Biophilia and animal welfare: perception and Biophilia and animal welfare: perception and positioning of undergraduates in Pernambucoof undergraduates in Pernambuco

Authors

  • Antonio Paulo Silva Júnior Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, 50.670- 420, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.
  • Lilian Cristine Marinho de Lima Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, 50.670- 420, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.
  • José Dijair Antonino Souza Júnior Mestre em Biologia Animal, Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, 50.670- 420, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.
  • Hilquias Andrade Rodrigues Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, 50.670- 420, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.
  • Simão Dias Vasconcelos Laboratório de Ensino de Zoologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, s/n, 50.670- 420, Recife-Pernambuco, Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13102/scb8083

Abstract

The Biophilia hypothesis is based, among other ideas, on an evolutionary necessity of human contact with nature – including plants and animals. This work aimed at comparing the affinity and ethical commitment with animals among university students. We applied questionnaires to 72 students of Management, 59 of Biological Sciences and 62 of Engineering at the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, focusing on their perception about affinity and concern about animal welfare. The sympathy towards animals was similar in different courses, and Mammalia was the favorite taxon in all courses. Students agree that the human-animal interaction is beneficial to men and that animals need company and loving care. Also, they support more severe penalties to those who commit crimes against animals. The affinity and ethical awareness is unaffected by the area of study among target public, which is in accordance with the Biophilia hypothesis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdala GC. 2002. Uma abordagem socioecológica do Parque Nacional de Brasília – estudo de caso. Brasília: UNESCO (Cadernos UNESCO Brasil. Série Meio Ambiente 4).

Azevedo EES. 1998. Ensino da bioética: um desafio transdisciplinar. Interface 2: 127-138.

Beck A & A Katcher. 1996. Between pets and people: the importance of animal companionship. West Lafayete: Purdue University Press.

Beck AM & NM Meyers. 1996. Health enhancement and companion animal ownership. Annual Review Public Health 17: 247–57.

Bezerra BM, CEB Nobre, MD Alves & SD Vasconcelos. 2007. Percepção e posicionamento de estudantes quanto à exploração econômica de animais: um estudo de caso na Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 7(3): 223-229.

Cassidy R. 2001. On the human-animal bounday. Anthrozoös 14(4): 194-203.

Chistiansen SB & P Sandøe. 2000. Bioethics: limits to the interference with life. Animal Reproduction Science 60: 15-29.

Costa Neto EM & MS Gouw. 2006. Atitudes dos estudantes do curso de ciências biológicas da Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana (Bahia) com relação à utilização de insetos em atividades didático-científicas. Sitientibus Série Ciências Biológicas 6(1): 76-83.

Kahn Junior P. 2000. Development psychology and the Biophilia Hypothesis: children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental review 17:1-61.

Kaplan R. 1983. The role of nature in the urban context, p. 61-127. In: I Altham & J Wohlwill (eds.). Behavior and the nature environment. New York: Plenum.

Katcher A, H Segal & A Beck. 1984. Comparison of contemplation and hypnosis for the reduction of anxiety and discomfort during dental surgery. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 27: 14–21.

Lev E. 2003. Traditional healing with animals (zootherapy): medieval to present-day Levantine practice. Journal of Etnopharmacology 85: 107-118.

Lewin R. 1999. Evolução humana. São Paulo: Atheneu Editora.

Lourenço O & P Kahn. 2000. Raciocínio ecológico-moral: um estudo desenvolvimentista numa amostra de sujeitos de Lisboa. Análise Psicológica 4(18): 425-435.

Melson GF. 1998. The role of companion animals in human development, p. 219-236. In: CC Wilson & DC Turner (eds.), Companion animals in human health. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.

Myers OE & CD Saunders. 2002. Animals as links towars development caring relationships with the natural world, p. 153-178. In: PH Kahn & SR Kellert (eds.). Children and nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Singer P. 2002. Vida ética. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro.

Wilson EO. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Downloads

Published

2008-04-30

How to Cite

Silva Júnior, A. P., Lima, L. C. M. de, Souza Júnior, J. D. A., Rodrigues, H. A., & Vasconcelos, S. D. (2008). Biophilia and animal welfare: perception and Biophilia and animal welfare: perception and positioning of undergraduates in Pernambucoof undergraduates in Pernambuco. SITIENTIBUS série Ciências Biológicas, 8(1), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.13102/scb8083

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2008)

Section

Artigos

License

Sitientibus série Ciências Biológicas (SCB) is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.