-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Humans and Nature: HowKnowing and ExperiencingNature Affect
Well-Being
Roly Russell,1 Anne D. Guerry,2 Patricia Balvanera,3
Rachelle K. Gould,4 Xavier Basurto,5 Kai M.A. Chan,6
Sarah Klain,6 Jordan Levine,6 and Jordan Tam6
1The Sandhill Institute for Complexity and Sustainability, Grand
Forks, British ColumbiaV0H 1H9, Canada; email:
[email protected] Capital Project, Woods Institute
for the Environment, Stanford University,Seattle, Washington 98115;
email: [email protected] de Investigaciones en
Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,Morelia,
Michoacan, 58350 Mexico; email: [email protected]
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford
University,Stanford, California 94305; email:
[email protected] Marine Lab, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Beaufort,North Carolina 28516; email:
[email protected] for Resources, Environment and
Sustainability, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, British
Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada; email:
[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2013. 38:473502
First published online as a Review in Advance onAugust 2,
2013
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources isonline at
http://environ.annualreviews.org
This articles doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838
Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved
Keywords
well-being, ecosystem, cultural ecosystem services, channels of
humanexperience, constituents of well-being, nonmaterial
ecosystembenets, ecosystem goods and services
Abstract
Ecosystems provide many of the material building blocks for
humanwell-being. Although quantication and appreciation of such
contribu-tions have rapidly grown, our dependence upon cultural
connections tonature deserves more attention. We synthesize
multidisciplinary peer-reviewed research on contributions of nature
or ecosystems to humanwell-being mediated through nontangible
connections (such as cul-ture). We characterize these connections
on the basis of the channelsthrough which such connections arise
(i.e., knowing, perceiving, inter-actingwith, and livingwithin) and
the components of humanwell-beingthey affect (e.g., physical,
mental and spiritual health, inspiration, iden-tity). We found
enormous variation in the methods used, quantity ofresearch, and
generalizability of the literature. The effects of nature onmental
and physical health have been rigorously demonstrated, whereasother
effects (e.g., on learning) are theorized but seldom
demonstrated.The balance of evidence indicates conclusively that
knowing and expe-riencing naturemakes us generally happier,
healthier people.More fullycharacterizing our intangible
connections with nature will help shapedecisions that benet people
and the ecosystems on which we depend.
473
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Ecosystem: a systemformed by bioticelements (livingthings) and
abioticelements (includingwater, nutrients,energy) and
theinteractions amongthem
Well-being: peoplescapacity to be and dowell in life, andachieve
a state ofhealth, happiness, orprosperity
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4742. CONCEPTUAL
ORGANIZING
FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4752.1. Our
Approach: Biases
and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4752.2.
Channels of Human
Experience with Ecosystems . . . . . 4762.3. Constituents of
Well-Being . . . . 478
3. THE STATE OF THE ART:LINKING NATUREEXPERIENCE TOWELL-BEING .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4783.1. Physical Health . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 4793.2. Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 4803.3. Spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4823.4. Certainty, and Sense of
Control and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 4833.5. Learning
and Capability . . . . . . . . 4843.6. Inspiration and
Fulllment
of Imagination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4853.7. Sense
of Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4863.8. Identity and
Autonomy. . . . . . . . . 4873.9. Connectedness and
Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4893.10.
Subjective Well-Being . . . . . . . . 490
4. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . 4914.1. Where Could We Go
from
Here? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4925.
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
1. INTRODUCTION
People need ecosystems. Implicit and explicitrecognition of this
simple fact has inspired agreat deal of research in an effort to
improveoutcomes for people and the ecosystems onwhich we rely (1).
Signicant effort has beendirected at understanding the wide range
ofbenets that ecosystems provide to people inorder to facilitate
sound decision making ac-counting for the connections between
ecosys-tems and people (e.g., 24). Failing to incor-porate these
benets (although we assess bothbenets and costs, we use the term
benet for
simplicity because benets are most common)into decision making
is jeopardizing the designand implementation of the resulting
strategiesbecause those strategies are often disconnectedfrom what
really matters to many people (5).
Ecosystems contribute to human well-beingin various ways.
Ecosystems provide the neces-sary resources of food, water,
shelter, and en-ergy. Also, they regulate the conditions
(e.g.,temperature, water quality) in which peoplelive, work, and
play and, most fundamentally,underpin the basic processes (e.g.,
primary pro-duction) and cycles (e.g., carbon cycle, watercycle)
that support life. These types of ecosys-tem servicesprovisioning,
regulating, andsupporting (1)have received the majority ofresearch
attention. Ecosystems, however, alsocontribute culturally and
psychologically deter-mined benets to people that are crucial to
hu-man well-being (e.g., References 69). Thesecultural ecosystem
services represent intangi-ble dimensions of the links between
people andecosystems that are psychological, philosophi-cal,
social, and spiritual and are at the very coreof human preferences
and values. Incorporat-ing these intangibly derived benets into
deci-sion making is thus at least as important as in-corporating
the more tangible ones. Althoughassessing comprehensive suites of
nonmaterialservices from ecosystems is difcult using tra-ditional
methods, characterization of these in-tangibles is both possible
(10) and critical tothe development of a fuller understanding
ofhuman connections to ecosystems.
The psychologically and culturallymediatedconnections between
people and natural sys-tems have long been studied by
anthropolo-gists, sociologists, psychologists, and geogra-phers.
Cultural ecology, political ecology, andcultural anthropology have
assessed the waysin which culture interfaces with
environmentalconditions, and indeed, this more holistic
re-lationship between people and their surround-ings has always
been a keystone of anthropo-logical inquiry (e.g., identity, sense
of place,cultural domains) (6, 1113). In addition, spe-cic
culturally mediated benets provided byecosystems, such as
recreation (1416), scenic
474 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Ecosystem services:ecosystemscontributions tohuman
well-being,e.g., provisioningservices, regulatingservices,
culturalservices, and,underpinning them all,supporting services
Cultural ecosystemservices: ecosystemscontributions tohuman
well-beingmediated throughnonmaterial processes(e.g., the mind
orculture)
Material/nonmaterial:adjectives describingbenets and harmswhere
materiality isdened by a physical(e.g., food, ber, fuel,bodily
harm) ormonetary nature
Natural/nature: allliving and nonlivingcomponents ofecosystems
describedin an expansive thoughnot exhaustive way,excluding
nonlivinghuman-builtenvironments
Empirical: derivedfrom or veriable byexperience orexperiment
Constituents ofwell-being: the rangeof human needs thatwhen
satisedcontribute towell-being
beauty (e.g., Reference 8), effects of ecosystemson
physiological health (e.g., References 17 and18), and mental health
(19, 20), have been quiteintensively studied (21) but usually
indepen-dent of one another. Thus, further synthesis ofthe
intangible links between nature and humanwell-being is needed.
Here, we synthesize the available empiricalliterature regarding
the contributions ofecosystems (or nature) to human well-being
vianonmaterial connections. It is our hope that thiscan facilitate
the explicit incorporation of theseconnections into decision
making. Althoughclearly the terms nature and ecosystems differ
innumerous ways that have been problematizedextensively elsewhere
(e.g., Reference 22), weuse them as equivalents to encompass the
epis-temological approaches of different disciplines.We rst propose
a conceptual framework toorganize the literature by (a) delineating
thechannels of experience through which peopleassociate with
ecosystems and (b) suggestinghow those channels link to various
constituentsof human well-being. Then, we survey theliterature and
assess our current understandingof the role of nonmaterial
connections fromecosystems to human well-being. Finally,
wehighlight gaps in the literature and suggest fu-ture research
that might begin to ll those gaps.
2. CONCEPTUAL ORGANIZINGFRAMEWORK
There is a pervasive, visceral understandingthat our nonmaterial
connections to ecosystemsprovide rich benets, but systematically
analyz-ing these connectionsmust be done at the inter-face of
disciplines as disparate as behavioral sci-ence, philosophy, art,
medicine, anthropology,history, and ecology. A conceptual
frameworkthat enables the organization and integrationof these
wide-ranging dimensions is a criticalinitial step in their
synthesis.
Here, we propose that nonmaterial connec-tions to ecosystems are
realized through differ-ent channels of experience and contribute
todifferent constituents of well-being. We rstlay out our
conceptual background and dene
the different channels and constituents. Then,although we
recognize the strong linkages be-tween and among the four channels
of experi-ence and the 10 constituents of well-being, weendeavored
to dissect the literature into indi-vidual interactions between
them to better mapthe current state of knowledge. For studies
thatapplied to many options, we chose the channel-constituent pair
that seemed most relevant.
2.1. Our Approach: Biasesand Boundaries
Three ground-clearing efforts are necessary be-fore we move
forward: The rst addresses ouruse of the complex and diverse term
nature; thesecond addresses the character of this undertak-ing; and
the third addresses the predominatelyWestern and positivistic
worldview that under-pins this review.
First, denitions and concepts of nature areexceptionally
diverse, and treatments of thissubject ll volumes. Here, we use the
termnature very broadly. We focus on the ow ofbenets from
nature/ecosystems to people; ourconceptualization of nature
encompasses bothliving and nonliving components of
ecosystems(including human-modied environments).It ranges from the
most pristine areas inAntarctica to a few trees in an urban
street(and the birds, mammals, insects, and otherlife they harbor),
and it includes forests andcoral reefs as well as diverse or
simpliedagroecosystems and domestic animals. Weexclude nonliving
human-built environments,though these environments can, and often
do,serve as the matrix within which nature affectspeople. In this
review, we have articiallyseparated nature from humanity.
Ultimately,nature and humanity are truly inseparable;nature cannot
be dened in a way such thatit does not also include humanity or
some ofits work. Accordingly, our analysis is partialand static. A
more complete analysis wouldinclude the multitude of ways that
nature andhumans interact and evolve over time, but suchan analysis
is beyond the scope of this article.
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 475
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Second, we recognize the Herculean (and,if misinterpreted,
Quixotic) task we set forourselves with this effort. Given the
psycholog-ically, evolutionarily, culturally, and ecologi-cally
embedded character of the rich and variedconnections between humans
and nature, itis impossible to provide an exhaustive
review.Instead, we aim to identify those facets of therelationship
that have received substantiveresearch attention and to highlight
those thatremainpoorly captured and characterized in theresearch
literature. We focus on the empirical(and mainly peer-reviewed)
demonstrations ofeffects on well-being of changes or differencesin
elements of nature. A notable, if undesirable,consequence of this
choice is the omission ofmany empirical and rich ethnographic or
his-torical approaches. Our intent is to recognizethe many
approaches to empirically document-ing the nonmaterial
relationships betweenhumans and nature and to gather and
organizesome of this diverse literature (again, with thenotable
exception of ethnographic and histor-ical approaches) in one review
to yield a morecomplete picture. We hope to identify gaps inthe
literature, clarify fruitful avenues for futureresearch, and
provide a compilation that servesas a useful foundation for others
to build upon.
Third, our approach is limited by our chosenconceptual
perspective and thus by themethodswe employ:Weemphasize research
that focuseson measurable end points or is positivistic.
Werecognize that there are many different waysof knowing. With the
aim of comparing andcontrasting different literatures in a
defensibleand replicable manner, we chose to focus onempirical work
in scientic journals. Althoughwe do include some books and book
chapters,the literature we use here is biased towardpapers in
peer-reviewed journals written inEnglish (see our methods in the
SupplementalMaterial; follow the Supplemental Materiallink from the
Annual Reviews home page athttp://www.annualreviews.org/). Our
incor-poration of books and book chapters, whichare often used to
report research based onphenomenological and constructivist
episte-mologies, is more limited. Anthropological and
ethnographic narrativesarguably the mostempirical and holistic
assessments of thesehuman-nature relationshipsare not
cleanlycompatible with our focus on nonmaterialbenets as
demonstrated by ecosystem changeor difference. This constraint
results in aliterature available for review that is skewedtoward
the individualist, psychological, clinical,experimental, and
reductionist studies, andaway from more holistic narratives and
theanthropological and sociological disciplines. Insum, this
perspective and these methods biasour results toward reductionist,
psychological,and Western perspectives.
2.2. Channels of Human Experiencewith Ecosystems
People experience ecosystems in a variety ofways. We pick
berries, sh in the sea, imag-ine wild places, listen to birds
singing, bury ourdead in the earth, and celebrate harvest with
ourfamilies and communities. While recognizingthat we fall sick to
pathogens and can be harmedby toxic plants and dangerous animals,
we fo-cus our review on nonmaterial benets fromecosystems. In turn,
our thinking is rooted fun-damentally in our directly lived
experience withthe world and thus with our surrounding envi-ronment
(whether it be built or natural).
Growing insights on the full range of hu-man interactions with
ecosystems have beengained from the empirically supported theoryof
embodied cognition. According to embod-ied cognition theory (e.g.,
References 2325),all of our more complex, abstract, or
culturallyspecic concepts are creative recombinations ofphysical
experiences we have with the worldaround us (e.g., seeing and
interacting withtangible objects, moving our bodies throughspace,
or correlating phenomena such as sizeand weight). This implies that
the way in whichwe interact with our environment helps guidehow we
think and who we areand thus im-pacts the core of our well-being.
We use thisbasic insight from embodied cognitionthatinteractionwith
the environment affects humanwell-beingto structure our review. To
build a
476 Russell et al.
Supplemental Material
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Knowing Perceiving
Interacting Living within
Figure 1Four channels of human interactions with ecosystems: (a)
knowing, thinking about an ecosystem or just theconcept of an ideal
ecosystem; (b) perceiving, remote interactions with ecosystem
components;(c) interacting, physical, active, direct multisensory
interactions with ecosystem components; and (d ) livingwithin,
everyday interactions with the ecosystem in which we live.
Channels of humanexperience: thedifferent ways in whichhumans
interact withthe world around them
frame with which to organize the wide-rangingliterature reviewed
here, we rst categorize hu-man interactions with nature and then
catego-rize aspects of well-being.
We propose that benets derived from non-material interactions
with ecosystems may beobtained through four different channels of
hu-man experience (one of many possible typolo-gies) (Figure 1).
Building from the connectionbetween interaction with the
environment andhuman well-being articulated by embodiedcognition,
we sought to articulate categories ofpeoples interactions with
nature. We suggestthat these channels incorporate all of the
ways
in which people experience nature, consciouslyor subconsciously,
yet do not pretend thatthey are truly separable or mutually
exclusive.Indeed, multiple channels can be, and oftenare,
experienced by a person at any one pointin time. The four channels
are (a) knowing, themetaphysical interactions that arise
throughthinking about an ecosystem, its components,or the concept
of an ideal ecosystem, in theabsence of immediate sensory inputs
(e.g.,imagining a polar bear hunting, thinking abouta favorite
place); (b) perceiving, remote (i.e.,neither proximate nor
tangible) interactionswith ecosystem components, often
associated
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 477
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Intangibleconnections:capabilities,experiences,relationships,
andother social orpsychological (thuscultural) nonmaterialmediators
ofecosystemscontribution towell-being
with visual information alone (e.g., viewinga mountain, watching
a nature video); (c) in-teracting, physical, active, direct
multisensoryinteractions with ecosystem components (e.g.,catching a
sh, building a sandcastle, touchingmoss, smelling nearby pine
trees, gardening),which may be cursory and may involve otherpeople;
and (d ) living within, the everyday,repetitive, pervasive,
voluntary, or involuntaryinteraction with the ecosystem in which
onelives (e.g., living in a forested area, near anurban park, or by
the seashore). The uniqueaspects of contributions mediated by
socialinteractions in nature (e.g., bonding throughshared hunting
experiences, celebrating animportant ceremony outdoors) are
poorlydifferentiated theoretically from other interac-tions with
nature, so we have included researchspecic to social interactions
in nature withinthe interacting channel. These four channelsare
interrelated in many ways. Viewing, forexample, is often a basis
for knowing; livingwithin nature encompasses all other channelsbut
also stimulates new kinds of relationships.One specic example is
that interacting byshing to make a living contributes to knowing.We
arrange them from the most remote froman ecosystem to the most
intimately connected.
2.3. Constituents of Well-Being
Well-being can be understood as a complexand synergistic
function of several components;when these constituents are
combined, the stateof the whole person emerges. Components ofhuman
well-being have perhaps most famouslybeen articulated byMaslow (26)
in his hierarchyof needs, which includes physiological needs aswell
as needs for esteem, belonging, and safety.Although the idea that
these needs are orderedin such a hierarchy is now viewed as
inaccurate,evolutionary psychological theory and evidencesuggest
that these broad categories remain gen-erally relevant and have
functional explanations(27). Reviewing the literature of human
needs,Tay & Diener (28) identied similar thoughnominally
different categories, but to these,they add status, competence, and
autonomy.
Others have added the needs for identity,creation, leisure, and
understanding (29), aswell as purpose and personal growth (30).
Building upon these taxonomies, we use 10constituents of
well-being to structure our syn-thesis of the literature
documenting the intan-gible connections between nature and
humanwell-being. We do not intend these as a the-oretical framework
for well-being theory, thecreation of which is beyond our purview,
butrather a framework with which to organize theliterature. The 10
constituents we use spanthe spectrum of critical dimensions of
humanwell-being:
1. Physical health2. Mental health3. Spirituality4. Certainty
and sense of control and secu-
rity5. Learning/capability6. Inspiration/fulllment of
imagination7. Sense of place8. Identity/autonomy9.
Connectedness/belonging
10. Subjective (overall) well-being
Admittedly, these categories are imperfect, andthe lines between
them are often blurred. Forexample, the subjective well-being
category isa composite that can represent elements of allother
categories. Because there is a large litera-ture devoted to this
emergent property, we de-cided to include it as a distinct
category.Despitetheir imperfections, we posit that these
cate-gories serve the purpose of binning the litera-ture to
illuminate how different types of inter-action with the environment
affect well-being.We provide further information on our deni-tions
of each category at the beginning of eachnumbered section
below.
3. THE STATE OF THE ART:LINKING NATURE EXPERIENCETO
WELL-BEING
Ecosystems contribute to nonmaterial well-being in all manner of
complex ways, whichmight seem to defy comprehensive or struc-tured
understanding. Here, we show how
478 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
these diverse contributions from ecosystems tohuman well-being
can be understood and orga-nized as addressing components of
well-beingthrough channels of nature experiences. Byreviewing
representative examples of researchthat addresses each experiential
channel withineach constituent of well-being, we provide
oneperspective on organizing and synthesizingthis dramatically
interdisciplinary literature.Through this framework, we also
isolate ap-parent gaps in our scholarly understanding ofthese
intangible human-nature relationships.
For a more thorough exploration of theliterature reviewed
herein, see SupplementalTable 1 at
http://www.annualreviews.org/.
3.1. Physical Health
Here, we focus on studies that used at least onephysiological
metric (e.g., heart rate or bloodpressure) to report the
contributions of natureto physical health, specically, how
changesor differences in nonhuman organisms and/orecosystems result
in changes or differences inphysical health. Given the inextricable
linksbetween physical health and mental health,some of the studies
described below could havebeen categorized in mental health and
viceversa.
3.1.1. Knowing. We found no empirical re-search documenting the
connection betweenknowledge of nature and physiological healthas
provided by intangible connections (provi-sion of medical remedies
via knowledge of tra-ditional ecological knowledge would classify
asmaterial connections to ecosystems and thus beexcluded from this
review).
3.1.2. Perceiving. Evidence abounds thatviews of natural
ecosystems have positivephysiological effects (20). In one
clinicalexample (31), subjects are exposed to eithera window with a
natural scene, a plasma TVscreen with an image of the same natural
scene,or a brick wall. Viewing the real scene throughthe window led
to more rapid recovery of heartrates after exposure to low-level
stress than
the plasma screen representation, and in turnthe plasma screen
subjects recovered morerapidly than did those viewing the brick
wall(31). Correspondingly, prison inmates with aview of adjacent
farmland had fewer demandson the prison health care system than
didprisoners with a view of the prison courtyard(32).
3.1.3. Interacting. Physiological benetsfrom more intimate
connections with naturehave also been documented. For
example,contact with animals shows health benets;patients
recovering from acute myocardialinfarction who had pets were
healthier thantheir counterparts without pets (33), and
petownership is associated with reduced incidenceof allergies (34).
Furthermore, proximity togreen spaces has been correlated with
longevityof the elderly (35, 36). Exercise in a naturalenvironment
has been shown to providesome positive benets relative to
syntheticenvironments, but less so for physiologicalmeasures than
for measures of emotions (37).
3.1.4. Living. A large volume of research as-sesses the
relationship between physical healthand living in predominately
natural versus builtenvironments, although many such connec-tions
are ultimately explained by tangible causalpathways and thus
outside of the purview ofthis review [e.g., recent research that
biodiver-sity around where people live correlates pos-itively with
human microbiotic diversity andmay contribute to greater
immunological tol-erances (38)]. Loss of trees to the emerald
ashborer in the United States increased county-level mortality
related to cardiovascular andlower-respiratory-tract illness (39),
a complexcausal pathway but not obviously based on de-livery of
tangible ecosystem goods.
Residents of neighborhoods with moregreen space tend to have
better self-reportedhealth after controlling for many
signicantsociodemographic characteristics (40, 41). In asimilar
study, Mitchell & Popham (42) foundthat the relationship became
insignicantin high-income neighborhoods. Although
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 479
Supplemental Material
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
differences in morbidity rates are highly cor-related with
socioeconomic factors, proximityof homes to green space may lessen
these dif-ferences through the provision of exercise andstress
reduction opportunities in populationspotentially less inclined or
less able to engagein such activities (43).
Ecological degradation has been empiricallyassociated with
degradation of both physicalhealth (e.g., respiratory or
mosquito-borne ill-nesses) and mental health (e.g., depression)
(39,44, 45), though not consistently. Conceptualmodels of how human
health depends uponecosystem health (and vice versa) are
beingdeveloped, but this connection is generallyascribed to
tangible connections, for example,documented links between
infectious diseasetransmission and ecological degradation
(46).Evidence of bidirectional links between humanhealth and
ecosystems has inspired calls forhealthcare systems to address
access to, andthe health of, natural settings to adequatelynurture
human health (20, 4750).
3.1.5. Summary. Connections between phy-sical health and natural
systems are frequentlydescribed (51), and empirical evidence
unequiv-ocally indicates that various forms of nature ex-perience
result in positive physiological healthresponses. This literature
has generally focusedon the benets of viewing nature for recoveryor
for medical care, the benets of interactingwith individual animals
for various measuresof health and longevity, and the pathways
bywhich living in more natural environmentsimproves self-reported
health and allergy sensi-tivity and reduces disease
burden.Onepotentialreason for the relative abundance of researchin
this area is the predominance of positivisticassessment in clinical
research. However, thesestudies frequently assess impacts on
isolatedcomponents of physical health rather than oncomprehensive
human health. Teasing apartthe direct and indirect (e.g., through
increasedexercise), and similarly thematerial andnonma-terial,
effects of ecosystems on physical healthremains an outstanding
knowledge gap andchallenge.
3.2. Mental Health
In this section, we focus on richly supportedcontributions of
ecosystems to indicators ofmental health, understood broadly to
includecognitive performance, self-reported stress, andemotional
well-being. For the purposes of thisreview, a semantic rather than
a substantivedistinction is made to isolate ecosystems
con-tributions to mental health (again focusing onchange or
difference in mental health result-ing from or correlating with
biophysical changeor differences), despite both the blurred
divi-sions between mental and physical health andthe extensive
evidence of a strong connectionbetween the two. We are keenly aware
thatmany impacts of nature on other constituentsof well-being may
manifest themselves in partthrough evidence of changes to mental
health.Numerous insightful reviews explore nature ex-perience and
mental health (19, 20, 52).
3.2.1. Knowing. Anecdotal evidence aboutthe mental health benets
of knowing that na-ture exists are frequently acknowledged (53,54),
yet empirical evidence of this connectionis poorly documented.
Knowledge of belong-ing to a community or something greater
thanoneself through nature is argued to be a plausi-ble cause of
the broader positive psychologicalbenets of nature (55).
3.2.2. Perceiving. Views of nature have beenrepeatedly
associated with improved mentalhealth and reduced stress levels
(17, 5658).Studies of the workplace found that a view ofnatural
elements (e.g., plants) helped buffer theimpact of job stress
(lowering employees in-tentions to quit and marginally improving
gen-eral well-being) (57) and were associated withgreater employee
satisfaction with work, re-ductions in perceived stress, greater
life satis-faction, increased patience, and better health(56). This
effect may be well enough recog-nized, even if subconsciously, that
ofces lack-ing windows providing views of natural scenesmore
extensively use nature proxies such as in-door plants and
photographs (59, 60). Driving
480 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
on roads in natural settings as opposed to urbansettings has
been documented to reduce driverstress (as monitored by
physiological parame-ters such as blood pressure and
electrodermalactivity) and to increase the ability to cope
withfuture stress (61), even when the suite of poten-tial
confounding variables (e.g., abundance ofsafety-related cues) is
considered.
The empirical literature studying the role ofproximity to, views
of, and time spent in greenspace is bountiful and provides robust
indica-tions that green space has a positive inuenceon mental
well-being. Although these effectscertainly also involve more
intimate channelsof interaction with nature, we primarily
sum-marize them here. Among apartment tenants,views of more natural
environments (relative toviews of built environments) led to
increases inwell-being and greater residential satisfaction(17), in
addition to increases in self-discipline(62). Views of nature may
also have educationalbenets, increasing the capacity for atten-tion
as shown through objective performancemeasures and subjective
self-reported metrics(42, 63).
3.2.3. Interacting. Time spent in natural sys-temshas a
documentedpositive effect onhumanmental health. A review of the
empirical litera-ture addressing the relationship between visitsto
natural settings and recovery frommental fa-tigue by Kuo (64)
showed that 14 of the 16 re-viewed studies showed one or more
statisticallysignicant effects. In previous studies, there hasbeen
a hypothesized negative effect of urbanityon health (e.g.,
relationships driven by differ-ences in pollution, exercise, and
cultural prac-tices producing anxiety and stress); the
studiesreviewed by Kuo imply that this urbanity ef-fect may be
better explained by the availabilityof proximate green space than
by other drivers.The relationship between perceived health andgreen
space was found across all levels of urban-ity, without signicant
distinction between nat-ural green space and agricultural green
space.
Urban dwellers have been shown to exhibitbetter concentration,
focus, and reduced fatigueand irritability upon spending time in a
natural
environment (65). Ottosson & Grahn (66), ina study exploring
recovery from crisis (e.g., adeath or severe loss), concluded that
experienc-ing nature promotes restoration better than doother
inputs studied (such as taking a walk, andinteracting with
friends). The same authorshave noted in other research that the
benetsof visiting natural spaces may be disproportion-ately larger
for those who are ailing the most;for example, elderly people with
a particularlylow psychophysiological balance (denedas general
helplessness, frequency of hospitalvisits, and low tolerance of
other people) are themost positively affected by a visit to a
gardenas measured by heart rate and blood pressurechanges (67);
although these are physicaleffects, they are intricately connected
to mentalstate. Hartig & Staats (68) studied college stu-dents
to explore the potential restorative effectsof a walk in a natural
setting and found that,although natural settings were restorative
in allthe studied situations, the effectwas largerwhensubjects were
in a more fatigued condition.
Building upon this evidence, methods fornature-based therapy
(e.g., wilderness, hor-ticultural, and animal-assisted therapy)
havedemonstrated success in healing patients whopreviously had
responded poorly to other treat-ment (see Reference 20 for a
thorough review);the assumed primary mechanism behind thesuccess is
a positive effect of nature on mentalwell-being. Immersion in
nature has also beenshown to have positive inuence on levels
ofgenerosity and caring (69), another potentialmechanism for the
success of such therapies.
3.2.4. Living. Everyday exposure to natural el-ements is linked
to mental health. Homes sur-rounded by more green space have been
as-sociated with an increased ability of residentsto cope with
subjectively and personally de-ned major issues (64). Also, Wells
& Evans(70) documented a negative relationship be-tween
psychological distress in children andnaturalness of the home
environment (as in-dicated by a score summarizing views from
thehome, yard materials, and abundance of house-plants), even after
taking socioeconomic status
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 481
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
into account. Nearby nature also buffered theeffects of
stressful life events on the childrenslevel of psychological
distress (70). One studyfound that homes surrounded by more
green-ery (e.g., trees and grass) are associated withreduced
internal family conict (71). A morerecent study demonstrated a
positive effect ofvegetation on the personal well-being of
citydwellers and weak positive associations of well-being with
species richness and bird abundance(72). Deep interconnections have
been foundbetween mental well-being and living in closerelationship
with animals. Numerous studiesdocument the positive effects of pets
and inter-actions with pet animals, such as therapy dogs,on both
mental and physical health (7375).
3.2.5. Summary. The empirical literatureunequivocally identies
strong relationshipsbetween nature and mental health (19, 20).
Ex-tensive evidence demonstrates the multiple ef-fects that
viewing, interactingwith, and living innatural environments can
have: reducing stress,increasing patience, increasing
self-discipline,increasing capacity for attention,
increasingrecovery from mental fatigue or from crisis andfrom
psychophysiological imbalance. These ef-fects were associated with
natural settings gen-erally (e.g., green space or biologically
diverseecosystems) and individual animals (e.g., pets).
3.3. Spirituality
Many accounts of well-being include a con-stituent that
encompasses perceived connec-tions to others and otherworldly
forces thatgo beyond what is generally considered withinphysical
and mental health. Even though therole of ecosystems and nature in
contributingto such spirituality is not always expressed
asproviding benets, it is nevertheless the casethat losses or
degradation of ecosystems or nat-ural objects can trigger negative
impacts onthis component of well-being. The distinc-tion among the
impacts through the alterna-tive channels of experience on
spiritual healthis much less clear, but we highlight major
dif-ferences.
3.3.1. Knowing. Although the bulk of thepeer-reviewed literature
may indicate oth-erwise, it is important to note that
spiritualbenets deriving from the existence of natureare not
limited to indigenous populations.A broad-ranging study on emerging
formsof nature-based spirituality in modern USsociety found that
both groups and individualssee ecological processes as sacred (76),
andmore local studies in British Columbia (77)and Hawaii (R.K.
Gould, N.M. Ardoin,U. Woodside, N. Hannahs, T. Sattereld,G.C.
Daily, paper in preparation) have foundthat diverse respondents
express deep andvaried spiritual connections to ecosystems.
Sacred sites abound in numerouspossiblyeven allreligions. An
individuals knowledgeof the continued existence and preservation
ofpersonally or culturally relevant sacred natu-ral sites can, in
many cases, be linked directlyto that individuals sense of
spiritual well-being(78). Examples of how spiritual well-being
canbe tied to natural sites include the Makah peo-ple of the
northwesternUnited States who havecomplex aspects of their
spiritual well-beingtied to the ability to engage in whale hunt-ing
(79), and the people of Meghalaya, India,who believe that the
Sylvan deities would beoffended if trees are cut and twigs,
owers,fruits, etc. are plucked [from sacred groves](80, p. 563).
Ecological degradation can con-stitute cultural or spiritual loss
that alters andoften contributes to the impoverishment of cul-tures
even if degradation of a given resourcedoes not signicantly impact
ecosystem func-tion (81, 82).
Various ecosystem components (including awide range of plants,
animals, and minerals) arekey elements in the diverse practices
(with spiri-tual overtones or ramications) ofmany indige-nous
cultures, including ceremonies (e.g., Ref-erence 83). Spiritual
ceremonies often involvekey elements from the ecosystem as central
fea-tures. For instance, ceremonies dedicated to thejaguar (and
dependent on the knowledge of itsexistence), which is central to
the Nahuatl cos-mology, are still practiced today in some areasof
southern Mexico (84).
482 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
3.3.2. Perceiving. Documentations of theconnections between
perception of nature andspiritual well-being are sparse. McDonald
(85)documented environmentalists perception of avital force while
in nature, often mediated bythe perception of natural forms or
phenomena,such as steelhead salmon or salt marshes.
3.3.3. Interacting. There are many studies onthe spiritual
benets of wilderness experiencesin Western cultures. Interviews of
wildernessusers in Californias Eldorado National For-est (86) found
that most interviewees acknowl-edged the spiritual value of the
wilderness. Sim-ilarly, there is evidence that the experience
ofcamping in natural settings is, at least in part, aspiritual
process for many people (87, 88). Ac-cording to one study, a
majority of wildernessvisitors seek the spiritual values or benets
ofwilderness (89). A review of empirical researchon exposure to
nature and well-being (90) sur-mises that such
spiritual/transcendent experi-ences provide greater self-condence,
sense ofbelonging, and clarity about what really mat-ters. Ashley
(91) identied a feeling of con-nection and interrelationship with
other peopleand nature as the primary dening characteris-tic of
wilderness spirituality.
3.3.4. Living. Evidence of the impact on spir-ituality of living
with access to natural systemsand components is thin. One study
(92) survey-ing urban dwellers documents that many citydwellers
personal ties to urban forests and treesoften approach a spiritual
involvement and pro-vide many of the spiritual connections often
at-tributed to wilderness experiences.
3.3.5. Summary. The literature provides arich set of examples of
the importance of sa-cred places and the wilderness experience
forthe spirituality of some individuals and groups:Spiritual values
are commonly tied to ecosys-tems or elements of ecosystems (e.g.,
Reference6). Although resourcemanagement effortsmustrecognize
materially based ecological connec-tions or risk unexpected
outcomes, it has beenargued that [i]gnoring the psychological
and
spiritual connections between humans and thenatural world can
result in equally nasty sur-prises (93, p. 29). Nonetheless,
empirical in-sights into the role that ecosystems play in
thisrelationship beyondwilderness experiences andsacred places
remain scarce. This stems, in part,from the particularly complex
nature of posi-tivistic assessments of spiritual health. It is
alsoinuenced by the Western philosophical biasin the academic
literature; this bias underrepre-sents perceived spiritual
connections to nature(94).
3.4. Certainty, and Sense of Controland Security
In practice, the effects of nature on this com-ponent
ofwell-being (certainty, control, and se-curity) are often measured
through (lessened orheightened) feelings of fear or insecurity,
rep-resenting only a narrow circumscription of thewhole
constituent.
3.4.1. Knowing. Little empirical researchexists, but the
available information we foundindicates that merely knowing about
nature,natural phenomena, and the state of ecosystemsmay be
associated with feelings of insecurityor lack of control in Western
cultures. Asan example, natural disasters (tornadoes andhurricanes)
were ranked (eighteenth) amongthe top 20 most common fears of
school-ageAmericans (from second to twelfth grade)
(95).Furthermore, greater knowledge about the sys-tem can be
associated with increased awarenessof or concern for the state of
the system (96).Aldo Leopolds statement that the cost of
anecological education is to live alone in a worldof wounds (97, p.
165) is an example thereof.
3.4.2. Perceiving. Signicant literature indi-cates connections
between perceiving naturalelements and feelings of fear. Obsessive
fearof natural elements is common on the basisof visual (or
sometime auditory) interactionswith natural elements, such as
snakes, spiders,wasps, moths, blood, thunder, and feathers(98), and
almost all specic phobias are directly
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 483
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
or indirectly associated with natural objects(99). Such phobias
covary with fears of animalsthat are often considered disgusting
(but notharmful), such as maggots (100). The moregeneral study of
affective responses of people tonatural landscapes and other
objects is reviewedin other sections of this article, specicallyin
the realms of health, both physical andmental, and is represented
by relevant studiesnumbering in the hundreds (8, 101).
3.4.3. Interacting. Fear of natural elementsis a very real and
adaptive aspect of interact-ing with nature, particularly in rural
places.Human-wildlife conicts affect millions of peo-ple globally
(102) and can have severe impactsonwell-being. In India, for
example, one personper day is killed by an elephant, and
signicantassociated mental health impacts of human-elephant conicts
have been documented (103).
Surveys of farmers and shers conductedin Alaska and Florida (two
states in whichsome residents have increasingly
encounteredclimate-driven changes) show that personal ex-posure to
climatic change greatly increasesconcern and willingness to take
action (indi-cating sense of control), potentially implyingthat
their sense of security is informedandthreatenedby their
interactions with naturalelements through their work (104,
105).
The literature on peak experiences (i.e.,intense situations
inspiring transcendental orjoyful states) indicates that
nature-based activ-ities that test the limits of skill and
capability,such as mountain climbing or white-waterrafting, are
associated with a heightened senseof control and can produce
transcendentexperiences (106, 107); the ability of thesenatural
contexts to challenge ones sense ofcontrol enables this euphoria.
Similarly, theenvironment enables engagement in activitiesthat
satisfy competency needs (e.g., beingan accomplished skier), as
discussed in theIdentity and Autonomy section below.
3.4.4. Living. Abundant empirical evidencelinking the proximity
of buildings to nearbyvegetation has shown reduced levels of
fear,
crime, aggression, and violence, but the evi-dence was not
unequivocal (64, 108). As dis-cussed above, there is extensive
evidence thatexposure to green spaces reduces the negativeeffects
from stressful events (e.g., Reference109).However, a higher
quantity of nearby veg-etation increases fear and fear of crime in
somecontexts (110).
Conservation of resources theory proposesthat a loss or threat
of loss to an individuals per-sonal or psychosocial resources
produces harm-ful psychological outcomes, which might beinterpreted
as a symptom of loss of securitythat carries over to impacts on
other well-beingcomponents (111). Natural disasters have pro-duced
some of the most dramatic instances ofresource loss. For example,
resource loss wasshown to be the best predictor of
generalizedpsychological distress and post-traumatic
stressfollowing Hurricane Andrews landfall in 1992(111). Yet, in
all these cases, the specic role ofnature cannot easily be
dissected from the neg-ative effects of such disasters on
infrastructure,food availability, and economic income. For
ex-ample, it has been shown that in coastal sys-tems, nearshore
habitats, such as reefs,marshes,and dunes, can signicantly reduce
the damagecaused by sea-level rise and storms (112, 113),but we
found no studies examining how thisprotective role changes peoples
perceptions ofsafety.
3.4.5. Summary. Within this category, thebalance of costs and
benets of interacting withnature is unusual in that the bulk of the
re-viewed literature addresses the ways in whichnatural systems
degrade well-being through alack of control and security, and
through fear.These effects are often results of experienceswith
more uncontrolled nature.
3.5. Learning and Capability
Information, understanding, learning, andacquired capability are
critical parts of thehuman experience and contributors to
well-being (114). Drawing much of the work in thiscategory
together, attention restoration theory
484 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
(115) postulates that nature provides a restora-tive environment
that renews focus and aids at-tention, presumably resulting in
improved cog-nition.The theory is well supported empirically(116,
117) and likely provides the mechanismfor much of the literature
summarized below.
3.5.1. Knowing. Although the evidence ismore narrative than
quantitative, the abundantexamples of documented biomimicry
(e.g.,design modeled on or imitating biological or-ganisms or
systems) speak to the prevalence ofthis relationship: Knowledge of
natural systemsenhances human capabilities (118). Ecologicaland
biological systems serve as inspiration fortechnological
development and entire elds ofresearch and design [e.g., cellular
automata,articial immune systems, neural networks,interactive
evolutionary computation, complexadaptive systems, ecodesign, and
biophilicdesign (119123)].
3.5.2. Perceiving. Exposure to images of nat-ural systems seems
to enhance learning, evenof unrelated material. Specically, it has
beenshown experimentally that viewing pictures ofnature as opposed
to urban environments ispositively linkedwith the restorationof
directedattention (116, 117). Views of nature also in-creased
capacity for attention as shown throughobjective performance
measures and subjectiveself-reported metrics (63).
3.5.3. Interacting. Interactingwith nature ap-pears to enhance
learning more strongly thansimply seeing it. Kaplan & Berman
(124) re-viewed 13 studies that assessed real or virtualnature
contact and psychological responsemet-rics. As described therein,
these studies all sup-ported a positive impact of nature exposure
(be-ing in, seeing, and interacting with nature) onattention
restoration. For example, walking innature compared to walking in
urban environ-ments was positively linked with the restora-tion of
directed attention (116). Mayer et al.(55) showed demonstrable
effects of exposureto the natural environment on both
attentioncapacity and self-awareness. They also found
that the effects were stronger with real exposurecompared to
simulated exposure from videosof nature. Studies reviewed by Taylor
et al.(125) documented facilitated knowledge trans-fer and greater
academic achievement in groupstaught in outdoor contexts versus in
indoorclassrooms. In addition, an increased capacityfor attention
in children who have greenerplay spaces has been documented
(126).
Recent experimental evidence shows a mea-sureable cognitive
advantage (improvement ofhigher-level cognitive skills) derived
from sus-tained exposure to nature (127). The authorsnoted that,
pragmatically, whether the effectsare driven by increased nature
exposure or de-creased technology exposure is moot given thatthey
are so strongly inversely related in real-world contexts.
3.5.4. Living. We are not aware of empiricalresearch that
specically addresses how livingwithin natural settings contributes
to enhanc-ing learning and cognitive abilities.
3.5.5. Summary. Although the literature doc-umenting the
cognitive contributions of in-teraction with nature is signicant
within themental health realm, as documented above,the broader
contributions of interaction withnature to learning and cognition
are moresparsely documented. The literature revieweddoes show a
clear theorized and sometimes em-pirically supported relationship
wherein inter-actions with nature provide a signicant benetto human
cognition.
3.6. Inspiration and Fulfillmentof Imagination
The capacity to be inspired is part of whatmakes us human. With
this in mind, weexplored the literature documenting thediverse ways
in which natural systems affectinspiration, creativity, and
imagination.
3.6.1. Knowing. Knowledge, understanding,and the mystery of
nature have been philosoph-ically and logically argued to lead to
fulllment
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 485
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
of imagination (8, 128130). Wilson articulatesthis nicely:
Humanity is exalted not becausewe are so far above other living
creatures, butbecause knowing [other living creatures] wellelevates
the very concept of life (128, p. 22).This kind of connection,
however, is particu-larly difcult to document empirically.
Simply knowing of the existence of particu-lar natural elements
(also known as existencevalue) is the important fulllment of
imagi-nation for some. Many surveys across differentcultures
demonstrate perceived existencevalue by identifying that 7090% of
surveyrespondents believe that natural ecosystemshave a right to
exist independent of any benetto humanity (131). We found no
appropri-ate literature documenting the connectionbetween existence
value and creativity.
3.6.2. Perceiving. Abundant evidence indi-cates that viewing
nature can provide creativeinspiration [e.g., the work of Kellert
et al.(132)], but anecdotal evidence of this relation-ship is more
abundant than empirical literatureof mechanisms involved. Also see
Reference133 and citations in the knowing channel ofthe cognitive
constituent above (118123)
3.6.3. Interacting. Empirical work docu-menting how interactions
with nature may af-fect creativity is unexpectedly scant [see the
ex-ceptions within the environmental educationliterature (e.g.,
Reference 134)]. The volumeof anecdotal literature regarding this
connec-tion, however, is enormous, as is the diver-sity of creative
products (e.g., poetry, painting,dance, music, architecture,
science) that clearlytake inspiration from interaction with nature
ortime spent in natural systems (e.g., Reference132).
One interesting survey in the Catalan Pyre-nees points to
fulllment through interactingwith natural elements. Of all the
services (e.g.,provisioning food) that home gardens provideto
households, the intangibles are consideredmost important. Survey
respondents most val-ued the activity of gardening as a hobby;
theheritage value of home gardens; their enjoy-
ment of aesthetics; a place for education or re-search; a
connection to spiritual feelings; creat-ing and enhancing social
networks; and the useof gardens in folklore, art, and design
(135).
Taylor et al. (136) showed that more greenvegetation is linked
to more creative play inchildren. Analysis of a school yard that
hadsome asphalt replaced bymore natural elementsdocumented more
positive social relationshipsamong children and more creative play
(137).Empirical studies have documented a connec-tion between
diverse playgrounds and morecreative play, and natural environments
are ar-gued to generally afford diverse playground op-portunities
(138140).
3.6.4. Living. Disciplines such as archaeol-ogy and cultural
anthropology highlight ex-amples of nature-based inspiration, but
assess-ments identifying the relative contributions ofnature versus
other factors are unavailable.
3.6.5. Summary. The ways in which one canconceive that natural
systems provide peoplewith creative inspiration are legion.
Imprintsof this connection between people and naturalsystems can be
seen in art, poetry, literature,dance, music, science,
architecture, medicine,and more. However, despite these rich and
ob-vious ties, few peer-reviewed studies explic-itly and
empirically parse out the inspirationalpower of nature. The other
ways of knowingmentioned above (art, architecture) may pro-vide a
more compelling exploration of the rela-tionship, yet the
peer-review and the scienticprocesses provide consistent ground
rules forexploring this realm. This is fertile ground forfurther
work.
3.7. Sense of Place
People are part of ecosystems, and the connec-tion to a physical
place in the world can be animportant component of well-being for
many.Connection to nature can contribute to thedevelopment of a
sense of place, which in turncan promote the formation of peoples
eco-logical identity (141). To explore this theme,
486 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
we looked for indications of the ways in whichspecic ecological
characteristics of a place,such as ecosystem condition, contribute
to thedevelopment of a sense of place in people.
3.7.1. Knowing. People get attached to placesfor many reasons,
but only some reasons di-rectly pertain to the biophysical
characteris-tics of the place (142). Memory of a place, orhow it
once was, also reects place attachment.A sense of place is linked
to spiritual connec-tions with an ecosystem, and both can changeas
ecosystems change. Place-based myths oridentity changes as the
physical environmentchanges and no longer supports this
connection(143145).
3.7.2. Perceiving. No research that we areaware of specically
addresses visual or otherremote exposure to places and empirically
as-sesses how this contributes to sense of place.
3.7.3. Interacting. Interacting with naturetends to increase
peoples attachment to placeand their willingness to act to defend
or pro-tect those places. Scannell & Gifford (146) ana-lyzed
Canadian residents behavior and showedthat natural rather than the
civic aspects of placeattachment predicted pro-environment
behav-ior. As individuals partake in nature-based ac-tivities,
values concerning the wellness of theseplaces tend to rise (147).
For example, being ac-tive in restoration efforts increased
attachmentto local natural places (148), and communitygardeners are
anecdotally shown to be moreconnected to place (149).
Many researchers (e.g., References 140, 150,and 151) believe
that engaging children in vari-ous outdoor experiences will
facilitate relation-ships and develop a sense of place, in turn
de-veloping attachment to local environments andtheir communities.
However, empirical workfor this is limited. Sense of place research
recog-nizes the critical roles that social dynamics andinteractions
play in the human-nature relation-ship (152). Environmental
features and placecharacter were roughly equally important
forsocial reasons (family and friends) in one sur-
vey of attachment to place (153). Among Inuitpeople, it has been
shown that feelings of placeattachment were negatively affected by
disrup-tion of hunting, shing, foraging, trapping, andtraveling, as
well as by climate changeinducedecological degradation (154).
3.7.4. Living. As Berry (155) proclaims in re-lation to the
agricultural landscape he liveswithin, What I stand for is what I
stand on(p. 207). Much sense of place research focuseson
residentsthose who live within an ecosys-tem. However, living in
natural systems doesnot consistently provide positive
associationswith sense of place; individuals carry both pos-itive
and negative associations with a nearbyplaces (as demonstrated for
Great Salt Lake,Utah) (152). Similarly, positive sense of
placeassociated with living near a natural environ-ment does not
always depend on understandingof the ecological processes or goods
deliveredfrom that place (152).
3.7.5. Summary. More than for other cat-egories of well-being
components, we foundsubstantial effort devoted to understandinghow
socializing within natural systems con-tributes to place
attachment. Most of thesense of place literature documents the
moreintimate channels of interaction, with less liter-ature
addressing knowing and perceiving, andmore addressing interacting
and living within.It is unclear what if any unique attributesmight
distinguish the place-attachment powerof natural space relative to
man-made space(e.g., ecological place meaning versus socialor
architectural) (151), perhaps in part be-cause the biophysical
characteristics of placeshave received less scholarly attention
than theindividual/psychological component of person-place
relationships (156), and because of thechallenge of dissociating
nature-related effectsof space from other effects (see Reference
157).
3.8. Identity and Autonomy
Experiences in nature forge identity for a greatmany people
around the world. Indeed, the
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 487
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
cultural variation in the depth of this rela-tionship (i.e., the
role of nature in producingpurpose or identity) confounds
empiricalestimation because of the Western constructof a
distinction between nature and culture im-posed upon the rest of
the world (7, 158, 159).For much of the worldfor example the Gimiof
Papua New Guinea, who have no notionof division of nature and
culture because theforests are manifestations of their
ancestorsnature is part of their identity to a great degree,and
thus, articulating this connection becomesrather nonsensical (9,
160, 161). To highlightthe literature that exists, we adopt the
Westernnotion and explore the connections betweennature and
identity below, acknowledging thatthere are cultural contexts well
explored bysocial sciences wherein nature-identity rela-tionships
are so fundamental that reductionistapproaches are
inappropriate.
3.8.1. Knowing. It has been suggested in anumber of elds that
identity is intertwinedwith ecosystems. Because direct
interactionwith those systems may not be critical, weaddress those
relationships here. The relation-ship between identity and
landscape has beentheorized as critical and has been discussed
inhundreds of academic publications. For ex-ample, the debate
surrounding the connectionbetween the land and the Nez Perce of
Idahohas been argued to be akin to a debate aboutethnic survival
(162). Kazakh communities inwestern Mongolia dene Kazakhness in
termsof the ecological environment of the mountainsand use music to
associate with this identity andplace (163). Music is used to
associate with bothidentity and place in other locations as
well(164).
3.8.2. Perceiving. No empirical research thatwe are aware of
explicitly assesses the role of re-motely observing nature in
forming a sense ofidentity or purpose, although visual elements ofa
landscape can be critical for a persons iden-tity and sense of
place, for example, the sacredgroves discussed above.
3.8.3. Interacting. The identity-landscapeconnection is made
perhaps most frequentlyin studies of indigenous peoples, and this
con-nection manifests largely through interactingwith the landscape
(165167; R.K. Gould,U. Woodside, N.M. Ardoin, N. Hannahs,
T.Sattereld, & G.C. Daily, paper in prepa-ration). As one
example, Stairs (165) putforth the idea of ecocentric
identitythatis, that identity encompasses human, animal,and
materialand claimed that the Inuit havethis form of identity.
Dorais (168) noted thatwithout going to the land for hunting,
sh-ing, and trapping, Inuit would not be Inuitany more (p. 299).
This concept of ecocen-tric identity conforms to identity theory
thatstates that identity is formed by peoples actions(169), such as
hunting, shing, or other cul-tural activities that could be
integrally rooted inecosystems. For example, turtle hunting
amongthe Meriam of Torres Strait, Australia, in-volves individuals
engaging in a social hunt-ing process that involves no direct
materialbenet to themselves (170). Similarly, amongthe Nez Perce
Native Americans traditionalsubsistence activities are the primary
meansof accumulation, maintenance, or loss of in-tangible symbolic
capital (e.g., trust, prestige)(162). A long-term study on the
lobster gangsof Mainethe shermen who jointly man-age the
common-pool resource of Maines lu-crative lobster sheryhas also
touched onthe identity-related aspects of a shing way oflife; this
work suggests that conserving sh-ing resources conserves the
lobstermens iden-tity (171). There is a tendency to prioritize
theunique connection that indigenous people havewith their land and
waters; additional empiri-cal workmight explore identity-ecosystem
link-ages in a broader range of cultural contexts.
The connection between nature and iden-tity can also be mediated
by particular species.The cultural keystone species concept
wascoined for species that people interact withso strongly (e.g.,
through hunting, shing, orgathering) that the species help dene a
people(for example, salmon for the First Nations inthe Pacic
Northwest in North America) (82).
488 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Nonhuman animals in some contextssuch asin agriculturemay play a
signicant role inforging personal identity (172, 173).
In Alaskas Bristol Bay, Kelty & Kelty (174)used identity
theory from social psychology toexamine and explain the
relationship betweenpeople and the environment. They found thatthe
biggest (self-reported) potential impacts ofan unsustainable shery
were loss of connec-tion with the natural environment in the
area(76%) and reductions in overall yearly income(74%). The next
most affected outcomes of acollapsed shery included negative
effects onlife satisfaction (62%), relationships with oth-ers
important to [respondents] (57%), and wayof life (56%) (174, p.
340). When asked whythe salmon shery was important, most
respon-dents mentioned complex webs of lifestyle, cul-ture,
tradition, and connections with family andenvironment, and 78% of
respondents agreedthat shing is an important part of who theyare as
a person (174, p. 341).
On the community level, it has been arguedthat community
autonomy and self-sufciencydecreases with increasing urbanization
(175).A study of nonindigenous timber towns inthe inland US
Northwest found that people inthese more-isolated and autonomous
commu-nities rated their communities higher on qualityof life than
did people in less-isolated locations(176).
3.8.4. Living. There is a wealth of empiri-cal anthropological
and ethnographic work onthe identity-landscape link as it relates
to liv-ing within. The identity of many cultures isstrongly linked
to their ecosystems; we do notpurport to capture this massive
literature here.For instance, work with the Popolucas of cen-tral
westernMexico found that they linked theiridentity to the
rainforest within which theylive (177), and work with the Gimi in
PapuaNew Guinea found that their identity was tiedto their forests
(160). Displacing agrarian peo-ple from their land has been shown
worldwideto have predicted negative inuences on theiridentity
(178181).
The issue of autonomy is frequently dis-cussed with respect to
aboriginal concernsin terms of indigenous self-determination
inwhich land, and rights to land, often play cen-tral roles.
Hunting, shing, and gathering arepart, at times a critical part, of
autonomy forindigenous groups (170, 182).
3.8.5. Summary. Identity is clearly tightlylinked to the
attributes of the landscape and toactivities performed within
nature. Most of theevidence surrounding the contribution of na-ture
to forging identity is associated with inter-acting in nature and
encompasses living withinnature. Positive impacts of interactions
withnature have been documented on the identityof individuals as
well as those of communities.These links have most often been shown
forindigenous cultures, largely in the context ofanthropological
studies, but also apply to non-indigenous people. Environmental
degradationand displacement of people from their lands hasbeen
shown to negatively affect their identityand autonomy.
The relationship between identity and thenatural environment has
been characterized(183) as having three categories, two of whichare
tightly linked to socializing within nature:experiencing nature as
individuals (a personand the nonhuman environment);
experiencingnature in social and community contexts (wherethe
social community matters but is not centralto the identity); and
experiencing nature asmembers of social groups (wherein the
groupidentity is central, e.g., in a rangeland conictbetween
ranchers and environmentalists).
3.9. Connectedness and Belonging
Social connections and the sense of belongingto a larger
community (184), as well as con-nections with nature (185, 186) and
with lifeat large (see 187), are all positive correlatesof
well-being and are mostly interrelated.One example of the latter
relationship isdescribed in the biophilia hypothesis (8,
128),positing that people have a biologically basedneed to afliate
with and feel connected tothe broader natural world (life and
life-like
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 489
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
processes). An eco-physiologists extension ofthis argument
suggests that meeting this needfor a connection with nature has
psychologicalbenets (188). Another manifestation of thisconstituent
is the contribution of nature to so-cial connectedness (social
capital and cohesion,or a general sense of belonging) (189).
3.9.1. Knowing. Natural settings (e.g., water,greenery) are in a
categorymost often identiedin association with places identied as
favoritesby adults (190), although not by children (191),even if
they are not visited frequently. Similarly,nature is
underrepresented in association withan unpleasant place (192).There
are indicationsthat natural locations are robustly identied
asfavorite places across cultures (192).
3.9.2. Perceiving. Wedid not identify any ap-propriate research
on this topic that met ourinclusion requirements.
3.9.3. Interacting. Peoples connection to na-ture is built by
experiences, and these, in turn,predict aspects of peoples
well-being. Studentswho took a walk in a natural setting
reportedstronger feelings of connectedness to nature af-ter the
walk than students who walked in urbansettings; those with stronger
connectedness tonature scores tended to have greater abilities
toreect on a life problem, better capacities forattention, and more
positive affects (feelings oremotions) (55). The most signicant
inuen-tial factor in predicting individuals connectionto nature was
the amount of time people spentoutdoors (193).
Connectedness can be to a physical place orto an animal. Many
farmers have deep emo-tional ties to the animals they work with;
thiscomplex relationship and the emotional andethical entanglements
of human-animal rela-tions (194, p. 100) involve clear
connectionsto the well-being of the humans involved (someare
discussed above in the sections on Physi-cal Health and Mental
Health). Strong emo-tional connections between farmers and
theiranimals produce documented health benets,and human and
livestock health are interrelatedin complex ways (195).
Gardening has been found to contributeto building social capital
and social networkswhile simultaneously reducing stress and
en-couraging nurturing characteristics (Reference47 and the studies
therein). There is alsoevidence that socializing in nature
promotessocial cohesion: Examples from northwesternNorth America
include changes to subsistencestrategies and the ensuing changes to
socialcohesion in those communities (196, 197).Socializing outdoors
is crucial to many people[e.g., in Latin America (198)].
3.9.4. Living. Natural places can enhance con-nections between
people, and the connectionsbetween people and nonhuman animals can
en-hance human well-being. For example, resi-dents in areas with
more green space or treeshave greater social cohesion and sense of
com-munity (199, 200). Similarly, proximity to natu-ral
environments with high cultural values (val-ues categorized as
serene, wild, lush, spacious,and cultural) is positively related to
neighbor-hood satisfaction in Sweden (201).
3.9.5. Summary. Direct interactions with na-ture have been shown
to positively contributeto a sense of connection to nature and
connec-tion to community. Interacting with nature (viasocializing
or living within nature) contributesto social connectedness. Both
connections withnature (187) and social connections (184) havebeen
shown as correlates of general well-beingand to be interlinked (the
connection to naturealso correlates positively with having
meaningin ones life (reviewed in Reference 187).
3.10. Subjective Well-Being
Subjective well-being represents self-reportedassessments of
overall individual well-being.Holistic well-being and happiness are
complexsynergistic combinations of many componentsand represent an
emergent characteristicthat is unpredictable from the
componentparts. In this section, we review literature
thatexplicitly addresses these emergent charactersof well-being,
given that thus far this reviewhas documented pertinent links
between
490 Russell et al.
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
natural systems and specic components ofhappiness or general
well-being (e.g., increasedwell-being through reduction in stress
causedby views of nature).
3.10.1. Knowing. Mayer & Frantz (185)placed connectedness to
nature (see sectionabove) in a broad context, documenting
thatconnectedness to nature appeared to be as im-portant of a
contributor to subjectivewell-beingas are more traditional
variables associated withsubjective well-being (such as marriage,
edu-cation, and income). Multiple studies (55, 185,189) demonstrate
that connectedness to naturesignicantly predicts the participants
degreeof life satisfaction and overall happiness
andperspective-taking ability. See also work by Ice-land and
collaborators (202), described below.
Research in the United Kingdom concludedthat concern for the
state of the ozone layerwas negatively correlated with subjective
well-being, yet concern for species loss was posi-tively correlated
with subjective well-being(203); they interpreted this as an
example ofthe hypothesis that people derive psychologi-cal benets
from caring about other species (8).
3.10.2. Perceiving. As documented in moredetail under the
constituents of physical healthabove, visual exposure to nature can
increasegeneral satisfaction (17).
3.10.3. Interacting. Little research exploresspecically how
interactions with nature inu-ence general well-being beyond
component el-ements already reviewed. Matsuoka & Kaplan(204)
reviewed the literature relating landscapedesign to well-being and,
in conclusion, reiter-ated the strong linkages between the two.
Sim-ilarly, being in natural environments has beenshown to
improvemood in a general sense (186,205), and a positive
correlation has been shownbetween thewell-being of green space
users andthe species and habitat richness of those spaces(206).
In the Puget Sound region of Washington,representatives of 12
key stakeholder groups(business associations, environmental
groups,county governments, etc.) nearly unanimously
identied categories titled recreation &tourism and ethics
& existence values asamong the highest importance of all
materialand intangible connections to nature (202).
3.10.4. Living. There is a great deal of liter-ature that
identies the mechanisms throughwhich living in nature contributes
to specicconstituents of well-being but little from thebroader
perspective of holistic well-being. Sur-prisingly, given a
profusion of confounding fac-tors, course-grained global analyses
indicatethat there is a detectable relationship betweenthe state of
nature in a nation and subjectivewell-being (207).
On a state-to-state scale, people are gen-erally willing to
sacrice employment incomeand pay a for a greater cost of living
forcultural ecosystem services provided by inlandwaterways, public
stewardship of federal lands,and access to national parks (208).
Pecuniarystate-to-state differences (i.e., wages, rent,cost of
living) can be correlated to a set ofnonpecuniary variables (e.g.,
local climate,national park attendance, presence of anocean
coastline)a methodology entitledcompensating
differentialsdemonstratingthat densely populated and industrialized
statesscore consistently lower in ranked quality-of-life variables
than less densely populated ruralwestern states (208, 209).
3.10.5. Summary. Subjective well-being is anencompassing
category that includes all the var-ious constituents of well-being,
thus rigorouslyidentifying such relationships is more challeng-ing
than it may be for certain individual con-stituents (described
above). As a result, empiri-cal evidence of the impacts of
interactions withnature on this encompassing category is
scarce,hindering wider generalizations.
4. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Empirical research on the connections betweennature experiences
and constituents of humanwell-being is uneven. The amount of
literatureavailable, the generality of the results, the
www.annualreviews.org Nature and Human Well-Being 491
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
Physical health
Mental health
Spirituality
CertaintySense of control
Security
LearningCapability
InspirationFulfillment of imagination
Sense of place
IdentityAutonomy
ConnectednessBelonging
Subjective well-being
Knowing Perceiving Interacting Living
Figure 2A synthesis of the overall quantity and generalizability
of relevant empiricalliterature. The size of the circle in each
cell indicates the amount of research,with small circles indicating
minimal research and large circles indicatingplentiful research.
The generalizability of the research available is representedby
cell shading: Red indicates that most research focuses on very
specic aspectsof the channel-constituent pair, and green indicates
broadly applicable research.
primary discipline and thus typical way ofknowing, and the
nature of the evidence itselfvary dramatically for different
constituents (seeFigure 2 and Supplemental Table 1).
Some of these human-nature connectionshave been covered
extensively, have shown con-sistent results across ecosystems and
cultures,
and were supported by empirical tests of hy-potheses. These
include the benets to physicalhealth derived from perceiving
nature; those tomental health derived from perceiving,
inter-acting, and living in nature; and those to spiri-tual health
derived from knowing nature. In ad-dition, the benets of
interacting with nature toinspiration, and the benets of knowing
aboutand interacting with natural systems to the de-velopment and
reinforcement of sense of place,are well documented.
The roles of nature experiences in inuenc-ing many aspects of
human well-being are stillpoorly documented. For example, the
benetsof living in nature on learning and inspiration,or the links
between identity, self-sufciency,and belonging with perceiving
nature, arepoorly documented in the mainly positivisticliterature
we reviewed. As discussed in the Stateof the Art section above,
many of these rela-tionships are hypothesized to be important
andremain to be more thoroughly documented.
Is it worth searching for evidence of theseunder-studied
contributions of nature tohuman well-being? We believe so. Part of
thecomplication is that the data-rich narratives,for example,
ethnographies, are often difcultto condense into succinctly
communicated orquantitative insights regarding the relationshipand
are thus omitted from decision making.Indeed, the rich literature
available in bookswas not included here, albeit a source of someof
the most robust information on these topics.Nonetheless, in the
same way that the pastdecade has witnessed unprecedented advancesin
understanding the biophysical and economicbenets people obtain from
ecosystems, thecoming decade could substantially advanceknowledge,
scholarship, and discourse bydocumenting the impacts of less
tangibleconnections between people and ecosystemson well-being.
4.1. Where Could We Go from Here?
This review is a rst attempt at synthesizingthe complexity of
the impacts of nature on hu-man well-being via nonmaterial
connections.
492 Russell et al.
Supplemental Material
Ann
u. R
ev. E
nviro
n. R
esou
rc. 2
013.
38:4
73-5
02. D
ownl
oade
d fro
m w
ww
.annu
alre
view
s.org
A
cces
s pro
vide
d by
Uni
vers
idad
del
Bio
-Bio
on
07/0
1/15
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y.
-
EG38CH18-Russell ARI 16 September 2013 15:16
This endeavor has highlighted many of thechallenges involved:
(a) the large number andsometimes incommensurable methodologiesof
disciplines that must be united, (b) the biasednature of available
sources, and (c) the extremelyvaried nature of the evidence itself
given vastlydifferent biophysical and cultural contexts.
Further explorations of differences amongcultures, biophysical
contexts, and gender forthese intangible links are needed. A
systematicassessment of the wide literature available onthese
issues would be a signicant advance-ment. Indeed, different
cultures experiencenature in different ways, and explorations
ofindividual cultures and their experience of na-ture would
highlight nuances that could not becaptured at the cross-cultural
level summarizedhere. For example, we sought to include
bothpositive and negative impacts on well-being.However, except in
a few categories (e.g., senseof control and security), we found
that mostof the literature on intangibles we reviewedidentied
positive impacts of nature on humanwell-being. However, tropical
ecosystems richwith hazardous species may be more likelyto evoke
fear and thus be associated with de-creases in well-being. And not
only do differentgeographies and different cultures affect
onesexperience of nature, gender too affects the wayhumans interact
with and experience nature.
Documenting culturally and psychologi-cally mediated benets
derived from naturewill require the same