216
traditions on biodiversity; (ii) sacred places as repositories of biodiversity; (iii) spiritual domain within ecosystems services; and (iv) the effects of biodiversity on
spiritual well-being. Section 10.4 considers future directions for research.
10.2 Defining Spiritual Well-Being
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) (1948) definition of health emphasises
physical, mental and social well-being (Box 10.1). While lauded as a holistic
approach to health, the importance of considering the spiritual domain is increasingly being recognized as well. This can be found, for example, in the WHO’s
Health Promotion Glossary (1998) and discussions of health impact assessments
(Chuengsatiansup 2003) as well as in medicine’s expanded focus on a
biopsychosocial- spiritual model of health (e.g. McKee and Chappel 1992). In
debates about health and wellness, spiritual health is considered by some as a component of overall health or integral to holistic health (e.g. Greenberg 1985; Hawks
1994), and there is a rich body of research on its role in illness recovery and end-oflife care (e.g. McClain et al. 2003; Lin and Bauer-Wu 2003) as well as its effect on
other dimensions of health (e.g. depression; Bekelman et al. 2007). Despite this
growing interest, definitional debates over the meaning – and measurement – of the
spiritual domain continue.
To understand these definitional challenges we first consider the wider context
within which the notion of spiritual well-being sits. While the word ‘spirituality’
historically arises from a Christian milieu (Principe 1983), it has been applied to
non-Christian religions (e.g. Buddhism) and to non-religious orientations such as
‘secular spirituality’ (Jespers 2011; van Ness 1996). Such applications inevitably
raise questions about the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ as well as ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ (Casey 2013) – terms that are themselves difficult to define,
and for which varying, and sometimes overlapping, definitions exist. For example,
while some scholars describe spirituality as a subset of religion (Streib and Hood
2011), others consider these concepts as independent yet complementary (e.g.
Berghuijs et al. 2013; Zinnbauer et al. 1997). Typically, religiousness is described
narrowly as “formally structured and identified with religious institutions and prescribed theology and rituals” (Zinnbauer et al. 1997, p. 551), whereas spirituality is
considered more expansively as subjective, eclectic and individualised, with authority deriving from personal experience (Fuller 2001). In one cross-cultural study
(Gall et al. 2011), survey respondents claimed that spirituality referred to core
aspects of personal identity and experiences of transcendence – “defined traditionally as God or a higher power, or in more secular terms as unity with the greater
world or mystery” (p. 158) – with religion seen as a pathway for accessing spirituality and community. These scholarly distinctions between religion and spirituality
reflect the growing population of those who identify as “spiritual but not religious”
(Saucier and Skrzypinksa 2006). Rican (2004) and Moberg (2010) provide useful
overviews of these debates.
K. N. Irvine et al.
traditions on biodiversity; (ii) sacred places as repositories of biodiversity; (iii) spiritual domain within ecosystems services; and (iv) the effects of biodiversity on
spiritual well-being. Section 10.4 considers future directions for research.
10.2 Defining Spiritual Well-Being
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) (1948) definition of health emphasises
physical, mental and social well-being (Box 10.1). While lauded as a holistic
approach to health, the importance of considering the spiritual domain is increasingly being recognized as well. This can be found, for example, in the WHO’s
Health Promotion Glossary (1998) and discussions of health impact assessments
(Chuengsatiansup 2003) as well as in medicine’s expanded focus on a
biopsychosocial- spiritual model of health (e.g. McKee and Chappel 1992). In
debates about health and wellness, spiritual health is considered by some as a component of overall health or integral to holistic health (e.g. Greenberg 1985; Hawks
1994), and there is a rich body of research on its role in illness recovery and end-oflife care (e.g. McClain et al. 2003; Lin and Bauer-Wu 2003) as well as its effect on
other dimensions of health (e.g. depression; Bekelman et al. 2007). Despite this
growing interest, definitional debates over the meaning – and measurement – of the
spiritual domain continue.
To understand these definitional challenges we first consider the wider context
within which the notion of spiritual well-being sits. While the word ‘spirituality’
historically arises from a Christian milieu (Principe 1983), it has been applied to
non-Christian religions (e.g. Buddhism) and to non-religious orientations such as
‘secular spirituality’ (Jespers 2011; van Ness 1996). Such applications inevitably
raise questions about the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ as well as ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ (Casey 2013) – terms that are themselves difficult to define,
and for which varying, and sometimes overlapping, definitions exist. For example,
while some scholars describe spirituality as a subset of religion (Streib and Hood
2011), others consider these concepts as independent yet complementary (e.g.
Berghuijs et al. 2013; Zinnbauer et al. 1997). Typically, religiousness is described
narrowly as “formally structured and identified with religious institutions and prescribed theology and rituals” (Zinnbauer et al. 1997, p. 551), whereas spirituality is
considered more expansively as subjective, eclectic and individualised, with authority deriving from personal experience (Fuller 2001). In one cross-cultural study
(Gall et al. 2011), survey respondents claimed that spirituality referred to core
aspects of personal identity and experiences of transcendence – “defined traditionally as God or a higher power, or in more secular terms as unity with the greater
world or mystery” (p. 158) – with religion seen as a pathway for accessing spirituality and community. These scholarly distinctions between religion and spirituality
reflect the growing population of those who identify as “spiritual but not religious”
(Saucier and Skrzypinksa 2006). Rican (2004) and Moberg (2010) provide useful
overviews of these debates.
K. N. Irvine et al.