annual review, 2013

EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16

Humans and Nature: HowKnowing and ExperiencingNature Affect Well-Being

Roly Russell,1 Anne D. Guerry,2 Patricia Balvanera,3

Rachelle K. Gould,4 Xavier Basurto,5 Kai M.A. Chan,6

Sarah Klain,6 Jordan Levine,6 and Jordan Tam6

1The Sandhill Institute for Complexity and Sustainability, Grand Forks, British ColumbiaV0H 1H9, Canada; email: [email protected] Capital Project, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University,Seattle, Washington 98115; email: [email protected] de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,Morelia, Michoacan, 58350 Mexico; email: [email protected] Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University,Stanford, California 94305; email: [email protected] Marine Lab, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort,North Carolina 28516; email: [email protected] for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada; email: [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013. 38:473502

First published online as a Review in Advance onAugust 2, 2013

The Annual Review of Environment and Resources isonline at http://environ.annualreviews.org

This articles doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838

Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

Keywords

well-being, ecosystem, cultural ecosystem services, channels of humanexperience, constituents of well-being, nonmaterial ecosystembenets, ecosystem goods and services

Abstract

Ecosystems provide many of the material building blocks for humanwell-being. Although quantication and appreciation of such contribu-tions have rapidly grown, our dependence upon cultural connections tonature deserves more attention. We synthesize multidisciplinary peer-reviewed research on contributions of nature or ecosystems to humanwell-being mediated through nontangible connections (such as cul-ture). We characterize these connections on the basis of the channelsthrough which such connections arise (i.e., knowing, perceiving, inter-actingwith, and livingwithin) and the components of humanwell-beingthey affect (e.g., physical, mental and spiritual health, inspiration, iden-tity). We found enormous variation in the methods used, quantity ofresearch, and generalizability of the literature. The effects of nature onmental and physical health have been rigorously demonstrated, whereasother effects (e.g., on learning) are theorized but seldom demonstrated.The balance of evidence indicates conclusively that knowing and expe-riencing naturemakes us generally happier, healthier people.More fullycharacterizing our intangible connections with nature will help shapedecisions that benet people and the ecosystems on which we depend.

473

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ecosystem: a systemformed by bioticelements (livingthings) and abioticelements (includingwater, nutrients,energy) and theinteractions amongthem

Well-being: peoplescapacity to be and dowell in life, andachieve a state ofhealth, happiness, orprosperity

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4742. CONCEPTUAL ORGANIZING

FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4752.1. Our Approach: Biases

and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4752.2. Channels of Human

Experience with Ecosystems . . . . . 4762.3. Constituents of Well-Being . . . . 478

3. THE STATE OF THE ART:LINKING NATUREEXPERIENCE TOWELL-BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4783.1. Physical Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4793.2. Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4803.3. Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4823.4. Certainty, and Sense of

Control and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 4833.5. Learning and Capability . . . . . . . . 4843.6. Inspiration and Fulllment

of Imagination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4853.7. Sense of Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4863.8. Identity and Autonomy. . . . . . . . . 4873.9. Connectedness and

Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4893.10. Subjective Well-Being . . . . . . . . 490

4. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . 4914.1. Where Could We Go from

Here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4925. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

1. INTRODUCTION

People need ecosystems. Implicit and explicitrecognition of this simple fact has inspired agreat deal of research in an effort to improveoutcomes for people and the ecosystems onwhich we rely (1). Signicant effort has beendirected at understanding the wide range ofbenets that ecosystems provide to people inorder to facilitate sound decision making ac-counting for the connections between ecosys-tems and people (e.g., 24). Failing to incor-porate these benets (although we assess bothbenets and costs, we use the term benet for

simplicity because benets are most common)into decision making is jeopardizing the designand implementation of the resulting strategiesbecause those strategies are often disconnectedfrom what really matters to many people (5).

Ecosystems contribute to human well-beingin various ways. Ecosystems provide the neces-sary resources of food, water, shelter, and en-ergy. Also, they regulate the conditions (e.g.,temperature, water quality) in which peoplelive, work, and play and, most fundamentally,underpin the basic processes (e.g., primary pro-duction) and cycles (e.g., carbon cycle, watercycle) that support life. These types of ecosys-tem servicesprovisioning, regulating, andsupporting (1)have received the majority ofresearch attention. Ecosystems, however, alsocontribute culturally and psychologically deter-mined benets to people that are crucial to hu-man well-being (e.g., References 69). Thesecultural ecosystem services represent intangi-ble dimensions of the links between people andecosystems that are psychological, philosophi-cal, social, and spiritual and are at the very coreof human preferences and values. Incorporat-ing these intangibly derived benets into deci-sion making is thus at least as important as in-corporating the more tangible ones. Althoughassessing comprehensive suites of nonmaterialservices from ecosystems is difcult using tra-ditional methods, characterization of these in-tangibles is both possible (10) and critical tothe development of a fuller understanding ofhuman connections to ecosystems.

The psychologically and culturallymediatedconnections between people and natural sys-tems have long been studied by anthropolo-gists, sociologists, psychologists, and geogra-phers. Cultural ecology, political ecology, andcultural anthropology have assessed the waysin which culture interfaces with environmentalconditions, and indeed, this more holistic re-lationship between people and their surround-ings has always been a keystone of anthropo-logical inquiry (e.g., identity, sense of place,cultural domains) (6, 1113). In addition, spe-cic culturally mediated benets provided byecosystems, such as recreation (1416), scenic

474 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ecosystem services:ecosystemscontributions tohuman well-being,e.g., provisioningservices, regulatingservices, culturalservices, and,underpinning them all,supporting services

Cultural ecosystemservices: ecosystemscontributions tohuman well-beingmediated throughnonmaterial processes(e.g., the mind orculture)

Material/nonmaterial:adjectives describingbenets and harmswhere materiality isdened by a physical(e.g., food, ber, fuel,bodily harm) ormonetary nature

Natural/nature: allliving and nonlivingcomponents ofecosystems describedin an expansive thoughnot exhaustive way,excluding nonlivinghuman-builtenvironments

Empirical: derivedfrom or veriable byexperience orexperiment

Constituents ofwell-being: the rangeof human needs thatwhen satisedcontribute towell-being

beauty (e.g., Reference 8), effects of ecosystemson physiological health (e.g., References 17 and18), and mental health (19, 20), have been quiteintensively studied (21) but usually indepen-dent of one another. Thus, further synthesis ofthe intangible links between nature and humanwell-being is needed.

Here, we synthesize the available empiricalliterature regarding the contributions ofecosystems (or nature) to human well-being vianonmaterial connections. It is our hope that thiscan facilitate the explicit incorporation of theseconnections into decision making. Althoughclearly the terms nature and ecosystems differ innumerous ways that have been problematizedextensively elsewhere (e.g., Reference 22), weuse them as equivalents to encompass the epis-temological approaches of different disciplines.We rst propose a conceptual framework toorganize the literature by (a) delineating thechannels of experience through which peopleassociate with ecosystems and (b) suggestinghow those channels link to various constituentsof human well-being. Then, we survey theliterature and assess our current understandingof the role of nonmaterial connections fromecosystems to human well-being. Finally, wehighlight gaps in the literature and suggest fu-ture research that might begin to ll those gaps.

2. CONCEPTUAL ORGANIZINGFRAMEWORK

There is a pervasive, visceral understandingthat our nonmaterial connections to ecosystemsprovide rich benets, but systematically analyz-ing these connectionsmust be done at the inter-face of disciplines as disparate as behavioral sci-ence, philosophy, art, medicine, anthropology,history, and ecology. A conceptual frameworkthat enables the organization and integrationof these wide-ranging dimensions is a criticalinitial step in their synthesis.

Here, we propose that nonmaterial connec-tions to ecosystems are realized through differ-ent channels of experience and contribute todifferent constituents of well-being. We rstlay out our conceptual background and dene

the different channels and constituents. Then,although we recognize the strong linkages be-tween and among the four channels of experi-ence and the 10 constituents of well-being, weendeavored to dissect the literature into indi-vidual interactions between them to better mapthe current state of knowledge. For studies thatapplied to many options, we chose the channel-constituent pair that seemed most relevant.

2.1. Our Approach: Biasesand Boundaries

Three ground-clearing efforts are necessary be-fore we move forward: The rst addresses ouruse of the complex and diverse term nature; thesecond addresses the character of this undertak-ing; and the third addresses the predominatelyWestern and positivistic worldview that under-pins this review.

First, denitions and concepts of nature areexceptionally diverse, and treatments of thissubject ll volumes. Here, we use the termnature very broadly. We focus on the ow ofbenets from nature/ecosystems to people; ourconceptualization of nature encompasses bothliving and nonliving components of ecosystems(including human-modied environments).It ranges from the most pristine areas inAntarctica to a few trees in an urban street(and the birds, mammals, insects, and otherlife they harbor), and it includes forests andcoral reefs as well as diverse or simpliedagroecosystems and domestic animals. Weexclude nonliving human-built environments,though these environments can, and often do,serve as the matrix within which nature affectspeople. In this review, we have articiallyseparated nature from humanity. Ultimately,nature and humanity are truly inseparable;nature cannot be dened in a way such thatit does not also include humanity or some ofits work. Accordingly, our analysis is partialand static. A more complete analysis wouldinclude the multitude of ways that nature andhumans interact and evolve over time, but suchan analysis is beyond the scope of this article.

www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 475

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Second, we recognize the Herculean (and,if misinterpreted, Quixotic) task we set forourselves with this effort. Given the psycholog-ically, evolutionarily, culturally, and ecologi-cally embedded character of the rich and variedconnections between humans and nature, itis impossible to provide an exhaustive review.Instead, we aim to identify those facets of therelationship that have received substantiveresearch attention and to highlight those thatremainpoorly captured and characterized in theresearch literature. We focus on the empirical(and mainly peer-reviewed) demonstrations ofeffects on well-being of changes or differencesin elements of nature. A notable, if undesirable,consequence of this choice is the omission ofmany empirical and rich ethnographic or his-torical approaches. Our intent is to recognizethe many approaches to empirically document-ing the nonmaterial relationships betweenhumans and nature and to gather and organizesome of this diverse literature (again, with thenotable exception of ethnographic and histor-ical approaches) in one review to yield a morecomplete picture. We hope to identify gaps inthe literature, clarify fruitful avenues for futureresearch, and provide a compilation that servesas a useful foundation for others to build upon.

Third, our approach is limited by our chosenconceptual perspective and thus by themethodswe employ:Weemphasize research that focuseson measurable end points or is positivistic. Werecognize that there are many different waysof knowing. With the aim of comparing andcontrasting different literatures in a defensibleand replicable manner, we chose to focus onempirical work in scientic journals. Althoughwe do include some books and book chapters,the literature we use here is biased towardpapers in peer-reviewed journals written inEnglish (see our methods in the SupplementalMaterial; follow the Supplemental Materiallink from the Annual Reviews home page athttp://www.annualreviews.org/). Our incor-poration of books and book chapters, whichare often used to report research based onphenomenological and constructivist episte-mologies, is more limited. Anthropological and

ethnographic narrativesarguably the mostempirical and holistic assessments of thesehuman-nature relationshipsare not cleanlycompatible with our focus on nonmaterialbenets as demonstrated by ecosystem changeor difference. This constraint results in aliterature available for review that is skewedtoward the individualist, psychological, clinical,experimental, and reductionist studies, andaway from more holistic narratives and theanthropological and sociological disciplines. Insum, this perspective and these methods biasour results toward reductionist, psychological,and Western perspectives.

2.2. Channels of Human Experiencewith Ecosystems

People experience ecosystems in a variety ofways. We pick berries, sh in the sea, imag-ine wild places, listen to birds singing, bury ourdead in the earth, and celebrate harvest with ourfamilies and communities. While recognizingthat we fall sick to pathogens and can be harmedby toxic plants and dangerous animals, we fo-cus our review on nonmaterial benets fromecosystems. In turn, our thinking is rooted fun-damentally in our directly lived experience withthe world and thus with our surrounding envi-ronment (whether it be built or natural).

Growing insights on the full range of hu-man interactions with ecosystems have beengained from the empirically supported theoryof embodied cognition. According to embod-ied cognition theory (e.g., References 2325),all of our more complex, abstract, or culturallyspecic concepts are creative recombinations ofphysical experiences we have with the worldaround us (e.g., seeing and interacting withtangible objects, moving our bodies throughspace, or correlating phenomena such as sizeand weight). This implies that the way in whichwe interact with our environment helps guidehow we think and who we areand thus im-pacts the core of our well-being. We use thisbasic insight from embodied cognitionthatinteractionwith the environment affects humanwell-beingto structure our review. To build a

476 Russell et al.

Supplemental Material

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Knowing Perceiving

Interacting Living within

Figure 1Four channels of human interactions with ecosystems: (a) knowing, thinking about an ecosystem or just theconcept of an ideal ecosystem; (b) perceiving, remote interactions with ecosystem components;(c) interacting, physical, active, direct multisensory interactions with ecosystem components; and (d ) livingwithin, everyday interactions with the ecosystem in which we live.

Channels of humanexperience: thedifferent ways in whichhumans interact withthe world around them

frame with which to organize the wide-rangingliterature reviewed here, we rst categorize hu-man interactions with nature and then catego-rize aspects of well-being.

We propose that benets derived from non-material interactions with ecosystems may beobtained through four different channels of hu-man experience (one of many possible typolo-gies) (Figure 1). Building from the connectionbetween interaction with the environment andhuman well-being articulated by embodiedcognition, we sought to articulate categories ofpeoples interactions with nature. We suggestthat these channels incorporate all of the ways

in which people experience nature, consciouslyor subconsciously, yet do not pretend thatthey are truly separable or mutually exclusive.Indeed, multiple channels can be, and oftenare, experienced by a person at any one pointin time. The four channels are (a) knowing, themetaphysical interactions that arise throughthinking about an ecosystem, its components,or the concept of an ideal ecosystem, in theabsence of immediate sensory inputs (e.g.,imagining a polar bear hunting, thinking abouta favorite place); (b) perceiving, remote (i.e.,neither proximate nor tangible) interactionswith ecosystem components, often associated


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Intangibleconnections:capabilities,experiences,relationships, andother social orpsychological (thuscultural) nonmaterialmediators ofecosystemscontribution towell-being

with visual information alone (e.g., viewinga mountain, watching a nature video); (c) in-teracting, physical, active, direct multisensoryinteractions with ecosystem components (e.g.,catching a sh, building a sandcastle, touchingmoss, smelling nearby pine trees, gardening),which may be cursory and may involve otherpeople; and (d ) living within, the everyday,repetitive, pervasive, voluntary, or involuntaryinteraction with the ecosystem in which onelives (e.g., living in a forested area, near anurban park, or by the seashore). The uniqueaspects of contributions mediated by socialinteractions in nature (e.g., bonding throughshared hunting experiences, celebrating animportant ceremony outdoors) are poorlydifferentiated theoretically from other interac-tions with nature, so we have included researchspecic to social interactions in nature withinthe interacting channel. These four channelsare interrelated in many ways. Viewing, forexample, is often a basis for knowing; livingwithin nature encompasses all other channelsbut also stimulates new kinds of relationships.One specic example is that interacting byshing to make a living contributes to knowing.We arrange them from the most remote froman ecosystem to the most intimately connected.

2.3. Constituents of Well-Being

Well-being can be understood as a complexand synergistic function of several components;when these constituents are combined, the stateof the whole person emerges. Components ofhuman well-being have perhaps most famouslybeen articulated byMaslow (26) in his hierarchyof needs, which includes physiological needs aswell as needs for esteem, belonging, and safety.Although the idea that these needs are orderedin such a hierarchy is now viewed as inaccurate,evolutionary psychological theory and evidencesuggest that these broad categories remain gen-erally relevant and have functional explanations(27). Reviewing the literature of human needs,Tay & Diener (28) identied similar thoughnominally different categories, but to these,they add status, competence, and autonomy.

Others have added the needs for identity,creation, leisure, and understanding (29), aswell as purpose and personal growth (30).

Building upon these taxonomies, we use 10constituents of well-being to structure our syn-thesis of the literature documenting the intan-gible connections between nature and humanwell-being. We do not intend these as a the-oretical framework for well-being theory, thecreation of which is beyond our purview, butrather a framework with which to organize theliterature. The 10 constituents we use spanthe spectrum of critical dimensions of humanwell-being:

1. Physical health2. Mental health3. Spirituality4. Certainty and sense of control and secu-

rity5. Learning/capability6. Inspiration/fulllment of imagination7. Sense of place8. Identity/autonomy9. Connectedness/belonging

10. Subjective (overall) well-being

Admittedly, these categories are imperfect, andthe lines between them are often blurred. Forexample, the subjective well-being category isa composite that can represent elements of allother categories. Because there is a large litera-ture devoted to this emergent property, we de-cided to include it as a distinct category.Despitetheir imperfections, we posit that these cate-gories serve the purpose of binning the litera-ture to illuminate how different types of inter-action with the environment affect well-being.We provide further information on our deni-tions of each category at the beginning of eachnumbered section below.

3. THE STATE OF THE ART:LINKING NATURE EXPERIENCETO WELL-BEING

Ecosystems contribute to nonmaterial well-being in all manner of complex ways, whichmight seem to defy comprehensive or struc-tured understanding. Here, we show how

478 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


these diverse contributions from ecosystems tohuman well-being can be understood and orga-nized as addressing components of well-beingthrough channels of nature experiences. Byreviewing representative examples of researchthat addresses each experiential channel withineach constituent of well-being, we provide oneperspective on organizing and synthesizingthis dramatically interdisciplinary literature.Through this framework, we also isolate ap-parent gaps in our scholarly understanding ofthese intangible human-nature relationships.

For a more thorough exploration of theliterature reviewed herein, see SupplementalTable 1 at http://www.annualreviews.org/.

3.1. Physical Health

Here, we focus on studies that used at least onephysiological metric (e.g., heart rate or bloodpressure) to report the contributions of natureto physical health, specically, how changesor differences in nonhuman organisms and/orecosystems result in changes or differences inphysical health. Given the inextricable linksbetween physical health and mental health,some of the studies described below could havebeen categorized in mental health and viceversa.

3.1.1. Knowing. We found no empirical re-search documenting the connection betweenknowledge of nature and physiological healthas provided by intangible connections (provi-sion of medical remedies via knowledge of tra-ditional ecological knowledge would classify asmaterial connections to ecosystems and thus beexcluded from this review).

3.1.2. Perceiving. Evidence abounds thatviews of natural ecosystems have positivephysiological effects (20). In one clinicalexample (31), subjects are exposed to eithera window with a natural scene, a plasma TVscreen with an image of the same natural scene,or a brick wall. Viewing the real scene throughthe window led to more rapid recovery of heartrates after exposure to low-level stress than

the plasma screen representation, and in turnthe plasma screen subjects recovered morerapidly than did those viewing the brick wall(31). Correspondingly, prison inmates with aview of adjacent farmland had fewer demandson the prison health care system than didprisoners with a view of the prison courtyard(32).

3.1.3. Interacting. Physiological benetsfrom more intimate connections with naturehave also been documented. For example,contact with animals shows health benets;patients recovering from acute myocardialinfarction who had pets were healthier thantheir counterparts without pets (33), and petownership is associated with reduced incidenceof allergies (34). Furthermore, proximity togreen spaces has been correlated with longevityof the elderly (35, 36). Exercise in a naturalenvironment has been shown to providesome positive benets relative to syntheticenvironments, but less so for physiologicalmeasures than for measures of emotions (37).

3.1.4. Living. A large volume of research as-sesses the relationship between physical healthand living in predominately natural versus builtenvironments, although many such connec-tions are ultimately explained by tangible causalpathways and thus outside of the purview ofthis review [e.g., recent research that biodiver-sity around where people live correlates pos-itively with human microbiotic diversity andmay contribute to greater immunological tol-erances (38)]. Loss of trees to the emerald ashborer in the United States increased county-level mortality related to cardiovascular andlower-respiratory-tract illness (39), a complexcausal pathway but not obviously based on de-livery of tangible ecosystem goods.

Residents of neighborhoods with moregreen space tend to have better self-reportedhealth after controlling for many signicantsociodemographic characteristics (40, 41). In asimilar study, Mitchell & Popham (42) foundthat the relationship became insignicantin high-income neighborhoods. Although



Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


differences in morbidity rates are highly cor-related with socioeconomic factors, proximityof homes to green space may lessen these dif-ferences through the provision of exercise andstress reduction opportunities in populationspotentially less inclined or less able to engagein such activities (43).

Ecological degradation has been empiricallyassociated with degradation of both physicalhealth (e.g., respiratory or mosquito-borne ill-nesses) and mental health (e.g., depression) (39,44, 45), though not consistently. Conceptualmodels of how human health depends uponecosystem health (and vice versa) are beingdeveloped, but this connection is generallyascribed to tangible connections, for example,documented links between infectious diseasetransmission and ecological degradation (46).Evidence of bidirectional links between humanhealth and ecosystems has inspired calls forhealthcare systems to address access to, andthe health of, natural settings to adequatelynurture human health (20, 4750).

3.1.5. Summary. Connections between phy-sical health and natural systems are frequentlydescribed (51), and empirical evidence unequiv-ocally indicates that various forms of nature ex-perience result in positive physiological healthresponses. This literature has generally focusedon the benets of viewing nature for recoveryor for medical care, the benets of interactingwith individual animals for various measuresof health and longevity, and the pathways bywhich living in more natural environmentsimproves self-reported health and allergy sensi-tivity and reduces disease burden.Onepotentialreason for the relative abundance of researchin this area is the predominance of positivisticassessment in clinical research. However, thesestudies frequently assess impacts on isolatedcomponents of physical health rather than oncomprehensive human health. Teasing apartthe direct and indirect (e.g., through increasedexercise), and similarly thematerial andnonma-terial, effects of ecosystems on physical healthremains an outstanding knowledge gap andchallenge.

3.2. Mental Health

In this section, we focus on richly supportedcontributions of ecosystems to indicators ofmental health, understood broadly to includecognitive performance, self-reported stress, andemotional well-being. For the purposes of thisreview, a semantic rather than a substantivedistinction is made to isolate ecosystems con-tributions to mental health (again focusing onchange or difference in mental health result-ing from or correlating with biophysical changeor differences), despite both the blurred divi-sions between mental and physical health andthe extensive evidence of a strong connectionbetween the two. We are keenly aware thatmany impacts of nature on other constituentsof well-being may manifest themselves in partthrough evidence of changes to mental health.Numerous insightful reviews explore nature ex-perience and mental health (19, 20, 52).

3.2.1. Knowing. Anecdotal evidence aboutthe mental health benets of knowing that na-ture exists are frequently acknowledged (53,54), yet empirical evidence of this connectionis poorly documented. Knowledge of belong-ing to a community or something greater thanoneself through nature is argued to be a plausi-ble cause of the broader positive psychologicalbenets of nature (55).

3.2.2. Perceiving. Views of nature have beenrepeatedly associated with improved mentalhealth and reduced stress levels (17, 5658).Studies of the workplace found that a view ofnatural elements (e.g., plants) helped buffer theimpact of job stress (lowering employees in-tentions to quit and marginally improving gen-eral well-being) (57) and were associated withgreater employee satisfaction with work, re-ductions in perceived stress, greater life satis-faction, increased patience, and better health(56). This effect may be well enough recog-nized, even if subconsciously, that ofces lack-ing windows providing views of natural scenesmore extensively use nature proxies such as in-door plants and photographs (59, 60). Driving

480 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


on roads in natural settings as opposed to urbansettings has been documented to reduce driverstress (as monitored by physiological parame-ters such as blood pressure and electrodermalactivity) and to increase the ability to cope withfuture stress (61), even when the suite of poten-tial confounding variables (e.g., abundance ofsafety-related cues) is considered.

The empirical literature studying the role ofproximity to, views of, and time spent in greenspace is bountiful and provides robust indica-tions that green space has a positive inuenceon mental well-being. Although these effectscertainly also involve more intimate channelsof interaction with nature, we primarily sum-marize them here. Among apartment tenants,views of more natural environments (relative toviews of built environments) led to increases inwell-being and greater residential satisfaction(17), in addition to increases in self-discipline(62). Views of nature may also have educationalbenets, increasing the capacity for atten-tion as shown through objective performancemeasures and subjective self-reported metrics(42, 63).

3.2.3. Interacting. Time spent in natural sys-temshas a documentedpositive effect onhumanmental health. A review of the empirical litera-ture addressing the relationship between visitsto natural settings and recovery frommental fa-tigue by Kuo (64) showed that 14 of the 16 re-viewed studies showed one or more statisticallysignicant effects. In previous studies, there hasbeen a hypothesized negative effect of urbanityon health (e.g., relationships driven by differ-ences in pollution, exercise, and cultural prac-tices producing anxiety and stress); the studiesreviewed by Kuo imply that this urbanity ef-fect may be better explained by the availabilityof proximate green space than by other drivers.The relationship between perceived health andgreen space was found across all levels of urban-ity, without signicant distinction between nat-ural green space and agricultural green space.

Urban dwellers have been shown to exhibitbetter concentration, focus, and reduced fatigueand irritability upon spending time in a natural

environment (65). Ottosson & Grahn (66), ina study exploring recovery from crisis (e.g., adeath or severe loss), concluded that experienc-ing nature promotes restoration better than doother inputs studied (such as taking a walk, andinteracting with friends). The same authorshave noted in other research that the benetsof visiting natural spaces may be disproportion-ately larger for those who are ailing the most;for example, elderly people with a particularlylow psychophysiological balance (denedas general helplessness, frequency of hospitalvisits, and low tolerance of other people) are themost positively affected by a visit to a gardenas measured by heart rate and blood pressurechanges (67); although these are physicaleffects, they are intricately connected to mentalstate. Hartig & Staats (68) studied college stu-dents to explore the potential restorative effectsof a walk in a natural setting and found that,although natural settings were restorative in allthe studied situations, the effectwas largerwhensubjects were in a more fatigued condition.

Building upon this evidence, methods fornature-based therapy (e.g., wilderness, hor-ticultural, and animal-assisted therapy) havedemonstrated success in healing patients whopreviously had responded poorly to other treat-ment (see Reference 20 for a thorough review);the assumed primary mechanism behind thesuccess is a positive effect of nature on mentalwell-being. Immersion in nature has also beenshown to have positive inuence on levels ofgenerosity and caring (69), another potentialmechanism for the success of such therapies.

3.2.4. Living. Everyday exposure to natural el-ements is linked to mental health. Homes sur-rounded by more green space have been as-sociated with an increased ability of residentsto cope with subjectively and personally de-ned major issues (64). Also, Wells & Evans(70) documented a negative relationship be-tween psychological distress in children andnaturalness of the home environment (as in-dicated by a score summarizing views from thehome, yard materials, and abundance of house-plants), even after taking socioeconomic status


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


into account. Nearby nature also buffered theeffects of stressful life events on the childrenslevel of psychological distress (70). One studyfound that homes surrounded by more green-ery (e.g., trees and grass) are associated withreduced internal family conict (71). A morerecent study demonstrated a positive effect ofvegetation on the personal well-being of citydwellers and weak positive associations of well-being with species richness and bird abundance(72). Deep interconnections have been foundbetween mental well-being and living in closerelationship with animals. Numerous studiesdocument the positive effects of pets and inter-actions with pet animals, such as therapy dogs,on both mental and physical health (7375).

3.2.5. Summary. The empirical literatureunequivocally identies strong relationshipsbetween nature and mental health (19, 20). Ex-tensive evidence demonstrates the multiple ef-fects that viewing, interactingwith, and living innatural environments can have: reducing stress,increasing patience, increasing self-discipline,increasing capacity for attention, increasingrecovery from mental fatigue or from crisis andfrom psychophysiological imbalance. These ef-fects were associated with natural settings gen-erally (e.g., green space or biologically diverseecosystems) and individual animals (e.g., pets).

3.3. Spirituality

Many accounts of well-being include a con-stituent that encompasses perceived connec-tions to others and otherworldly forces thatgo beyond what is generally considered withinphysical and mental health. Even though therole of ecosystems and nature in contributingto such spirituality is not always expressed asproviding benets, it is nevertheless the casethat losses or degradation of ecosystems or nat-ural objects can trigger negative impacts onthis component of well-being. The distinc-tion among the impacts through the alterna-tive channels of experience on spiritual healthis much less clear, but we highlight major dif-ferences.

3.3.1. Knowing. Although the bulk of thepeer-reviewed literature may indicate oth-erwise, it is important to note that spiritualbenets deriving from the existence of natureare not limited to indigenous populations.A broad-ranging study on emerging formsof nature-based spirituality in modern USsociety found that both groups and individualssee ecological processes as sacred (76), andmore local studies in British Columbia (77)and Hawaii (R.K. Gould, N.M. Ardoin,U. Woodside, N. Hannahs, T. Sattereld,G.C. Daily, paper in preparation) have foundthat diverse respondents express deep andvaried spiritual connections to ecosystems.

Sacred sites abound in numerouspossiblyeven allreligions. An individuals knowledgeof the continued existence and preservation ofpersonally or culturally relevant sacred natu-ral sites can, in many cases, be linked directlyto that individuals sense of spiritual well-being(78). Examples of how spiritual well-being canbe tied to natural sites include the Makah peo-ple of the northwesternUnited States who havecomplex aspects of their spiritual well-beingtied to the ability to engage in whale hunt-ing (79), and the people of Meghalaya, India,who believe that the Sylvan deities would beoffended if trees are cut and twigs, owers,fruits, etc. are plucked [from sacred groves](80, p. 563). Ecological degradation can con-stitute cultural or spiritual loss that alters andoften contributes to the impoverishment of cul-tures even if degradation of a given resourcedoes not signicantly impact ecosystem func-tion (81, 82).

Various ecosystem components (including awide range of plants, animals, and minerals) arekey elements in the diverse practices (with spiri-tual overtones or ramications) ofmany indige-nous cultures, including ceremonies (e.g., Ref-erence 83). Spiritual ceremonies often involvekey elements from the ecosystem as central fea-tures. For instance, ceremonies dedicated to thejaguar (and dependent on the knowledge of itsexistence), which is central to the Nahuatl cos-mology, are still practiced today in some areasof southern Mexico (84).

482 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


3.3.2. Perceiving. Documentations of theconnections between perception of nature andspiritual well-being are sparse. McDonald (85)documented environmentalists perception of avital force while in nature, often mediated bythe perception of natural forms or phenomena,such as steelhead salmon or salt marshes.

3.3.3. Interacting. There are many studies onthe spiritual benets of wilderness experiencesin Western cultures. Interviews of wildernessusers in Californias Eldorado National For-est (86) found that most interviewees acknowl-edged the spiritual value of the wilderness. Sim-ilarly, there is evidence that the experience ofcamping in natural settings is, at least in part, aspiritual process for many people (87, 88). Ac-cording to one study, a majority of wildernessvisitors seek the spiritual values or benets ofwilderness (89). A review of empirical researchon exposure to nature and well-being (90) sur-mises that such spiritual/transcendent experi-ences provide greater self-condence, sense ofbelonging, and clarity about what really mat-ters. Ashley (91) identied a feeling of con-nection and interrelationship with other peopleand nature as the primary dening characteris-tic of wilderness spirituality.

3.3.4. Living. Evidence of the impact on spir-ituality of living with access to natural systemsand components is thin. One study (92) survey-ing urban dwellers documents that many citydwellers personal ties to urban forests and treesoften approach a spiritual involvement and pro-vide many of the spiritual connections often at-tributed to wilderness experiences.

3.3.5. Summary. The literature provides arich set of examples of the importance of sa-cred places and the wilderness experience forthe spirituality of some individuals and groups:Spiritual values are commonly tied to ecosys-tems or elements of ecosystems (e.g., Reference6). Although resourcemanagement effortsmustrecognize materially based ecological connec-tions or risk unexpected outcomes, it has beenargued that [i]gnoring the psychological and

spiritual connections between humans and thenatural world can result in equally nasty sur-prises (93, p. 29). Nonetheless, empirical in-sights into the role that ecosystems play in thisrelationship beyondwilderness experiences andsacred places remain scarce. This stems, in part,from the particularly complex nature of posi-tivistic assessments of spiritual health. It is alsoinuenced by the Western philosophical biasin the academic literature; this bias underrepre-sents perceived spiritual connections to nature(94).

3.4. Certainty, and Sense of Controland Security

In practice, the effects of nature on this com-ponent ofwell-being (certainty, control, and se-curity) are often measured through (lessened orheightened) feelings of fear or insecurity, rep-resenting only a narrow circumscription of thewhole constituent.

3.4.1. Knowing. Little empirical researchexists, but the available information we foundindicates that merely knowing about nature,natural phenomena, and the state of ecosystemsmay be associated with feelings of insecurityor lack of control in Western cultures. Asan example, natural disasters (tornadoes andhurricanes) were ranked (eighteenth) amongthe top 20 most common fears of school-ageAmericans (from second to twelfth grade) (95).Furthermore, greater knowledge about the sys-tem can be associated with increased awarenessof or concern for the state of the system (96).Aldo Leopolds statement that the cost of anecological education is to live alone in a worldof wounds (97, p. 165) is an example thereof.

3.4.2. Perceiving. Signicant literature indi-cates connections between perceiving naturalelements and feelings of fear. Obsessive fearof natural elements is common on the basisof visual (or sometime auditory) interactionswith natural elements, such as snakes, spiders,wasps, moths, blood, thunder, and feathers(98), and almost all specic phobias are directly


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


or indirectly associated with natural objects(99). Such phobias covary with fears of animalsthat are often considered disgusting (but notharmful), such as maggots (100). The moregeneral study of affective responses of people tonatural landscapes and other objects is reviewedin other sections of this article, specicallyin the realms of health, both physical andmental, and is represented by relevant studiesnumbering in the hundreds (8, 101).

3.4.3. Interacting. Fear of natural elementsis a very real and adaptive aspect of interact-ing with nature, particularly in rural places.Human-wildlife conicts affect millions of peo-ple globally (102) and can have severe impactsonwell-being. In India, for example, one personper day is killed by an elephant, and signicantassociated mental health impacts of human-elephant conicts have been documented (103).

Surveys of farmers and shers conductedin Alaska and Florida (two states in whichsome residents have increasingly encounteredclimate-driven changes) show that personal ex-posure to climatic change greatly increasesconcern and willingness to take action (indi-cating sense of control), potentially implyingthat their sense of security is informedandthreatenedby their interactions with naturalelements through their work (104, 105).

The literature on peak experiences (i.e.,intense situations inspiring transcendental orjoyful states) indicates that nature-based activ-ities that test the limits of skill and capability,such as mountain climbing or white-waterrafting, are associated with a heightened senseof control and can produce transcendentexperiences (106, 107); the ability of thesenatural contexts to challenge ones sense ofcontrol enables this euphoria. Similarly, theenvironment enables engagement in activitiesthat satisfy competency needs (e.g., beingan accomplished skier), as discussed in theIdentity and Autonomy section below.

3.4.4. Living. Abundant empirical evidencelinking the proximity of buildings to nearbyvegetation has shown reduced levels of fear,

crime, aggression, and violence, but the evi-dence was not unequivocal (64, 108). As dis-cussed above, there is extensive evidence thatexposure to green spaces reduces the negativeeffects from stressful events (e.g., Reference109).However, a higher quantity of nearby veg-etation increases fear and fear of crime in somecontexts (110).

Conservation of resources theory proposesthat a loss or threat of loss to an individuals per-sonal or psychosocial resources produces harm-ful psychological outcomes, which might beinterpreted as a symptom of loss of securitythat carries over to impacts on other well-beingcomponents (111). Natural disasters have pro-duced some of the most dramatic instances ofresource loss. For example, resource loss wasshown to be the best predictor of generalizedpsychological distress and post-traumatic stressfollowing Hurricane Andrews landfall in 1992(111). Yet, in all these cases, the specic role ofnature cannot easily be dissected from the neg-ative effects of such disasters on infrastructure,food availability, and economic income. For ex-ample, it has been shown that in coastal sys-tems, nearshore habitats, such as reefs,marshes,and dunes, can signicantly reduce the damagecaused by sea-level rise and storms (112, 113),but we found no studies examining how thisprotective role changes peoples perceptions ofsafety.

3.4.5. Summary. Within this category, thebalance of costs and benets of interacting withnature is unusual in that the bulk of the re-viewed literature addresses the ways in whichnatural systems degrade well-being through alack of control and security, and through fear.These effects are often results of experienceswith more uncontrolled nature.

3.5. Learning and Capability

Information, understanding, learning, andacquired capability are critical parts of thehuman experience and contributors to well-being (114). Drawing much of the work in thiscategory together, attention restoration theory

484 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(115) postulates that nature provides a restora-tive environment that renews focus and aids at-tention, presumably resulting in improved cog-nition.The theory is well supported empirically(116, 117) and likely provides the mechanismfor much of the literature summarized below.

3.5.1. Knowing. Although the evidence ismore narrative than quantitative, the abundantexamples of documented biomimicry (e.g.,design modeled on or imitating biological or-ganisms or systems) speak to the prevalence ofthis relationship: Knowledge of natural systemsenhances human capabilities (118). Ecologicaland biological systems serve as inspiration fortechnological development and entire elds ofresearch and design [e.g., cellular automata,articial immune systems, neural networks,interactive evolutionary computation, complexadaptive systems, ecodesign, and biophilicdesign (119123)].

3.5.2. Perceiving. Exposure to images of nat-ural systems seems to enhance learning, evenof unrelated material. Specically, it has beenshown experimentally that viewing pictures ofnature as opposed to urban environments ispositively linkedwith the restorationof directedattention (116, 117). Views of nature also in-creased capacity for attention as shown throughobjective performance measures and subjectiveself-reported metrics (63).

3.5.3. Interacting. Interactingwith nature ap-pears to enhance learning more strongly thansimply seeing it. Kaplan & Berman (124) re-viewed 13 studies that assessed real or virtualnature contact and psychological responsemet-rics. As described therein, these studies all sup-ported a positive impact of nature exposure (be-ing in, seeing, and interacting with nature) onattention restoration. For example, walking innature compared to walking in urban environ-ments was positively linked with the restora-tion of directed attention (116). Mayer et al.(55) showed demonstrable effects of exposureto the natural environment on both attentioncapacity and self-awareness. They also found

that the effects were stronger with real exposurecompared to simulated exposure from videosof nature. Studies reviewed by Taylor et al.(125) documented facilitated knowledge trans-fer and greater academic achievement in groupstaught in outdoor contexts versus in indoorclassrooms. In addition, an increased capacityfor attention in children who have greenerplay spaces has been documented (126).

Recent experimental evidence shows a mea-sureable cognitive advantage (improvement ofhigher-level cognitive skills) derived from sus-tained exposure to nature (127). The authorsnoted that, pragmatically, whether the effectsare driven by increased nature exposure or de-creased technology exposure is moot given thatthey are so strongly inversely related in real-world contexts.

3.5.4. Living. We are not aware of empiricalresearch that specically addresses how livingwithin natural settings contributes to enhanc-ing learning and cognitive abilities.

3.5.5. Summary. Although the literature doc-umenting the cognitive contributions of in-teraction with nature is signicant within themental health realm, as documented above,the broader contributions of interaction withnature to learning and cognition are moresparsely documented. The literature revieweddoes show a clear theorized and sometimes em-pirically supported relationship wherein inter-actions with nature provide a signicant benetto human cognition.

3.6. Inspiration and Fulfillmentof Imagination

The capacity to be inspired is part of whatmakes us human. With this in mind, weexplored the literature documenting thediverse ways in which natural systems affectinspiration, creativity, and imagination.

3.6.1. Knowing. Knowledge, understanding,and the mystery of nature have been philosoph-ically and logically argued to lead to fulllment


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


of imagination (8, 128130). Wilson articulatesthis nicely: Humanity is exalted not becausewe are so far above other living creatures, butbecause knowing [other living creatures] wellelevates the very concept of life (128, p. 22).This kind of connection, however, is particu-larly difcult to document empirically.

Simply knowing of the existence of particu-lar natural elements (also known as existencevalue) is the important fulllment of imagi-nation for some. Many surveys across differentcultures demonstrate perceived existencevalue by identifying that 7090% of surveyrespondents believe that natural ecosystemshave a right to exist independent of any benetto humanity (131). We found no appropri-ate literature documenting the connectionbetween existence value and creativity.

3.6.2. Perceiving. Abundant evidence indi-cates that viewing nature can provide creativeinspiration [e.g., the work of Kellert et al.(132)], but anecdotal evidence of this relation-ship is more abundant than empirical literatureof mechanisms involved. Also see Reference133 and citations in the knowing channel ofthe cognitive constituent above (118123)

3.6.3. Interacting. Empirical work docu-menting how interactions with nature may af-fect creativity is unexpectedly scant [see the ex-ceptions within the environmental educationliterature (e.g., Reference 134)]. The volumeof anecdotal literature regarding this connec-tion, however, is enormous, as is the diver-sity of creative products (e.g., poetry, painting,dance, music, architecture, science) that clearlytake inspiration from interaction with nature ortime spent in natural systems (e.g., Reference132).

One interesting survey in the Catalan Pyre-nees points to fulllment through interactingwith natural elements. Of all the services (e.g.,provisioning food) that home gardens provideto households, the intangibles are consideredmost important. Survey respondents most val-ued the activity of gardening as a hobby; theheritage value of home gardens; their enjoy-

ment of aesthetics; a place for education or re-search; a connection to spiritual feelings; creat-ing and enhancing social networks; and the useof gardens in folklore, art, and design (135).

Taylor et al. (136) showed that more greenvegetation is linked to more creative play inchildren. Analysis of a school yard that hadsome asphalt replaced bymore natural elementsdocumented more positive social relationshipsamong children and more creative play (137).Empirical studies have documented a connec-tion between diverse playgrounds and morecreative play, and natural environments are ar-gued to generally afford diverse playground op-portunities (138140).

3.6.4. Living. Disciplines such as archaeol-ogy and cultural anthropology highlight ex-amples of nature-based inspiration, but assess-ments identifying the relative contributions ofnature versus other factors are unavailable.

3.6.5. Summary. The ways in which one canconceive that natural systems provide peoplewith creative inspiration are legion. Imprintsof this connection between people and naturalsystems can be seen in art, poetry, literature,dance, music, science, architecture, medicine,and more. However, despite these rich and ob-vious ties, few peer-reviewed studies explic-itly and empirically parse out the inspirationalpower of nature. The other ways of knowingmentioned above (art, architecture) may pro-vide a more compelling exploration of the rela-tionship, yet the peer-review and the scienticprocesses provide consistent ground rules forexploring this realm. This is fertile ground forfurther work.

3.7. Sense of Place

People are part of ecosystems, and the connec-tion to a physical place in the world can be animportant component of well-being for many.Connection to nature can contribute to thedevelopment of a sense of place, which in turncan promote the formation of peoples eco-logical identity (141). To explore this theme,

486 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


we looked for indications of the ways in whichspecic ecological characteristics of a place,such as ecosystem condition, contribute to thedevelopment of a sense of place in people.

3.7.1. Knowing. People get attached to placesfor many reasons, but only some reasons di-rectly pertain to the biophysical characteris-tics of the place (142). Memory of a place, orhow it once was, also reects place attachment.A sense of place is linked to spiritual connec-tions with an ecosystem, and both can changeas ecosystems change. Place-based myths oridentity changes as the physical environmentchanges and no longer supports this connection(143145).

3.7.2. Perceiving. No research that we areaware of specically addresses visual or otherremote exposure to places and empirically as-sesses how this contributes to sense of place.

3.7.3. Interacting. Interacting with naturetends to increase peoples attachment to placeand their willingness to act to defend or pro-tect those places. Scannell & Gifford (146) ana-lyzed Canadian residents behavior and showedthat natural rather than the civic aspects of placeattachment predicted pro-environment behav-ior. As individuals partake in nature-based ac-tivities, values concerning the wellness of theseplaces tend to rise (147). For example, being ac-tive in restoration efforts increased attachmentto local natural places (148), and communitygardeners are anecdotally shown to be moreconnected to place (149).

Many researchers (e.g., References 140, 150,and 151) believe that engaging children in vari-ous outdoor experiences will facilitate relation-ships and develop a sense of place, in turn de-veloping attachment to local environments andtheir communities. However, empirical workfor this is limited. Sense of place research recog-nizes the critical roles that social dynamics andinteractions play in the human-nature relation-ship (152). Environmental features and placecharacter were roughly equally important forsocial reasons (family and friends) in one sur-

vey of attachment to place (153). Among Inuitpeople, it has been shown that feelings of placeattachment were negatively affected by disrup-tion of hunting, shing, foraging, trapping, andtraveling, as well as by climate changeinducedecological degradation (154).

3.7.4. Living. As Berry (155) proclaims in re-lation to the agricultural landscape he liveswithin, What I stand for is what I stand on(p. 207). Much sense of place research focuseson residentsthose who live within an ecosys-tem. However, living in natural systems doesnot consistently provide positive associationswith sense of place; individuals carry both pos-itive and negative associations with a nearbyplaces (as demonstrated for Great Salt Lake,Utah) (152). Similarly, positive sense of placeassociated with living near a natural environ-ment does not always depend on understandingof the ecological processes or goods deliveredfrom that place (152).

3.7.5. Summary. More than for other cat-egories of well-being components, we foundsubstantial effort devoted to understandinghow socializing within natural systems con-tributes to place attachment. Most of thesense of place literature documents the moreintimate channels of interaction, with less liter-ature addressing knowing and perceiving, andmore addressing interacting and living within.It is unclear what if any unique attributesmight distinguish the place-attachment powerof natural space relative to man-made space(e.g., ecological place meaning versus socialor architectural) (151), perhaps in part be-cause the biophysical characteristics of placeshave received less scholarly attention than theindividual/psychological component of person-place relationships (156), and because of thechallenge of dissociating nature-related effectsof space from other effects (see Reference 157).

3.8. Identity and Autonomy

Experiences in nature forge identity for a greatmany people around the world. Indeed, the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


cultural variation in the depth of this rela-tionship (i.e., the role of nature in producingpurpose or identity) confounds empiricalestimation because of the Western constructof a distinction between nature and culture im-posed upon the rest of the world (7, 158, 159).For much of the worldfor example the Gimiof Papua New Guinea, who have no notionof division of nature and culture because theforests are manifestations of their ancestorsnature is part of their identity to a great degree,and thus, articulating this connection becomesrather nonsensical (9, 160, 161). To highlightthe literature that exists, we adopt the Westernnotion and explore the connections betweennature and identity below, acknowledging thatthere are cultural contexts well explored bysocial sciences wherein nature-identity rela-tionships are so fundamental that reductionistapproaches are inappropriate.

3.8.1. Knowing. It has been suggested in anumber of elds that identity is intertwinedwith ecosystems. Because direct interactionwith those systems may not be critical, weaddress those relationships here. The relation-ship between identity and landscape has beentheorized as critical and has been discussed inhundreds of academic publications. For ex-ample, the debate surrounding the connectionbetween the land and the Nez Perce of Idahohas been argued to be akin to a debate aboutethnic survival (162). Kazakh communities inwestern Mongolia dene Kazakhness in termsof the ecological environment of the mountainsand use music to associate with this identity andplace (163). Music is used to associate with bothidentity and place in other locations as well(164).

3.8.2. Perceiving. No empirical research thatwe are aware of explicitly assesses the role of re-motely observing nature in forming a sense ofidentity or purpose, although visual elements ofa landscape can be critical for a persons iden-tity and sense of place, for example, the sacredgroves discussed above.

3.8.3. Interacting. The identity-landscapeconnection is made perhaps most frequentlyin studies of indigenous peoples, and this con-nection manifests largely through interactingwith the landscape (165167; R.K. Gould,U. Woodside, N.M. Ardoin, N. Hannahs, T.Sattereld, & G.C. Daily, paper in prepa-ration). As one example, Stairs (165) putforth the idea of ecocentric identitythatis, that identity encompasses human, animal,and materialand claimed that the Inuit havethis form of identity. Dorais (168) noted thatwithout going to the land for hunting, sh-ing, and trapping, Inuit would not be Inuitany more (p. 299). This concept of ecocen-tric identity conforms to identity theory thatstates that identity is formed by peoples actions(169), such as hunting, shing, or other cul-tural activities that could be integrally rooted inecosystems. For example, turtle hunting amongthe Meriam of Torres Strait, Australia, in-volves individuals engaging in a social hunt-ing process that involves no direct materialbenet to themselves (170). Similarly, amongthe Nez Perce Native Americans traditionalsubsistence activities are the primary meansof accumulation, maintenance, or loss of in-tangible symbolic capital (e.g., trust, prestige)(162). A long-term study on the lobster gangsof Mainethe shermen who jointly man-age the common-pool resource of Maines lu-crative lobster sheryhas also touched onthe identity-related aspects of a shing way oflife; this work suggests that conserving sh-ing resources conserves the lobstermens iden-tity (171). There is a tendency to prioritize theunique connection that indigenous people havewith their land and waters; additional empiri-cal workmight explore identity-ecosystem link-ages in a broader range of cultural contexts.

The connection between nature and iden-tity can also be mediated by particular species.The cultural keystone species concept wascoined for species that people interact withso strongly (e.g., through hunting, shing, orgathering) that the species help dene a people(for example, salmon for the First Nations inthe Pacic Northwest in North America) (82).

488 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Nonhuman animals in some contextssuch asin agriculturemay play a signicant role inforging personal identity (172, 173).

In Alaskas Bristol Bay, Kelty & Kelty (174)used identity theory from social psychology toexamine and explain the relationship betweenpeople and the environment. They found thatthe biggest (self-reported) potential impacts ofan unsustainable shery were loss of connec-tion with the natural environment in the area(76%) and reductions in overall yearly income(74%). The next most affected outcomes of acollapsed shery included negative effects onlife satisfaction (62%), relationships with oth-ers important to [respondents] (57%), and wayof life (56%) (174, p. 340). When asked whythe salmon shery was important, most respon-dents mentioned complex webs of lifestyle, cul-ture, tradition, and connections with family andenvironment, and 78% of respondents agreedthat shing is an important part of who theyare as a person (174, p. 341).

On the community level, it has been arguedthat community autonomy and self-sufciencydecreases with increasing urbanization (175).A study of nonindigenous timber towns inthe inland US Northwest found that people inthese more-isolated and autonomous commu-nities rated their communities higher on qualityof life than did people in less-isolated locations(176).

3.8.4. Living. There is a wealth of empiri-cal anthropological and ethnographic work onthe identity-landscape link as it relates to liv-ing within. The identity of many cultures isstrongly linked to their ecosystems; we do notpurport to capture this massive literature here.For instance, work with the Popolucas of cen-tral westernMexico found that they linked theiridentity to the rainforest within which theylive (177), and work with the Gimi in PapuaNew Guinea found that their identity was tiedto their forests (160). Displacing agrarian peo-ple from their land has been shown worldwideto have predicted negative inuences on theiridentity (178181).

The issue of autonomy is frequently dis-cussed with respect to aboriginal concernsin terms of indigenous self-determination inwhich land, and rights to land, often play cen-tral roles. Hunting, shing, and gathering arepart, at times a critical part, of autonomy forindigenous groups (170, 182).

3.8.5. Summary. Identity is clearly tightlylinked to the attributes of the landscape and toactivities performed within nature. Most of theevidence surrounding the contribution of na-ture to forging identity is associated with inter-acting in nature and encompasses living withinnature. Positive impacts of interactions withnature have been documented on the identityof individuals as well as those of communities.These links have most often been shown forindigenous cultures, largely in the context ofanthropological studies, but also apply to non-indigenous people. Environmental degradationand displacement of people from their lands hasbeen shown to negatively affect their identityand autonomy.

The relationship between identity and thenatural environment has been characterized(183) as having three categories, two of whichare tightly linked to socializing within nature:experiencing nature as individuals (a personand the nonhuman environment); experiencingnature in social and community contexts (wherethe social community matters but is not centralto the identity); and experiencing nature asmembers of social groups (wherein the groupidentity is central, e.g., in a rangeland conictbetween ranchers and environmentalists).

3.9. Connectedness and Belonging

Social connections and the sense of belongingto a larger community (184), as well as con-nections with nature (185, 186) and with lifeat large (see 187), are all positive correlatesof well-being and are mostly interrelated.One example of the latter relationship isdescribed in the biophilia hypothesis (8, 128),positing that people have a biologically basedneed to afliate with and feel connected tothe broader natural world (life and life-like


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


processes). An eco-physiologists extension ofthis argument suggests that meeting this needfor a connection with nature has psychologicalbenets (188). Another manifestation of thisconstituent is the contribution of nature to so-cial connectedness (social capital and cohesion,or a general sense of belonging) (189).

3.9.1. Knowing. Natural settings (e.g., water,greenery) are in a categorymost often identiedin association with places identied as favoritesby adults (190), although not by children (191),even if they are not visited frequently. Similarly,nature is underrepresented in association withan unpleasant place (192).There are indicationsthat natural locations are robustly identied asfavorite places across cultures (192).

3.9.2. Perceiving. Wedid not identify any ap-propriate research on this topic that met ourinclusion requirements.

3.9.3. Interacting. Peoples connection to na-ture is built by experiences, and these, in turn,predict aspects of peoples well-being. Studentswho took a walk in a natural setting reportedstronger feelings of connectedness to nature af-ter the walk than students who walked in urbansettings; those with stronger connectedness tonature scores tended to have greater abilities toreect on a life problem, better capacities forattention, and more positive affects (feelings oremotions) (55). The most signicant inuen-tial factor in predicting individuals connectionto nature was the amount of time people spentoutdoors (193).

Connectedness can be to a physical place orto an animal. Many farmers have deep emo-tional ties to the animals they work with; thiscomplex relationship and the emotional andethical entanglements of human-animal rela-tions (194, p. 100) involve clear connectionsto the well-being of the humans involved (someare discussed above in the sections on Physi-cal Health and Mental Health). Strong emo-tional connections between farmers and theiranimals produce documented health benets,and human and livestock health are interrelatedin complex ways (195).

Gardening has been found to contributeto building social capital and social networkswhile simultaneously reducing stress and en-couraging nurturing characteristics (Reference47 and the studies therein). There is alsoevidence that socializing in nature promotessocial cohesion: Examples from northwesternNorth America include changes to subsistencestrategies and the ensuing changes to socialcohesion in those communities (196, 197).Socializing outdoors is crucial to many people[e.g., in Latin America (198)].

3.9.4. Living. Natural places can enhance con-nections between people, and the connectionsbetween people and nonhuman animals can en-hance human well-being. For example, resi-dents in areas with more green space or treeshave greater social cohesion and sense of com-munity (199, 200). Similarly, proximity to natu-ral environments with high cultural values (val-ues categorized as serene, wild, lush, spacious,and cultural) is positively related to neighbor-hood satisfaction in Sweden (201).

3.9.5. Summary. Direct interactions with na-ture have been shown to positively contributeto a sense of connection to nature and connec-tion to community. Interacting with nature (viasocializing or living within nature) contributesto social connectedness. Both connections withnature (187) and social connections (184) havebeen shown as correlates of general well-beingand to be interlinked (the connection to naturealso correlates positively with having meaningin ones life (reviewed in Reference 187).

3.10. Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being represents self-reportedassessments of overall individual well-being.Holistic well-being and happiness are complexsynergistic combinations of many componentsand represent an emergent characteristicthat is unpredictable from the componentparts. In this section, we review literature thatexplicitly addresses these emergent charactersof well-being, given that thus far this reviewhas documented pertinent links between

490 Russell et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


natural systems and specic components ofhappiness or general well-being (e.g., increasedwell-being through reduction in stress causedby views of nature).

3.10.1. Knowing. Mayer & Frantz (185)placed connectedness to nature (see sectionabove) in a broad context, documenting thatconnectedness to nature appeared to be as im-portant of a contributor to subjectivewell-beingas are more traditional variables associated withsubjective well-being (such as marriage, edu-cation, and income). Multiple studies (55, 185,189) demonstrate that connectedness to naturesignicantly predicts the participants degreeof life satisfaction and overall happiness andperspective-taking ability. See also work by Ice-land and collaborators (202), described below.

Research in the United Kingdom concludedthat concern for the state of the ozone layerwas negatively correlated with subjective well-being, yet concern for species loss was posi-tively correlated with subjective well-being(203); they interpreted this as an example ofthe hypothesis that people derive psychologi-cal benets from caring about other species (8).

3.10.2. Perceiving. As documented in moredetail under the constituents of physical healthabove, visual exposure to nature can increasegeneral satisfaction (17).

3.10.3. Interacting. Little research exploresspecically how interactions with nature inu-ence general well-being beyond component el-ements already reviewed. Matsuoka & Kaplan(204) reviewed the literature relating landscapedesign to well-being and, in conclusion, reiter-ated the strong linkages between the two. Sim-ilarly, being in natural environments has beenshown to improvemood in a general sense (186,205), and a positive correlation has been shownbetween thewell-being of green space users andthe species and habitat richness of those spaces(206).

In the Puget Sound region of Washington,representatives of 12 key stakeholder groups(business associations, environmental groups,county governments, etc.) nearly unanimously

identied categories titled recreation &tourism and ethics & existence values asamong the highest importance of all materialand intangible connections to nature (202).

3.10.4. Living. There is a great deal of liter-ature that identies the mechanisms throughwhich living in nature contributes to specicconstituents of well-being but little from thebroader perspective of holistic well-being. Sur-prisingly, given a profusion of confounding fac-tors, course-grained global analyses indicatethat there is a detectable relationship betweenthe state of nature in a nation and subjectivewell-being (207).

On a state-to-state scale, people are gen-erally willing to sacrice employment incomeand pay a for a greater cost of living forcultural ecosystem services provided by inlandwaterways, public stewardship of federal lands,and access to national parks (208). Pecuniarystate-to-state differences (i.e., wages, rent,cost of living) can be correlated to a set ofnonpecuniary variables (e.g., local climate,national park attendance, presence of anocean coastline)a methodology entitledcompensating differentialsdemonstratingthat densely populated and industrialized statesscore consistently lower in ranked quality-of-life variables than less densely populated ruralwestern states (208, 209).

3.10.5. Summary. Subjective well-being is anencompassing category that includes all the var-ious constituents of well-being, thus rigorouslyidentifying such relationships is more challeng-ing than it may be for certain individual con-stituents (described above). As a result, empiri-cal evidence of the impacts of interactions withnature on this encompassing category is scarce,hindering wider generalizations.

4. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Empirical research on the connections betweennature experiences and constituents of humanwell-being is uneven. The amount of literatureavailable, the generality of the results, the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Physical health

Mental health

Spirituality

CertaintySense of control

Security

LearningCapability

InspirationFulfillment of imagination

Sense of place

IdentityAutonomy

ConnectednessBelonging

Subjective well-being

Knowing Perceiving Interacting Living

Figure 2A synthesis of the overall quantity and generalizability of relevant empiricalliterature. The size of the circle in each cell indicates the amount of research,with small circles indicating minimal research and large circles indicatingplentiful research. The generalizability of the research available is representedby cell shading: Red indicates that most research focuses on very specic aspectsof the channel-constituent pair, and green indicates broadly applicable research.

primary discipline and thus typical way ofknowing, and the nature of the evidence itselfvary dramatically for different constituents (seeFigure 2 and Supplemental Table 1).

Some of these human-nature connectionshave been covered extensively, have shown con-sistent results across ecosystems and cultures,

and were supported by empirical tests of hy-potheses. These include the benets to physicalhealth derived from perceiving nature; those tomental health derived from perceiving, inter-acting, and living in nature; and those to spiri-tual health derived from knowing nature. In ad-dition, the benets of interacting with nature toinspiration, and the benets of knowing aboutand interacting with natural systems to the de-velopment and reinforcement of sense of place,are well documented.

The roles of nature experiences in inuenc-ing many aspects of human well-being are stillpoorly documented. For example, the benetsof living in nature on learning and inspiration,or the links between identity, self-sufciency,and belonging with perceiving nature, arepoorly documented in the mainly positivisticliterature we reviewed. As discussed in the Stateof the Art section above, many of these rela-tionships are hypothesized to be important andremain to be more thoroughly documented.

Is it worth searching for evidence of theseunder-studied contributions of nature tohuman well-being? We believe so. Part of thecomplication is that the data-rich narratives,for example, ethnographies, are often difcultto condense into succinctly communicated orquantitative insights regarding the relationshipand are thus omitted from decision making.Indeed, the rich literature available in bookswas not included here, albeit a source of someof the most robust information on these topics.Nonetheless, in the same way that the pastdecade has witnessed unprecedented advancesin understanding the biophysical and economicbenets people obtain from ecosystems, thecoming decade could substantially advanceknowledge, scholarship, and discourse bydocumenting the impacts of less tangibleconnections between people and ecosystemson well-being.

4.1. Where Could We Go from Here?

This review is a rst attempt at synthesizingthe complexity of the impacts of nature on hu-man well-being via nonmaterial connections.

492 Russell et al.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

013.

38:4

73-5

02. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

del

Bio

-Bio

on

07/0

1/15

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


This endeavor has highlighted many of thechallenges involved: (a) the large number andsometimes incommensurable methodologiesof disciplines that must be united, (b) the biasednature of available sources, and (c) the extremelyvaried nature of the evidence itself given vastlydifferent biophysical and cultural contexts.

Further explorations of differences amongcultures, biophysical contexts, and gender forthese intangible links are needed. A systematicassessment of the wide literature available onthese issues would be a signicant advance-ment. Indeed, different cultures experiencenature in different ways, and explorations ofindividual cultures and their experience of na-ture would highlight nuances that could not becaptured at the cross-cultural level summarizedhere. For example, we sought to include bothpositive and negative impacts on well-being.However, except in a few categories (e.g., senseof control and security), we found that mostof the literature on intangibles we reviewedidentied positive impacts of nature on humanwell-being. However, tropical ecosystems richwith hazardous species may be more likelyto evoke fear and thus be associated with de-creases in well-being. And not only do differentgeographies and different cultures affect onesexperience of nature, gender too affects the wayhumans interact with and experience nature.

Documenting culturally and psychologi-cally mediated benets derived from naturewill require the same

annual review, 2013

Documents

canada email

mexico email

stanford university

university of british

annual review of environment

intangible connections

nontangible connections

cultural connections