234
10.4.1 Conceptualising Relationships
Our review has stimulated an awareness of the challenges inherent in understanding
these aspects of nature and human health. We began with a simple model (Fig. 10.1)
of the overlapping relationship between spiritual well-being and spiritual beliefs
and considered how these constructs might relate to behaviour, nature and
biodiversity.
There is suggestive, but not robust, evidence about specific elements of nature,
including biodiversity, that appear to contribute to spiritual outcomes or to potential
mediators for the relationship. Species diversity (trees/birds), habitat diversity and
tree cover are associated with place processes and reflection; the same parks provided tranquility and connection with nature. Extraordinary nature, with beauty and
grandeur, such as mountains, sunsets or big waterfalls, are associated with awe,
humility and inspiration. Wilderness contributes to a sense of solitude, timelessness,
transcendence, putting people in touch with the divine and experiencing serenity or
harmony. Open nature scenes are associated with feelings of deep flow, wholeness
and belonging, while ordinary nature, such as lawns or parks, tends one towards
spiritual caring and connections to others. These findings highlight a need to measure both biodiversity and the composite type of environment of interest.
Another challenge uncovered is the lack of clarity as to whether or how spiritual
well-being is different from spirituality/spiritual beliefs. Some conceptualise differences; some overlap or conflate them. Table 10.1 synthesised elements from across
these concepts, structured by four relational aspects of spiritual well-being, i.e. relation with self, community, the environment and transcendent Other(s), that create
wholeness.
What is clear is the fundamental and growing intersection of spiritual beliefs
with the natural environment, whether among indigenous groups, world religions or
new eco-spiritual practices. These beliefs and values are associated with actions or
practices that may preserve biodiversity, a link noted in many models of environmental behaviour (e.g. Stern 2000). Additionally, such beliefs and values may predispose one to experience spiritual well-being within nature. Incorporating both
spiritual beliefs and spiritual well-being measures will thus be important.
An overarching challenge is how to parse relationships between spiritual beliefs/
well-being and nature/biodiversity. Studies investigating nature and spiritual wellbeing are largely qualitative; few account for the biodiversity of the setting. The
evidence is almost exclusively correlational, which leads to a circularity of associative relationships, and causality is difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe. A way
forward is to take what we have learned here and map it onto existing causal models
of how nature may affect human health and well-being. In Fig. 10.2 we propose
such a model. Structured using the four relational elements of spiritual well-being,
it overlays Heintzman’s nature-spirituality model (Box 10.2) onto Hartig et al.’s
(2014) nature-health model while also incorporating insights from others (Irvine
et al. 2013; Marselle et al. 2016; Shanahan et al. 2016; Yeh et al. 2016). This model
is framed in terms of public health notions of an exposure (that affects health) and
K. N. Irvine et al.
10.4.1 Conceptualising Relationships
Our review has stimulated an awareness of the challenges inherent in understanding
these aspects of nature and human health. We began with a simple model (Fig. 10.1)
of the overlapping relationship between spiritual well-being and spiritual beliefs
and considered how these constructs might relate to behaviour, nature and
biodiversity.
There is suggestive, but not robust, evidence about specific elements of nature,
including biodiversity, that appear to contribute to spiritual outcomes or to potential
mediators for the relationship. Species diversity (trees/birds), habitat diversity and
tree cover are associated with place processes and reflection; the same parks provided tranquility and connection with nature. Extraordinary nature, with beauty and
grandeur, such as mountains, sunsets or big waterfalls, are associated with awe,
humility and inspiration. Wilderness contributes to a sense of solitude, timelessness,
transcendence, putting people in touch with the divine and experiencing serenity or
harmony. Open nature scenes are associated with feelings of deep flow, wholeness
and belonging, while ordinary nature, such as lawns or parks, tends one towards
spiritual caring and connections to others. These findings highlight a need to measure both biodiversity and the composite type of environment of interest.
Another challenge uncovered is the lack of clarity as to whether or how spiritual
well-being is different from spirituality/spiritual beliefs. Some conceptualise differences; some overlap or conflate them. Table 10.1 synthesised elements from across
these concepts, structured by four relational aspects of spiritual well-being, i.e. relation with self, community, the environment and transcendent Other(s), that create
wholeness.
What is clear is the fundamental and growing intersection of spiritual beliefs
with the natural environment, whether among indigenous groups, world religions or
new eco-spiritual practices. These beliefs and values are associated with actions or
practices that may preserve biodiversity, a link noted in many models of environmental behaviour (e.g. Stern 2000). Additionally, such beliefs and values may predispose one to experience spiritual well-being within nature. Incorporating both
spiritual beliefs and spiritual well-being measures will thus be important.
An overarching challenge is how to parse relationships between spiritual beliefs/
well-being and nature/biodiversity. Studies investigating nature and spiritual wellbeing are largely qualitative; few account for the biodiversity of the setting. The
evidence is almost exclusively correlational, which leads to a circularity of associative relationships, and causality is difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe. A way
forward is to take what we have learned here and map it onto existing causal models
of how nature may affect human health and well-being. In Fig. 10.2 we propose
such a model. Structured using the four relational elements of spiritual well-being,
it overlays Heintzman’s nature-spirituality model (Box 10.2) onto Hartig et al.’s
(2014) nature-health model while also incorporating insights from others (Irvine
et al. 2013; Marselle et al. 2016; Shanahan et al. 2016; Yeh et al. 2016). This model
is framed in terms of public health notions of an exposure (that affects health) and
K. N. Irvine et al.