The biophilia and topophilia hypotheses provide a foundation on which to understand the distress,
pain or sickness that has been reported with environmental change of
home or territory. This is the phenomenon of ‘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 are expected to 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. 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 increases 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}. The grave threat that human beings face 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}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 - even when controlling for the benefits of physical activity [XXX INFLUENTIAL REF?? XXX] - 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).