XXX THIS PARAGRAPH NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED A LITTLE MORE The NIACT \cite{Kemp_2017a} and GENIAL \cite{Kemp_2017} models integrate these behavioural, psychological and physiological factors into an innovative interpretative framework within which pathways to health and ill-health may be understood, bridging the gap between psychological moments and mortality. 

Focus on the Environment

Here we focus on contributions from the wider environment to individual wellbeing, and consider how different approaches to enhancing wellbeing may have beneficial or adverse impacts on the environment. Relevant concepts include 'sustainable wellbeing' [REF], 'solastalgia' [REF], 'psychoterratica' [REF], 'social ecology' [REF], 'climate change' [REF], 'human rights' [REF], 'equality' [REF], and the “positive psychology of sustainability” [REF] amongst others. 
Psychological science has been criticised for a blinkered focus on the individual, while ignoring wider, systemic issues issues \cite{Carlisle_2009,Frawley_2015}. The ‘happiness industry’ has been described as egocentric, narcissistic, and neoliberal socialism in which “sharing is preferable to selling as long as it doesn’t interfere with the financial interests of dominant corporations” corporations” \cite{davies2015}. . Similar criticism has been made of the construct of wellbeing, which has been argued to be a socio-cultural construction of western individualism that places importance on wealth, fame and materialistic pursuits, while neglecting and disregarding our shared environment environment \cite{Carlisle_2009}. These criticisms in combination with the ever-increasing body of peer-reviewed literature on ‘happiness’ and ‘wellbeing’ were, in part, reason for proposing the original GENIAL framework framework \cite{Kemp_2017}, which extended theoretical frameworks of individual wellbeing to community wellbeing, and motivated us to consider how this framework might relate to one of the greatest challenges faced by mankind today: climate change. While we use the term ‘environment’ in a very general sense, encompassing the biosphere (natural environment), the human-built environment, sociostructural and cultural factors, in this section we focus specifically on the associations between individual wellbeing and climate change, unless otherwise indicated.
Human beings have a strong, innate affiliation with the biological world, a phenomenon captured by the ‘biophilia hypothesis’ and exposure to nature can lead to transcendent emotions including peak experience \cite{1964} and psychological flow \cite{Csikszentmihalyi_2014}. These experiences have been described as the sublime emotion towards nature, encompassing the experience of awe and inspiring energy, that may promote environmentalist commitment commitment \cite{Bethelmy_2019}. Awe is a positive, transcendent emotion characterised by widened eyes and a dropped jaw in combination with physical sensations such as ‘goosebumps’ and the ‘chills’ ‘chills’ \cite{Keltner_2003,Yaden_2018}. In a study of reported emotional experience based on 2,185 emotionally evocative videos videos \cite{Cowen_2017}, awe was observed to be one of 27 distinct varieties of emotions. The authors further observed that specific emotional experiences formed smooth transitions between distinct varieties of distinct experiences. So for instance, a smooth gradient was observed between calmness, aesthetic appreciation of beauty and awe leading the authors to suggest that the boundaries between different emotions are fuzzy. Other research has reported that exposure to nature is associated with with a reduction in stress \cite{Hansmann_2007}\cite{Ulrich_1991}, feelings of restoration restoration \cite{White_2013,Wyles_2017}, subjective wellbeing \cite{Johansson_2011,LUCK_2011,White_2017}, improved cognitive functioning \cite{Berman_2008,Berto_2005} and stronger connectedness with others as well as the natural environment \cite{Mayer_2008,Richardson_2016}.
The ‘biophilia hypothesis’ has recently been broadened to encompass non-living, physical elements, emphasising human affiliation with the local environment (‘place’) and a role for cultural experience \cite{Beery_2015,s2012}. This ‘tropophilia hypothesis’ argues that human beings have a “genetically based drive for exploring the local environment combined with imprinting of the experienced conditions… [that] improve the chances of the individual to survive and reproduce” reproduce” \cite{Beery_2015}. It is now widely accepted in scientific circles \cite{change2007,change2014} that humanity will face catastrophic climate change should we fail to commit to climate action. The biophilia and The biophilia and tropophilia hypotheses hypotheses provide a foundation on which to understand the distress, pain or sickness that has been reported with environmental change of home or territory, a phenomenon known as ‘solastalgia’ \cite{ALBRECHT,2019,Albrecht_2007}. Glenn Albrecht, an Australian environmental philosopher coined the term ‘solastalgia’ after reflecting on the environmental impacts of open cut coal mining and pollution of local power stations on the residents of the Upper Hunter Region of NSW in Australia. He writes that ‘solastalgia’ reflects a “specific form of melancholia connected to a lack of solace and intense desolation” associated with place-based distress \cite{albrecht2005a}. Mental distress and psychiatric disorders may also arise from the direct effects of climate-related disasters as well as the indirect effects of such events (e.g. disruption to food supply and damage to community wellbeing) \cite{Berry_2009,Hayes_2018}. In fact, the number of people experiencing psychological trauma exceeds those with physical injury by 40–1 \cite{j2007}, and weather related disasters have increased by 44% since the year 2000 \cite{Watts_2018}. Critically, there is now strong evidence to conclude that we humans are contributing to such change, a phenomenon known as anthropogeneic climate change. Research reporting on ratings of peer-reviewed climate-science and self-ratings by climate change scientists themselves has indicated that there is 97% endorsement of humans contribution to the warming climate \cite{Cook_2013}. Unfortunately, this finding remains under appreciated in a brave new world of alternative facts and disinformation \cite{Lewandowsky_2013,Lewandowsky_2017}.
In our original GENIAL model \cite{Kemp_2017}, we described an important role for positive social ties and community on health and wellbeing. Interestingly, others \cite{Beery_2015,Nurse_2010} have argued that the boundaries of ‘community’ should be extended to the environment including soil, water, plants and animals, in order to facilitate love and respect, and a commitment to environmental sustainability. Interestingly, feelings of guilt, shame, fear, emotional discomfort and solastalgia have been associated with motivation to engage in environmental sustainability behaviours \cite{Albrecht_2007,DICKERSON_1992,Kaiser_2008,Malott_2010}. Others have proposed an ‘aesthetics of elsewhere’, which involves encouraging a double aesthetic judgment of ‘here’ and ‘elsewhere’ to induce an aesthetic melancholia to influence consumption decisions \cite{maskit2011}. By contrast, others have argued for a positive psychology of sustainability \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2014,Corral_Verdugo_2012,obrien2016}, a strategy that may help to foster what has been described as sustainable wellbeing \cite{Kjell_2011}. In a study on 606 undergraduate students in Mexico \cite{fraijo-sing2011}, researchers reported that pro-ecological, altruistic, frugal and equitable behaviors reflect the behaviours of a sustainably-oriented person, and that these sustainable behaviours have positive psychological consequences. Prior research had shown that individuals engaging in pro-ecological behaviours – such as resource conservation – report greater happiness \cite{Brown_2005}, that altruism leads to greater long-term happiness \cite{ja1995}, and that frugality predicts greater psychological wellbeing, satisfaction and motivation \cite{Brown_2005}. More equitable individuals however, had been reported to be less happy due to the ‘negative hedonic impact of inequality in society’. It is notable here that climate change exacerbates existing inequities \cite{Hayes_2018}.
Others have proposed the concept of ‘sustainable happiness’ \cite{2016}, defined as “happiness that contributes to individual, community, and/or global well-being without exploiting other people, the environment, or future generations”\cite{obrien2010} thus differentiating it from “sustaining happiness” or “sustainable in- creases in happiness” \cite{s2007}. More recently, a structural model of the relationships between character strengths, virtues and sustainable behaviours has been presented in which all 24 character strengths \cite{p2004} are associated with all four sustainable behaviours (i.e. altruistic, frugal, equitable and pro-ecological behaviours) \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2015}. This body of work provides a useful foundation on which psychological scientists may advocate a role for the discipline in addressing environmental challenges, such that pro-environmental behaviours also provide opportunities to promote happiness and build resources for resilience, in addition to much-needed environmental benefits \cite{Clayton_2016,fraijo-sing2011,Corral_Verdugo_2012}. It is the grave threat that human beings face that may also inspire a variety of positive feelings such as altruism, compassion, optimism as well as a sense of purpose “as people band together to salvage, rebuild, and console amongst the chaos and loss of a changing climate” \cite{Hayes_2018}, reflecting ‘active hope’ \cite{c2012}.
While the emerging positive psychology of sustainability \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2015,Kjell_2011,Corral_Verdugo_2012,obrien2016} provides a clear link between individual and environmental wellbeing, it is also notable that the vast majority of people do not engage in proenvironmental behaviours [REF?]. Recent qualitative research \cite{langen2017} has investigated the psychological processes that not only foster such behaviours, but those that can lead one to become agents for change. The researchers interpreted their findings in the context of ‘salutogenesis’ \cite{ANTONOVSKY_1996}, a word based on the Latin term ‘salus’ (health, well-being) and the Greek word ‘genesis’ meaning emergence or creation \cite{langen2017}. The salutogenic concept emphasises a key role for a ‘sense of coherence’ for managing and overcoming stress. This ‘sense of coherence’ reflect feelings of confidence that stimuli in the (internal and external) environment are comprehensible, manageable and meaningful. The researchers reported that grassroots activists relied on values and attitudes, rather than cognitive assessments of the problems. The researchers emphasised that the problems are so vast that limits are imposed on knowledge (i.e. comprehensibility), arguing that emotions are a key mediator between the appraisal of a situation and motivation to take action. The difficulty in comprehending problems associated with climate change, and the intangibility and invisibility of such change may even lead individuals to sit on their hands and do nothing, a phenomenon known as ‘Giddens Paradox’ \cite{a2009}. Maschkowski and colleagues also contrast the ideological foundation of consumer society (‘the more we consume, the better off we are’) with a sense of personal responsibility for change, reporting that grassroots activists had an improved perceived quality of life, speculating that these improvements were attributable to empowerment and social cohesion, providing a sense of meaning and purpose in life (i.e. meaningfulness). Finally, concrete and collective action was observed to enhance positive emotions and mastery experiences subsequently enhancing beliefs about self-efficacy (i.e. manageability) \cite{langen2017}.
In summary, exposure to nature provides a host of benefits that have direct impacts on wellbeing, and may even promote commitment to proenvironmental behaviours. Although psychological scientists have been criticised for contributing to the problem of consumerism and materialistic pursuits, we have observed emerging research interest in the concepts of sustainable happiness and wellbeing, directly linking positive psychology to concepts relating to sustainability and proenvironmental behaviours. While some authors have questioned whether it is possible to quantify wellbeing \cite{Crawshaw_2008}, arguing that wellbeing is a holistic concept that is difficult to pin down within a “culture of growing self-interest propagated within pervasive neoliberal ideology” \cite{Dooris_2017}, we suggest otherwise, although much work in this area remains to be done. Researchers have begun to begun to propose broader conceptualisations of health and wellbeing incorporating individual, family, community and societal dimensions \cite{Dooris_2017}, as well as the need to support the wellbeing of future generations \cite{Lindstr_m_2010}. While psychological scientists have typically emphasised a role for the individual in enhancing and improving wellbeing (i.e. the individualist approach to health), sociologists have emphasised the role of the state (the structuralist approach to health). Future research on wellbeing will require us to step outside our disciplinary silos, and conduct inter-disciplinary, even trans-disciplinary research that harnesses both approaches. Behaviour change is difficult especially in regards to the adoption of proenvironmental behaviours. It is a perhaps relief that one can be motivated to act against climate change, irrespective of personal importance placed on climate change itself and whether or not one is a ‘believer’ or ‘skeptic’ by appealing to economic advancement and building community \cite{Bain_2015}.
INTEGRATE:
http://www.thrivingplacesindex.org/, “This year, we have strengthened the sustainability and equality domains to underline the vital importance of delivering the conditions for wellbeing in a way that challenges current power imbalances and recognises the rights of future generations.“
XXX
Exposure to nature is another route through which an individual can experience eudaimonia (Passmore & Howell, 2014), among others (Ruini & Ryff, 2016).
It has been proposed that humans have an adverse response to environments that are restrictive and this a biological, evolutionary response. This is because life-threatening objects/animals could be hidden, with limited escape access, resulting in a high likelihood of death. Research has highlighted the preference of open, natural settings with high visual depth as opposed to restrictive environments \citep*{kaplan1989} (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1986). In line with this view, research has focused on the impact of nature on wellbeing. For example, Ulrich (1984) compared the impact of patients’ views on their recovery rate after gall bladder surgery. Those who had the view of deciduous trees had a quicker recovery rate (were discharged from hospital sooner) and received fewer potent pain killer injections than those who had a view of a brick wall. In another study, nature’s restorative effect was assessed whilst controlling for the effect of exercise (Hartig, Mang, & Evans 1991). Participants’ stress levels were increased via a cognitive task, they then either walked for 40 minutes in an urban nature area dominated by trees and vegetation, walked for 40 minutes in a natural urban environment, or read or listened to music for 40 minutes. Those who walked for 40 minutes in the urban nature area dominated by vegetation reported the most positive affect post-intervention compared with the other groups.
Other research has highlighted the benefit of nature on cognitive function, for example, walking in nature or viewing nature photography can improve performance on the backwards digit-span task and the Attention Network Task (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2009). The hypothesis behind this is the attention restoration theory (ART) (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). This theory proposes that living in urban areas demands an increased amount of directed attention, which can result in attentional fatigue, which not only impacts on cognitive function as noted above, but may also play a role in increasing the likelihood of health-related issues via neural and behavioural pathways as a result of worsened decision making and lower levels of self-control (Fan & Jin, 2013; Hare, Camerer, & Rangel, 2009; Vohs et al., 2008). Alternatively, spending time in nature allows an individual to recover their attentional capacities (Felsten, 2009).
A review on the benefits of exposure to nature found it has a direct and positive impact on wellbeing (Bowler et al., 2010). However, the most common measure consisted of subjective emotions. The objective data consisting of blood pressure and cortisol levels showed less consistent results comparing the impact of nature and synthetic environments. Despite this, a subjective improvement in emotions is a desired outcome, with previous discussions highlighting the self-sustaining upward spiral of positive emotion, vagal function and social connectedness.
Leading from this is evidence to support the link of a strong environmental identity (one’s position within an ecosystem) and wellbeing. Hinds and Sparks (2010) hypothesised that the frequency and degree of meaning from experiences in the natural environment would positively predict wellbeing and environmental identity; their research partly supporting this. They also found that individuals who grew up in rural areas would report a greater frequency and a stronger degree of meaning from experiences in the natural environment, in addition to increased wellbeing, compared to those raised in urban environments.
Global Warming
Heatwaves are of concern due to their rapid increase in frequency, duration, and intensity. They have been associated with increases in hospital psychiatric admissions, suicides, and population distress (Carleton, 2017; Nitschke, Tucker, & Bi, 2007; Qi et al., 2014; Williams, Hill, & Spicer, 2015). The weather can also impact food shortages, homelessness, agricultural land, and scared places (Berry et al., 2018), which can subsequently influence health. Extreme weather can even influence health and wellbeing of an unborn child. For example, children who were conceived in the three months following an ice storm in Quebec were followed up at 5-years of age (Dancause et al., 2012). Objective and subjective prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) was measured. Results highlighted PNMS to be an independent risk factor for childhood obesity. Similarly, PNMS independently predicts insulin secretion in adolescence in a positively correlated relationship (Dancause et al., 2013).
INTEGRATE RECENT PNAS STUDY ON CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTING ON INEQUALITY: “many countries near the equator, which are generally poorer, lost an average of more than 25% of potential growth in gross domestic product (GDP) because of global warming, the researchers report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Many cooler, mostly wealthier countries, in contrast, enjoyed an economic bump of 20% or more, thanks to warmer weather.” GENIAL model highlights inequality as a key sociostructural factor impacting on wellbeing and here is evidence that climate change is making things worse!! DISCUSSED HERE: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/global-warming-may-boost-economic-inequality
Link to active hope and environmental activism? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/24/greta-thunberg-general-strike-action-climate-change
INTEGRATE:
concerns over the sustainability of an animal-based diet have led to analyses of changes in dietary choices \citep{Springmann2016}. For instance, this styudy observed that transitioning toward a more plant-based diet in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce mlobal mortality by 6-10% as well as food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29-70%  by 2050 in comparison to a reference scenario. Adopting a vegetarian diet would reduce water, energy, fertiliser and pesticide use, subsequently improving both the environment as well as individual health \citep{Marlow2009}. The Mediterranean diet (which is low in meat, but not vegetariaqn) has also been proposed as a way to both improve the environment along with individual heath \citep{Sáez-Almendros2013}. As a result of the growing concern surrounding a diet based on animal products for both individual health and the environment, encouragements such as the VB6 (vegan before 6pm) diet or flexitarianism (flexible vegetarianism) have been proposed to battle both growing issues (Bittman, 2013; Raphaely & Marinova, 2012; Raphaely & Marinova, 2014). Interest in vegetarianism and veganism is continually growing as people become more mindful and ethical of their dietary choices , with trends such as "Veganuary" (being vegan for the month of January) growing (The Vegan Society, 2019).
INTEGRATE: A recent has even demonstrated that climate change has already increased societal inequality XXX INTEGRATE AND DISCUSS: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1816020116. DISCUSSED HERE: http://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/, which may fuel XXX political grievances, XXX and terrorism. [REF]
INTEGRATE: It is important to be mindful of environmental contextual impacts of sociostructural factors such as sociometric status , poverty , social cohesion , neighbourhood-level socioeconomic status and collective efficacy on personal wellbeing.