Abstract
This perspective paper investigates the dynamic interplay between wealth, materialism, environmental degradation, and mental health amid escalating challenges of climate change. The paper critically examines how affluence, often a buffer against climate impacts, paradoxically leads to higher consumption and carbon footprints, exacerbating environmental problems. A societal emphasis on materialism contributes to an estrangement from nature, with significant implications for mental health and environmental sustainability. The paper proposes a fundamental shift in addressing these intertwined challenges through reintegration with nature. The paper recommends integrating urban planning, education, mental health, and community engagement strategies to build a sustainable, mentally resilient society more integrated with nature. This approach, supported by future research directions, aims to create a more balanced, environmentally conscious, and mentally healthy world.
1 Introduction
Climate change introduces a host of ecological disturbances and contributes to an increasing physiological and psychological toll (Ripple et al., 2020). This paper explores nature reintegration as a potential pathway toward a more favorable relationship between humans and their environment. Four key dimensions will be used to support its central thesis: (1) the paradox of wealth and environmental impact; (2) detachment from nature; (3) pro-environmental behavior and mental health; and (4) the need for nature reintegration.
2 Foundational concepts
2.1 The paradox of wealth and environmental impact
Environmental stewardship and a strong human-nature relationship are vital in the context of global environmental challenges. Environmental stewardship involves collective actions by individuals, groups, or networks to responsibly protect, manage, and utilize the environment for environmental and social good (Bennett et al., 2018). This includes activities like conservation efforts, reforestation, pollution reduction, and sustainable resource use, implemented across various scales. Such stewardship will likely play an increasingly critical role in addressing the pressing issue of climate change.
Contemporary societies strongly emphasize wealth growth and materialism, often overshadowing the importance of the human-nature relationship and its impact on environmental stewardship and nature integration. Financial wealth can act as a temporary buffer against the impacts of climate change, with financially affluent individuals and nations often possessing the resources to adapt to such change (Asfaw et al., 2019; Nauges et al., 2021). Adaptations might include installing air-conditioning or building flood defenses, which reduce immediate environmental impact and psychological stressors. However, this financial affluence is often linked with higher levels of consumption and, consequently, a larger carbon footprint (Mi et al., 2020; Barros and Wilk, 2021; Chancel, 2022), presenting a paradox. The very groups that contribute most significantly to climate change often have the means to shield themselves from its direct effects. This dichotomy highlights the need for a broader and more inclusive approach to environmental stewardship, transcending economic status and focusing on sustainable practices at all levels of society.
The prevalent focus on financial wealth and material comfort in modern societies and subsequent ignorance of the human-nature relationship has implications for pro-environmental behavior. Materialistic values have been shown to negatively impact such behavior (Ahlström et al., 2020; Kelly et al., 2021), leading to increased environmental degradation. For example, populations in the lower 50% income bracket in the USA and some European countries are close to or already achieving 2030 per-capita emission targets (Chancel, 2022). By contrast, populations in the top 10% income bracket must reduce emissions by over 80% to meet these targets. Wealth may also contribute to an estrangement from nature, as material comforts and unsustainable consumption displace the desire for natural experiences (Bogert et al., 2022). A societal shift toward valuing the human-nature relationship alongside material success could benefit both the environment and human wellbeing.
2.2 Detachment from nature
In financially affluent Western societies, there is increasing isolation from the natural environment, with individuals experiencing nature less frequently and in lesser quality (Cazalis et al., 2023). This estrangement, a phenomenon where humans view themselves as separate from or outside of nature, has been instrumental in environmental neglect and degradation (Lokhorst et al., 2014; Marczak and Sorokowski, 2018; Tam, 2019; Bogert et al., 2022). Such neglect has contributed to today’s environmental crisis, exacerbating climate change, and detrimentally affecting mental health (Hayward and Ayeb-Karlsson, 2021; Thoma et al., 2021). The escalation of climate change-related events, such as severe weather events and bushfires, is directly linked to a range of mental health disorders, including anxiety, depression, PTSD, eco-anxiety, and poor mental wellbeing (Dodgen et al., 2016; Clayton et al., 2017; Cianconi et al., 2020; Palinkas and Wong, 2020; Hayward and Ayeb-Karlsson, 2021; Thoma et al., 2021). These mental health implications, especially among vulnerable populations, indicate that climate change is a substantial public health concern (Verplanken et al., 2020; Parry et al., 2022).
The estrangement from nature is not an isolated phenomenon; it is linked to societal values, consumerist behaviors, and policy decisions (Everard et al., 2016; Sharma and Jha, 2017; Dong et al., 2020; Molinario et al., 2020; Bogert et al., 2022). The degradation of the environment negatively impacts human mental health (Dodgen et al., 2016; Cianconi et al., 2020), with poor mental health adversely affecting decision-making and behavior (Kung et al., 2018). In other words, the relationship between the degradation of the environment and mental health represents a vicious downward spiral.
Biophobia contributes to the detachment from nature in contemporary societies (Soga et al., 2023). This concept, contrasting with the biophilia hypothesis of an innate human affinity for nature, refers to negative emotions like fear and disgust toward natural elements (Simaika and Samways, 2010). Biophobia can present as a specific fear, for example, of insects, spiders, or snakes (Soga and Gaston, 2022a). It is thought to be more prevalent and intense in urbanized societies, with exposure to negative information about nature, parental influences, and media portrayals potentially intensifying these negative emotions (Zhang et al., 2014; Soga et al., 2020; Fukano and Soga, 2021; Vanderstock et al., 2022). The unpleasant feelings associated with biophobia (Bhaumik et al., 2020) can lead to avoidance of nature and, consequently, further disconnection from the natural environment. This detachment impacts biodiversity conservation (Sumner et al., 2018; Castillo-Huitrón et al., 2020) and deprives individuals of the mental health benefits provided by nature (Buxton et al., 2021; Maes et al., 2021; Marselle et al., 2021; Soga and Gaston, 2022b).
Reinvigorating a sense of connection or being part of nature is not merely a return to sustainable living but a fundamental shift in the approach to mental health and environmental policy. It is also a fundamental shift in how we understand psychology and, as a result, mental health. The reinvigoration of the human-nature relationship—essential to addressing the intertwined challenges of mental health and environmental sustainability—is a foundation for future research and policy initiatives. Reinvigoration promises to foster pro-environmental behavior and catalyze a shift toward environmentally responsible policies, creating a virtuous cycle that enhances both the environment and human wellbeing.
2.3 Pro-environmental behavior and mental health
Eco-anxiety can occur in response to ecological crises and climate change, characterized by worry, existential distress, and feelings of uncertainty, lack of control, and being overwhelmed (Panu, 2020). It encompasses a spectrum of reactions, from mild anxiety to severe impacts similar to depression and PTSD. While it can be paralyzing, eco-anxiety may also motivate individuals to reassess their lifestyles and environmental behaviors. Although some authorities advocate the use of psychological therapies for the management of eco-anxiety, such as building resilience and hope (Usher et al., 2019), eco-anxiety is not irrational. That is, there are often sound reasons for people to be concerned about climate change. Psychological therapies to build resilience to climate change and environmental issues may also have an untoward effect by reducing pro-environmental behaviors (Shao and Yu, 2023).
Engaging in pro-environmental behaviors offers dual benefits. Such behaviors contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing waste, conserving resources, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. There is also evidence of a positive association between pro-environmental behaviors and mental wellbeing (Zawadzki et al., 2020), possibly by building resilience, which mitigates the psychological stressors induced by climate change. This association is significant given the high prevalence and economic burden of mental health disorders globally (Arias et al., 2022).
Pro-environmental behaviors can also serve as a coping mechanism. By taking actionable steps to address environmental issues, individuals may experience a sense of agency and control, which is beneficial for mental health (Innocenti et al., 2023). Therefore, pro-environmental behavior transcends ethical obligation, serving as a pragmatic strategy to enhance environmental and mental health outcomes.
2.4 The need for nature reintegration
Intrinsic motivation for pro-environmental behavior, driven by a fundamental understanding that humans are part of nature, can lead to broader adoption of sustainable practices and support for environmentally friendly policies (Maki et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2022). Whether we acknowledge it or not, humans rely on nature to survive. From habitat, food production, climate regulation, and experiential mental health effects, nature provides human with the essential ingredients to support their existence (Brauman et al., 2020). Unfortunately, many ecosystems that provide these essential ingredients are being neglected or destroyed. So, although humans are heavily dependent on nature, they are often estranged from nature, sometimes to the extent of ignoring or being oblivious to the importance of nature. A reintegration with nature offers multiple benefits: highlighting nature’s importance for human existence, fostering mental resilience against climate-induced stressors, and catalyzing pro-environmental behaviors. These outcomes are critical to pursuing a more sustainable and mentally resilient society.
Integrating insights from environmental and ecological psychology provides a robust theoretical basis for understanding the human-nature connection. Environmental psychology emphasizes the role of natural environments in influencing human behavior and wellbeing, including how green spaces enhance mental health, reduce stress, and support cognitive function (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Ecological psychology complements environmental psychology by focusing on the reciprocal relationship between individuals and their environment, where behavior is shaped by the perception of environmental affordances (Gibson, 1979). Environmental psychology investigates interactions between humans and their surroundings, whereas ecopsychology focuses on the emotional ties and dynamics between human psychology and nature, seeking to promote a sustainable and balanced relationship (Doherty, 2010). Together, these perspectives underscore the importance of human connection with nature in promoting mental health, sustainable behaviors, and resilience against environmental challenges. This approach demonstrates how natural environments provide essential psychological benefits and actively shape human interactions with the world, fostering a deeper, more meaningful engagement with nature.
Acknowledging the significant role of environmental education in promoting a deeper connection between individuals and the natural world is crucial. Environmental education fosters pro-environmental behaviors and enhances subjective wellbeing by nurturing intrinsic motivation, increasing environmental hope, and strengthening nature connectedness (Kerret et al., 2016, 2020). Through targeted educational programs, hope and wellbeing can be boosted, improving knowledge, awareness, and encouraging collective action, fostering a strong sense of community and place attachment.
Facilitating a reintegration with nature goes beyond simple outdoor activities; it involves a deeper emotional, psychological, and philosophical engagement with the natural world (Ives et al., 2018). This form of engagement is essential to promoting tangible societal changes in sustainability (Abson et al., 2017; Ives et al., 2018). Advocating reintegration with nature does not suggest a return to a primitive, sustainable way of living but rather a fundamental shift in our approach to mental health and environmental policy. This approach is beneficial and essential, serving as a cornerstone for future research and policy initiatives addressing mental health and environmental sustainability challenges.
3 Framework for a more sustainable, mentally resilient, and nature-connected society
The following section translates the previously discussed concepts into practical strategies. The strategies can be divided into six interconnected themes: Urban Planning and Green Spaces, Environmental Education, Mental Health Programs, Research and Development, Individual Responsibility, and Community Engagement. Each theme fosters nature connectedness, enhances community involvement, and promotes individual responsibility toward environmental and mental health. It is envisioned that these themes will form a framework to support a more sustainable, mentally resilient, and nature-connected society. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the framework.
-
1 Urban Planning and Green Spaces:
-
Promote nature connectedness by creating accessible green spaces that allow individuals and communities to engage directly with a biodiverse nature.
-
Foster community engagement and individual responsibility through stewardship and care of these green spaces.
-
Utilize green spaces as living laboratories for research on urban ecology and the benefits of nature connectedness.
-
2 Environmental Education:
-
Promote nature connectedness with experiential learning in local green, biodiverse spaces.
-
Increase individual responsibility by teaching the importance of being part of nature alongside environmental issues and sustainable practices.
-
Strengthen community engagement through educational initiatives encouraging nature experiences and fostering a deeper understanding of the human-nature relationship.
-
Build an evidence-base linking educational initiatives with changes in environmental attitudes and behaviors.
-
3 Mental Health Programs:
-
Utilize nature-based and solution-based therapies to enhance individual responsibility for mental health through experiences of nature reintegration and a sense of agency and control.
-
Integrate shared nature experiences into community programs that promote communal wellbeing and resilience.
-
Generate evidence about the therapeutic effects of nature on mental health and overall wellbeing.
-
4 Research and Development:
-
Utilize evidence supporting the benefits of nature connectedness to inform urban planning and green space development.
-
Support the creation of environmental education curricula that emphasize the human-nature relationship.
-
Enhance community engagement and individual responsibility by providing insights into the role of nature in promoting mental health and societal wellbeing.
-
5 Individual Responsibility:
-
Provide individuals with opportunities to seek out and create nature connectedness through education and the provision of biodiverse green spaces.
-
Drive demand for urban planning that facilitates nature experiences and supports environmental education initiatives focusing on nature connectedness.
-
Influence the development of mental health programs that incorporate nature-based approaches.
-
6 Community Engagement:
-
Support urban planning initiatives that create communal biodiverse green spaces fostering nature connectedness.
-
Facilitate engagement in environmental education programs that bring communities closer to nature.
-
Promote the benefits of mental health programs that leverage the power of communal experiences in nature to support collective wellbeing.
Figure 1
Framework for a more sustainable, mentally resilient, and nature-integrated society.
4 Future research directions
The proposed framework advocates for comprehensive research that interconnects Urban Planning and Green Spaces, Environmental Education, Mental Health Programs, Research and Development, Individual Responsibility, and Community Engagement. For instance, future research is needed to better understand the mechanisms through which nature reintegration can mitigate mental health issues caused by climate change. There is also a need to identify strategies that effectively promote pro-environmental behaviors through urban planning and community engagement.
5 Conclusion
This perspective paper has explored the complex interplay between wealth and materialism, environmental impact, and mental health in the context of accelerating climate change. While financial wealth can provide a means to adapt to environmental changes, it correlates with increased consumption and a larger carbon footprint, exacerbating environmental issues. This trend is intensified by a societal focus on materialism, often at the cost of becoming estranged from nature. The paper advocates for restoring human connection with nature, not necessarily as a return to simpler living, but as a vital shift in the approach to mental health, environmental policy, and societal values: a reintegration of biodiverse nature into human society. Emphasizing nature connection over materialistic pursuits could lead to more sustainable, mentally resilient communities. This approach, supported by the proposed strategies and future research directions, offers a path toward a more balanced and environmentally conscious society.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
RW: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EB: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. VS-B: Writing – review & editing. ML: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
This manuscript benefited from the support provided by the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4), developed by OpenAI. GPT-4 assisted in refining the language and structure of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare 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(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Abson D. J. Fischer J. Leventon J. Newig J. Schomerus T. Vilsmaier U. et al . (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio46, 30–39. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
2
Ahlström R. Gärling T. Thøgersen J. (2020). Affluence and unsustainable consumption levels: The role of consumer credit. Clean. Responsib. Consumpt.1:100003. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2020.100003
3
Arias D. Saxena S. Verguet S. (2022). Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value. EclinicalMedicine54:101675. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101675
4
Asfaw A. Simane B. Bantider A. Hassen A. (2019). Determinants in the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies: evidence from rainfed-dependent smallholder farmers in north-central Ethiopia (Woleka sub-basin). Environ. Dev. Sustain.21, 2535–2565. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0150-y
5
Barros B. Wilk R. (2021). The outsized carbon footprints of the super-rich. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy17, 316–322. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2021.1949847
6
Bennett N. J. Whitty T. S. Finkbeiner E. Pittman J. Bassett H. Gelcich S. et al . (2018). Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ. Manag.61, 597–614. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2
7
Bhaumik S. Kallakuri S. Kaur A. Devarapalli S. Daniel M. (2020). Mental health conditions after snakebite: a scoping review. BMJ Glob. Health5:e004131. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004131
8
Bogert J. M. Ellers J. Lewandowsky S. Balgopal M. M. Harvey J. A. (2022). Reviewing the relationship between neoliberal societies and nature: Implications of the industrialised dominant social paradigm for a sustainable future. Ecol. Soc.27:7. doi: 10.5751/ES-13134-270207
9
Brauman K. A. Garibaldi L. A. Polasky S. Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y. Brancalion P. H. DeClerck F. et al . (2020). Global trends in nature’s contributions to people. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.117, 32799–32805. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010473117
10
Buxton R. T. Pearson A. L. Allou C. Fristrup K. Wittemyer G. (2021). A synthesis of health benefits of natural sounds and their distribution in national parks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118:e2013097118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013097118
11
Castillo-Huitrón N. M. Naranjo E. J. Santos-Fita D. Estrada-Lugo E. (2020). The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Front. Psychol.11:1277. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01277
12
Cazalis V. Loreau M. Barragan-Jason G. (2023). A global synthesis of trends in human experience of nature. Front. Ecol. Environ.21, 85–93. doi: 10.1002/fee.2540
13
Chancel L. (2022). Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain.5, 931–938. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00955-z
14
Cianconi P. Betrò S. Janiri L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: a systematic descriptive review. Front. Psych.11:74. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074
15
Clayton S. Manning C. Krygsman K. Speiser M. (2017). Mental health and our changing climate: Impacts, implications, and guidance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica.
16
Dodgen D. Donato D. Kelly N. La Greca A. Morganstein J. Reser J. et al . (2016). “The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment” in US Global Change Research Program, 217–246.
17
Doherty T. J. (2010). Ecopsychology and environmentally-focused psychologies. Ecopsychology2, 203–204. doi: 10.1089/eco.2010.0076
18
Dong X. Liu S. Li H. Yang Z. Liang S. Deng N. (2020). Love of nature as a mediator between connectedness to nature and sustainable consumption behavior. J. Clean. Prod.242:118451. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118451
19
Everard M. Reed M. S. Kenter J. O. (2016). The ripple effect: Institutionalising pro-environmental values to shift societal norms and behaviours. Ecosyst. Serv.21, 230–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.001
20
Fukano Y. Soga M. (2021). Why do so many modern people hate insects? The urbanisation–disgust hypothesis. Sci. Total Environ.777:146229. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146229
21
Gibson J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
22
Hayward G. Ayeb-Karlsson S. (2021). ‘Seeing with Empty Eyes’: A systems approach to understand climate change and mental health in Bangladesh. Clim. Chang.165:29. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03053-9
23
Innocenti M. Santarelli G. Lombardi G. S. Ciabini L. Zjalic D. Di Russo M. et al . (2023). How can climate change anxiety induce both pro-environmental behaviours and eco-paralysis? the mediating role of general self-efficacy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health20:3085. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043085
24
Ives C. D. Abson D. J. Von Wehrden H. Dorninger C. Klaniecki K. Fischer J. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain. Sci.13, 1389–1397. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9
25
Kaplan R. Kaplan S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspectiveNew York: Cambridge University Press.
26
Kelly O. Thombs R. P. Jorgenson A. (2021). The unsustainable state: Greenhouse gas emissions, inequality, and human wellbeing in the United States, 1913 to 2017. Socius7:237802312110205. doi: 10.1177/23780231211020536
27
Kerret D. Orkibi H. Bukchin S. Ronen T. (2020). Two for one: Achieving both pro-environmental behavior and subjective wellbeing by implementing environmental-hope-enhancing programs in schools. J. Environ. Educ.51, 434–448. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2020.1765131
28
Kerret D. Orkibi H. Ronen T. (2016). Testing a model linking environmental hope and self-control with students’ positive emotions and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Educ.47, 307–317. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2016.1182886
29
Kung C. S. Johnston D. W. Shields M. A. (2018). Mental health and the response to financial incentives: Evidence from a survey incentives experiment. J. Health Econ.62, 84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2018.09.008
30
Liu Y. Cleary A. Fielding K. S. Murray Z. Roiko A. (2022). Nature connection, pro-environmental behaviours and wellbeing: understanding the mediating role of nature contact. Landsc. Urban Plan.228:104550. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540872
31
Lokhorst A. M. Hoon C. le Rutte R. de Snoo G. (2014). There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy39, 121–126. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.005
32
Maes M. J. Pirani M. Booth E. R. Shen C. Milligan B. Jones K. E. et al . (2021). Benefit of woodland and other natural environments for adolescents’ cognition and mental health. Nat. Sustain.4, 851–858. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00751-
33
Maki A. Carrico A. R. Raimi K. T. Truelove H. B. Araujo B. Yeung K. L. (2019). Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover. Nat. Sustain.2, 307–315. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9
34
Marczak M. Sorokowski P. (2018). Emotional connectedness to nature is meaningfully related to modernisation. Evidence from the Meru of Kenya. Front. Psychol.9:1789. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01789
35
Marselle M. R. Hartig T. Cox D. T. De Bell S. Knapp S. Lindley S. et al . (2021). Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environ. Int.150:106420. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106420
36
Mi Z. Zheng J. Meng J. Ou J. Hubacek K. Liu Z. et al . (2020). Economic development and converging household carbon footprints in China. Nat. Sustain.3, 529–537. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0504-y
37
Molinario E. Lorenzi C. Bartoccioni F. Perucchini P. Bobeth S. Colléony A. et al . (2020). From childhood nature experiences to adult pro-environmental behaviors: An explanatory model of sustainable food consumption. Environ. Educ. Res.26, 1137–1163. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1784851
38
Nauges C. Wheeler S. A. Fielding K. S. (2021). The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: The mediating role of control. Environ. Dev. Sustain.23, 16481–16503. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01327-x
39
Palinkas L. A. Wong M. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychol.32, 12–16. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.023
40
Panu P. (2020). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustain. For.12:7836. doi: 10.3390/SU12197836
41
Parry S. McCarthy S. R. Clark J. (2022). Young people’s engagement with climate change issues through digital media - a content analysis. Child Adolesc. Mental Health27, 30–38. doi: 10.1111/camh.12532
42
Ripple W. J. Wolf C. Newsome T. M. Barnard P. Moomaw W. R. (2020). World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience70, 100–112. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biz152
43
Shao L. Yu G. (2023). Media coverage of climate change, eco-anxiety and pro-environmental behavior: Experimental evidence and the resilience paradox. J. Environ. Psychol.91:102130. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102130
44
Sharma R. Jha M. (2017). Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship. J. Bus. Res.76, 77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.010
45
Simaika J. P. Samways M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conserv. Biol.24, 903–906. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01485.x
46
Soga M. Evans M. J. Yamanoi T. Fukano Y. Tsuchiya K. Koyanagi T. F. et al . (2020). How can we mitigate against increasing biophobia among children during the extinction of experience?Biol. Conserv.242:108420. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108420
47
Soga M. Gaston K. J. (2022a). The dark side of nature experience: Typology, dynamics and implications of negative sensory interactions with nature. People Nat.4, 1126–1140. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10383
48
Soga M. Gaston K. J. (2022b). Towards a unified understanding of human–nature interactions. Nat. Sustain.5, 374–383. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00818-z
49
Soga M. Gaston K. J. Fukano Y. Evans M. J. (2023). The vicious cycle of biophobia. Trends Ecol. Evol.38, 512–520. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.012
50
Sumner S. Law G. Cini A. (2018). Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecol. Entomol.43, 836–845. doi: 10.1111/een.12676
51
Tam K. (2019). Anthropomorphism of nature, environmental guilt, and pro-environmental behavior. Sustain. For.11:5430. doi: 10.3390/su11195430
52
Thoma M. Rohleder N. Rohner S. (2021). Clinical ecopsychology: the mental health impacts and underlying pathways of the climate and environmental crisis. Front. Psychiatry12:675936. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.675936
53
Usher K. Durkin J. Bhullar N. (2019). Eco-anxiety: How thinking about climate change-related environmental decline is affecting our mental health. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs.28, 1233–1234. doi: 10.1111/inm.12673
54
Vanderstock A. Grandi-Nagashiro C. Kudo G. Latty T. Nakamura S. White T. E. et al . (2022). For the love of insects: gardening grows positive emotions (biophilia) towards invertebrates. J. Insect Conserv.26, 751–762. doi: 10.1007/s10841-022-00419-x
55
Verplanken B. Marks E. Dobromir A. I. (2020). On the nature of eco-anxiety: How constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global warming?J. Environ. Psychol.72:101528. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101528
56
Zawadzki S. J. Steg L. Bouman T. (2020). Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environ. Res. Lett.15:123007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc4ae
57
Zhang W. Goodale E. Chen J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biol. Conserv.177, 109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011
Summary
Keywords
climate change, environmental education, environmental policy, green space, mental health, human-nature connection, nature-based interventions, pro-environmental behavior
Citation
Willis RL, Brymer E, Sharma-Brymer V and Leach M (2024) Refocusing on nature: the role of nature reintegration in environmental, mental, and societal wellbeing. Front. Psychol. 15:1351759. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1351759
Received
03 January 2024
Accepted
07 February 2024
Published
27 February 2024
Volume
15 - 2024
Edited by
Diogo Guedes Vidal, University of Coimbra, Portugal
Reviewed by
Isabel Silva, Fernando Pessoa University, Portugal
Maria José Varandas, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Willis, Brymer, Sharma-Brymer and Leach.
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) and the copyright owner(s) 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: Royce L. Willis, royce.willis@scu.edu.au
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.