![]()
PART I
The research landscape
![]()
1
FRIEND OR FOE
Salutogenic possibilities of the environment
David Sheffield and Ryan Lumber
In her seminal 1940s work about her relationship with the Cairngorms, The Living Mountain, Nan Shepherd (1977, p.4) describes two different experiences of nature: a place to contact and experience the elementals; and a place of fun and competition. There is good evidence to support the benefits of the latter; indeed, a systematic review by Coon et al. (2011) found evidence that psychological wellbeing benefits of exercise reported by adults was higher following practice in natural versus indoor locations. In this book and elsewhere there are further reports that the wellbeing benefits following exercise in nature on wellbeing outweigh those observed following the same exercise load indoors (e.g., Barton & Pretty, 2010; Loureiro & Veloso, 2014). There is now evidence implicating the role of contact and connecting with nature.
In this chapter, we describe how two theoretical developments have spurred a wave of research examining the benefits of connecting with nature: the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 2002) and salutogenesis (Antonovsky, 1979, 1987). We conclude by discussing some of the questions that remain to be answered in the light of these developments.
Antonovsky’s fundamental contribution was to raise the philosophical ‘salutogenic’ question of what creates total health (ease) and to search for ‘the origin of health’ rather than to look for the causes of dis-ease in the pathogenic direction (Antonovsky, 1979, 1987). Antonovsky got the salutogenic idea from an epidemiological study of the problems in the menopause of women in Israel. In this study he used a target group of women who had survived the concentration camps of the Second World War. To his surprise he found that, among these women, there was a group that had the capability of maintaining good health and led a good life in spite of all they had gone through. Antonovsky questioned ‘How the Hell can this be explained?’, which led him (Antonovsky, 1996) to recognise that it is more important to focus on people’s resources and capacity to create health than the pathogenic orientation on risks, ill health and disease. The ability to comprehend the whole situation and the capacity to use the resources available was called sense of coherence. This capacity was a combination of peoples’ ability to assess and understand the situation they were in, to find a meaning to move in a health-promoting direction, also having the capacity to do so – that is, comprehensibility, meaningfulness and manageability, to use Antonovsky’s own terms. Antonovsky also distinctly stated the salutogenesis was not limited by the disciplinary borders of one profession but was rather an interdisciplinary approach and a question of bringing coherence between disciplines and realising what connects them. Furthermore, it is not only a question of the person but an interaction between people and the structures of society – that is, the human resources and the conditions of the living context. It is not explicitly mentioned by Antonovsky himself, but it is reasonable to presume that he was also describing the natural environment. Salutogenesis, the origin of health, is a stress resource orientated concept, which focuses on resources, and maintains and improves the movement towards health. It gives the answer to why people, despite stressful situations and hardships, stay well. Thus, the key elements in the salutogenic development are the orientation towards problem solving and the capacity to use the resources available. Nature affords a range of resources to directly promote wellbeing and facilitate problem solving as Wilson (1984) recognised.
Biophilia
E. O. Wilson (1984, p.1) defined biophilia as
the innate tendency [in human beings] to focus on life and lifelike process … To an extent still undervalued in philosophy and religion, our existence depends on this propensity, our spirit is woven from it, hopes rise on its currents.
Having an affiliation for life is theorised to stem from an evolutionary history of searching for survival-enhancing environments (Frumkin, 2001; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Windhager, Atzwanger, Bookstein, & Schaefer, 2011) with the awe and wonder such settings provide responsible for the affiliation towards those survival-enhancing environments (Perkins, 2010). As urban living has occurred relatively recently in humanity’s evolutionary history, the learning tendencies derived from nature are unlikely to have been erased from our biology (Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2011). Tentative evidence exists for innate biophilia as savannah-like landscapes are more likely to be preferred by children between eight and eleven years of age, with older children preferring savannah landscapes and their home environment equally (see Wilson, 2002). However, an innate transmission of biophilia has been challenged more recently, as the evidence of the transmission of biophilic tendencies through genetic heritability is questionable; rather it is more likely a result of experiential learning instead (Simaika & Samways, 2010).
The adaptive behaviour biophilia produces will manifest in emotional connections to specific stimuli, the language used, and preferences for particular aspects of nature (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Until recently empirical support for the hypothesis has been mixed (Kahn, 1997), yet evidence supporting the hypothesis does exist. Natural scenes and plant life contain the aesthetic qualities required for mental restoration (Kaplan, 1995) and recovery from stress (Wilson, 2002). After surgery, recovery was quicker for patients who were given natural views compared to urban brick walls (Ulrich, 1984). Physical and mental health aside, humans have an intrinsic interest in both known and unknown nature; dinosaurs continue to fascinate and inspire, acting as an icon of lost biodiversity (Wilson, 2002) while zoos have larger annual attendances compared to all the major sports combined in the United States of America (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Such factors, along with the time invested in pet keeping (Kahn, 2011) and the popularity of wilderness activities, point to an advantage and desire to affiliate with nature through biophilia (Nisbet et al., 2011). The majority of research supporting the hypothesis does not test the rubrics of biophilia directly; the hypothesis is difficult to test scie.jpgically as the theory’s ambiguous nature makes it hard to refute (Kahn, 1999). Despite this, biophilia has been a useful catalyst for research into the human-nature relationship.
Connecting to nature
The prevailing view held by modern, westernised societies that humanity is set apart from (Vining, Merrick, & Price, 2008) and even above nature (Maller et al., 2009) was outlined as being one of principal causes of environmentally harmful behaviour (Haila, 1999). The value placed on self, animals and wider nature is therefore crucial to the attitudes held on environmental issues (Schultz, 2001) as well as behaviour (Verplanken, Walker, Davis, & Jurasek, 2008). In order for this to be achieved, an expansion of an individual’s concept of self to include nature is necessary in becoming connected to nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2001). It is thought that extending the self-concept to include nature creates a feeling of kinship (Olivos, Aragones, & Amerigo, 2011) and commonality with all life (Fox, 1990) as nature and the self are perceived as one and the same (Light, 2000). A connectedness to nature therefore creates a sense of belonging to the wider natural world as part of a larger community of nature (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009). The need for a connection to nature is a western notion and for indigenous cultures such as the Inuit, the natural landscape forms a crucial part of their cultural identity (Russell et al., 2013). Therefore, extending the self to include nature is not a new concept, as traditional indigenous belief systems often see the Earth and self as one and the same, with an individual’s identity entwined with the fate of the wider environment (Macy, 2007). Since medieval times, the concept of ‘Friluftsliv’, a lifestyle of joy, freedom and experience leading to a spiritual connectedness with nature has existed in Sweden and continues to influence lifestyle and education to this day (Beery, 2013). Experience is therefore important as it informs an eco-identity which is intertwined with an active engagement with nature (Russell et al., 2013).
Anthropomorphising nature may also be important for including nature within the self-concept as it is the ‘cognitive mechanism’ for developing a biocentric ethos (Kahn, 1999; Vining, 2003) as natural elements are humanised, leading to feelings of similarity and empathy (Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013). Possessing a nature self-concept leads to humanity and nature being perceived to be bound by the same natural laws, with all life having value (Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004). This view point is in essence biocentric (Munoz, Bogner, Clement, & Carvalho, 2009; Schroeder, 2007; Schultz, 2001; Vining et al., 2008), where nature and humanity co-exist and are not separated. Here, the selfish benefit to humanity is foresworn in order to preserve biodiversity, regardless of whether nature possesses utilitarian properties or not (Barbier et al., 2011). Therefore, everything in nature has a cultural, biological and individualistic value (Bourdeau, 2004; Drengson & Devall, 2010). Possession of this view point (and therefore a connectedness to nature) should lead to an appreciation of the richness of life and the flourishing of humanity (Naess, 2007) as harming nature when it is part of the self-concept is akin to harming oneself (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). While a sense of self and nature as one and the same may fluctuate depending on circumstance as it is thought to be comprised of an experience of nature at the individual, community and social group level (Russell et al., 2013), the nature-self ethos is vital to humanity living in balance with wider nature (Wilson, 2002).
Understanding the causes and consequences of our relationship with nature is therefore crucial. Individuals commonly report feeling emotionally close to, and an integral part of, nature, and this is reflected in the construct of nature connectedness (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). The importance of this sense of relatedness is evidenced by numerous studies linking nature connectedness with a range of wellbeing measures including hedonic (‘feeling good’) and eudaimonic (‘functioning well’) indicators (e.g. Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014; Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011). Indeed, in our recent review (Pritchard, Richardson, Sheffield, & McEwan, in press) we examined the relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic wellbeing by means of a meta-analysis and compared this with the relationship between nature connectedness and hedonic wellbeing. Eudaimonic wellbeing concerns functioning well (Ryff, 1989), akin to Antonovsky’s notion of total health, and contrasts with hedonic wellbeing which focuses on feeling good. Data from 20 samples (n = 4,758) revealed a small positive correlation between nature connectedness and eudaimonic wellbeing (r = .24), indicating that individuals who are connected to nature are more likely to be flourishing and functioning well psychologically. However, the hypothesis that nature connectedness would be more strongly associated with eudaimonic wellbeing than it is with hedonic wellbeing was not supported (k=30, n=11,638, r=.20). However, one aspect of eudaimonic wellbeing was more strongly related to nature connectedness than hedonic wellbeing: personal growth, which accords well with Antonovsky’s e...
