230
experience – considered a short-term outcome; spiritual well-being, something that
occurs over the longer term; and the use of leisure for coping with issues (e.g. job
change, cancer) that can raise spiritual questions (e.g. meaning of life). Spiritual
well-being is delineated in terms of Hawks’ (1994) interpretation, which distinguishes between the internal experience and the outward manifestation of spiritual
well-being (see Box 10.2).
10.3.4.3 Setting Component
In terms of our interest in the biodiversity-spiritual well-being relationship, the setting component of Heintzman’s model is perhaps most relevant. Heintzman’s (2009)
discussion of why the natural dimension of nature-based recreation might contribute to spiritual-focused outcomes specifically highlights extent and fascination as
relevant qualities, two characteristics of a restorative environment (e.g. Kaplan, S.
1995; see Marselle 2018). As Heintzman (2009) describes it:
…nature settings are characterized by extent (i.e., natural ecosystems provide rich settings
that captivate, foster exploration and connect people to a larger world). Second, nature settings allow for soft fascination or attention, which suggests that natural features (e.g. sunsets, clouds, mountain vistas) can be observed effortlessly leaving opportunity for reflection
on spiritual matters. (p. 78)
The restorative environment features of ‘being away’ and ‘compatibility’
(Kaplan, S. 1995; see Marselle 2018) are also present in Heintzman’s model. ‘Being
away’ is embedded in the setting element; for many, being in nature is a physical
change in location and a removal from everyday routine and responsibilities, which
has been found to facilitate spiritual outcomes (e.g. Ellard et al. 2009, as cited in
Heintzman 2009). Compatibility – the degree of ‘fit’ or congruence between an
environment and one’s purposes, inclinations or reasons for being there – is
implicitly present in Heintzman’s (2002, 2009) discussion of the setting. He more
explicitly argues that the activity itself can be compatible – or not – with fostering
spiritual well-being.
Biodiversity, e.g. richness of species, is hypothesised as something that could
contribute to the fascination quality of a restorative environment (Ulrich 1983;
see Marselle 2018). It could also contribute to a conceptual sense of ‘being
away’, an additional dimension of this restorative environment feature (Kaplan,
S. 1995). As Goodenough (1998) argues and Curtin (2009) illustrates empirically,
biodiversity can inspire spiritual feelings of humility, communion, awe, wonder
and inter- relatedness with nature. Goodenough suggests that: “The outpouring of
biological diversity calls us to marvel at its fecundity. It also calls us to stand
before its presence with deep, abiding humility” that she likens to religious
reverence (1998, p. 86).
The empirical research into the spiritual dimension of outdoor recreation is primarily qualitative and largely situated in wilderness within the USA (e.g. Fredrickson
and Anderson 1999; Kaplan, R. and Kaplan 1989), Australia (e.g. Williams and
K. N. Irvine et al.
experience – considered a short-term outcome; spiritual well-being, something that
occurs over the longer term; and the use of leisure for coping with issues (e.g. job
change, cancer) that can raise spiritual questions (e.g. meaning of life). Spiritual
well-being is delineated in terms of Hawks’ (1994) interpretation, which distinguishes between the internal experience and the outward manifestation of spiritual
well-being (see Box 10.2).
10.3.4.3 Setting Component
In terms of our interest in the biodiversity-spiritual well-being relationship, the setting component of Heintzman’s model is perhaps most relevant. Heintzman’s (2009)
discussion of why the natural dimension of nature-based recreation might contribute to spiritual-focused outcomes specifically highlights extent and fascination as
relevant qualities, two characteristics of a restorative environment (e.g. Kaplan, S.
1995; see Marselle 2018). As Heintzman (2009) describes it:
…nature settings are characterized by extent (i.e., natural ecosystems provide rich settings
that captivate, foster exploration and connect people to a larger world). Second, nature settings allow for soft fascination or attention, which suggests that natural features (e.g. sunsets, clouds, mountain vistas) can be observed effortlessly leaving opportunity for reflection
on spiritual matters. (p. 78)
The restorative environment features of ‘being away’ and ‘compatibility’
(Kaplan, S. 1995; see Marselle 2018) are also present in Heintzman’s model. ‘Being
away’ is embedded in the setting element; for many, being in nature is a physical
change in location and a removal from everyday routine and responsibilities, which
has been found to facilitate spiritual outcomes (e.g. Ellard et al. 2009, as cited in
Heintzman 2009). Compatibility – the degree of ‘fit’ or congruence between an
environment and one’s purposes, inclinations or reasons for being there – is
implicitly present in Heintzman’s (2002, 2009) discussion of the setting. He more
explicitly argues that the activity itself can be compatible – or not – with fostering
spiritual well-being.
Biodiversity, e.g. richness of species, is hypothesised as something that could
contribute to the fascination quality of a restorative environment (Ulrich 1983;
see Marselle 2018). It could also contribute to a conceptual sense of ‘being
away’, an additional dimension of this restorative environment feature (Kaplan,
S. 1995). As Goodenough (1998) argues and Curtin (2009) illustrates empirically,
biodiversity can inspire spiritual feelings of humility, communion, awe, wonder
and inter- relatedness with nature. Goodenough suggests that: “The outpouring of
biological diversity calls us to marvel at its fecundity. It also calls us to stand
before its presence with deep, abiding humility” that she likens to religious
reverence (1998, p. 86).
The empirical research into the spiritual dimension of outdoor recreation is primarily qualitative and largely situated in wilderness within the USA (e.g. Fredrickson
and Anderson 1999; Kaplan, R. and Kaplan 1989), Australia (e.g. Williams and
K. N. Irvine et al.