Environmental crises such as climate change are among humanity’s greatest contemporary challenges. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required that will both support human well-being during such crises and facilitate pro-environmental behavior. We developed a nature-based intervention (Act with Nature intervention or program; AWN) that aims to improve human well-being and encourage pro-environmental behavior. Logic models informed by our theoretical perspectives were developed to articulate and clarify the hypothesized mechanisms underpinning the intervention. These mechanisms support nature connectedness, efficient coping, and psychological processing. AWN includes nature-based exercises with different backgrounds and delivery methods as well as information and support for pro-environmental behaviors during the program. AWN lasts 12 weeks and has two different types of delivery tailored to participants’ needs: the weekly group provides more intensive social support, while a flexible group allows for greater individual adaptability. Anticipated results of AWN are increased mental well-being and pro-environmental behavior through nature connectedness and more efficient coping related to environmental self-regulation. We describe the mechanisms of change and the expected outcomes through logic models. This enables researchers to follow how outcomes are grounded in theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence and to differentiate mechanisms from outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonD. J., & KrettenauerT. (2021). Connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour from early adolescence to adulthood: A comparison of urban and rural Canada. Sustainability, 13, 3655.
2.
AndrewsT. M., KlineR., KrupnikovY., & RyanJ. B. (2022). Too many ways to help: How to promote climate change mitigation behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101806.
3.
BishopS. R., LauM., ShapiroS., CarlsonL., AndersonN. D., CarmodyJ., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.
4.
BranhamL. (2024). Embodied earth kinship: Interoceptive awareness and relational attachment personal factors predict nature connectedness in a structural model of nature connection. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1400655.
5.
CapaldiC. A., DopkoR. L., & ZelenskiJ. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976.
6.
CooleyS. J., JonesC. R., KurtzA., & RobertsonN. (2020). ‘Into the Wild’: A meta-synthesis of talking therapy in natural outdoor spaces. Clinical Psychology Review, 77, 101841.
7.
DjernisD., LerstrupI., PoulsenD., StigsdotterU., DahlgaardJ., & O’TooleM. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of nature-based mindfulness: Effects of moving mindfulness training into an outdoor natural setting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 3202.
8.
FisherA. (2013). Ecopsychology at the crossroads: Contesting the nature of a field. Ecopsychology, 5, 167–176.
HyvönenK., SalonenK., PaakkolanvaaraJ. V., VäkeväinenP., & KorpelaK. (2023). Effects of nature-based intervention in the treatment of depression: A multi-center, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101950.
KaiserF. G., & WilsonM. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1531–1544.
13.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542.
14.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. [Database].
15.
KimW., LimS., ChungE., & WooJ. (2009). The effect of cognitive behavior therapy-based psychotherapy applied in a forest environment and physiological changes and remission of major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Investigation, 6, 245–254; doi: 10.4306/pi.2009.6.4.245
16.
KorpelaK., HyvönenK., RatcliffeE., SalonenK., & PaakkolanvaaraJ.-V. (2023). Act with Nature (AWN): Promoting well-being and pro-environmental behaviour among working-age adults during the era of environmental crises. Center for Open Science OSF; doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/69QVW
17.
KorpelaK., PasanenT., RepoV., HartigT., StaatsH., MasonM., … Ward ThompsonC. (2018). Environmental strategies of affect regulation and their associations with subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 562; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00562
18.
LarsonL. R., StedmanR. C., CooperC. B., & DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124.
19.
LiD., & SullivanW. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 149–158.
20.
MartinL., WhiteM. P., HuntA., RichardsonM., PahlS., & BurtJ. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389.
21.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
22.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
23.
MeuweseD., van der VoortN., DijkstraK., KrabbendamL., & MaasJ. (2021). The value of nature during psychotherapy: A qualitative study of client experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 765177.
24.
PaakkolanvaaraJ. V., HyvönenK., SalonenK., MuotkaJ., & KorpelaK. (2023). Profiles of depression and restoration in nature-based group therapy. Ecopsychology, 15, 231–243.
25.
RensinkR. A.(2013). Perception and Attention, in ReisbergDaniel. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Oxford Library of Psychology, online edn, Oxford Academic; doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376746.013.0007
26.
RichardsonK., SteffenW., LuchtW., BendtsenJ., CornellS. E., DongesJ. F., … Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9, eadh2458.
27.
RockströmJ., SteffenW., NooneK., PerssonA., ChapinF. S., LambinE. F., … AJonathan. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475; doi: 10.1038/461472a
28.
RoeJ., & AspinallP. (2011). The restorative outcomes of forest school and conventional school in young people with good and poor behaviour. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10, 205–212; doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.03.003
SchultzP. W., & KaiserF. G.(2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In ClaytonS. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). Oxford University Press; doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0029
33.
ShapiroS. L., CarlsonL. E., AstinJ. A., & FreedmanB. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386.
34.
StegL., & VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
35.
StilesW. B., Honos-WebbL., & SurkoM. (1998). Responsiveness in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 439–458.
Twohig-BennettC., & JonesA. (2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628–637.
38.
WatsonD., & ClarkL. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Available from: http://ir.uiowa.edu/psychology_pubs/11
39.
WhitburnJ., LinklaterW., & AbrahamseW. (2020). Meta‐analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 34, 180–193.
40.
WilkieS., & DavinsonN. (2021). Prevalence and effectiveness of nature-based interventions to impact adult health-related behaviours and outcomes: A scoping review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104166.
