Environmental psychology was born in the 1960s in the face of increasing attention to the urban challenges caused by population growth, which meant that researchers in the new field focused on people’s interactions with the built environment (Canter & Craik, 1981; Proshansky, 1976; Sommer, 1997). From the 1980s, this discipline expanded its focus to include problems of the natural environment,1 a tendency that increased when positive psychology made its entrance onto the scene of psychological research, including the study of the links between the physical environment and subjective wellbeing (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Corral Verdugo, 2012; Fleury-Bahi, Pol, & Navarro, 2016).
As we will show throughout this chapter, environmental psychology has assimilated these approaches with the objective of contributing to the explanation of the relationship between human and physical environments. Theories that emphasize the positive valence of this relationship have built their explanations on wellbeing, predominantly with conventional methodological designs that have reduced these psychological phenomena into cognitive and emotional variables. We believe this is because the dominant worldview in psychosocial research, which is characterized by analytical and unidirectional approaches, is also reinforced by an institutional system that recognizes a certain style of publications. It mainly assesses research activity with rapid results and, by extension, favours quick and prolific academic careers.
However, there are also alternative approaches in environmental psychology, developed under a community perspective, which combine variables in another level of integration, namely that of the social and political order. To address the link between environmental and wellbeing psychological research from a critical perspective, we first review some studies in environmental psychology which are becoming popular in order to provide some examples of research results produced from analytical and reductionist framework. Then, we discuss the basic approaches of critical psychology and community environmental psychology. Finally, using the framework of critical theory, we analyze the production of research in environmental psychology and wellbeing in order to raise some questions for reflection about psychological practice in this field.
Although well-known psychological theories are often used to study wellbeing in environmental psychology, such as Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) or Attention Restorative Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), a variety of different concepts have also been used as equivalents to wellbeing. These include happiness, welfare,2 health, satisfaction, and attention. For example, some authors have proposed that satisfaction and wellbeing are equivalent and interchangeable concepts (e.g., Brereton, Clinch, & Ferreira, 2008; Di Tella, MacCulloch, & Oswald, 2001; Veenhoven, 1997, 2004; Welsch, 2006).
Consequently, various scales have been developed to measure both satisfaction and wellbeing (see Table 36.1). Some of the most popular instruments in the study of wellbeing are the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS: Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), the Psychological Wellbeing Scale (PWS, based on the theory-guided Dimensions of Well-Being of Ryff, 1989), and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ: Goldberg & Blackwell, 1970). Nevertheless, due to the various biases involved, such as social desirability, some voices have been raised against the use of self-report instruments to measure wellbeing. Due to imprecision in the operationalization of wellbeing, and the physiological processes involved in psychological restoration,3 the use of a variety of physiological indicators, such as heart rate, eye tracking, and others, has become popular. Although some authors do not agree with the reductionism that is involved in measuring wellbeing with these indicators, they agree that it is better to measure individual wellbeing empirically with these instruments than not to measure it at all (Blanchflower & Oswald, 2004; Brereton et al., 2008).
Satisfaction |
• Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985) • WHO Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-Bref),, Environmental wellbeing (World Health Organization, 1997) • Satisfaction with the Environment Scale (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011) • Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) • Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), Social wellbeing (Keyes, 2006) |
Positive Mood |
• Multidimensional Comfort Questionnaire (MDBF), Current mood (Steyer, Notz, Schwenkmezger, & Eid, 1997) • Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Children (PANAS-C), Positive Affect (Laurent et al., 1999) • MHC-SF, Emotional wellbeing (Keyes, 2006) • Emotional Wellness Scale, Affect balance (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008) • Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) • Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) (Tennant et al., 2007) • MHC-SF, Psychological wellbeing (Keyes, 2006) • WHOQOL-Bref, Psychological wellbeing (World Health Organization, 1997) • SF-36 Health survey, emotional role-function (Bullinger Kirchberger, & Ware, 1995) • SF-36 Health survey, mental wellbeing (Bullinger et al., 1995) • Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Positive affect (Watson et al., 1988) • Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE), Positive experience (Diener et al., 2010) • Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) • Single-Item Self-Esteem Scale (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) |
Negative Mood |
• PANAS-C, Negative affect (Laurent et al., 1999) • PANAS, Negative affect (Watson et al., 1988) • SPANE, Negative experience (Diener et al., 2010) |
Health |
• General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) • WHOQOL-Bref, Psychological wellbeing (World Health Organization, 1997) • SF-36 Health survey, vitality (Bullinger et al., 1995) |
Studies carried out in the field of environmental psychology on the relation between wellbeing and environment reflect this diversity of instruments of measurement. In addition, researchers use different wellbeing perspectives as the focus of their studies, such as health, meaning in life, and positive emotions, all of which are related to the effects of contact with nature and other environmental stimuli. For instance, wellbeing studies focused on health effects have shown that green environments are associated with better mental health from early adulthood, particularly in males (Astell-Burt, Mitchell, & Hartig, 2014). Studies carried out in built environments have shown how inhabitants of residential areas with higher noise levels (60 to 68 dB) who have access to a green area have higher scores related to wellbeing, a lower perception of noise as a problem, and lower levels of fatigue, irritability, and stress. They also report that wellbeing is linked to greater involvement in outdoor activities overall (Gidlöf-Gunnarsson & Öhrström, 2007). Other studies show positive effects on wellbeing in people who carry out their daily activities outside the home in a green area, with more perception of natural sounds (Pijanowski et al., 2011). Some of the effects of people’s place of origin (for example, whether they grew up in a rural or urban environment) on wellbeing depend on the self-perception of being able to control the environment and adaptable to changes of residence, which could be stronger in older-adult populations living in rural areas (Cerina & Fornara, 2011).
From the perspective of restoration theory, a growing body of evidence has described the positive effects of nature on wellbeing (e.g., Burns, 2005; Dasgupta, 2001; Gatersleben, 2008; R. Kaplan, 1973, 2001; R. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; S. Kaplan, 1983, 1995; S. Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Knopf, 1983; Sagar, 2007; Staats, Gatersleben, & Hartig, 1997; Wallenius, 1999). For example, Hartig, Mang, and Evans (1991) showed in a series of experiments that spending seven days on vacation in a natural desert led to higher scores of happiness and mental restoration in a group of backpackers compared with other participants who spent their vacations in an urban environment and a third group who did not leave their homes. Hartig et al. also observed that participants who took a walk in a natural environment achieved higher scores on various measures of restoration and emotional wellbeing, compared with participants who walked through an urban environment and experienced a state of relaxation.
There are also studies showing a positive effect on wellbeing in terms of restorative capacity, most of them using images as environmental stimuli. This has been observed under certain physical environmental conditions, such as the level of naturalness of peri-urban environments (Carrus et al., 2013), or the fact that viewing a scene of nature in spring results in more positive affect than a winter scene (Felsten, 2014). One explanation for this result is that, from an evolutionary or historical perspective, green spaces and clear blue sky have long been associated with health benefits and security (Thompson, 2011). Another possible interpretation is that such scenes have greater perceived potential for the restoration of attention (Felsten, 2009).
Along the same lines, environmental psychology tries to link geography and sociodemography. Brereton et al. (2008) showed a positive relation between wellbeing and certain aspects of the physical environment, such as reduced wind speed, higher summer temperature, or proximity to coastal areas. They also observed that proximity to major roads and landfills decreases the perception of wellbeing.4 Analogously, Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Gowdy (2007) studied the level of overall life satisfaction from the British Household Panel Survey, which included responses from nine thousand persons over 16 years. They noted that environmental concerns about ozone pollution were negatively related to wellbeing (measured with the GHQ), while concerns for endangered species were positively related to wellbeing. These results remained even when controlling for other variables, such as region of residence, levels of pollution, participation in outdoor leisure activities, and other variables.5 Therefore, these authors suggested, “the relationship between environmental awareness and wellbeing is not (only) due to the possible correlation between psychological traits and environmental awareness” (Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, 2007, p. 514).
This association between wellbeing and pollution has also been observed in longitudinal studies in the rest of Europe, concerning air pollution. Welsch (2006) used a set of panel data from happiness surveys, together with data on income and air pollution in ten European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom). He examined how self-reported wellbeing – expressed in terms of life satisfaction – varied with prosperity, environmental conditions, and the implied evaluation of changes in air pollution during a seven-year period (1990–1997). The study reported that air pollution plays a role as a predictor of inter-country and inter-temporal differences in the perception of subjective wellbeing. Additionally, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and lead both showed statistically significant correlations with wellbeing. Those countries where concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and lead declined during the study (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and the UK) increased their levels of positive wellbeing; conversely, Portugal, which underwent a significant increase in its levels of nitrogen dioxide during the same period, experienced the biggest negative change in wellbeing.
In the same research paradigm, other types of studies have tried to connect environmental physical dimensions and wellbeing. Nordh, Hagerhall, and Holmqvist (2010), carried out a study using eye tracking to collect participants’ evaluation of potential resting places on a set of 38 photographs of Scandinavian urban parks (photographed in summer), which had previously been classified from high to low in terms of their perceived restoration capacity. More attention was concentrated on those items located within the perimeter of the park, including banks, people, “ceilings” formed by the treetops, the “walls” formed by trunks and hedges, and soil with grass or plants. The authors suggested that the negative correlation between the level of perceived restoration of the park and pupil dilation could be explained by an inverse relationship between restoration and arousal, due to a relaxation effect produced by the restorative capacity of the park’s image.
Thus, restoration theory explains some of the most important cognitive benefits of the environment on wellbeing. However, focusing only on the physiological and cognitive effects of experiences of nature misses some of the most important mechanisms which enable these experiences to have a positive impact. For example, when wellbeing is measured in terms of relative happiness (Corral-Verdugo, Mireles-Acosta, Tapia, & Fraijo-Sing, 2011), it is observed that the mere intention to attend to sustainable behaviour influences happiness levels.
The results mentioned here illustrate how environmental studies focused on subjective and psychological wellbeing have confirmed the relation between contact with nature and positive emotions, even when wellbeing is operationalized with psychophysiological variables (e.g., Detweiler, Murphy, Myers, & Kim, 2008; Diette, Lechtzin, Haponik, Devrotes, & Rubin, 2003; Horsburgh, 1995; Nisbet, 2015; Ulrich, 1984). Merrero and Carballeira (2010), in a study conducted with 554 participants aged between 17 and 66 years old, found that a high frequency of contact with nature is related to the personality traits of extraversion and openness. These authors observed that, despite a significant positive influence of contact with nature on levels of satisfaction with life, emotional state, and leisure activities, nature has a small influence on wellbeing (as measured by the SWLS, PANAS, and PWS) when controlling for personality traits. However, these results may vary depending on age and level of education. Participants who are older and less educated tend to spend less time on activities that bring them into contact with nature.
In the same way, Felsten (2014) observed the influence of the Big Five personality characteristics on the restorative effect of natural environments. Positive correlations were observed with the traits of openness, agreeableness, and extraversion, while negative correlations were observed with neuroticism. No interactions between personality and the kinds of landscape (either natural or unnatural) were observed.
An important conceptual distinction within this field of study is the difference between hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. The first concept is related to an affective dimension, which emphasizes the pursuit of pleasure (Diener, 1984); it tries to answer the question, “What can I take from the world to be happy?” Eudaimonic wellbeing, in contrast, focuses on developing human potential, giving meaning and direction to life through the promotion of personal strengths and virtues (e.g., Ryff, 1989; Waterman, Schwartz, & Conti, 2008). This kind of wellbeing tries to answer the question, “What can I offer to the world?” Although emotions play an important role in the construction of the self (e.g., Church et al., 2014), this was not the sense addressed in most investigations on restoration theory, where it was limited to assessing the positive-negative emotions. Hedonic experiences seem to be more frequently studied (Henderson, Knight, & Richardson, 2013); however, the eudaimonic dimension of wellbeing is most closely linked to the development of positive and complex identities (Ryff & Singer, 2013), and complex constructions of the self are linked with subjective connections with nature (Arnocky, Stroink, & DeCicco, 2007; Clayton, 2012; DeCicco & Stroink, 2007; Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008; F. J. Olivos, Olivos, & Browne, 2017; P. Olivos & Aragonés, 2014).
Studies show that experiences with nature evoke childhood memories, possibly related to the early stages of socialization (Mena, Olivos, Navarro, Loureiro, & De Jesús, 2017; Schroeder, 2007; Thomashow, 1995). Hinds and Sparks (2011) observed that people who lived their childhood in a rural environment and who have acquired great experience in outdoor activities, are more aware, and show more positive emotions (eudaimonia) and fewer negative emotions (apprehension, anxiety) when asked to imagine their emotions in a natural environment. Environments that elicited high eudaimonia and low apprehension were mainly rivers and beaches; other environmental elements that scored high on both kinds of emotions were mountains, trees, forests, and valleys, while gardens and parks scored low on both emotions. Conversely, hills and crop fields have low levels of eudaimonia and have high levels of apprehension.
In this section, we try to develop an analysis of the virtue and sufficiency of the basic assumptions of wellbeing studies in environmental psychology, in light of specificities of local contexts, as well as intervention practices in community environmental psychology. The professionals who were trained in the last decades of the twentieth century were given values and tools to intervene in the community which have become obsolete in the face of the current reality characterized by inequality, conflict, and social struggle. Hegemonic ideas about concepts like “community,” “welfare state,” and “democracy,” which for decades encouraged a “civilizing” ideal – purportedly “altruistic” and “effective” – are broadly discussed in theoretical and practical terms today (Bengoa, 1996, 2006, 2009). From research groups to municipal assemblies, there is a shared zeitgeist marked by the question of how to organize the sense of our social reality and our place in it.
Academic ways to address these questions and social transformations range from a relapse into any of the various forms of scientistic fundamentalism to the adoption of radical critical positions. Those extreme positions are leaving the academy to join the ranks of the institutional state, political parties, or grass-roots social movements. However, in order for some academic practices to serve the wellbeing of society in a broad sense, it is important to redirect our critical analysis away from the objects we study and into the ways of our thinking (theory) as well as the margins of our feasible interventions (practices). As Kuhn (1962) pointed out, this path of redirecting our critical analysis from our objects of study leads to tension, discussion, and the transformation of paradigmatic visions, which nourish and sustain our scientific exercises.
In the field of psychology, Montero (2001) provided an exercise of critical reflection on the fundamental value of scientific practice, aiming to look beyond the ontologies, political interests, epistemes, methods, ethical frameworks, and conditions which we used to carry out our praxis. Since then, this path has been extended in different ways and by various authors (Díaz & González-Rey, 2012; Dorna, 2004; Ovejero, 2011; Parker, 2007; Prilleltensky, 2001, 2003). To contribute to the redirection of critical analysis, it is useful to go beyond the idea of “paradigmatic structure,” using two aspects of our practice: first, the analytical reflexive categories that allow us to reconsider the contents and meanings with which we articulate our scientific worldview; and second, our choices of these reflexive categories, which allow investigators to be questioned about their perspectives (perception, knowledge, experience) by the “others” with (and upon) whom they interact. The success of this reflection, and the incidence of choices in reproduction, resistance, or transformation of the social world where the “other” inhabits, lives, and dies, could revitalize the dialogue between universities and civil society, and the sense of responsibility implied in professional practice (e.g., Ernst, 2009, 2013; P. Olivos, 2005; P. Olivos & Pedroni, 2005).
If the historical interest of the vision and scientific practice is recognized and the position of the “subject of knowledge” is restored to the lay members of the community (Dussel, 1989), then the dialogue between academy and community could aspire to be frank and to transform our reality. It begins with the discussion of our ways of seeing the world (ontology), our ideals about social goods (ethics), and our strategies for keeping as close as possible to those righteous horizons (policy). From there, we start to build the mutual recognition needed to enable wider spaces of dialogue and cooperation. Only after taking these steps, in that logical order, will we have sufficient evidence to engage in true collective discussions, seeking agreements on what constitutes useful knowledge (epistemology) and the most appropriate procedures and techniques for building that knowledge (methodology).
If we were to try to apply this analytic proposal into the dominant paradigms within environmental psychology production (namely, research and intervention), we should start by asking some questions. First, what are the main ideas through which we conceive the environment, nature, society, and individuals? What or who composes them? What interacts (and how) with them? Second, how are these objects/subjects conceived from our particular theoretical frameworks? Finally, how do the ways of conceiving such objects/subjects contribute to reproduce, resist, or change the order of things in the imagined objects/subjects (community and/or environment)?
The epistemological and methodological considerations that underlie our professional practices are not fixed or immobile realities. They are the socially constructed results of the questioning process described earlier, and should not be imposed on the communities that are the object of our work. This approach would develop a dialogue that feeds on the multiple knowledges available as a product of the encounters between “experts” and “laypeople.”
From a symbolic vantage point constructed and shared between both academia and community, it is possible to rethink and reformulate an extensive part of our social theory and practice. The experiences of community environmental psychology provide an opportunity to achieve this change, as a specialized and viable theoretical – practical alternative, in contrast to the complete self-absorption that sometimes dominates large segments of theory and practice, in social psychology in particular (Ibáñez, 1997), as well as the social sciences, environmental interventions, and political decisions in general (Welp & Stoll-Kleemann, 2006).
In the next section, we review the critical perspectives that underlie the epistemological and methodological assumptions of community environmental psychology research. The definition of object and methodological choices from this perspective provides a number of alternatives for scientific production, the description of socio-environmental phenomena, and the potential emancipatory role of knowledge in the target communities.
In the beginning, critical approaches in environmental psychology had to overcome the limitations imposed by the prevailing political approaches to environmental and institutional issues, as well as concerns about citizen participation. These limitations posed problems for practices and explanations based on theories of behaviourism and materialism, because they were perfectly in tune with the spirit of their time.6 Perussia (1983) described these kinds of conceptual and methodological limitations and prejudices in an Italian context. In fact, it is likely that those negative conditions would have encouraged community environmental psychology in its further development.
Environmental psychology has developed an implicit critical perspective on the study of the physical environment, thanks to research focused on the occupation of urban space from a practical point of view. As we mentioned above, the definition of environmental psychology as an applied social psychology has had important effects on the conception of its subject of study, the role of the researchers, and their methods (Castro, 2006; Íñiguez & Vivas, 1997; Steg & Gifford, 2008; Stewart, 2000; Stokowski, 2002; Wiesenfeld, Sánchez, & Cronick, 2003). This approach to the study of the socio-environmental subjects has required the development of new methods, supported by constructivist epistemologies focused on qualitative approaches, seeking descriptions of biographical accounts through the analysis of narratives collected with methods associated with ethnography (Cabruja, Íñiguez, & Vázquez, 2000; Morehouse, 2008; Sánchez & Wiesenfeld, 2002; Tooth & Renshaw, 2009). In this direction, some authors have proposed the use of mixed methods, integrating qualitative analysis with graphical and quantitative data analysis (Berroeta & Vidal, 2012), or the combination of critical qualitative research with Barker’s behavioural observation surveys (Georgiou & Carspecken, 2002). The focus of community approaches was redirected from action research to other psychosocial subjects, which are defined from different variables, expressed in different levels of emergence, and compared with those usually studied in environmental psychology in order to analyze the relationship between wellbeing and environment. There are many studies highlighting the agency of the inhabitants of a given territory (i.e., their strength, organization, and capacity) to change their own wellbeing by reinforcing their sense of community and their collective political role into the environment, not only through positive emotions but also through quality of life (García, Giuliani, & Wiesenfeld, 1999; Grau-Solés, Íñiguez-Rueda, & Subirats, 2012; Íñiguez-Rueda, Martínez, Muñoz-Justicia, Peñaranda-Cólera, & Vitores, 2012; Rozas, 1998; Stokowski, 2002).
Studies aimed at achieving a dense description of the human phenomenon of inhabiting a physical space have highlighted the idea of sense of place (Berroeta, 2009; Berroeta & Muñoz, 2013; Cabruja et al., 2000; Savransky, 2012). These studies describe the demands for the construction of social identities related to territory and the transactions made to satisfy these demands in the economic and cultural market. As Bachelard (1957) discussed in his reflections on the phenomenological study of living spaces, imagination increases the value (price) of reality, particularly in the case of housing. The development of the study of the phenomenon of place identity has been an important part of the environmental psychology (Falk & Balatti, 2004; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001; Lewicka, 2011; Pol, Moreno, Guàrdia, & Íñiguez, 2002; Vidal, Berroeta, di Masso, Valera, & Peró, 2013). More recently, further studies have investigated the contents of identification processes related to nature (Clayton, 2012; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; P. Olivos & Aragonés, 2014; P. Olivos & Clayton, 2017).
Studies of quality of life are not the exclusive privilege of the community approach. The conventional approach to wellbeing, in terms of physical health, has also been employed to study the quality of life in cities. For example, Korpela and Ylén (2007) studied the responses of more than two hundred participants to a questionnaire on perceived health, and their preferences for visiting places in residential areas. Participants who reported certain health problems such as head, chest, and stomach pains, and fainting or light-headedness, were more likely to select natural places as their favourite sites, compared with those who reported few health complaints. These participants felt more benefits in emotional terms, experiencing positive feelings in their preferred natural and relaxing places.
Similarly, Pryor, Townsend, Maller, and Field (2006) observed positive results with participants undergoing addiction treatment. In a study-intervention case, seven women between 17 and 24 years, with different psychological and social addictions, participated in a 12-day program of outdoor experience in a natural desert environment in Australia, known as “bush adventure therapy.” Despite the limitations of these types of studies (small groups, absence of control groups, extensive covariance, etc.), the authors suggested that social environment, physical challenges, and contact with nature were key factors in increasing physical and mental health and wellbeing in participants. The experience as a whole, and particularly the use of their abilities to solve problems in a new environment, provided participants with opportunities for learning and discovering new abilities. They reported a positive impact on their identities and a sense of control over their experiences. They formed attachment relationships with others participants, and described experiences of connection, belonging, resilience, and personal security. There were also reductions in some symptoms of mental disorders. The natural environment facilitated revelations, as “insights” to vital aspects of their biographies, often through metaphors.
Unfortunately, only a few studies in environmental psychology have explicitly addressed the critical analysis of environmental problems, which is found more frequently in sociology (e.g., Brulle, 2000; King & McCarthy, 2005; Wehling, 2002) and anthropology (e.g., Aliste & Urquiza, 2010; Casagrande et al., 2007; Ingold, 2000; Milton, 2013). In one such study, Kondrat (2002) criticized the ecosystem perspective, which separates society and environment, offering a view from the critical theory approach, which emphasizes the bidirectional effects of the actions of human beings and changes in the environment. As we noted earlier, the author highlighted that while human behaviour is shaped by society and its structures, such structures are constructed, maintained, and recursively reproduced by the social actions of human agents over time.
An ontological discussion about the subjects of study and intervention must involve the construction of a different relationship between the object and professional practice. It begins with the problematization of the validity principle, in which we blindly trust our research methods without reflection. In this sense, the discussion within environmental psychology of the concepts of environment and nature is more relevant today than ever. This is necessary not only because of the unanswered questions about the relationship between human beings and the environment, but also by the sociocultural construction of the subject and our interactions with it, in everyday life as well as in scientific and professional practice.7
In the structure of psychological dynamics, emotions are to wellbeing as economy is to sustainability. In other words, despite the importance of studying emotional processes that underlie wellbeing, these are only one dimension of a wider and more complex phenomenon. For this reason, it is necessary to undertake a deep investigation of the adaptive sense of environmentally related emotions – both positive and negative – in terms of their cultural meaning (P. Olivos & Clayton, 2017). This requires going beyond mechanistic and analytical reduction in order to study the relationship between wellbeing and the environment. Some studies in environmental psychology have examined the process of social construction of relations with the environment, such as the anthropomorphic attribution that shapes perceptions of justice (e.g., Opotow, 1993), empathy (e.g., Sevillano, Aragonés, & Schultz, 2007), or conservation behaviours (e.g., Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013). However, there is a lack of deep discussion about the “ethical” sense of these processes in terms of wellbeing, which involve cultural studies of society, the sense of emotions in those imaginary scenarios and expectations, and the role of researchers/professionals in the (re)production of knowledge produced and developed from their work.
The social sciences can respond to this challenge with methodological designs that incorporate the subject/object as part of the interpretation of their descriptions and explanations. The scientific aspirations of objectivity (Maturana, 1997) and generalization (Horkheimer, 2000) should build their principles of validity and reliability according to meaningful descriptions and explanations for and within communities of interest for social psychologies. For example, the distinction of first, second, and third orders of analysis levels, proposed by Geertz (1973), could help the field to develop appropriate methodological devices, in terms of research designs and tools, that are able to provide meaningful explanations (e.g., P. Olivos, 2001). Moreover, the empirical contrast designs could be carried out in accordance with the principles of action research advocated by Lewin (1946), taking into account that samples should not only be valued for their size, statistics for their significance or effect sizes, or algorithms by their fashionability. Environmental psychologists can promote this research framework to develop comprehensive, professional responses to local ecological impacts related to global environmental problems (Stokols, 2006; Stokols, Misra, Runnerstrom, & Hipp, 2009), especially taking into account the impact that immediate social networks have on the evaluation of personal subjective well-being. A recent study was conducted with more than two thousand participants who answered a life satisfaction scale, as a measurement of subjective wellbeing (F. J. Olivos et al., 2017). It showed that downward social comparison, with the worst reference group, produces an increase in individual perception of life satisfaction; meanwhile, upward comparison produces a decrease in the same perception.
With regard to the “political” issue, discussions are focused on the emancipatory (or not) role of knowledge and experience in the communities with which the psychologist works. First, the relations established between professional enlightened knowledge, “intellectuals”, and the repositories of popular wisdom, “laymen”, have changed and become more complex over time. In the nineteenth century, professionals went from being regarded as oracles of laypeople to teachers of them. In the twentieth century, we have seen a similar trend, but this time the transition was from that of a spokesperson to that of a companion, with professionals building horizontal and collaborative relationships with different actors from the laymen’s world, with a commitment to humility and wisdom (Ernst, 2013). These changes have brought about the “emancipated – emancipatory” style of production of knowledge.
This interconnection of knowledge, known as “new deal,” reflects much more than just a generational change. It has also been the key factor for opening the willingness of important part of the scientific “old guard” and stakeholders. The Gulbenkian Commission, at the end of the last century (Wallerstein, 1996), made a call for the “restructuring” and “opening” of the social sciences, to return to the values of internal and external criticism by examining the concepts and paradigms that do not recognize the social need for change (Walkerdine, 2002).
The interconnection of knowledge, in this new deal, must also generate new links and trust with communities. The task is not easy, because of the accumulated decades of extractive practices of knowledge and perverse alliances with the official powers (Aubry, 2007; Welp & Stoll-Kleemann, 2006), but also because of the profound changes in psychological praxis and community relationships that have been experienced in the last 50 years. For example, due to encroaching development of electronic communication technologies, the need for permanent territorial locations and a regular face-to-face contact in working among and or with members of new communities has been questioned. We have seen the emergence of expressions such as “virtual community” (Krause, 2001), “personalized learning environments” (P. Olivos, Segovia, Honrubia, & Gómez, 2013), or “self-organised learning environments” (Mitra & Dangwal, 2010). Despite the discrepancies that constructivist approaches have produced (Montero, 2004), the tension that exists between the “logic of relationship” and “logic of connection” must be recognized (Bauman, 2003). These technological changes call into question our conventional conceptions of affections, democracy or learning. Something similar is also happening in the physical world, where recent migration processes due to war or instability of the labour market (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2013; Cuenca et al., 2014) also pose new scenarios for the psychological processes studied by environmental psychology, in which the definition of identity is linked to place.
According to the Chilean anthropologist, José Bengoa, contemporary communities are trapped in one of three different situations. First, as a “lost community” (1996), based on a nostalgic identity of the rural cultural experience from which they have come. Second, as a “fragmented community” (2009), based on an identity threatened by the pressure of modernization (without modernity), which represents the tension and potential division imposed by the new-colonization of business and technology. Finally, there is the “imagined community” (2006), based on a hopeful identity of freedom and modernity in relationships, tired of so much bondage and modernization of things. To understand how modern Western communities, like many others in their periphery today, face up to the multiple challenges for their reproduction and projection throughout time, it is necessary to know their position in their society.
The development of a greater “sense of crisis” in the population is another fact that elicits the progress of this kind of “transformative agenda.” The discrediting of politics works in favour of the recovery of political awareness or freedom of collective will (Mouffe, 2007). This scenario allows the extension of a critical attitude to government decisions in the economic and cultural fields, thus outlining a new context that attempts to impose limits on the action of interest groups who profit from the status quo.8
This critical sense, extended to the sphere of ecological consideration, leads us for the first time to rethink the ways in which we produce and consume, with the aim of ensuring our survival, not only of our communities but also of our species (Löwy, 2014). The green political agenda has found a place in the world (Clapp & Dauvergne, 2008; Goodin, 1992). “The Greens” have begun to appear as an alternative to the lukewarm and worn down “Progressives,” against the strengthening of the extreme right wing, as shown by some recent national elections in Europe.
It is vital to contribute to the articulation of the “new deal” and to abandon the disciplinary fundamentalisms imposed by the “ownership” of certain “subjects” and the “absolute truth” claimed by certain “respected fields.” This is a further aspect of what, according to Beck (1999), is a fallacy of modernity in the form of an illusion of control in what he calls the “risk society.” It is crucial to the success of these emancipatory proposals to overcome the anachronistic view, which considers the different disciplinary fields of the social sciences as watertight tanks. Various forms of multidisciplinary output are possible: Both interdisciplinary (based on the dialogue between fields) and transdisciplinary (going beyond the limits of each field) outputs can both represent useful alternatives for environmental psychology (Stokols et al., 2009).
With regard to theories and scientific practices, it is important to ask ourselves some questions, such as “for whom do we work?”, “how are our skills and knowledge put to use?”, and, by extension, “what are the results and applications derived from them?” We can best address those questions based on the subjects discussed in the present chapter, focusing on those urgent issues for action research in environmental psychology to build a comprehensive study of wellbeing.
We would like to thank Professor Mario Sergio de León for his comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
1We emphasize the expression “natural environment,” also known as “green environment,” in contrast to “built environment,” because our focus is on conservation psychology (Clayton, 2012). Researchers in this field study different topics such as sustainable design practices or “green building” (Gifford, 2014), green electricity policy (Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Hansla, Gamble, Juliusson, & Gärling, 2008), or green identity (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), among others.
2The term “welfare” is often used to mean a kind of social support (in the form of financial or other benefits) provided to individuals by organisations or states. However, the Cambridge English Dictionary (2016) includes another definition of “welfare,” namely “physical and mental health and happiness, especially of a person.” This definition is often confused with “wellbeing” in some documents (particularly in economy and other social sciences); hence this note. In environmental psychology, as positive psychology in general, we use “wellbeing” (or “well-being” in the United States and Canada, where two of the most important environmental psychology journals are published).
3This is a common term in environmental psychology research (e.g., Boding & Hartig, 2003; Hartig, Kaiser, & Bowler, 2001; Hartig & Staats, 2006; Staats & Hartig, 2004).
4This study was carried out with data collected from 1,500 participants living in Ireland.
5In this study the authors included several variables, such as whether or not participants worked in a garden, occupational level, education, number of working hours per week, net monthly family income, civil status (marriage or partnership), etc. A total of 17 dummy variables were tested in the structural models, but none of them were found to have positive effects on wellbeing.
6Behaviourism laid the theoretical foundations and some of the most important practices for environmental manipulation to produce effects on human behaviour. However, we must remember that studies like those of John Watson were acclaimed by a culture that valued success, although the rules that we consider appropriate ethical guidelines for scientific research today were widely transgressed.
7Other professionals have specialised in this kind of questions. For a deep revision of anthropological meanings of nature in human societies, see the work of Philippe Descola (1994, 2005) and Tim Ingold (1986, 2000).
8Some commentators from history and economics have pointed out signs that they claim portend the end of capitalism (e.g., Hussey, 2014; Mason, 2015). We need to build an environmental psychology for the future, where wellbeing studies will need to be reconceptualised.
Aliste, E., & Urquiza, A. (2010). Medio ambiente y sociedad: Conceptos, metodologías y experiencias de las ciencias sociales y humanas [Environment and Society: Concepts, methodologies, and experiences of social and human sciences]. Santiago, Chile: RIL Editores.
Arnocky, S., Stroink, M., & DeCicco, T. (2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 255–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.005
Astell-Burt, T., Mitchell, R., & Hartig, T. (2014). The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 68, 578–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203767
Aubry, A. (2007). Los intelectuales y el poder. Otra ciencia social [Intellectuals and power: A different social science]. Contrahistorias: La otra mirada de Clío, 8, 111–116.
Bachelard, G. (1957). La poétique de l’espace [The poetry of space]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1999). What is globalization? Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bengoa, J. (1996). La comunidad perdida. Identidad y cultura: Desafíos de la modernización en Chile [The lost community. Identity and culture: Challenges of modernization in Chile]. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones SUR.
Bengoa, J. (2006). La comunidad reclamada. Identidades, utopías y memorias en la sociedad chilena [The community reclaimed: Identities, utopias, and memories in Chilean society]. Santiago, Chile: Catalonia.
Bengoa, J. (2009). La comunidad fragmentada. Nación y desigualdad en Chile [The fragmented community: Nation and inequality in Chile]. Santiago, Chile: Catalonia.
Berman, M. G., Jonides J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
Berroeta, H. (2009). Simbolismo y acción colectiva en la configuración del espacio patrimonial urbano [Symbolism and collective action in shaping the urban heritage space]. In P. Andueza (Ed.), El patrimonio cultural: Como factor de desarrollo en Chile. Bases teóricas y metodológicas de una gestión con enfoque ecosistémico [Cultural heritage as a factor of development in Chile: Theoretical and methodological foundations for ecosystem-based management] (pp. 59–77). Valparaíso, Chile: Universidad de Valparaíso.
Berroeta, H., & Muñoz, M. I. (2013). Usos y significados del espacio público en personas en situación de calle. Un estudio en Valparaíso y Viña del Mar [Uses and meanings of public space for people on the street. A study in Valparaiso and Vina del Mar]. Revista de Psicología, 22(2), 3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5354/0719-0581.2013.30849
Berroeta, H., & Vidal, T. (2012). Una propuesta multimétodo para un abordaje transaccional del espacio público en la escala de barrio [A multi-method proposal to study the public space in the scale of neighborhood from a transactional approach]. Athenea Digital, 12(1), 209–237.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1359–1386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00168-8
Boding, M., & Hartig, T. (2003). Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 141–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00038-3
Brereton, F., Clinch, J. P., & Ferreira, S. (2008). Happiness, geography and the environment. Ecological Economics, 65, 386–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.008
Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bullinger, M., Kirchberger, I., & Ware, J. (1995). Der deutsche SF-36 Health Survey Übersetzung und psychometrische Testung eines krankheitsübergreifenden Instruments zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität [The German SF-36 Health Survey. Translation and psychometric testing of a generic instrument for the assessment of health-related quality of life]. Journal of Public Health, 3, 21–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02959944
Burns, G. W. (2005). Naturally happy, naturally healthy: The role of the natural environment in well-being. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 405–431). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cabruja, T., Íñiguez, L., & Vázquez, F. (2000). Cómo construimos el mundo: Relativismo, espacios de relación y narratividad [How we built the world: Relativism, relationship spaces, and narratives]. Anàlisi, 25, 61–94.
Cambridge English Dictionary. (2016). Meaning of “welfare” in the English dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/welfare
Canter, D. V., & Craik, K. H. (1981). Environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(81)80013-8
Carrus, G., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Dentamaro, I., Scopelliti, M., & Sanesi, G. (2013). Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. Psyecology, 4, 227–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/217119713807749869
Casagrande, D., Hope, D., Farley-Metzger, E., Cook, W., Yabiku, S., & Redman, C. (2007). Problem and opportunity: Integrating anthropology, ecology, and policy through adaptive experimentation in the urban U. S. southwest. Human Organization, 66, 125–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.17730/humo.66.2.h5277q2u27354358
Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2013). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Castro, P. (2006). Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: Contributions from the social representations approach. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 247–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.864
Cerina, V., & Fornara, F. (2011). The psychological determinants of attitudes toward relocation in the elderly: A survey study in urban and rural environments. Psyecology, 2, 335–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/217119711797877744
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., de Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Curtis, G. J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., … Simon, J.-Y. R. (2014). Relating self-concept consistency to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 695–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022114527347
Clapp, J., & Dauvergne, P. (2008). Paths to a green world: The political economy of the global environment. New Delhi, India: Academic Foundation.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00105-6
Clayton, S. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. Clayton (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 164–180). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Corral Verdugo, V. (2012). The positive psychology of sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14, 651–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9346-8
Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J., Tapia, C., & Fraijo-Sing, B. (2011). Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Human Ecology Review, 18(2), 95–104.
Cuenca, C., Díaz-Catalán, C., Díaz, L., Arcadio, P., Gentile, A., & Zúñiga, R. (2014). La emigración de los jóvenes españoles en el contexto de la crisis. Análisis y datos de un fenómeno difícil de cuantificar [The emigration of young Spanish people in the context of the crisis: Analysis and data of a phenomenon that is difficult to quantify]. Madrid, Spain: INJUVE. Retrieved from www.injuve.es/sites/default/files/2014/17/publicaciones/Emigracion%20jovenes_0.pdf
Dasgupta, P. (2001). Human well-being and the natural environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 257–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.004
DeCicco, T., & Stroink, M. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82–104.
Descola, P. (1994). In the society of nature: A native ecology in Amazonia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Descola, P. (2005). Par-delà nature et culture [Beyond nature and culture]. Paris, France: Gallimard.
Detweiler, M. B., Murphy, P., Myers, L. C., & Kim, K. (2008). Does a wander garden influence inappropriate behaviors in dementia residents? American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 23, 31–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1533317507309799
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Preferences over inflation and unemployment: Evidence from surveys of happiness. American Economic Review, 91, 335–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.335
Díaz, A., & González-Rey, F. (2012). Subjetividad política y psicologías sociales críticas en Latinoamérica: Ideas a dos voces [Political subjectivity and critical social psychology in Latin America: Ideas with two voices]. Universitas Psychologica, 11, 325–338.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Diette, G. B., Lechtzin, N., Haponik, E., Devrotes, A., & Rubin, H. R. (2003). Distraction therapy with nature settings and sounds reduces pain during flexible bronchoscopy. Chest, 123, 941–948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.123.3.941
Dorna, A. (2004). La psicología política: Un paradigma transversal para las ciencias humanas y sociales [Political psychology: A transversal social paradigm for the human and social sciences]. Indaga, 2004(2), 53–74.
Dussel, E. (1989). Filosofía de la liberación [The philosophy of liberation]. Mexico City, Mexico: Asociación de Filosofía de la Liberación.
Ernst, R. (2009). Rebeldía, autonomía y resistencia. Entrevista a autoridades comunitarias zapatista desde el Caracol “Resistencia hacia un nuevo amanecer” [Rebellion, autonomy, and resistance: Interview with Zapatista authorities from the regional; community “Resistance towards a new dawn”]. Consideraciones, 1(November), 13–18.
Ernst, R. (2013). Del pensar domesticado al pensar emancipado. Notas sobre la transformación del trabajo intelectual en América Latina [From domesticated to emancipated thinking: Notes on the transformation of intellectual work in Latin America]. Andamios, 10(21), 279–301.
Falk, I., & Balatti, J. (2004, March). Identities of place: Their power and consequences for VET. Paper presented at the 7th Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association Conference, Canberra. Retrieved from www.avetra.org.au/Conference_Archives/2004/documents/PA060FalkBalatti.PDF
Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 160–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.006
Felsten, G. (2014). Personality predicts perceived potential for attention restoration of natural and urban scenes. Psyecology, 5, 37–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.881663
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Gowdy, J. M. (2007). Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecological Economics, 60, 509–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.005
Fleury-Bahi, G., Pol, E., & Navarro, O. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research. New York, NY: Springer.
García, I., Giuliani, F., & Wiesenfeld, E. (1999). Community and sense of community: The case of an urban barrio in Caracas. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 727–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6629%28199911%2927%3A6%3C727%3A%3AAID-JCOP7%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Y
Gatersleben, B. (2008). Humans and nature: Ten useful findings from environmental psychology research. Counselling Psychology Review, 23, 24–34.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Georgiou, D., & Carspecken, P. F. (2002). Critical ethnography and ecological psychology: Conceptual and empirical explorations of a synthesis. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 688–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800402238074
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., & Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.003
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (5th ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
Goldberg, D. P., & Blackwell, B. (1970). Psychiatric illness in general practice: A detailed study using a new method of case identification. British Medical Journal, 2(5707), 439–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5707.439
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Goodin, R. (1992). Green political theory. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Grau-Solés, M., Íñiguez-Rueda, L., & Subirats, J. (2012). Una perspectiva híbrida y no-moderna para los estudios urbanos [A hybrid and non-modern perspective for urban studies]. Athenea Digital, 12(1), 89–108.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy Policy, 36, 768–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.027
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 590–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973142
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.007
Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic behaviour. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 322–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.803596
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2011). The affective quality of human-natural environment relationships. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 451–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147470491100900314
Horkheimer, M. (2000). Teoría tradicional y teoría crítica [Traditional and critical theory]. Barcelona, Spain: Paidós.
Horsburgh, C. R. (1995). Healing by design. New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 735–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199509143331117
Hussey, A. (2014, April 13). Occupy was right: Capitalism has failed the world. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/13/occupy-right-capitalism-failed-world-french-economist-thomas-piketty
Ibáñez, T. (1997). Why a critical social psychology? In T. Ibáñez & L. Íñiguez (Eds.), Critical social psychology (pp. 27–41). London, England: SAGE.
Ingold, T. (1986). The appropriation of nature: Essays on human ecology and social relations. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, England: Routledge.
Íñiguez, L., & Vivas, J. (1997). Reflexiones teórico-metodológicas sobre la intervención medio-ambiental [Theoretical and methodological reflections on environmental intervention]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 67. Retrieved from www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/vernumero.asp?id=747
Íñiguez-Rueda, L., Martínez, L. M., Muñoz-Justicia, J., Peñaranda-Cólera, M. C., & Vitores, A. (2012). Telecenters as association stations: The role of information and communication technologies in migratory processes. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(4), 75–105.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5, 145–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391657300500202
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973115
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and Behavior, 5, 311–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916583153003
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916583153003
Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 163–203). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 395–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.395
King, L., & McCarthy, D. (2005). Environmental sociology: From analysis to action. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Knopf, R. C. (1983). Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 205–240). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Kondrat, M. E. (2002). Actor-centered social work: Re-visioning “person-in-environment” through a critical theory lens. Social Work, 47, 435–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/47.4.435
Korpela, K. M., & Ylén, M. (2007). Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favourite places in the vicinity. Health & Place 13, 138–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.11.002
Krause, M. (2001). Hacia una redefinición del concepto de comunidad [Toward a redefinition of the concept of community]. Revista de Psicología, 10(2), 49–60.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Jr., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., … Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.326
Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one’s sense of self. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 137–147). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Löwy, M. (2014). Ecosocialismo. La alternativa radical a la catástrofe ecológica capitalista [Ecosocialism: The radical alternative to the capitalist ecological catastrophe]. Cali, Colombia: Caña Verde.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041
Mason, P. (2015, July 17). The end of capitalism has begun. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
Maturana, H. (1997). La objetividad. Un argumento para obligar [Objectivity – An argument to force]. Santiago, Chile: Dolmen.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
Mena, A., Olivos, P., Navarro, O., Loureiro, A., & De Jesús, J. (2017). Memories evoked in contact with nature and their relationship with identity and environmental concerns. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Merrero, R. J., & Carballeira, M. (2010). Contact with nature and personal well-being. Psyecology, 3, 371–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/217119710792774825
Milton, K. (2013). Environmentalism and cultural theory: Exploring the role of anthropology in environmental discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mitra, S., & Dangwal, R. (2010). Limits to self-organising systems of learning – The Kalikuppam experiment. British Journal of Education Technology, 41, 672–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01077.x
Montero, M. (2001). Ética y política en psicología. Las dimensiones no reconocidas [Ethics and politics in psychology: Unrecognized dimensions]. Athenea Digital, 0, 1–10. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/1226775.pdf
Montero, M. (2004). Introducción a la psicología comunitaria. Desarrollo, conceptos y procesos [Introduction to community psychology: Development, concepts, and processes]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
Morehouse, A. (2008). A deeper meaning of place. Environmental Education Research, 14, 693–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620802547231
Mouffe, C. (2007). En torno a lo político [On politics]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Nisbet, E. (2015). Answering nature’s call: Commitment to nature contact increases well-being. Vancouver, BC: David Suzuki Foundation.
Nordh, H., Hagerhall, C. M., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). Exploring view pattern and analysing pupil size as a measure of restorative qualities in park photos. Acta Horticulturae, 881, 767–772. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.881.126
Olivos, F. J., Olivos, P., & Browne, M. (2017). Similarity as a standard of comparison and subjective well-being: A social comparison approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Olivos, P. (2001). (In)Seguridad humana en las sociedades del riesgo: Estudio de las consecuencias de la modernidad aplicado al ámbito del trabajo [Human (in)security in societies at risk: Study of the consequences of modernity applied to the world of work] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
Olivos, P. (2005). Educación para el desarrollo sustentable: Creando las bases de una política nacional [Education for sustainable development: Creating the foundations of a national policy]. Revista Educación Ambiental, 5, 28–30.
Olivos, P., & Aragonés, J. I. (2014). Medio ambiente, self y conectividad con la naturaleza [Environment, self, and connection to nature]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 31(1), 71–77.
Olivos, P., & Clayton, S. (2017). Self, nature and well-being: Sense of connectedness and environmental identity for quality of life. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research (pp. 107–126). New York, NY: Springer.
Olivos, P., Mena, A., Loureiro, A., & Rosa, P. (2017). Dimensiones del self, conectividad y bienestar en relación a la frecuencia de actividades de contacto con la naturaleza [Dimensions of self, connectedness, and wellbeing in relation to the frequency of activities in contact with nature]. In F. Bernardo & A. Loureiro. (Eds.), Espaços e comportamento humano: Do local ao global [Spaces and human behavior: From local to global]: Proceedings of the XIV Conference of Environmental Psychology, Évora. Portugal, pp. 195–196.
Olivos, P., & Pedroni, G. (2005). La gestión ambiental local: Conceptos, experiencias y alcances desde la gestión ambiental regional [Local Environmental Management: Concepts, experiences, and achievements from regional environmental management]. In P. Gross, J. Ulloa, & R. Arrué (Eds.), Gestión ambiental local [Local environmental management] (pp. 41–56). Santiago, Chile: Surambiente.
Olivos, P., Segovia, A., Honrubia, A., & Gómez, E. (2013, October). Ambientes personalizados de aprendizaje. Una experiencia de formación en el Centro de Energías Renovables de la UCLM [Personalized learning environments: An experience with training in the UCLM Renewable Energy Center]. Paper presented at the International Conference of Environmental Psychology, Barcelona, Spain.
Opotow, S. (1993). Animals and the scope of justice. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00909.x
Ovejero, A. (2011). Psicología y contexto social: El desarrollo histórico de la psicología social y sus implicaciones para el futuro [Psychology and social context: The historical development of social psychology and its implications for the future]. In A. Ovejero & J. Ramos (Eds.), Psicología social crítica (pp. 23–45). Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.
Parker, I. (2007). Revolution in psychology: Alienation to emancipation. London, England: Pluto Press.
Perussia, F. (1983). A critical approach to environmental psychology in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 263–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80005-X
Pijanowski, B. C., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., Dumyahn, S. L., Farina, A., Krause, B. L., Napoletano, B. M., … Pieretti, N. (2011). Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience, 61, 203–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6
Pol, E., Moreno, E., Guàrdia, J., & Íñiguez, L. (2002). Identity, quality of life, and sustainability in an urban suburb of Barcelona: Adjustment to the city-identity-sustainability network structural model. Environment and Behavior, 34, 67–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034001005
Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving towards social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 747–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010417201918
Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression: Towards psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 195–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023043108210
Proshansky, H. M. (1976). Environmental psychology and the real world. American Psychologist, 31, 303–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.31.4.303
Pryor, A., Townsend, M., Maller, C., & Field, K. (2006). Health and well-being naturally: ‘Contact with nature’ in health promotion for targeted individuals, communities and populations. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 17, 114–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/HE06114
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002
Rozas, G. (1998). Psicología comunitaria, ciudad y calidad de vida [Community psychology, the city, and quality of life]. Revista de Psicología de la Universidad de Chile, 7, 69–80.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2013). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. In A. Delle Fave (Ed.), The exploration of happiness: Present and future perspectives (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Sagar, A. (2007). Review of ecology and human well-being: Nature and society in Himachal Pradesh. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33, 301–302.
Sánchez, E., & Wiesenfeld, E. (2002). Construction of theory in environmental psychology: A view from the socioconstructionist perspective. In. R. Garciá-Mira, J. M. Sabucedo, & J. Romay (Eds.), Culture, quality of life – Problems and challenges for the new millennium (IAPS 17 Conference Proceedings) (pp. 733–734).
Savransky, M. (2012). Will there be a place for my life? Cities, subjectivities and geographies of resistance. Athenea Digital, 12(1), 191–206.
Schroeder, H. W. (2007). Place experience, gestalt, and the human – nature relationship. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 293–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.07.001
Sevillano, V., Aragonés, J. I., & Schultz, P. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environment and Behavior, 39, 685–705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292334
Sommer, R. (1997). Benchmarks in environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0035
Staats, H., Gatersleben, B., & Hartig, T. (1997). Change in mood as a function of environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 283–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0069
Staats, H., & Hartig, T. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005
Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2008). Social psychology and environmental problems. In L. Steg, A. P. Buunk, & T. Rothengatter (Eds.). Applied social psychology: Understanding and managing social problems (pp. 184–205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, E. (2000). Thinking through others. Qualitative research and community psychology. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 725–736). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Steyer, R., Notz, P., Schwenkmezger, P., & Eid, M. (1997). Der mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDBF) [The Multidimensional Comfort Questionnaire (MDBF)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 79–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Runnerstrom, M. G., & Hipp, J. A. (2009). Psychology in an age of ecological crisis. From personal angst to collective action. American Psychologist, 64, 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014717
Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 368–382.
Tam, K.-P., Lee, S.-L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 514–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., … Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick – Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Thomashow, M. (1995). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thompson, C. W. (2011). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 187–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.006
Tooth, R., & Renshaw, P. (2009). Reflections on pedagogy and place: A journey into learning for sustainability through environmental narrative and deep attentive reflection. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 95–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600000434
Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
Veenhoven, R. (1997). Advances in the understanding of happiness. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 18(2), 29–74.
Veenhoven, R. (2004). World database of happiness: Continuous register of research on subjective appreciation of life. In W. Glatzer, S. Von Below, & M. Stoffregen (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life in the contemporary world (pp. 75–89). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Vidal, T., Berroeta, H., di Masso, A., Valera, S., & Peró, M. (2013). Apego al lugar, identidad de lugar, sentido de comunidad y participación en un contexto de renovación urbana [Place attachment, place identity, sense of community and participation in a context of urban renewal]. Estudios de Psicología, 34, 275–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021093913808295172
Walkerdine, V. (2002). Psicología crítica y neo-liberalismo. Perspectivas europeas y latinoamericanas en diálogo [Critical psychology and neo-liberalism: Dialogue between European and Latin American perspectives]. In I. Piper (Ed.), Políticas, sujetos y resistencias. Debates y críticas en psicología social (pp. 107–134). Santiago, Chile: Universidad Arcis.
Wallenius, M. (1999). Personal projects in everyday places: Perceived supportiveness of the environment and psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 131–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0118
Wallerstein, I. (Ed.). (1996). Open the social sciences-Report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Waterman, A., Schwartz, S., & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 41–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Wehling, P. (2002). Dynamic constellations of the individual, society, and nature: Critical theory and environmental sociology. In R. E. Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights (pp. 144–166). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Welp, M., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2006). Integrative theory of reflexive dialogues. In S. Stoll-Kleemann & M. Welp (Eds.), Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management: Theory and practice (pp. 43–78). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Welsch, H. (2006). Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecological Economics, 58, 801–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.006
Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Wiesenfeld, E., Sánchez, E., & Cronick, K. (2003). Participatory action research as a participatory approach to addressing environmental issues. In. R. Garciá-Mira, J. M. Sabucedo, & J. Romay (Eds.), Culture, environmental action, and sustainability (pp. 85–100). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe and Huber.
World Health Organization. (1997). WHOQOL: Measuring quality of life. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdf