There is a great radio sending that talks exactly about the social contribution of urban farming in Switzerland but it's in german, sorry. But one of the main messages is that we (the swiss people) have urban farming not just because we are hungry for (local) food but because we are hungry for social contact.

cheers

Hello Najah

I had not seen your question until now, but really enjoyed looking at the subject matter. You are possibly familiar with these papers now; most of them are available from ResearchGate.

This first paper reviews 50 empirical studies and concludes that an environment devoid of nature has a negative effect, but this can be partially ameliorated by bringing in aspects of nature, allowing socialisation e.g. a walk in the park. The researchers wrote that 'none of the studies reported any significant negative outcome associated with the presence of plants' but wondered whether papers concluding negative or neutral findings had not been published:

Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(9), 2332-2343.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bjorn_Grinde/publication/26892133_Biophilia_does_visual_contact_with_nature_impact_on_health_and_well-being/links/0046352d3d5655725c000000.pdf

This paper particularly looks at the social aspect:

Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and behavior, 36(5), 678-700.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Sullivan6/publication/265068900_THE_FRUIT_OF_URBAN_NATURE_Vital_Neighborhood_Spaces/links/540ed4f50cf2f2b29a3b5970.pdf

This paper also advocates the introduction of nature to the urban environment as a strategy for stress reduction; while not particularly discussing the social aspect, the provision of parks is a social contribution:

Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban forestry & urban greening, 2(1), 1-18.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrik_Grahn2/publication/222572347_Landscape_planning_and_stress/links/09e4150ec162abbdb0000000.pdf

This is interesting; it looks at the health/psychosocial benefits of exercise amid nature, comparing categories which were rural pleasant, rural unpleasant, urban pleasant and urban unpleasant. Although the authors were purposely not looking at the social aspect, exercise is often also a social phenomenon:

Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International journal of environmental health research, 15(5), 319-337.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jules_Pretty/publication/7355171_The_mental_and_physical_health_outcomes_of_green_exercise/links/00b49523993336fef9000000.pdf

This paper - not on ResearchGate - also recommends urban green spaces:

Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology letters, 3(4), 390-394.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2390667/

Lastly, this synthesis of the literature from the University of Salford does continually cite the social benefits.

So . . it looks as if urbanites are better in a green environment, even when it was an 'imported' one.

Very best wishes

Mary

Article The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise

Article Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health ...

Article Landscape planning and stress

Article The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces

Strictly speaking, sociability among humans is not really an instance of 'biophilia'. Having said that, it seems to me that even a cursory reading of history suggests that humans tended (and tend) to domesticate animals first and then 'like' them. If they (we) fail to domesticate them, they make a sport of hunting them. Neither appears to be consistent with 'biophilia'. However, one aspect of human behaviour is still not covered by the above: the universally observable fact that human children are drawn to animals, although of course these tend to be already thoroughly domesticated ones. ¿Is it reasonable to guess that children's behaviour would be swiftly altered if they happen to contact wild animals?

Hi Najah

My PhD research has developed a methodology which explores the influence of spatial configuration and visual contact with nature on social interaction within the built environment, set within the wider context of the Biophilia hypothesis and increasing urbanisation.  The attached paper may provide you with some references to follow up on (many are similar to the ones Mary has attached); in terms of the direct relationship between social relations and the human-nature connection, I have completed a literature review on this in my thesis - if you are interested I could pull some references from that for you.

My understanding of the Biophilia hypothesis is that it goes beyond a simple "love of living things" (although that is what it translates to) and that Wilson, rather, was referring to an understanding and connection to non-human nature, which does not always present itself positively.  He believed that the human reaction to certain landscapes and animals was a "learned" knowledge which has evolved to form part of our genetic make up, and that while the human love for animals we have domesticated is one example of biophilia, so too is the awe mixed with fear that we may feel during a lightning storm; or while watching a lion hunt on a nature documentary - it's not just the pretty parts of nature we are drawn to.  We do not need to like or love the non-human nature to have respect and awe for it.  Similarly, the biophilia hypothesis contains within it the explanation for phobias of animals (referred to as biophobia) - Wilson's theory is that the more common animal phobias are learned from our ancestors as they identified those animals as presenting danger to them.  Although of course perhaps common depictions of spiders, snakes, and wolves as the baddies in Disney cartoons plays its part in this association!

Chapter Linking Space and Nature Syntaxes: The Influence of a Natura...