237
is unlikely to be feasible; researchers will necessarily need to choose pieces of the
model to investigate and may test various constructs as moderators, mediators or
short-term outcomes.
10.4.2 Measurement of Key Constructs
Figure 10.2 provides insight into important elements and relationships of biodiversity and spiritual well-being. Here we consider the measurement of the two key
constructs.
10.4.2.1 Spiritual Well-Being
Measurement of spiritual well-being has proved challenging and may be seen as
aiming to “measure the immeasurable” (Moberg 2010, p. 99). Although few spiritual well-being measures have been applied in nature-health research, more than
300 scales to measure spiritual well-being, spirituality or similar constructs have
been developed (see Fisher, J.W. 2015). The majority utilise closed-ended Likert
scale measurements (e.g. Delaney 2005; Ellison, C. 1983; Elkins et al. 1988; Reker
2003) and often concentrate on specific aspects of spiritual well-being such as existential well-being (life meaning, purpose, values) or religious well-being (relationship with higher power) (see, e.g., Ellison, L. 2006; Peterman et al. 2002). In
health-care settings, existential well-being, but not religious well-being, has been
predictive of better quality of life, mental health or physical health (e.g. Edmondson
et al. 2008). Spiritual well-being scales also have been critiqued for an overreliance
on correlates of traditional Western religiosity, such as institutional affiliation and
belief in God or a higher power (e.g. Klein et al. 2016). Such faith- or religiousfocused content may alienate individuals who experience spiritual well-being but do
not think of themselves as religious (Moreira-Almeida and Koenig 2006). Spiritual
beliefs and well-being are culturally specific and need to be measured using language and ideas that fit the particular group of respondents under study. For example, Dominguez et al. (2010) created a Saint’s Belief Index to explore the association
of traditional beliefs in local Islamic Saints and new agro-pastoral practices that had
previously been linked to biodiversity loss.
Few existing scales cover our four relational domains of spiritual well-being (see
Table 10.1) evenly, with the relationship to the environment or to community often
neglected. However, researchers have utilised qualitative methods effectively to
explore the meanings and lived experience behind the concept of spiritual wellbeing and its presence in and through interaction with the natural environment (e.g.
Bell-Williams 2016; Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999; Unruh and Hutchinson
2011). We favour measuring J. Fisher’s (2011) four domains of spiritual well-being
as the outcome of interest in studies of the effects of being in/living with biodiverse,
extraordinary and ordinary nature, because of the explicit inclusion of the domains
10 Biodiversity and Spiritual Well-being
is unlikely to be feasible; researchers will necessarily need to choose pieces of the
model to investigate and may test various constructs as moderators, mediators or
short-term outcomes.
10.4.2 Measurement of Key Constructs
Figure 10.2 provides insight into important elements and relationships of biodiversity and spiritual well-being. Here we consider the measurement of the two key
constructs.
10.4.2.1 Spiritual Well-Being
Measurement of spiritual well-being has proved challenging and may be seen as
aiming to “measure the immeasurable” (Moberg 2010, p. 99). Although few spiritual well-being measures have been applied in nature-health research, more than
300 scales to measure spiritual well-being, spirituality or similar constructs have
been developed (see Fisher, J.W. 2015). The majority utilise closed-ended Likert
scale measurements (e.g. Delaney 2005; Ellison, C. 1983; Elkins et al. 1988; Reker
2003) and often concentrate on specific aspects of spiritual well-being such as existential well-being (life meaning, purpose, values) or religious well-being (relationship with higher power) (see, e.g., Ellison, L. 2006; Peterman et al. 2002). In
health-care settings, existential well-being, but not religious well-being, has been
predictive of better quality of life, mental health or physical health (e.g. Edmondson
et al. 2008). Spiritual well-being scales also have been critiqued for an overreliance
on correlates of traditional Western religiosity, such as institutional affiliation and
belief in God or a higher power (e.g. Klein et al. 2016). Such faith- or religiousfocused content may alienate individuals who experience spiritual well-being but do
not think of themselves as religious (Moreira-Almeida and Koenig 2006). Spiritual
beliefs and well-being are culturally specific and need to be measured using language and ideas that fit the particular group of respondents under study. For example, Dominguez et al. (2010) created a Saint’s Belief Index to explore the association
of traditional beliefs in local Islamic Saints and new agro-pastoral practices that had
previously been linked to biodiversity loss.
Few existing scales cover our four relational domains of spiritual well-being (see
Table 10.1) evenly, with the relationship to the environment or to community often
neglected. However, researchers have utilised qualitative methods effectively to
explore the meanings and lived experience behind the concept of spiritual wellbeing and its presence in and through interaction with the natural environment (e.g.
Bell-Williams 2016; Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999; Unruh and Hutchinson
2011). We favour measuring J. Fisher’s (2011) four domains of spiritual well-being
as the outcome of interest in studies of the effects of being in/living with biodiverse,
extraordinary and ordinary nature, because of the explicit inclusion of the domains
10 Biodiversity and Spiritual Well-being