When Nature Becomes Alien: How Alienation and Fear Accelerate Species Extinction

The loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest ecological crises of our time. Yet, while threatened species, habitat destruction, and climate change are intensely debated, one aspect often remains unnoticed: the waning relationship between humans and nature. Two recent studies reveal the depth of this alienation – and its consequences for nature and species conservation.

A model-based long-term analysis by Miles Richardson reconstructs the decline in nature connectedness since the beginning of industrialization. A second study by Johan Kjellberg Jensen, Anna S. Persson, and Masashi Soga examines the growing phenomenon of biophobia – i.e., fear, disgust, and rejection of nature. Together, both studies make it clear: many people are not only losing their emotional connection to the environment but are increasingly beginning to perceive it as a threat.

The Gradual Loss of Nature Connectedness

Richardson’s study, published in the journal Earth, investigates how the human relationship with nature has changed since 1800. It is based on an agent-based computer model in which a virtual society of families lives in a simplified landscape of cities, green spaces, and degraded areas. Over several generations, the model simulates how nature connectedness develops as urbanization increases and natural habitats disappear.

The simulation combines historical data on urban development with psychological assumptions about the perception of nature and the transmission of attitudes within families. In this way, Richardson was able not only to reconstruct the development since the beginning of industrialization but also to calculate possible future scenarios up to the year 2125.

The central basis is the concept of “Extinction of Experience”: the less people experience nature, the weaker their emotional bond becomes. This declining connectedness, in turn, leads to nature being visited less and less. The process reinforces itself.

To verify his model results, Richardson also used cultural-historical data. Using the analysis tool Google Books Ngram Viewer, he examined how frequently 28 typical nature-related terms – such as “river,” “trees,” or “birds” – were used in books since the 19th century. The analysis showed a clear decline since about 1850, parallel to industrialization and urbanization. Thus, the linguistic trends confirmed the model’s results: both indicate a loss of nature connectedness of around 60%.

While around 1800, large parts of the population still lived in close proximity to natural landscapes, today over 80% of people live in highly urbanized areas. Green spaces became smaller, more fragmented, and more regulated; natural processes increasingly disappeared from everyday life. Leisure time shifted more and more indoors and into digital environments.

When Alienation is Inherited

A key finding of the Richardson study is the strong intergenerational influence: the distance to nature is largely passed down from generation to generation. Children do not primarily adopt their attitudes through their own experiences, but above all through their parents’ attitudes. Parents with low nature connectedness often unconsciously transmit this distance to their children.

The model shows that around 80% of children’s nature connectedness can be attributed to family influences. Even improved environmental conditions (e.g., green cities, new protected areas) do not automatically lead to a new relationship with nature. The alienation remains culturally and psychologically entrenched.

Small Measures Are Not Enough

Given the long-term decline in nature connectedness, the question arises whether and how this development can still be reversed. To find an answer, Richardson integrated various future scenarios into his model up to the year 2125. Among other things, he examined the effect of more green spaces, more conscious perception of nature (e.g., by reducing smartphone distractions outdoors), and targeted programs to promote nature connectedness in children at an early age.

None of these measures alone proved sufficient to sustainably halt the decades-long downward trend. Even with maximum implementation of all three approaches, the model showed that recovery only begins slowly. Due to the strong intergenerational influence, the distance to nature persists for a longer period.

Under favorable conditions, according to Richardson, significant improvements could only emerge around 2050 – when a new generation grows up that has had more intensive contact with nature and passes this attitude on to their own children.

When Distance Becomes Fear: The Phenomenon of Biophobia

While Richardson primarily investigates the loss of connection, the second study, published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, analyzes what can arise from this distance: active rejection of nature. Jensen and his team evaluated 196 international studies from psychology, environmental sciences, sociology, and health research. The goal was to gain a systematic overview of biophobia for the first time.

Biophobia includes not only clinical phobias but also everyday discomfort: fear of insects, unease in the forest, disgust at soil, or aversion to wild landscapes. Such attitudes often manifest in seemingly harmless statements like “Nature is unhygienic,” “Wild animals are dangerous,” or “I don’t feel comfortable in the forest.”

The analysis shows that negative emotions towards nature are increasing in many regions of the world. Fear, disgust, and rejection occur not only in individual population groups but can be observed across different age groups, social milieus, and cultural contexts.

How Biophobia Arises

Biophobia arises from the interplay of various factors:

• Psychological characteristics such as anxiety, negative learning experiences, or lack of knowledge increase susceptibility.
• Biological factors such as stress sensitivity or genetic predispositions influence the stress response.
• Environmental factors such as growing up in highly sealed cities and limited contact with nature lead to a lack of familiarity with plants and animals. The unknown is more quickly interpreted as a danger.
• Social influences such as family attitudes, media reports about “problem animals,” or cultural myths shape collective images of nature.

Fear is often socially learned and passed on. Biophobia is therefore not an isolated phenomenon but an expression of a complex social process.

The Consequences for Humans and the Environment

Biophobia has far-reaching consequences for individuals and society. It impairs well-being, as natural spaces are avoided, and important recreational and compensatory effects are lost. Various studies show that time spent in nature can reduce stress, promote concentration, and positively influence the emotional development of children. Those who avoid such experiences thus forgo an important resource for psychological health.

More problematic are the societal consequences of biophobia. People who feel uncomfortable in natural environments visit protected areas, national parks, or rewilding sites less frequently. They develop less emotional attachment to landscapes and species and, consequently, support conservation measures less often. At the same time, acceptance for culling, relocation, or other interventions in wildlife populations increases. Animals are increasingly perceived as a potential danger – not as a valuable part of biodiversity.

Those who fear nature are less likely to commit to its preservation – even if they fundamentally recognize its ecological importance.

The Vicious Cycle of Biophobia

The Jensen study describes a self-reinforcing cycle that explains how initial distance gradually develops into active rejection of nature.

1. Low Contact with Nature
   Due to urbanization, intensive media use, and changed leisure habits, many people spend little time in natural environments. Direct experiences with plants, animals, and natural processes become rare.
2. Uncertainty and Overwhelm
   Lack of experience leads to nature being perceived as alien and unpredictable. Unexpected encounters with insects, wild animals, or unknown landscapes quickly trigger uncertainty, fear, or disgust.
3. Avoidance and Retreat
   Negative emotions lead to nature being consciously avoided. Forests, protected areas, or natural spaces are visited less frequently, and contact continues to decrease.
4. Loss of Knowledge and Emotional Connection
   With the retreat, knowledge about species, ecological contexts, and habitats is also lost. Nature becomes increasingly abstract and meaningless. It primarily exists as a theoretical topic in media or in connection with environmental crises.

If nature no longer has personal and emotional value, its loss is hardly perceived as one’s own problem. The cycle closes and stabilizes itself.

This mechanism is similar to the “Extinction of Experience” model from Richardson’s study, but it is reinforced by strong negative emotions. Mere alienation turns into active rejection.

Ways Out of Alienation

The two studies show that alienation and fear of nature are not an unavoidable fate. However, effective countermeasures must address several points simultaneously and have a long-term impact.

1. Enable early and regular nature experiences
Positive experiences in childhood shape attitudes towards nature sustainably. Children need regular contact with living, diverse nature – not just occasional excursions or designed green spaces.

2. Actively involve families
Since attitudes are often passed on within families, parents must also be addressed. Joint nature activities and low-threshold programs help to develop new routines.

3. Create nature-friendly cities
Diverse, partly wild green spaces in urban daily life lower barriers and enable gradual rapprochement – especially for population groups distant from nature.

4. Reduce fear through knowledge and positive experiences
Ignorance and uncertainty can be reduced through species knowledge, understandable information, and careful approaches. Different causes of biophobia require different approaches.

5. Promote responsible media handling
Objective reporting and the reduction of fear-inducing images help to correct distorted perceptions of nature and wildlife.

6. Establish long-term programs
Sustainable changes do not arise from individual projects but from permanently anchored programs that combine education, urban development, and nature conservation.

In summary, the studies show: only when positive experiences, knowledge, and emotional connection are strengthened together can the cycle of distance, fear, and indifference be broken.

Why Knowledge Alone Is Not Enough

The two studies show that the loss of nature connectedness has direct consequences for societal support for nature conservation. If more and more people perceive nature as alien, unpleasant, or threatening, protected areas are seen as a burden, wildlife as a risk, and rewilding projects as a dispensable luxury. In such a social climate, ambitious conservation programs can hardly be enforced long-term.

There is no lack of information. For years, climate models, species lists, and ecological scenarios have warned of dramatic developments. Nevertheless, these findings rarely lead to long-term commitment to nature conservation. For example, a 2024 study showed that even interest in recently extinct animal species often lasts only for a short time and quickly fades.

A central reason for this lies in the emotional distance many people have from the natural environment. Those who primarily associate nature with uncertainty, discomfort, or fear are unlikely to develop an inner motivation to work for its preservation – even in the face of bleak future prognoses.

Research shows that rational knowledge without emotional connection often remains abstract. Species extinction, climate change, and landscape loss are then perceived as distant, hard-to-grasp problems that have little to do with one’s own daily life or the future of one’s own family. The ecological crisis appears as something that happens “elsewhere” or “sometime.”

If this personal connection is missing, the willingness to take long-term responsibility also decreases – both for future generations and for the stability of natural livelihoods. Nature conservation is then not understood as a common societal task, but as a specialized topic for experts and committed minorities.

Successful nature conservation therefore requires more than education and warnings. It presupposes a socially anchored relationship with nature that goes beyond fear, distance, and indifference. Only when people once again perceive nature as part of their own lives will the motivation arise to preserve it not only for themselves but also for their children and grandchildren.

---

Sources

• Jensen, J. K., Persson, A. S., & Soga, M. (2025). Toward a unified understanding of people’s aversion to nature: Biophobia. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 24(1), e70019. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.70019
• Richardson, M. (2025). Modeling the historical decline of nature connectedness: An agent-based approach from 1800 to 2020. Earth, 6(3), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecosystems6030082