The dark side of nature experience: Typology, dynamics and implications of negative sensory interactions with nature

Such serious implications highlight the importance of focusing research and public policy on improving understanding negative direct human–nature interactions, taking a more balanced view benefits costs nature experiences, developing appropriate mitigation strategies. Read free Plain Language Summary for this article Journal blog. Direct sensory interactions with (hereafter interactions) are an important part many people's lives, health well-being that often result increasingly recognised (Bratman et al., 2019; Hartig 2014; Keniger 2013). There is broad consensus regular ‘dose’ contributes to improved physical, psychological social Cox, Hudson, 2017; Shanahan 2015) and, especially in higher income societies, policymakers practitioners have made considerable efforts design implement strategies programs aimed at increasing engagement (Shanahan 2019). Alongside these benefits, can also various impacts people, some which may be severe (e.g. being attacked by large mammals, stung venomous wasps; Barua 2013; Gulati 2021; Marselle McPhee, Penteriani 2016; Soulsbury & White, 2016). Compared positive ones, there has been relatively little investigation such (see Box 1 their definition) beyond medical literature, what done widely scattered across disciplines journals (Barua Methorst 2020; Soga Gaston, 2022; Indeed, while much attention paid derived from Bratman 2013), addressed recent discussion (Marselle 2020). Moreover, since traditionally investigated researchers different perspectives (the bulk consideration occurred outside traditional domain, including psychology, environment perspectives), therefore, how two linked remains poorly understood. The limited context problematic because (i) entail substantial economic (Gilbert Kasturiratne 2017); (ii) parts world, trend kinds Figure 1); (iii) it limits actions reduce improve human animal welfare; (iv) encouragement fail consider potential simultaneous increase magnitude ones people experience. We as ‘a contact through systems results adverse outcomes’ (Soga Following use personalised ecology (Gaston 2018; 2022), we define ‘all living organisms ecosystems, excluding those not self-sustained’; recognise prefer broader definitions include abiotic cultivated/domesticated components (Ducarme Couvet, state complete merely absence disease or infirmity (WHO, 1948). Negative consequences thus simply occurrence physical injury fatality but elicitation emotions fear, disgust, sadness). Under definitions, wide range suffering bites, stings attacks animals, allergic toxic reactions contacting plants during accident natural environments slip, fall), encountering type causes phobia, hearing sounds animals evokes fear perceiving bad smells carcasses faeces left Table 1). These could occur consciously subconsciously, will chiefly take place tactile, visual, auditory olfactory channels Section 2 detailed discussion). In principle, our definition sense taste, although discuss further most associated outcomes normally dead organisms, therefore lie (for present purposes) nature. Since focus review ‘sensory’ nature, viruses microorganisms bacteria) parasitism roundworms), less relevant. Obviously, other nonetheless vitally (Hay 2004; Messina Here, provide overview typology, characteristics dynamics suggest management future directions. Throughout, global perspective, considering within contexts, both lower countries well urban rural settings list examples). To date, discussed mainly ‘ecosystem disservices’ ‘human–wildlife conflict’ Shackleton However, concerned 1), case contexts. studies ecosystem disservices human–wildlife conflict focused generic societal generated directly related crop weeds pests, livestock damage, fire hazards; Also, commonly its focuses between humans parties death caused carnivores), (especially non-tactile channels; see 1) considered previous Nyhus, Against background, think useful researchers, policymakers, facilitating in-depth helping develop For overview, did perform formal systematic literature search topic too fragmented transdisciplinary approach applied. material draw was identified purposefully (using combination Web Science, Google Scholar Google) peer-reviewed sources. As described 1, diverse forms. They highly urbanised remote areas, terrestrial aquatic environments, indoor outdoor spaces. section, outline major types they ecosystems responsible them. Arguably, obvious form tactile harm humans. Numerous species taxonomic groups known source bitten mosquitoes) 2). Some well-reported contributing annelids leeches), arthropods scorpions, spiders, ticks, crabs, moths [esp. caterpillars], ants, bees, hornets, centipedes), cnidarians jellyfish, sea anemones), echinoderms urchins, stars), molluscs octopus, cone snails), fish stingrays, sharks), reptiles iguanas, snakes, turtles, alligators), birds kites, crows, gulls) mammals cats, bears, monkeys; Bachleda, 2001; Burnett 1996; Habermehl, 2012; Iverson Skinner, 2006; Rowland Eipper, majority obtaining food resources action so doing mosquito tick jellyfish stings), protecting themselves, territories offspring perceived threats carnivore attacks, snakebites). worst humans, particularly strong body carnivores) wasps jellyfish; 2012). While cases incidence resulting would high, exceptions; example, estimated snakebites approximately 100,000 deaths each year 2021). Plants cause contact, injury, chemical irritation (Bachleda, Modi 2009). thorns, prickles, spikes very sharp leaves cactus, honey locust, thistle, palm, rose) likely damage cut punctured skin). Likewise, trees, falling branches trunks sometimes trauma (Brookes, 2007; Schmidlin, plant contain rash-inducing chemicals nettles, poison ivy oak dogwood Despite potentially widespread plants, received remarkably compared animals. It seems knowledge spatial temporal plants. only particular generally. settings, mountain-based activities hiking mountaineering risk minor, disabling, even fall avalanche-related accidents; Faulhaber Gatterer A similar exists freshwater marine (Bessereau Peden Japan alone, c. 3000 1500 accidents annually mountain maritime leisure activities, respectively (National Police Agency, 2022). discussions far (i.e. olfactory), frequency over wider conditions 3). Encountering wild harmful harbour dark forests), might one common forms developed provokes disgust (Fukano Soga, Polák Rádlová Ulrich, 1993). This takes forms, apiphobia (fear bees), arachnophobia spiders), batrachophobia amphibians), botanophobia plants), dendrophobia trees), entomophobia insects), equinophobia horses), felinophobia cats), helminthophobia infested worms), herpetophobia reptiles), hylophobia ichthyophobia fish), musophobia mice), ophidiophobia snakes), ornithophobia birds), selachophobia sharks) zoophobia animals; Cromby Phillips, Robertson, 2003; genetic adaptation things learned behaviour cultural sources individual community survival Patuano, 2020), degree vary substantially among Fukano Although exact phobia unclear, indicate 3%–10% general population least specific Oosterink 2009a, 2009b; Zsido, Zsido 2018). which, if themselves do evoke reactions, certain behaviours events trigger feelings. experience uncomfortable when harming consuming another seeing predatory killing smaller scavenging carcasses) attacking (Prokop 2008; Treves, Similarly, either intentionally unintentionally catching insects, trampling understorey vegetation, removing vegetation due development) accidentally kill hitting deer car), feel distressed, fearful sad (c.f., Pagani 2008). Of course, encounter damaged regardless (natural processes anthropogenic impacts). Many emit sound communicate information mating territory size, response threats, unpleasant experiences insect, frog, bird mammal cicadas, pigeons, gulls, foxes) create loud repetitive noises, breeding season, lead noise nuisance, areas (Gu Kalnicky Kung 2015; Lyytimäki, Temby, variation influenced multiple personal, factors Certain ginkgo tree, hawthorn, mint, lantana, skunk cabbage, stink bug, skunk, defend predators aid reproductive (Table 2; Jenkins, Nickel, (albeit smell perceived). Importantly, health. Umbellularia californica (commonly ‘headache tree’), tree indigenous southwestern Oregon Northern California, emits scent leaves, inhalation reported sinus irritation, sneezing, headache loss consciousness (Nassini ecosystems. greenspace odour nuisance raccoon dogs domestic gardens). classified along three key dimensions: frequency, intensity consistency (Figure Within given population, frequently others rarely High-frequency include, birds. Low-frequency stingray down mountain. relative varies depending under Nevertheless, main person space period consist low-frequency few high-frequency assumption yet formally tested. occur, interactions. opportunities generally uniformly distributed biased heavily towards sectors society (Chaves Dunham 2010). working agriculture, forestry fisheries greater opportunity (Quandt that, having tend rare, high proportion disproportionately experienced small (Cox, 2017, Shanahan, implies no low numbers probably Intensity receives 2), measured dimensions duration symptoms, severity pain depth felt. More intense physically injured suffers long-term sequelae post-traumatic stress disorder. On hand, require psychologically harmed feeling walking forest. unclear balance several personal factors. host wildlife inflict crocodiles; Bateman Chaves Chippaux, Dhanwatey 2010; Tchoffo Consistency same level independent live consistent herbivores struck branch. Less organism unfavourable perceptions age, gender, education childhood exposure Belaire Kaltenborn 2006) Özel 2009; Prokop From practical viewpoint, determine inconsistency. gained inform development policies suggested who levels history show biophobic educational recreational about, with, help number phobia. closely interrelated ways. ones. consistent; sense. Determining relationship step well-being. (from local regional, national international) scales hourly daily, seasonally annually). arises shaped four factors: abundance 3 examples factors). drivers shape independently, rather multiple, albeit understood, density larger effects crows: Cox mosquitoes: Leisnham 2005; mammals: 2018) alters becoming bolder humans: Galbreath Kumar human-induced resources: Rose feedback loops changes ecotourism sites featured sensationalised media Hardiman 2020 shark bites), extermination removal individuals and/or decrease visitors (due voluntary regulated restrictions areas; Farley 2014). This, turn, decreases loops). loop carnivores killed become again (Schell Over last decades, growing (Chippaux, 2017), bites (Chapman 2014), (Bombieri 2016), invertebrate (Araújo CDC, fall-related mountains so-called ‘expansion experience’ 2022) found expansion driven environmental factors, increases populations, reductions available habitat agricultural developments, climate change increased international trade depopulation familiarity inappropriate them Enari, Vink 2011). mitigated first perhaps straightforward feeding approaching going walk without proper equipment skills; achieved marketing programmes about (Abrams second strategy curb reducing artificial parks obtain human-provided suburban contribute limiting habituation (Marley 2017). third suppress activities) periods places where experiencing (Linnell 2005). fourth, resort, selective reduction trapping, hunting), clearance, temporary water pools mosquitoes breed). feasibility effectiveness depend strongly socioeconomic background regions concerned. biodiversity conservation), desirable undertake clearing Colman significant financial resources, employed socioeconomically disadvantaged (Bateman industry, suppressing easily achievable reasons. Furthermore, safety predominant importance, inclined accept adopting Cahill ‘one size fits all’ solution manage careful required choosing above-mentioned approaches substantially, may, preventing restricting motivation cutting trees produce flowers viewing window; focussed priority questions). First, scale, patterns documented trends socioeconomic, pointed out under-reported witnessed, poor countries, illegal poaching), press popular vacation destinations (Koziarski Ricci Hence, existing evidence just tip iceberg actual society, higher. Second, crucial understand related. affluent apparent together engage high-quality nature-based camping wilderness Bombieri Chapman West, existence ‘trade-off’ raising challenges policy-makers best maximise minimising costs. Third, seem valuable ongoing biodiversity, conservation programs, alter expected richness amount always case. invasive alien snapping redback spider spear thistle), establishment native (Liu possible predator abundance, activity level, (Enari, cases, per unit decreasing biodiversity. Lastly, affect attitudes argued early pro-environmental Cheng Monroe, Wells Lekies, benefit hypothesis; interaction feelings Liu An direction possibly interactive shaping pro-biodiversity behaviours. With growth populations demand escalate worldwide Global urbanisation accelerate (Backe Sonenshine, Zacarias Loyola, comprehensive enhance ability argue advance goal requires scientists is, say detrimental Rather, needs clear recognition inevitable trade-offs exist two. point, explore minimal impact restoration influence ways maximising beneficial challenge ‘Anthropocene’. Both authors conceived work, drafted manuscript, edited approved final version. grateful D.T.C. S. Higgins, T. Kubo anonymous reviewers comments manuscript. M.S. supported Society Promotion Science (Project No. 20H04375) Research Institute Humanity Nature (RIHN: constituent member NIHU): Feasibility Project RIHN14200158). K.J.G. Natural Environment Council funded ‘Renewing people-in-nature (RENEW)’ project (NE/W004941/1). Editor-in-Chief Associate Editor People Nature, respectively, took peer decision-making paper. No new data were analysed study.