Sec. Children and Health
Volume 4 - 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00260
The Human–Nature Relationship and Its Impact on Health: A Critical Review
- Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK
Within the past four decades, research has been increasingly drawn toward understanding whether there is a link between the changing human–nature relationship and its impact on people’s health. However, to examine whether there is a link requires research of its breadth and underlying mechanisms from an interdisciplinary approach. This article begins by reviewing the debates concerning the human–nature relationship, which are then critiqued and redefined from an interdisciplinary perspective. The concept and chronological history of “health” is then explored, based on the World Health Organization’s definition. Combining these concepts, the human–nature relationship and its impact on human’s health are then explored through a developing conceptual model. It is argued that using an interdisciplinary perspective can facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved for attaining optimal health at the human–environmental interface.
During the last century, research has been increasingly drawn toward understanding the human–nature relationship (1, 2) and has revealed the many ways humans are linked with the natural environment (3). Some examples of these include humans’ preference for scenes dominated by natural elements (4), the sustainability of natural resources (5, 6), and the health benefits associated with engaging with nature (7–9).
Of these examples, the impacts of the human–nature relationship on people’s health have grown with interest as evidence for a connection accumulates in research literature (10). Such connection has underpinned a host of theoretical and empirical research in fields, which until now have largely remained as separate entities.
Since the late nineteenth century a number of descriptive models have attempted to encapsulate the dimensions of human and ecosystem health as well as their interrelationships. These include the Environment of Health (11), the Mandala of Health (12), the Wheel of Fundamental Human Needs (13), the Healthy Communities (14), the One Health (15), and the bioecological systems theory (16). Each, however, have not fully incorporated all relevant dimensions, balancing between the biological, social, and spatial perspectives (17, 18). In part this is due to the challenges of the already complex research base in relation to its concept, evidence base, measurement, and strategic framework. Further attention to the complexities of these aspects, interlinkages, processes, and relations is required for a deeper sense of understanding and causal directions to be identified (19).
This article reviews the interconnectivities between the human–nature relationship and human health. It begins by reviewing the each of their concepts and methodological approaches. These concepts will be converged to identify areas of overlap as well as existing research on the potential health impacts in relation to humanity’s degree of relationship to nature and lifestyle choices. From this, a developing conceptual model is proposed, to be inclusive of the human-centered perspective of health, viewing animals and the wider environment within the context of their relationship to humans. The model combines theoretical concepts and methodological approaches from those research fields examined in this review, to facilitate a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved for improving human health.
Defining the Human–Nature Relationship
It is beyond the scope of this paper to review the various connections at the intersect of humanity and the natural environment. Instead, I summarize key concepts and approaches from those four research fields (Evolutionary Biology, Social Economics, Evolutionary Psychology, and Environmentalism) outlined below, which have paid most attention to studying this research area. I then summarize areas of convergence between these connections in an attempt to describe the human–nature relationship, which will serve as background to this review.
It is anticipated that through drawing on these different fields of knowledge, a deeper level of understanding can be brought to the growing issue of humanity’s relationship with nature and its impact on health. This is because examining the human–nature relationship from a single disciplinary perspective could lead to partial findings that neglect other important sources as well as the complexities that exist between interlinkages, causal directions, processes, and relations.
Evolutionary biology is a branch of research that shortly followed Darwin’s (20) Theory of Evolution. It concerns the adaptive nature of variation in all animal and plant life, shaped by genetic architecture and developmental processes over time and space (21). Since its emergence over a century ago, the field has made some significant advances in scientific knowledge, but with intense debate still remaining among its central questions, including the rate of evolutionary change, the nature of its transitional processes (e.g., natural selection) (22). This in part owes to the research field’s interdisciplinary structure, formulated on the foundations of genetics, molecular biology, phylogeny, systematics, physiology, ecology, and population dynamics, integrating a diverging range of disciplines thus producing a host of challenging endeavors (23, 24). Spanning each of these, human evolution centers on humanity’s life history since the lineage split from our ancestral primates and our adaptive synergy with nature.
In the last four decades, evolutionary biology has focused much attention on the cultural–genetic interaction and how these two inherent systems interrelate in relation to lifestyle and dietary choices [Culturgen Evolution (25); Semi-Independent (26); Dual-Inheritance model (27)]. Some of the well-known examples include humans’ physiological adaptation to agricultural sustenance (28), the gradual increase in lactose tolerance (29) as well as the susceptibility of allergic diseases (e.g., asthma and hay fever) in relation to decreasing microbial exposure (30).
This coevolutionary perspective between human adaptation and nature has been further conceptualized by Gual and Norgaard (31) as embedding three integrated systems (biophysical, biotic, and cultural). In this, culture is both constrained and promoted by the human genetics via a dynamic two-way interaction. However, bridging the gap between these research fields continues to generate much controversy, particularly as the nature of these evolutionary development processes differs widely (e.g., internal and external factors). This ongoing discussion is fueled by various scholars from multiple disciplines. Some have argued that one cannot assume all evolutionary mechanisms can be carried over into other areas (32, 33), where genomes cannot evolve as quickly to meet modern lifestyle and dietary requirements (34). Conversely, others believe that humans have not entirely escaped the mechanisms of biological evolution in response to our cultural and technological progressions (35).
Evolutionary psychology is a recently developed field of study, which has grown exponentially with interest since the 1980s. It centers on the adaptation of psychological characteristics said to have evolved over time in response to social and ecological circumstances within humanity’s ancestral environments (36–38). This reverse engineering approach to understanding the design of the human mind was first kindled by evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin (20) in the last few pages of Origin of Species;
In the distant future … Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation [p. 447].
As such, evolutionary psychology is viewed by some to offer a metatheory that dissolves the traditional boundaries held in psychology (e.g., cognitive, social, personality, and development). Within this metatheory, all psychological theories implicitly believed by some to unify under this umbrella (37). However, the application of evolution to the study of psychology has not been without controversial debate in areas relating to cognitive adaptation, testability of hypotheses, and the uniformity of human nature (39).
During the past few decades, the field has presented numerous concepts and measures to describe human connectedness to nature. These include Deep Ecology (40), Extinction of Experience (41), Inclusion of Nature in Self (42), and Connectedness to Nature (43). However, the Biophilia hypothesis (44) remains the most substantially contributed to theory and argues for the instinctive esthetic preference for natural environments and subconscious affiliation for other living organisms. Supportive findings include humans’ preference for scenes dominated by natural elements (4), improved cognitive functioning through connectivity with nature (45) as well as instinctive responses to specific natural stimuli or cues (e.g., a common phobia of snakes) (46). More recently, evidence is emerging to suggest that connectivity to nature can generate positive impacts on one’s health, increasing with intensity and duration (47).
The underpinning of the Biophilia hypothesis centers on humanity’s source of attachment to nature beyond those on the surface particulars. Instead, it reflects thousands of years of evolutionary experience closely bonding with other living organisms (44). Such process is mediated by the rules of prepared and counter-prepared learning that shape our cognitive and emotional apparatus; evolving by natural selection via a cultural context (48). This innate value for nature is suggested to be reflected in the choices we make, experiences expressed as well as our longstanding actions to maintain our connection to nature (49). Nevertheless, many have gone on to recognize the research field’s need for revision and further evidentiary support through empirical analysis (50). Similarly, as other researchers have argued, these innate values should be viewed in complementary to other drivers and affinities from different sources that can also be acquired (e.g., technology and urban landscapes). This is because at the commonest level, as Orr (51) explains, humanity can learn to love what becomes familiar, a notion also reflected in the Topophilia (“love of place”) hypothesis (52).
Social economics is a metadiscipline in which economics is embedded in social, political, and cultural behaviors. It examines institutions, choice behavior, rationality as well as values in relation to markets (53). Owing to its diverse structure, the human–nature relationship has been explored in various contexts. These include the reflections of society’s values and identities in natural landscapes (54), condition of placelessness (55), and humanity’s growing ecosynchronous tendencies (56) as well as how the relationship has evolved with historical context (57–59). While the dynamics of human and nature coupled systems has become a growing interdisciplinary field of research, past work within social economics has remained more theoretical than empirically based (59).
The connection between the start of industrialized societies and the dynamically evolving human–nature relationship has been discussed by many (60), revealing a host of economic–nature conflicts. One example includes those metaphorically outlined in the frequently cited article “The Tragedy of the Commons.” In this, it argues that the four laws of ecology are counter intuitive with the four laws of capitalism (5, 6). Based on this perspective, the human–nature relationship is simplified to one of exchange value, where adverse costs to the environment are rarely factored into the equation (6). However, this is not to say that humanity’s increasing specialization and complexity in most contemporary societies are distinct from nature but still depend on nature to exert (61).
Central to the tenets outlined in Tragedy of the Commons is the idea of “gradually diminishing freedom” where a population can increasingly exceed the limits of its resources if avoidance measures are not implemented (e.g., privatization or publicly owned property with rights of entry) (5, 62). Yet, such avoidance measures can be seen to reflect emerging arguments in the field of environmental justice, which researches the inequalities at the intersection between environmental quality, accessibility, and social hierarchies (63). These arguments derive from the growing evidence that suggests the human–nature relationship is seemingly disproportionate to those vulnerable groups in society (e.g., lack of green spaces and poor air quality), something public health researchers believe to be a contributing factor to health inequities (64). As such, conflicts between both private and collective interests remain a challenge for future social economic development (65). This was explored more fully in Ostrom’s (66) research on managing a common pool of resources.
Environmentalism can be broadly defined as an ideology or social movement. It focuses on fundamental environmental concerns as well as associated underlying social, political, and economic issues stemming from humanity’s interactions affecting the natural environment (67, 68). In this context, the human–nature relationship has been explored through various human-related activities, from natural resource extraction and environmental hazards to habitat management and restoration. Within each of these reflects a common aspect of “power” visible in much of the literature that centers on environmental history (69). Some examples included agricultural engineering (70), the extinction of animals through over hunting (71) as well as the ecological collapse on Easter Island from human overexploitation of natural resources, since disproven (72–74). Yet, in the last decade, the field’s presupposed dichotomy between humans and nature in relation to power has been critically challenged by Radkau (75) who regards this perspective as misleading without careful examination. Instead, they propose the relationship to be more closely in synchrony.
Power can be characterized as “A person, institution, physical event or idea … because it has an impact on society: It affects what people do, think and how they live” (76). Though frequently debated in other disciplines, in the context of the human–nature relationship, the concept of “power” can be exerted by both nature and humanity. In regards to nature’s power against humanity, it has the ability to sustain society as well as emphasize its conditional awareness, environmental constraints, and fragilities (77). In contrast, humanity’s power against nature can take the form of institutions, artifacts, practices, procedures, and techniques (70). In the context of this review, it focuses on nature’s powers against humanity.
It has been argued that human power over nature has altered and weakened in dominance (75) since the emergence of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962, and later concepts of Gaia (78), Deep Ecology (40), and Sustainable Development (79). Instead, humanity’s power toward nature has become one of a moral sense of protectionism or the safeguarding of the environment (80). This conservative behavior (e.g., natural defenses, habitat management, and ecological restoration) can be termed “Urgent Biophilia” (81) and is the conscious urge to express affinity for nature pending an environmental disaster. As Radkau (69) suggests, with warnings of climatic change, biodiversity loss, and depletions in natural resources, this poses a threat to humanity. As such, this will eventually generate a turning point where human power is overwhelmed by the power of nature, bringing nature and power into a sustainable balance. Nonetheless, as many also highlight, humanity’s responses to environmental disasters can directly impinge on an array of multi-causalities of intervening variables (e.g., resource depletion and social economics) and the complexity of outcomes (82).
An Interdisciplinary Perspective of the Human–Nature Relationship
Through exploring the key concepts found in evolutionary biology, social economics, evolutionary psychology, and environmentalism, this has enabled a broader understanding of the various ways humans are connected to the natural environment. Each should not be viewed as separate entities, but rather that they share commonalities in terms of mutual or conjoint information and active research areas where similarities can occur (see Table 1 below). For example, there is a clear connection between social economics, evolutionary psychology, and biology in areas of health, lifestyle, and biophilic nature (40, 53, 81) as well as between social economics and the environment in regards to balancing relationships of power (5, 75). Similarly, economic–nature conflicts can occur between disciplines evolutionary psychology and social economics in relation to people’s affiliation for nature and industrial growth.
Table 1. A summarized overview of human–nature relationship connections between those research fields explored.
Our understanding of the human–nature relationship and its underlying mechanisms could be further understood from an interdisciplinary perspective. In essence, the human–nature relationship can be understood through the Biophilia concept of humanity’s affiliation with nature as well as related concepts and measures to describe human connectedness to nature (49–53). Equally, Orr’s (51) perspective that at the commonest level humans can acquire other affinities to or learn to love different elements than those of the natural world (e.g., technology and urban environments) adds to this understanding. Further, while humanity, and indeed nature also, has not entirely escaped change, it cannot be assumed that all have been shaped by evolutionary mechanisms (42, 44). Some have been shaped by what Radkau (75) terms as the power shift between humans and nature, which is evolving, as it has and will keep on doing. As such, the human–nature relationship goes beyond the extent to which an individual believes or feels they are part of nature. It can also be understood as, and inclusive of, our adaptive synergy with nature as well as our longstanding actions and experiences that connect us to nature. Over time, as research and scientific knowledge progresses, it is anticipated that this definition of the human–nature relationship will adapt, featuring the addition of other emerging research fields and avenues.
Conceptualizing “health” has often generated complex debates across different disciplines owing to its multidimensional and dynamic nature (83). It is, however, beyond the scope of this paper to review the many ways these concepts have been previously explored (84–86). Instead, “health” is reviewed and viewed more generally through the lens of the World Health Organization 1948 definition.
The World Health Organization defined “health” simply as the physical, social, and mental well-being of humanity, in which “health” was widened beyond those biomedical aspects (e.g., disease and illness) to encompass the socioeconomic and psychological domains (85). This classical definition advocated health’s shift toward a holistic perspective, with emphasis on more positive attributes (84, 87) and was not simply “the mere absence of disease and infirmity” [(83), p. 1]. It also reflected people’s ambitious outlook after the Second World War, when health and peace were seen as inseparable (83, 84). Since then, this shift has seen a major growth in the last 30 years, primarily in areas of positive health and psychology (88–92).
Despite its broad perspective of human health, the definition has also encountered criticism in relation to its description and its overall reflectance of modern society. For instance, the use of the term “completeness” when describing optimal health has been regarded by many as impractical. Instead, Huber et al (83) propose health to be the “ability to adapt and to self-manage” and invite the continuation of further discussions and proposals of this definition to be characterized as well as measured through its three interrelated dimensions; physical, mental, and social health. Similarly, others have highlighted the need to distinguish health from happiness (84) or its inability to fully reflect modern transformations in knowledge and development (e.g., technology, medicine, genomics as well as physical and social environments) (86). As such, there have been calls to reconceptualize this definition, to ensure further clarity and relevance for our adaptive societies (83).
Broadly, health has been measured through two theoretical approaches; subjective and objective (85). The subjective approach is based on individual’s perceived physical, emotional, and cognitive experiences or functioning. By contrast, the objective approach measures those variables, which are existing and measurable external to an individual’s internal experience such as living conditions or human needs that enable people to lead a good life (e.g., health markers, education, environment, occupational attainment, and civic involvement) (85). Together, these approaches provide a more comprehensive picture of a person’s health status, which are applicable across its three health components (physical, mental, and social), as described below.
First, physical health is defined as a healthy organism capable of maintaining physiological fitness through protective or adaptive responses during changing circumstances (83). While it centers on health-related behaviors and fitness (including lifestyle and dietary choices), physiological fitness is considered one of the most important health markers thought to be an integral measure of most bodily functions involved in the performance of daily physical exercise (93). These can be measured through various means, with examples including questionnaires, behavioral observations, motion sensors, and physiological markers (e.g., heart rate) (94).
Second, mental health is often regarded as a broad concept to define, encapsulating both mental illness and well-being. It can be characterized as the positive state of well-being and the capacity of a person to cope with life stresses as well as contribute to community engagement activities (83, 95). It has the ability to both determine as well as be determined by a host of multifaceted health and social factors being inextricably linked to overall health, inclusive of diet, exercise, and environmental conditions. As a result, there are no single definitive indicators used to capture its overall measurement. This owes in part to the breadth of methods and tends to represent hedonic (e.g., life satisfaction and happiness) and eudaimonic (e.g., virtuous activity) aspects of well-being, each known to be useful predictors of physical health components (96).
Third, social health can be generalized as the ability to lead life with some degree of independence and participate in social activities (83). Indicators of the concept revolve around social relationships, social cohesion, and participation in community activities. Further, such mechanisms are closely linked to improving physical and mental well-being as well as forming constructs, which underline social capital. Owing to its complexity, its measurement focuses on strengths of primary networks or relationships (e.g., family, friends, neighborliness, and volunteering in the community) at local, neighborhood, and national levels (97).
Current Knowledge on the Human–Nature Relationship and Health
This section summarizes existing theoretical and literature research at the intersection of the human–nature relationship and health, as defined in this review. This has been explored through three Subsections “Physical Health,” “Mental Health,” and “Social Health.” It aims to identify areas of convergence as well as gaps and limitations.
Though it is widely established that healthy eating and regular exercise have major impacts on physical health (98), within the past 30 years research has also identified that exposure to nature (e.g., visual, multisensory, or by active engagement) is equally effective for regulating our diurnal body rhythms to ensure physical vitality (99). Such notion stems from Wilson’s (44) proposed “Three Pillars of Biophilia” experience categories (Nature of Space, Natural Analogs, and Nature in Space), which relate to natural materials and patterns experienced in nature, inducing a positive impact on health (9). Empirical research in this domain was first carried out by Ulrich (46) who found that those hospital patients exposed to natural scenery from a window view experienced decreased levels of pain and shorter recovery time after surgery. Following this, research in this academic field has grown exponentially and encompasses a large literature base on nature’s health benefits. These include improvements in neurological and circadian rhythms relating to exposures to natural sunlight (100, 101), undergoing “Earthing” or physical contact with the Earth’s surface regulates diurnal body rhythms (102) as well as walking activities in forest environments reducing blood pressure levels (8).
In spite of its increasing findings, some have suggested the need for further objective research at the intersect of nature-based parameters and human health (9). One reason for this is that most studies have yet to be scrutinized to empirical scientific analysis (55, 103) owing to the research area’s reliance on self-reported measures with the need for inclusion of more quantitative forms of data (e.g., physiological and biochemical indicators). This presents inherent difficulty in comparing assessment measures or different data types relative to the size and scale of the variables being evaluated (9). Further, there still remain evidence gaps in data on what activities might increase levels of physical health as well as limited amount of longitudinal datasets from which the frequency, duration, and causal directions could be inferred (104).
Mental health studies in the context of connecting with nature have also generated a growing research base since the emergence of the Biophilia concept in the mid-1980s (45). Much of its research within the Evolutionary Psychology discipline examines the recuperative effects of nature on well-being and its beneficial properties following researcher’s arguments of humanity’s affiliation for nature (105). Supporting research has been well documented in literature during the last few decades. These include “Heraclitean motion” or natural movement (14), natural sounds (106), children’s engagement activities within green settings (7, 107) as well as esthetic preferences for nature and natural forms (4, 49).
Criticisms of this research area center on the inability to decipher causal effects and direction of such benefits and in part relates to its predominant focus on “recuperative measure” than that of detecting its “source” (105). In light of this, reviewers repeatedly remark on researchers’ tendencies to focus on outcomes of well-being, neglecting the intervening mechanisms that sustain or inhibit well-being (108). Similarly, further mixed-method approaches and larger sample sizes are needed in this research field. This would enhance existing evidence gaps to enhance existing knowledge of variable interlinkages with other important sources (e.g., physical and social health aspects) as well as the diversity that exists between individuals (104).
In the last two decades, the relationship between people and place in the context of green spaces has received much attention in academic literature in regards to its importance for the vitality of communities and their surrounding environments (109). As studies have shown, the presence of green space can promote social cohesion and group-based activities, aspects that are crucial for maintaining social ties, developing communities, and increasing individual’s well-being (e.g., horticulture and ecological restoration) (110). Examples of findings include usage of outdoor space exponentially increases with number and locality of trees (111), children’s activities in green spaces improves social development (7) as well as accessibility to green spaces enhances social bonds in communities (112).
One of the main limitations within this field relates to the generally perceived idea that public green spaces are freely open to everyone in all capacities (113). This limitation has been, as already, highlighted from the emerging arguments in the field of environmental justice and economic–nature conflicts (63). As such, many researchers highlight the need to maintain awareness of other barriers that might hinder cohesion and community participation (e.g., semi-public space and social exclusion). Further, there still remains a gap between academic research and local knowledge, which would otherwise lead to more effective interventions. However, without implementing participatory engagement, many studies risk misrepresenting the true social, economic, and political diversity that would increase both our understanding of “real life” problems of concern as well as bringing depth to data collected (114). Nonetheless, for such approach to be implemented requires sufficient time, cost, and an adequate scale of resources to ensure for aspects of coordination, communication, and data validation (115).
Impacts of the Human–Nature Relationship on Health
During the past four decades, researchers, health practitioners, and environmentalists alike have begun to explore the potential link between the human–nature relationship and its impact people’s health (10). This in part owes to the increasing evidence accumulating in research literature centering on the relationships between the following areas: chronic diseases and urbanization, nature connectedness and happiness, health implications of contemporary society’s lifestyle choices as well as the adverse impacts of environmental quality on the health of humans and non-humans alike (116, 117).
Such health-related effects that have been alluded to include chronic diseases, social isolation, emotional well-being as well as other psychiatric disorders (e.g., attention deficit disorders and anxiety) and associated physical symptoms (7, 118). Reasons for these proposed links have been suggested to stem from various behavioral patterns (e.g., unhealthy diets and indoor lifestyles) associated with consumerism, urbanization, and anthropogenic polluting activities (117, 119). Further, these suggested links have been inferred, by some, to be visible in other species (e.g., insects, mice, and amphibians) as a consequence to living in unnatural habitats or enclosures (120–122). Nonetheless, research within this field remains speculative with few counter examples (e.g., some species of wildlife adapting to urban environments), requiring further empirical analysis (108).
With a growing trend in the number of chronic diseases and psychiatric disorders, costs to the U. K.’s National Health Service (NHS) could rise as the use of prescriptive drugs and medical interventions increases (123). However, this anticipated trend is considered to be both undesirable and expensive to the already overwhelmed health-care system (124). In concurrence are the associated impacts on health equity (125, 126), equating to further productivity and tax losses every year in addition to a growing gap in health inequalities (127).
Furthermore, population growth in urbanized areas is expected to impact future accessibility to and overall loss of natural spaces. Not only would this have a direct detrimental effect on the health of both humans and non-humans but equally the functioning and integrity of ecosystem services that sustain our economic productivity (128). Thereby, costs of sustaining our human-engineered components of social–ecological systems could rise, having an indirect impact on our economic growth and associated pathways connecting to health (129, 130). As such, researchers have highlighted the importance of implementing all characteristics when accounting ecosystem services, particularly the inclusion of natural and health-related capital, as well as their intervening mechanisms. This is an area, which at present remains difficult to synthesize owing to fragmented studies from a host of disciplines that are more conceptually rather than empirically based (131).
Toward an Interdisciplinary Perspective of Human and Ecosystem Health
Since the late nineteenth century, a number of descriptive models have been developed to encapsulate the dimensions of human health and the natural environment as well as their interrelationships (17). These include the Environment of Health (11), the Mandala of Health (12), the Wheel of Fundamental Human Needs (13), and the Healthy Communities (14). As VanLeeuwen et al (17) highlight in their review, each have not fully incorporated all relevant characteristics of ecosystems (e.g., multiple species, trade-offs, and feedback loops, as well as the complex interrelationships between socioeconomic and biophysical environments). Further, the Bioecological systems theory model encapsulates the biopsychological characteristics of an evolving theoretical system for scientific study of human development over time (16, 132). However, the model has been suggested by some (133, 134) to be static and compartmentalized in nature, emphasizing instead the importance of evolving synergies between biology, culture, and technology.
More recently, the concept “One Health” has gradually evolved and increased with momentum across various disciplines (15). It is broadly defined as the attainment of optimal health across the human–animal–environmental interfaces at local, national, and global levels. It calls for a holistic and universal approach to researching health, an ideology said to be traceable to pathologist Rudolf Virchow in 1858 (18). Yet, the concept has received criticisms regarding its prominence toward the more biological phenomena (e.g., infectious diseases) than those of a social science and spatial perspective (18, 135). Some have therefore suggested its need to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved (13).
To address these limitations identified in the above models, a suggested conceptual model has been outlined below (Figure 1). It is both inclusive of all relevant characteristics of ecosystems, their continuously evolving synergies with human health as well as a balance between the biological, social, and spatial perspectives. This is achieved through combining the perspective of the human–nature relationship, as summarized in Section “Defining the Human–Nature Relationship” of this review, with those human-centered components of health (physical, mental, and social), as defined by the World Health Organization in 1948 in Section “Defining Health.” It aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved for attaining optimal human health (19). I will now describe the conceptual model.
Figure 1. Interdisciplinary perspective of human and ecosystem health [image on the inside circle is by Baird (136) with the background image, added text, and embedded illustrations being the author’s own work].
First, the outer circle is representative of “nature” that both encompasses and interconnects with the three human-centered components of health (physical, mental, and social). Through this it emphasizes humanity’s interrelationship with the environment. As identified in Section “Defining the Human–Nature Relationship” of this review, the human–nature relationship can be experienced through various biological, ecological, and behavioral connections. For instance, social, political, and economic issues stemming from humanity’s interactions affecting the natural environment (e.g., natural resources, environmental hazards, habitat management, and restoration), as explored in Subsections “Social Economics” and “Environmentalism.”
Second, in the inner circle, the three components of human health (physical, mental, and social) are interconnected through a cohesive triangle to reflect their interdisciplinary and dynamic natures, as outlined in Section “Defining Health.” Further, this cohesive triangle acts on two levels. First, as a single construct of health based on these components combined. Second, the underlying intervening mechanisms that sustain or inhibit health, which can derive from each of these separately (105). Thereby, it not only focuses on the outcomes or “recuperative measure” of health but also the source of such outcomes and their directions, as highlighted in Section “Mental Health” (104).
The middle circle represents the interconnected relationship between humanity and the natural environment with relevance to human health (see Current Knowledge on the Human–Nature Relationship and Health). This has been indicated by the two-way arrows and incorporates Gual and Norgaard’s (31) coevolutionary perspective between human adaptation and the natural environment. In this way, the relationship is continually interconnected via two-way physical and perceptual interactions. These are embedded within three integrated systems (biophysical, biotic, and cultural), with all humanity knows of the world comes through such mediums (31). As such, the human–nature relationship goes beyond the extent to which an individual believes or feels they are affiliated with nature (e.g., Biophilia concept). It can also be understood as, and inclusive of, our adaptive synergy with nature as well as our longstanding actions and experiences that connect us to nature.
Utilizing this developing conceptual model, methodological approaches can be employed from those research fields explored in this review, enabling a more interdisciplinary framework. The characteristics, descriptions, implications, and practicalities of this are detailed in Table 2 below. The advantage of this is that a multitude of knowledge from both rigorous scientific analysis as well as collaborative participatory research can be combined bringing a greater depth to data collected (114). This could be achieved through using more mixed-method approaches and adopting a pragmatic outlook in research. In this way, the true social, economic, and political diversity of “real life” as well as the optimal human health at the human–environmental interface can be identified. As such, a more multidimensional perspective of human health would be gained, knowledge that could be implemented to address those issues identified in Section “Impacts of the Human–Nature Relationship on Health” (e.g., improving nature and health ecosystem service accounting). Nonetheless, adopting a pragmatic outlook brings its own challenges, as explored by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (137), with several researchers proposing frameworks that could be implemented to address these concerns (138, 139).
Summary and Conclusion
One of the imperatives for this article is to review existing theoretical and research literature on the many ways that humans are linked with the natural environment within various disciplines. Although widely discussed across the main four research fields – evolutionary psychology, environmentalism, evolutionary biology, and social economics – there has been comparatively little discussion of convergence between them on defining the human–nature relationship. This paper therefore attempts to redefine the human–nature relationship to bring further understanding of humanity’s relationship with the natural environment from an interdisciplinary perspective. The paper also highlights important complex debates both within and across these disciplines.
The central discussion was to explore the interrelationships between the human–nature relationship and its impact on human health. In questioning the causal relationship, this paper addresses existing research on potential adverse and beneficial impacts in relation to humanity’s degree of relationship to nature and lifestyle choices. The paper also acknowledged current gaps and limitations of this link relative to the different types of health (physical, mental, and social), as characterized by the World Health Organization in 1948. Most of these relate to research at the intersect of nature-based parameters and human health being in its relative infancy. It has also been highlighted that the reorientation of health toward a well-being perspective brings its own challenges to the already complex research base in relation to its concept, measurement, and strategic framework. For a deeper sense of understanding and causal directions to be identified requires further attention to the complexities of these aspects’ interlinkages, processes, and relations.
Finally, a developing conceptual model of human and ecosystem health that is inclusive of the human-centered perspective is proposed. It is based on an interdisciplinary outlook at the intersection of the human–nature relationship and human health, addressing the limitations identified in existing models. To achieve this, it combines theoretical concepts and methodological approaches from those research fields examined in this review, bringing a greater depth to data collected. In attempting this, a balance between both rigorous scientific analysis as well as collaborative participatory research will be required, adopting a pragmatic outlook. In this way, an interdisciplinary approach can facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities involved for attaining optimal health at the human–environmental interface.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author would like to thank the following people for their advice and feedback during the writing of this manuscript: Muki Haklay, Pippa Bark-Williams, Mike Wood, Peter J. Burt, Catherine Holloway, Jenny Mindell, Claire Ellul, Elizabeth H. Boakes, Gianfranco Gliozzo, Chris Spears, Louisa Hooper, and Roberta Antonica. University College London and The Conservation Volunteers sponsored this research.
1. Guiney MS, Oberhauser KS. Conservation volunteer’s connection to nature. Ecoposychology (2009) 1(4):187–97. doi:10.1089/eco.2009.0030
2. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM. The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature-relatedness. Front Psychol (2013) 4:813. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813
3. Davis JL, Green JD, Reed A. Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol (2009) 29:173–80. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
4. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press (1989).
5. Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science (1968) 162(3859):1243–8. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
6. Foster JB. The Four Laws of Ecology and the Four Anti-Ecological Laws of Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press (2012).
7. Louv R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Agonquin Books (2005).
8. Park BJ, Tsunetsugu Y, Kasetani T, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ Health Prev Med (2010) 15:18–26. doi:10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
9. Ryan CO, Browning WD, Clancy JO, Andrews SL, Kallianparkar NB. Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and wellbeing in the built environment. Int J Arch Res (2014) 8(2):62–76.
10. Thompson Coon KJ, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear R, Barton J, Depledge MH. Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ Sci Technol (2011) 45(5):1761–2. doi:10.1021/es102947t
11. Blum HL. Planning for Health: Developmental Application of Social Change Theory. New York: Human Sciences Press (1974).
12. Hancock T, Perkins F. The Mandala of Health: a conceptual model and teaching tool. Health Educ (1985) 24:8–10.
13. Max-Neef MA. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. London: The Apex Press (1992).
14. Hancock T. Health, human development and the community ecosystem: three ecological models. Health Promot Int (1993) 8:41–6. doi:10.1093/heapro/8.1.41
15. Zinsstag J, Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M, Heymann DC, Patz JA, Daszak P. Mainstreaming One Health. Ecohealth (2012) 9:107–10. doi:10.1007/s10393-012-0772-8
16. Brofenbrenner U. Developmental ecology through space and time: a future perspective. In: Moen P, Elder GH, Luscher K, editors. Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association (1995). p. 619–47.
17. VanLeeuwen JA, Waltner-Toews D, Abernathy T, Smit B. Evolving models of human health toward and ecosystem context. Ecosyst Health (1999) 5(3):204–19. doi:10.1046/j.1526-0992.1999.09931.x
18. Wolf M. Is there really such a thing as “One Health”? Thinking about a more than human world from the perspective of cultural anthropology. Soc Sci Med (2014) 129:5–11. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.018
19. Min B, Allen-Scott LK, Buntain B. Transdisciplinary research for complex One Health issues: a scoping review of key concepts. Prev Vet Med (2013) 112:222–9. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.010
20. Darwin C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray (1859).
21. Badyaev AV. Origin of the fittest: link between the emergent variation and biology evolutionary change as a critical question in evolutionary biology. Proc Soc Biol (2011) 278:1921–9. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0548
22. Karrenberg S. Speciation genetics: limits and promises. Taxon (2010) 59(5):1404–12. doi:10.2307/20774037
23. Noble D. Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Exp Physiol (2013) 98:1235–43. doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134
24. Sharov AA. Evolutionary constraints or opportunities? Biosystems (2014) 123:9–18. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2014.06.004
25. Lumsden CJ, Wilson EO. Theory of gene-culture coevolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1980) 77:4382–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.77.7.4382
26. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1981).
27. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1988).
28. Cohen MN, Armelagos GJ. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Florida: University Press of Florida (1984).
29. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Myles S. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetic and human sciences together. Nat Rev (2010) 11:137–45. doi:10.1038/nrg2734
30. Bloomfield SF, Stanwell-Smith R, Crevel RWR, Pickup J. Too clean, or not too clean: the hygiene hypothesis and home hygiene. Clin Exp Allergy (2006) 36:402–25. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.x
31. Gual MA, Norgaard RB. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: a review and proposal. Ecol Econ (2010) 69(4):707–17. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020
32. Simon HA. The behavioral and social sciences. Sci Centennial Issue (1980) 209(4452):72–8.
33. Nelson RR. Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. J Evol Econ (2006) 16:491–510. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0025-5
34. Carrera-Bastos P, Fontes-Villalba M, O’Keefe JH, Lindeberg S, Cordain L. The western diet and lifestyle and diseases of civilization. Res Rep Clin Cardiol (2011) 2:15–33. doi:10.2147/RRCC.S16919
35. Powell R. The future of human evolution. Br J Philos Sci (2012) 63:145–75. doi:10.1093/bjps/axr027
36. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow J, Cosmides L, Tooby J, editors. The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press (1992). p. 163–228.
37. Buss DW. How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspect Psychol Sci (1995) 4(4):359–66. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.x
38. Ploeger A, van der Maas HLJ, Raijmakers EJ. Is evolutionary psychology a metatheory for psychology? A discussion of four major issues in psychology from an evolutionary developmental perspective. Psychol Inq (2008) 19:1–18. doi:10.1080/10478400701774006
39. Bolhuios JJ, Brown GR, Richardson RC, Laland KN. Darwin in mind: new opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biol (2011) 9(7):e1001109. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109
40. Naess A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: a summary. Inquiry (1973) 16:95–100. doi:10.1080/00201747308601682
41. Pyle RM. The extinction of experience. Horticulture (1978) 56:64–7.
42. Schultz PW. Assessing the structure of environmental concern: concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol (2001) 21:327–39. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
43. Mayer FS, Frantz CM. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol (2004) 24:503–15. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
44. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1984).
45. Howell AJ, Dopko RL, Passmore HA, Buro K. Nature connectedness: associations with well-being and mindfulness. Pers Individ Dif (2011) 51:166–71. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
46. Ulrich RS. View from a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (1984) 224(4647):420–1. doi:10.1126/science.6143402
47. Barton J, Pretty J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol (2010) 44:3947–55. doi:10.1021/es903183r
48. Gullone E. The Biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: increasing mental health or increasing pathology? J Happiness Stud (2000) 1:293–321. doi:10.1023/A:1010043827986
49. Depledge MH, Stone RJ, Bird WJ. Can natural and virtual environments be used to promote improved human health and wellbeing? Environ Sci Technol (2011) 45:4660–5. doi:10.1021/es103907m
50. Joye Y, van den Berg A. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban For Urban Green (2011) 10(4):261–8. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
51. Orr DW. Love it or lose it: the Biophilia revolution. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press (1993). p. 415–40.
52. Tuan Y-F. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Columbia: Columbia University Press (1974).
53. Ashford R. Socio-economics: an overview. Coll Law Faculty Scholarship (2007) 14:1–6. doi:10.2139/ssrn.882751
54. Stedman RC. Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to Sense of lace. Soc Nat Resour (2003) 16:671–85. doi:10.1080/08941920309189
55. Relph EC. Place and Placelessness. California: Pion Limited (1976).
56. Hay R. Becoming ecosynchronous, part 1: the root causes of our unsustainable way of life. Sustain Dev (2005) 13:311–25. doi:10.1002/sd.256
57. Glacken CJ. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkley: University of California Press (1967).
58. O’Brien E. Human values and their role in the development of forestry policy in Britain. Forestry (2003) 76:3–17. doi:10.1093/forestry/76.1.3
59. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science (2007) 317:1513–6. doi:10.1126/science.1144004
60. Buckeridge JS. The ongoing evolution of humanness: perspectives from Darwin to de Chardin. S Afr J Sci (2009) 105:427–31.
61. Small B, Jollands J. Technology and ecological economics: promethean technology, Pandorian potential. Ecol Econ (2006) 56:343–58. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.013
62. Hardin G. Extensions of “The tragedy of the commons”. Science (1998) 280(5364):682–3. doi:10.1126/science.280.5364.682
63. Pellow DN. Environmental inequality formation: toward a theory of environmental injustice. Am Behav Sci (2000) 43:581–601. doi:10.1177/0002764200043004004
64. Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental injustice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health (2006) 27:3.1–3.22. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124
65. Van Vugt M. Averting the tragedy of the commons: using social psychological science to protect the environment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci (2009) 18(3):169–73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01630.x
66. Ostrom E. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu Rev Polit Sci (Palo Alto) (1999) 2:493–535. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493
67. Slocombe DA. Environmentalism: a modern synthesis. Environmentalist (1980) 4:281–5. doi:10.1016/S0251-1088(84)92432-X
68. Mulihill PR. Endless paradox: environmentalism in transition. Futures (2009) 41:502–6. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.01.003
69. Radkau J. Nature and power: an intimate and ambiguous connection. Soc Sci Hist (2013) 37(3):325–45. doi:10.1215/01455532-2209402
70. Foucault M. The Order of Discourse. London: Picador (1981).
71. Richards JF. The Unending Frontier: An Environmental History of the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press (2003).
72. Bahn PG, Flenley JR. Easter Island, Earth Island. New York: Thames and Hudson (1991).
73. Diamond JM. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking (2005).
74. Hunt TL, Lipo CP. Late colonization of Easter Island. Science (2006) 311(5767):1603–6. doi:10.1126/science.1121879
75. Radkau J. Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press (2008).
76. Turner JC. Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory. Eur J Soc Psychol (2005) 35:1–22. doi:10.1002/ejsp.244
77. Whited TL. Nature and power through multiple lenses. Soc Sci Hist (2013) 37(3):347–59. doi:10.1215/01455532-2209411
78. Lovelock JE. Gaia: as seen through the atmosphere. Atmos Environ (1972) 6:579. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(72)90076-5
79. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1987).
80. Hodder K, Bullock J. Nature without nurture? Planet Earth (2005) Winter:30–1.
81. Tidball KG. Urgent Biophilia: human-nature interactions and biological attractions in disaster resilience. Ecol Soc (2012) 17(2):1–18. doi:10.5751/ES-04596-170205
82. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, et al. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climate Change (2009) 93:335–54. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z
83. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health? BMJ (2011) 343:d4163. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163
84. Saracci R. The World Health Organisation needs to reconsider its definition. BMJ (1997) 314:1409–10. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7091.1409
85. Cameron E, Mathers J, Parry J. Health and well-being: questioning the use of health concepts in public health policy practice. Crit Public Health (2006) 16(4):347–54. doi:10.1080/09581590601128166
86. Kamberi A. Towards a new understanding of health. Alban Med J (2015) 3:114–8.
87. Fleuret S, Atkinson S. Wellbeing, health and geography: a critical review and research agenda. N Z Geog (2007) 63:106–18. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7939.2007.00093.x
88. Seligman MEP. Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol (2000) 55(1):5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
89. Linley PA, Joseph S, Harrington S, Wood AM. Positive psychology: past, present, and (possible) future. J Posit Psychol (2006) 1(1):3–16. doi:10.1080/17439760500372796
90. Seligman MEP. Positive health. Appl Psychol Int Rev (2008) 57:3–18. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00351.x
91. Donaldson SI, Dollwet M, Rao MA. Happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning revisited: examining the peer-reviewed literature linked to positive psychology. J Posit Psychol (2015) 10(3):185–95. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.943801
92. Park N, Peterson C, Szvarca D, Vander Molen RJ, Kim ES, Collon K. Positive psychology and physical health: research and applications. Am J Lifestyle Med (2016) 10(3):200–6. doi:10.1177/1559827614550277
93. Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, Sjöström M. Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes (Lond) (2008) 32:1–11. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774
94. Westerterp KR. Assessment of physical activity: a critical appraisal. Eur J Physiol (2009) 105:823–8. doi:10.1007/s00421-009-1000-2
95. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes (2007) 5(63):1–13. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
96. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. Happiness is in our nature: exploring 954 nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud (2011) 12:303–22. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7
97. Ziersch AM, Baum FE, MacDougall C, Putland C. Neighbourhood life and social capital: the implications for health. Soc Sci Med (2005) 60:71–86. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.027
98. Miles L. Physical activity and health. Br Nutr Found Nutr Health Bull (2007) 32:314–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00668.x
99. Heerwagen J. Biophilia, health and well-being. In: Campbell L, Wiesen A, editors. Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being through Urban Landscapes. Washington, DC: USADA Forest Services (2009). p. 38–57.
100. Figueiro MG, Rea MS, Stevens RG, Rea AC. Daylight and productivity – a possible link to circadian regulation. Proceedings of Light and Human Health: EPRI/LRO 5th International Lighting Research Symposium, 2002 Nov 3-5; Palo Alto, CA. and Ostram Sylvania, Danvers, MA. California: EPRI (2004).
101. Boyce PR. The impact of light in buildings on human health. Indoor Built Environ (2010) 19(1):8–20. doi:10.1177/1420326X09358028
102. Chevalier G, Sinatra ST, Oschman JL, Sokal K, Sokal P. Earthing: health implications of reconnecting the human body to the earth’s surface electrons. J Environ Public Health (2012) 2012:291541. doi:10.1155/2012/291541
103. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci (2012) 24(6):920–8. doi:10.1177/0956797612464659
104. UK Department of Health. Evidence gaps and current/ongoing research. A Compendium of Factsheets: Wellbeing across the Life Course. London: UK Department of Health (2014).
105. Grinde B, Patil GG. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health (2009) 6:2332–43. doi:10.3390/ijerph6092332
106. Fisher JA. The value of natural sounds. J Aesthet Educ (1999) 33(3):26–42. doi:10.2307/3333700
107. Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav (2001) 33(1):54–77. doi:10.1177/00139160121972864
108. Luniak M. Synurbization – adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation, 876 May 1-5, 1999, Tuscan, Arizona. Tuscan: University of Arizona (2004).
109. Burton P, Goodlad R, Croft J. How would we know what works? Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement. Evaluation (2006) 12(3):294–312. doi:10.1177/1356389006069136
110. Maas J, van Dillen SME, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place (2009) 15(2):586–95. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
111. Coley RL, Sullivan WC, Kuo FE. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ Behav (1997) 29:468–94. doi:10.1177/001391659702900402
112. Sullivan WC, Kuo FE, DePooter SF. The fruit of urban nature: vital neighbourhood spaces. Environ Behav (2004) 36(5):678–700. doi:10.1177/0193841X04264945
113. Peters K, Elands B, Buijs A. Social interactions in urban parks: stimulating social cohesion? Urban For Urban Green (2010) 9:93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003
114. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA (2007) 24/31:407–10. doi:10.1001/jama.297.4.407
115. Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Conserv (2013) 165:128–38. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
116. Bird W. Our UK natural health service. Socialmedicinsk Tidskrift (2012) 89(3):296–304.
117. Malik VS, Willett WC, Hu FB. Global obesity: trends, risk factors and policy implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol (2013) 9(1):13–27. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2012.199
118. Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodríguez DA, Saelens BE. Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation (2012) 125:729–37. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.969022
119. Stuckler D. Population causes and consequences of leading chronic diseases: a comparative analysis of prevailing explanations. Milbank Q (2008) 86(2):273–326. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00522.x
120. Premack D, Premack J. Increased eating in rats deprived of running. J Exp Anal Behav (1963) 6(2):209–12. doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-209
121. Frankham R, Loebel DA. Modelling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: rapid genetic adaptation to captivity. Zool Biol (1992) 11:333–42. doi:10.1002/zoo.1430110505
122. Bechard A, Lewis M. Modelling restricted repetitive behaviour in animals. Autism (2012) S1:006. doi:10.4172/2165-7890.S1-006
123. Depledge MH. Does the pharmaceutical industries need a new prescription? Sci Parliament (2011) 68(4):44–5.
124. Baum FE, Bégin M, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S. Changes not for the fainthearted: reorienting health care systems towards health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Am J Public Health (2009) 99(11):1967–74. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.154856
125. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequities. Lancet (2005) 365:1099–104. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74234-3
126. Navarro V. What we mean by social determinants of health. Int J Health Serv (2009) 39(3):423–41. doi:10.2190/HS.39.3.a
127. Marmot M, Allen J. Prioritizing health equity. In: Leppo K, Ollila E, Peña S, Wismar M, Cook S, editors. Health in All Policies: Seizing Opportunities, Implementing Policies. Finland: Ministry and Social Affairs and Health (2013). p. 63–80.
128. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape Plan (2014) 125:234–44. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
129. Clark NE, Lovell R, Wheeler BW, Higgins S, Depledge MH, Norris K. Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends Ecol Evol (2014) 29:198–204. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.009
130. Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2015) 112(24):7348–55. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112
131. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2015) 14:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
132. Brofenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of human development. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development. London: John Wiley & Sons (2007). p. 793–828.
133. Prout A. The Future if Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer (2005).
134. Conn C. Autism and the Social World of Childhood: A Sociocultural Perspective on Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge (2014).
135. Hinchliffe S. More than one world, more than One Health: re-configuring interspecies health. Soc Sci Med (2014) 129:28–35. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.007
136. Baird M. Woman Jogging in the Grass Photograph [Online]. (2014). Available from: www.bairdphotos.com
137. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int J Soc Res Methodol (2005) 8(5):375–87. doi:10.1080/13645570500402447
138. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson B. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res (2006) 33(7):14–26.
139. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Validity issues in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. Education Research in the Public Interest, April 7–11, San Francisco, CA. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association (2006).
Keywords: human health, human–nature relationship, natural environment, interdisciplinary
Citation: Seymour V (2016) The Human–Nature Relationship and Its Impact on Health: A Critical Review. Front. Public Health 4:260. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00260
Received: 21 July 2016; Accepted: 03 November 2016;
Published: 18 November 2016
Edited by:Frederick Robert Carrick, University of Cambridge, UK
Reviewed by:Shahanawaz Syed, Sigma College of Physiotherapy, India
Margaret L. Kern, University of Melbourne, Australia
Copyright: © 2016 Seymour. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Valentine Seymour, email@example.com