Louise Chawla- Community Engagement, Design and Research Center, Program in Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States
Introduction
A rapidly expanding body of research documents that access to nature in places of everyday life, including learning environments, promotes healthy functioning and wellbeing (for recent reviews, see Kuo et al., 2019; Jimenez et al., 2021). What mechanisms explain this effect? There is an active search to answer this question, as explanations can help guide investments in greening public places and naturalizing school grounds in order to achieve optimal outcomes.
Two major perspectives characterize the current search for answers. One is a medical model that compares natural settings to a type of medication that needs to be administered in the right dose and formulation. It seeks to deliver scientific evidence about the benefits of exposure to nature to decision-makers in fields like public health, urban planning, parks, recreation, and education. In this case, professionals in these fields serve like “physicians” who provide nature to “patients” by greening settings of daily life to produce automatic physiological benefits and encourage healthy activities like exercise and social connection. This is an important direction for research and practice. Another perspective is a transactional approach that seeks to understand opportunities that natural environments provide for people to exercise capabilities and satisfy basic needs that sustain a flourishing life. In this case, people are viewed as active agents in their own development, and the goal is to provide natural settings that are well stocked with resources that support positive development, in social contexts that encourage engagement.
The following sections identify theories and hypotheses consistent with each perspective. Because a transactional perspective is applied less often in the literature on health and wellbeing, this opinion piece will present it in more detail. The conclusion suggests outcomes from learning in nature that a transactional approach is well suited to explore.
Passive exposure to nature
An underlying assumption of the medical model is that just being exposed to nature benefits people even without their conscious awareness, due to direct physiological, emotional, and cognitive effects. Evidence consistent with this premise includes many studies that show reduced stress in natural settings vs. built spaces, improved immune system activity, and better working memory and attentional control (Kondo et al., 2018; Stevenson et al., 2018; Corazon et al., 2019; Andersen et al., 2021). These are experimentally demonstrated short-term effects, but epidemiological studies indicate that having nature nearby can also have long-term benefits, including lower rates of depression, anxiety and other illnesses, and lower mortality rates, especially from cardiovascular diseases (Maas et al., 2009; Gascon et al., 2016; Jimenez et al., 2021). Commonly, people report that they feel greater wellbeing and better general health when they are in nature or live among green surroundings (Bowler et al., 2010).
Most hypotheses put forward to explain these effects share an evolutionary premise: humans evolved in natural environments, and therefore our bodies and minds function best in natural surroundings, on the condition that settings signal safety and security. The most commonly cited theories of this kind are the “stress reduction theory” of Ulrich (1983) and the “attention restoration theory” of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). Other lines of explanation follow the “old friends” hypothesis of Rook (2013), who argued that the human immune system needs exposure to biodiverse microorganisms in natural habitats to function efficiently, and the claim of Li (2010) that trees and other vegetation vaporize essential oils that boost immune functioning. Joye and van den Berg (2011) propose that natural surroundings are restorative because the human visual system fluently processes the structure of natural settings, including its fractal patterns (see Table 1). The evolutionary premises behind these theories are points of discussion (e.g., Heft, 2021; van den Berg, 2021).
Table 1. Theorizing benefits of time in nature for learning and wellbeing.
Some researchers note that nearby nature affords healthy exercise and outdoor social interactions (e.g., Ward Thompson and Aspinall, 2011; Russell et al., 2013; Markevych et al., 2017; Hartig, 2021). In their review of studies of nature-based learning, Kuo et al. (2019) observed that natural settings foster autonomy and more cohesive and cooperative social relations. These suggestions have not been theorized, however, at the same level as physiological effects. The following section presents theoretical frameworks consistent with these and other benefits.
Active engagement with nature
A transactional approach to learning and wellbeing views people as active agents who seek to fulfill basic needs and capabilities as they engage with the world, and who rely on supportive physical and social conditions (see Table 1) Three prominent examples of this perspective are a capabilities approach to development, self-determination theory, and ecological psychology. In the 1980s, the economist Sen (1985) advanced a capabilities approach to human welfare. With colleagues, he drew on Aristotle's idea of eudaimonic happiness, or “being well and doing well” in different realms of human functioning (Aristotle, 2014/ca. 350 B.C.E.). Sen emphasized that each society needs open debates to identify these valued capabilities; but to get discussion going, Nussbaum (2011) proposed 10 central capabilities. Her list includes living with concern for and in relation to animals, plants and the natural world as one of the components of a fully realized human life (For suggestions regarding how access to nature can help children realize all 10 capabilities, see Chawla, 2015). Central to this approach, people must be free to choose how they want to express their capabilities, with the recognition that these expressions are likely to be culturally shaped.
Similar ideas have deep roots in psychology among theorists who propose that people strive to fulfill their human potential (e.g. Maslow, 1954; White, 1959). In this tradition, the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985) focuses on motivations that underlie the development of capabilities. According to Ryan and Deci (2017), people are born with three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the sense of feeling cared for and caring for others in turn. They present a large body of evidence that people find their lives satisfying and meaningful when conditions support fulfillment of these needs; whereas people experience more anxiety, depression and ill health when these needs are thwarted. Recently, Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 263–6) suggested that time in nature may be another basic need because it activates intrinsic motivation; catalyzes a sense of vitality and wellbeing; and encourages positive social relations, prosocial tendencies, and community cohesion (see also Baxter and Pelletier, 2019).
Ryan and Deci (2017, pp. 613–4) align their ideas with a capabilities approach to development, as both bodies of work adopt Aristotle's eudaimonic view of happiness and emphasize the importance of autonomy, or free choice in action. Empirical research suggests a good fit between the theories. People who say that they are actualizing Nussbaum's 10 capabilities are more likely to say that they feel happiness, vitality, meaning in life, and life satisfaction; while experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness mediate these outcomes (DeHaan et al., 2016).
The ecological psychologist Gibson (1986) introduced the idea of “affordances” in the sense of features of the environment that provide people with possibilities for action and experience. The concept is widely applied in environmental design to create a good fit between people's goals and capabilities and the environment's provisions; but its embeddedness in a view of wellbeing that involves autonomy, agency, relationship, and living wisely within ecological limits is less often acknowledged (Gibson, 1986; Reed, 1996a; Chawla, 2021). Gibson extended the concept to social affordances that people offer each other; and Reed (1996b) discussed the role of social influences and social learning in accessing, detecting and using affordances.
Conclusion: Creating conditions for wellbeing
What do these theories of capability, self-determination, and affordances offer, beyond medical models of nature's value, to help researchers understand how the natural world contributes to learning and wellbeing and help practitioners create settings for optimal functioning? Epidemiological studies offer a “zoom out” view that establishes that people with more greenery around their homes and nearby green spaces have lower rates of physical and mental illnesses. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies “zoom in” closer. Through observation and real-time measures like biomarkers, cognitive tests, and mood reports, they show how people respond to specific settings. Theories related to capabilities, self-determination and affordances invite research to zoom in from a different perspective. Exactly what do natural areas provide, compared to built spaces, that facilitates the development of different capabilities and experiences of competence, relatedness and autonomy? How do social interactions influence environmental use, and vice versa?
Many theory-driven research designs can fit here. For example, observations and videos that show how people interact with affordances of the environment, individually and in groups, can be combined with assessments of developing capabilities over time, as well as measures of autonomy, competence, and qualities of relatedness to other people and to nature (e.g. Sleev and Allan, 2019; Lee et al., 2021; Pollin and Retzlaff-Furst, 2021). GPS tracking, surveys, and qualitative methods like mapping, drawing and interviews can gather where people go, what they do and feel in places, what they find meaningful, and why (e.g. Chawla et al., 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). A focus on people's agency invites participatory research, planning and design to understand people's own views about how to create places that meet their needs (Derr et al., 2018).
Ideas about capabilities, self-determination and affordances are well suited to understand settings that promote learning. For children, free play and exploration are important means of learning. Decades of research indicate that nature spaces support better balance and coordination than built playgrounds, and nature's “loose parts” (Nicholson, 1971) encourage more dramatic, imaginative, constructive and cooperative play, associated with creativity and social-emotional learning (Wojciehowski and Ernst, 2018; Dankiw et al., 2020). Although adventure playgrounds are also stocked with loose parts that can be manipulated in creative ways (Houser et al., 2016); they cannot rival the range of multisensory experiences that biodiverse green spaces provide. Play in nature introduces children to elements of nature and other animals, forming a basis for affiliation and connection with nature, which is associated with both a sense of wellbeing and care for the natural world (Chawla, 2020; Lerstrup et al., 2021). Nature's diversity affords unlimited graduated challenges that enable young people to reach for ever-new achievements as their capacities grow—for example, the next wider point in a creek for a young child to leap, or the next higher cliff for teenagers to climb. These self-chosen mastery experiences promote autonomy and competence (Chawla and Heft, 2002; Chawla, 2021). These are examples of learning in preschools and informal settings. In the tradition of progressive education, many school programs for place-based education encourage students to make new discoveries and undertake new challenges outdoors in nature as part of formal learning (Smith and Sobel, 2010). Transactional theories encourage active processes of learning, rather than learning as the passive reception and repetition of information, and they form a framework for assessing it.
When people engage with nature through activities that support the development of their capabilities and self-determination, automatic physiological and psychological benefits of exposure to nature can be expected to happen simultaneously. For example, a study of Finnish preschools showed that when forest soil and biodiversity were layered over schoolyards, it stimulated the children's immune systems in positive ways (Roslund et al., 2020), as well as creative play, learning, and care for nature (Puhakka et al., 2019). Physiological and psychological benefits can be interactive, consistent with current knowledge in developmental and evolutionary biology which shows that interactions between an organism and its environment are part of a dynamic nested system with potential impacts at behavioral, psychological, anatomical, and physiological levels (Lickliter and Honeycutt, 2003). First steps in this direction have been taken by Dettweiler et al. (2022), who show that students who participated in an outdoor education program 1 day a week over the course of a year, compared to conventional classrooms, reported a greater sense of autonomy, which had a positive direct effect on brain maturation. A transactional approach can explore how time in nature and active engagement with its resources promotes healthy psychological and physiological development, to help guide investments in greening that support multiple dimensions of learning and wellbeing.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
This piece draws on extended evening discussions with Harry Heft, Terry Hartig, and Agnes van den Berg during the 67th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation in Lincoln, Nebraska in 2019. It reflects conversations with Harry Heft over the years. It benefits from constructive review comments and the editorial guidance of Ulrich Dettweiler.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Andersen, L., Corazon, S. S., and Stigsdotter, U. K. (2021). Nature exposure and its effects on immune system functioning: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 1416. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041416
Aristotle. (2014). Nichomachean Ethics. Trans. by R. Crisp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Originally written ca. 350 B.C.E.
Baxter, D. E., and Pelletier, L. G. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Can. Psychol. 60, 21–34. doi: 10.1037/cap0000145
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., and Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10, 456. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. J. Plan. Lit. 30, 433–452. doi: 10.1177/0885412215595441
Chawla, L. (2020). Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: a review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2, 619–642. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10128
Chawla, L. (2021). “Knowing nature in childhood: Learning and wellbeing through engagement with the natural world,” in Nature and Psychology, eds A. R. Schutte, J. C. Torquatti, and J. R. Stevens (Berlin: Springer), 153–93. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_6
Chawla, L., and Heft, H. (2002). Children's competence and the ecology of communities. J. Environ. Psychol. 22, 201–216. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2002.0244
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., and Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience. Health Place 28, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001
Corazon, S. S., Sidenius, U., Poulsen, D. V., Gramkow, M. C., and Stigsdotter, U. K. (2019). Psycho-physiological stress recovery in outdoor nature-based interventions: a systematic review of the past eight years of research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 1711. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101711
Dankiw, K. A., Tsiros, M. D., Baldock, K. L., and Kumar, S. (2020). The impacts of unstructured nature play on health in early childhood development: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 15, e0229006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229006
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (New York, NY: Plenum) doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
DeHaan, C. R., Hirai, T., and Ryan, R. M. (2016). Nussbaum's capabilities and self-determination theory's basic psychological needs: relating some fundamentals of human wellness. J. Happiness Stud. 17, 2037–2049. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9684-y
Derr, V., Chawla, L., and Mintzer, M. (2018). Placemaking With Children and Youth: Participatory Practices for Planning Sustainable Communities (New York, NY: New Village Press).
Dettweiler, U., Simon, P., Gerchen, M., and Kirsch, P. (2022). Choice matters: Pupil's stress regulation, brain development and brain function in an outdoor education project. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. doi: 10.111/bjep.12528
Doherty, S. T., McKeever, P., Aslam, H., Stephens, L., and Yantzi, N. (2014). Use of GPS tracking to interactively explore disabled children's mobility and accessibility patterns. Child. Youth Environ. 24, 1–24. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.1.0001
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martinez, D., Rojas-Rueda, D., Plascència, A., and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016). Residential green space and mortality: a systematic review. Environ. Int. 86, 60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.013
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Originally published in 1979.
Hartig, T. (2021). “Restoration in nature: beyond the conventional narrative,” in: Nature and Psychology, eds A. R. Schutte, J. C. Torquatti, and J. R. Stevens (Berlin: Springer), 89–151. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_5
Heft, H. (2021). “Perceiving “natural” environments: an ecological perspective with reflections on the chapters,” in: Nature and Psychology, eds A. R. Schutte, J. C. Torquatti, and J. R. Stevens (Berlin: Springer), 235–73. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_8
Houser, N. E., Roach, L., Stone, M. R., Turner, J., and Kirk, S. F. L. (2016). Let the children play. AIMS Public Health 3, 781–799. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.781
Jimenez, M. P., DeVille, N. V., Elliott, E. G., Schiff, J. E., Wilt, G. E., Hart, J. E., et al. (2021). Associations between nature exposure and health: a review of the evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:4790. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094790
Joye, Y., and van den Berg, A. E. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 261–268. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kondo, M. C., Jacoby, S. F., and South, E. C. (2018). Does spending time outdoors reduce stress? A review of real-time stress response to outdoor environments. Health Place 51, 136–150. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.03.001
Kuo, M., Barnes, M., and Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Front. Psychol. 10:305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305
Lee, E. S., Maillet, M. A., and Grouzet, F. M. E. (2021). Why do individuals engage with the natural world? A self-determination theory perspective on the effect of nature engagement and well-being. Appl. Res. Qual Life. 17:1501–32. doi: 10.1007/s11482-021-09970-2
Lerstrup, I., Chawla, L., and Heft, H. (2021). Affordances of small animals for young children: a path to environmental values of care. Int. J. Early Child. Environ. Educ. 9, 58–76.
Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15, 9–17. doi: 10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3
Lickliter, R., and Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychol. Bull. 129, 819–835. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.819
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., and Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63, 967–973. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.079038
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., et al. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: the theory of loose parts. Landsc. Archit. 62, 30–35.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
Pollin, S., and Retzlaff-Furst, C. (2021). The school garden: a social and emotional place. Front. Psychol. 12:567720. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.567720
Puhakka, R., Rantala, O., Roslund, M. I., Rajaniemi, J., Laitinen, O. H., Sinkkonen, A., and ADELE Research Group (2019). Greening of daycare yards with biodiverse materials affords well-being, play and environmental relationships. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 2948. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16162948
Rook, G. A. (2013). Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity from the natural environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 18360–18367. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313731110
Roslund, M. I., Puhakka, R., Grönroos, M., Nurminen, N., Oikarinen, S., Gazali, A. M., et al. (2020). Biodiversity intervention enhances immune regulation and health-associated commensal microbiota among daycare children. Sci. Adv. 6. 134. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2578
Russell, R., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R. K., Basurto, X., Chan, K. M. A., et al. (2013). Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38, 473–502. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838
Sen, A. K. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. J. Philos. 82, 169–221. doi: 10.2307/2026184
Slee, V., and Allan, J. F. (2019). Purposeful outdoor learning empowers children to deal with school transitions. Sports 7. doi: 10.3390/sports7060134
Stevenson, M. P., Schilhab, T., and Bentsen, P. (2018). Attention restoration theory II: a systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B 21, 227–268. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2018.1505571
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment,” in: Behavior and the Natural Environment, eds I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (New York, NY: Plenum), 85–125. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
van den Berg, A. E. (2021). “The natural-built distinction in environmental preference and restoration: bottom-up and top-down explanations,” in: Nature and Psychology, eds A. R. Schutte, J. C. Torquatti, and J. R. Stevens (Berlin: Springer), 31–60. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_3
Ward Thompson, C., and Aspinall, P. A. (2011). Natural environments and their impact on activity, health, and quality of life. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 3, 230–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01053.x
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol. Rev. 66, 297–333. doi: 10.1037/h0040934
Keywords: affordances, capabilities approach, health, nature, nature-based learning, self-determination theory, wellbeing
Citation: Chawla L (2022) Passive patient or active agent? An under-explored perspective on the benefits of time in nature for learning and wellbeing. Front. Psychol. 13:942744. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942744
Received: 13 May 2022; Accepted: 27 June 2022;
Published: 19 July 2022.
Edited by:
Ulrich Dettweiler, University of Stavanger, NorwayReviewed by:
David Sobel, Antioch University New England, United StatesMing Kuo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
Copyright © 2022 Chawla. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Louise Chawla, louise.chawla@colorado.edu