. Hodder Grand, Bullock J. Nature without nurture? Planet Earth (2005) Winter:thirty–1.
Google Scholar
81. Tidball KG. Urgent Biophilia: homo-nature interactions and biological attractions in disaster resilience. Ecol Soc (2012) 17(2):1–18. doi:10.5751/ES-04596-170205
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
82. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, et al. Are in that location social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climate Change (2009) 93:335–54. doi:ten.1007/s10584-008-9520-z
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
83. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ (2011) 343:d4163. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
84. Saracci R. The World Health System needs to reconsider its definition. BMJ (1997) 314:1409–10. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7091.1409
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
85. Cameron Due east, Mathers J, Parry J. Health and well-being: questioning the utilize of wellness concepts in public health policy practise. Crit Public Health (2006) 16(4):347–54. doi:ten.1080/09581590601128166
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
86. Kamberi A. Towards a new understanding of health. Alban Med J (2015) 3:114–viii.
Google Scholar
87. Fleuret S, Atkinson South. Wellbeing, health and geography: a critical review and research agenda. North Z Geog (2007) 63:106–xviii. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7939.2007.00093.ten
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
89. Linley PA, Joseph S, Harrington S, Woods AM. Positive psychology: by, present, and (possible) time to come. J Posit Psychol (2006) 1(1):3–16. doi:10.1080/17439760500372796
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
91. Donaldson SI, Dollwet One thousand, Rao MA. Happiness, excellence, and optimal man functioning revisited: examining the peer-reviewed literature linked to positive psychology. J Posit Psychol (2015) ten(three):185–95. doi:ten.1080/17439760.2014.943801
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
92. Park N, Peterson C, Szvarca D, Vander Molen RJ, Kim ES, Collon K. Positive psychology and physical wellness: inquiry and applications. Am J Lifestyle Med (2016) ten(3):200–6. doi:10.1177/1559827614550277
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
93. Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, Sjöström M. Concrete fitness in babyhood and boyhood: a powerful marker of wellness. Int J Obes (Lond) (2008) 32:one–11. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
95. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich Southward, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2007) 5(63):one–13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
96. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. Happiness is in our nature: exploring 954 nature relatedness as a correspondent to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud (2011) 12:303–22. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9197-vii
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
97. Ziersch AM, Baum FE, MacDougall C, Putland C. Neighbourhood life and social majuscule: the implications for wellness. Soc Sci Med (2005) 60:71–86. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.027
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
98. Miles 50. Physical activity and health. Br Nutr Found Nutr Health Bull (2007) 32:314–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00668.x
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
99. Heerwagen J. Biophilia, health and well-being. In: Campbell Fifty, Wiesen A, editors. Restorative Commons: Creating Wellness and Well-Existence through Urban Landscapes. Washington, DC: USADA Forest Services (2009). p. 38–57.
Google Scholar
100. Figueiro MG, Rea MS, Stevens RG, Rea AC. Daylight and productivity – a possible link to cyclic regulation. Proceedings of Light and Human Health: EPRI/LRO 5th International Lighting Inquiry Symposium, 2002 Nov iii-5; Palo Alto, CA. and Ostram Sylvania, Danvers, MA. California: EPRI (2004).
Google Scholar
101. Boyce PR. The impact of light in buildings on human wellness. Indoor Built Environ (2010) xix(ane):eight–20. doi:10.1177/1420326X09358028
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
102. Chevalier 1000, Sinatra ST, Oschman JL, Sokal K, Sokal P. Earthing: health implications of reconnecting the homo body to the earth's surface electrons. J Environ Public Wellness (2012) 2012:291541. doi:10.1155/2012/291541
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
103. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. Would y'all be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed effects analysis of console data. Psychol Sci (2012) 24(6):920–eight. doi:10.1177/0956797612464659
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
104. Great britain Department of Wellness. Evidence gaps and current/ongoing inquiry. A Compendium of Factsheets: Wellbeing across the Life Course. London: UK Department of Health (2014).
Google Scholar
107. Taylor AF, Kuo Atomic number 26, Sullivan WC. Coping with Add: the surprising connection to light-green play settings. Environ Behav (2001) 33(ane):54–77. doi:x.1177/00139160121972864
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
108. Luniak K. Synurbization – adaptation of animal wildlife to urban evolution. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation, 876 May i-5, 1999, Tuscan, Arizona. Tuscan: University of Arizona (2004).
Google Scholar
109. Burton P, Goodlad R, Croft J. How would nosotros know what works? Context and complication in the evaluation of customs involvement. Evaluation (2006) 12(3):294–312. doi:10.1177/1356389006069136
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
110. Maas J, van Dillen SME, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Wellness Identify (2009) 15(two):586–95. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
111. Coley RL, Sullivan WC, Kuo FE. Where does community grow? The social context created past nature in urban public housing. Environ Behav (1997) 29:468–94. doi:10.1177/001391659702900402
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
112. Sullivan WC, Kuo Fe, DePooter SF. The fruit of urban nature: vital neighbourhood spaces. Environ Behav (2004) 36(v):678–700. doi:10.1177/0193841X04264945
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
113. Peters K, Elands B, Buijs A. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban For Urban Green (2010) 9:93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
114. Jones 50, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA (2007) 24/31:407–x. doi:10.1001/jama.297.four.407
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
115. Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. Realising the total potential of citizen scientific discipline monitoring programs. Biol Conserv (2013) 165:128–38. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
116. Bird West. Our UK natural health service. Socialmedicinsk Tidskrift (2012) 89(3):296–304.
Google Scholar
118. Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodríguez DA, Saelens BE. Role of built environments in physical activeness, obesity, and cardiovascular illness. Circulation (2012) 125:729–37. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.969022
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
119. Stuckler D. Population causes and consequences of leading chronic diseases: a comparative analysis of prevailing explanations. Milbank Q (2008) 86(two):273–326. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00522.ten
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
121. Frankham R, Loebel DA. Modelling issues in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: rapid genetic accommodation to captivity. Zool Biol (1992) 11:333–42. doi:ten.1002/zoo.1430110505
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
122. Bechard A, Lewis Thou. Modelling restricted repetitive behaviour in animals. Autism (2012) S1:006. doi:ten.4172/2165-7890.S1-006
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
123. Depledge MH. Does the pharmaceutical industries need a new prescription? Sci Parliament (2011) 68(4):44–5.
Google Scholar
124. Baum FE, Bégin Grand, Houweling TAJ, Taylor Due south. Changes not for the fainthearted: reorienting wellness care systems towards health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Am J Public Wellness (2009) 99(eleven):1967–74. doi:x.2105/AJPH.2008.154856
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
127. Marmot M, Allen J. Prioritizing health equity. In: Leppo K, Ollila Eastward, Peña Southward, Wismar M, Cook S, editors. Health in All Policies: Seizing Opportunities, Implementing Policies. Finland: Ministry and Social Affairs and Wellness (2013). p. 63–80.
Google Scholar
128. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green infinite, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities 'merely greenish enough'. Landscape Plan (2014) 125:234–44. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
129. Clark NE, Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins South, Depledge MH, Norris K. Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends Ecol Evol (2014) 29:198–204. doi:x.1016/j.tree.2014.01.009
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
130. Guerry Advert, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, et al. Natural uppercase and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2015) 112(24):7348–55. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
131. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-beingness: iii challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2015) 14:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
132. Brofenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of human development. In: Damon Westward, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of Kid Psychology: Theoretical Models of Man Evolution. London: John Wiley & Sons (2007). p. 793–828.
Google Scholar
133. Prout A. The Time to come if Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer (2005).
Google Scholar
134. Conn C. Autism and the Social World of Childhood: A Sociocultural Perspective on Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge (2014).
Google Scholar
135. Hinchliffe S. More than one world, more 1 Health: re-configuring interspecies health. Soc Sci Med (2014) 129:28–35. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.007
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
137. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. On condign a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int J Soc Res Methodol (2005) 8(five):375–87. doi:ten.1080/13645570500402447
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
138. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson B. Mixed methods enquiry: a enquiry paradigm whose fourth dimension has come. Educ Res (2006) 33(seven):14–26.
Google Scholar
139. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Validity problems in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. Education Research in the Public Involvement, April vii–eleven, San Francisco, CA. Washington, DC: American Educational Enquiry Association (2006).
Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00260/full
Posted by: ornelasproffecanded.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Is Human And Animal Coexistance The Same Thing As Adaptations"
Post a Comment