Love of Nature in the Time of Climate Change: Environmental Science Undergraduates Report Higher Levels of Nature-Relatedness and Eco-Anxiety but Not Resilience

Abstract

As younger populations of environmental scientists face an uncertain future in the context of alarming climate change data, building resilience is imperative for sustaining mental health, avoiding career burnout, and remaining innovative in climate change solution efforts. Research shows a higher prevalence of eco-anxiety among young people and individuals working in professions centered on environmental and climate change science. In contrast, studies have found that individuals scoring higher in nature-relatedness report lower generalized anxiety and score higher in resilience. This study addresses the intersection of these factors at the university undergraduate student level by comparing the eco-anxiety, nature-relatedness, and resilience of environmental science majors with nonenvironmental science majors. As hypothesized, surveys from 169 students at a mid-Atlantic State University reveal significantly higher levels of climate change anxiety reported by environmental science majors compared with nonenvironmental science majors [t(167) = 1.81, p < 0.05 (one-tailed test of significance)]. In addition, environmental science majors reported significantly higher levels of nature-relatedness [t(167) = 6.05, p < 0.001]. However, measured resilience levels in each group were not significantly different. Implications are explored regarding current environmental science curriculum practices and the possible benefits of incorporating psychological principles to increase resilience inside and outside of the classroom. Key Words: Eco-anxiety—Climate change—Resilience—Nature-relatedness—Environmental education—Pro-environmental behavior

Introduction

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to life on Earth, and the adverse impacts on human health are well documented (Albrecht et al., 2007; Bourque & Cunsolo Willox, 2014; Costello et al., 2009; Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018; Fritze et al., 2008; Swim et al., 2011). These negative impacts reach beyond the direct physical and mental effects experienced by populations living in vulnerable geographic locations. An increasing awareness of and exposure to information related to climate change and ecological degradation has led to what the American Psychological Association terms “eco-anxiety” and defines as “a chronic fear of environmental doom” (Clayton et al., 2021, p. 71). While all people can experience eco-anxiety, it especially affects young people (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Fritze et al., 2008), as well as scientists working on climate and environmental issues (Gilford et al., 2019; Head & Harada, 2017; Pihkala, 2020b).

This study examines eco-anxiety levels where these two populations meet within the undergraduate environmental science (ES) major. Younger populations of environmental scientists face an uncertain future in the context of alarming climate change data, and building resilience is imperative in sustaining mental health, avoiding career burnout, and remaining innovative in climate change solution efforts (Fraser et al., 2013; Gilford et al., 2019; Wallace et al., 2020).

Eco-anxiety

As the body of research on eco-anxiety has grown, the word has evolved to become an umbrella term that contains a spectrum of emotions. This broad range is demonstrated in the various related but nuanced terms coined to describe different facets of the experience. Some examples include climate change anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020), climate grief (Bryant, 2019; Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018), environmental melancholia (Lertzman, 2015), pre-traumatic stress disorder (Van Susteren, 2018), and solastalgia (Ágoston et al., 2022; Albrecht et al., 2007). The term “eco-anxiety” is used most often by researchers to describe the complex mental and emotional distress caused by awareness of climate change and ecosystem degradation (Ágoston et al., 2022; Fritze et al., 2008; Hogg et al., 2021; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022; Pihkala, 2020a).

Because it encompasses a wide range of experiences and emotions, eco-anxiety’s effects can be multidimensional (Ágoston et al., 2022; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a). It can affect one cognitively and emotionally, leading to rumination and feelings that include anger over the inaction of leaders, guilt over one’s personal contribution to ecological damage, and grief over the loss of beloved places, species, and the future one had imagined (Ágoston et al., 2022; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021). This, in turn, can lead to functional impairment like loss of sleep, loss of appetite (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021; Ogunbode et al., 2023), or a kind of paralysis of action in response to ecological challenges that could be misinterpreted as apathy or denial (Ágoston et al., 2022; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a; Wolfe & Tubi, 2019).

Beyond cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects, eco-anxiety can impact one’s life in other ways. Concern over the environment can lead to social anxiety if a person’s social circle does not share their ecological worldview, which could result in social strain and even isolation (Ágoston et al., 2022; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022; Pihkala, 2020a). Eco-anxiety can result in what some researchers describe as existential anxiety, as disturbing climate data models can influence a person’s life planning, goal-setting, and senses of self, purpose, and place (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022; Nairn, 2019; Pihkala, 2020a; Relman & Hickey, 2019).

However, eco-anxiety also has the potential to lead to positive outcomes. Distress over environmental degradation can manifest as practical anxiety, as it can inspire a person to take part in problem-solving and pro-environmental behavior (Ágoston et al., 2022; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022; Pihkala, 2020a). The outcomes of eco-anxiety ultimately correlate with a person’s resilience, self-efficacy, and personal meaning (Ojala, 2012). The higher one’s resilience and self-efficacy, the more likely it is that they will channel their eco-anxiety into constructive action (Davenport, 2017; Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Fritze et al., 2008; Pihkala, 2020b).

Although eco-anxiety is distressful, experts emphasize that it is not a pathology but rather a rational response to an existential threat (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021; Pihkala 2020a). Therefore, it is imperative to promote effective coping strategies that will not only sustain the health of the person experiencing eco-anxiety but also support them in channeling their concern into practical action (Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Fraser et al., 2013; Fritze et al., 2008).

This need for practical action is especially necessary for individuals working in fields related to ES (Head & Harada, 2017; Gilford et al. 2019; Pihkala, 2020b). Previous research has found that ES professionals’ increased awareness of and ongoing interaction with environmental degradation can be accompanied by negative emotions similar to those experienced by individuals exposed to trauma (Clayton, 2018; Fraser et al., 2013; Head & Harada, 2017; Pihkala, 2020c). Not only must these scientists cope with emotions associated with having a deep awareness of future climate change consequences, but also they must bear the weight of advising policymakers as well. Compounding this stress is the helplessness and anger that they may experience as their advice is ignored, misinterpreted, or misrepresented (Fraser et al., 2013; Gilford et al., 2019).

Underlying all of these stressors is the professional expectation that a scientist must remain objective and unemotional or risk losing respect within their professional community (Fraser et al., 2013; Gilford et al. 2019). Research has found that there is a higher risk of burnout among environmental professionals because of a lack of coping resources at their workplace and a lack of emotional-skills training (Fraser et al., 2013). Many environmental researchers are consequently suffering from “disenfranchised grief, which is not allowed to be processed openly” (Pihkala, 2020c, p. 91). Furthermore, this can result in scientists and educators communicating this distress through their messaging to the public or students as a way of coping, which could lead to unintentionally destructive outcomes (Clayton & Myers, 2015).

Another population especially vulnerable to eco-anxiety is young people. Children, adolescents, and young adults have reported higher levels of eco-anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Fritze et al., 2008), grief over the loss of the future that they had once hoped for (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018; Nairn, 2019), as well as feelings of anger, frustration, and betrayal at societal power structures (Thompson et al., 2022). In a 2021 study conducted by Hickman et al., 10,000 participants 16–25 years of age were surveyed across 10 different countries. Hickman et al. (2021) found that 75% of respondents reported that they felt that “the future is frightening,” 59% were extremely worried, 84% were moderately worried, and 45% reported that their daily life and functioning were negatively impacted by climate change.

Resilience

Because eco-anxiety has the potential to lead to multiple outcomes, such as inaction, impairment, or, conversely, pro-environmental behavior (Ágoston et al., 2022; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022), it is important to examine resilience (Davenport, 2017; Pihkala, 2020a). Resilience is defined as the ability to cope with stress (Connor & Davidson, 2003) and encompasses multiple dimensions that enable a person to thrive in the face of adversity. These dimensions include viewing change as an opportunity, supportive relationships, adaptability, optimism, and possessing a realistic sense of control and self-efficacy (Connor & Davidson, 2003).

Nature-relatedness

A relevant third variable to consider is nature-relatedness because of its positive and negative relationships with eco-anxiety and resilience. Nature-relatedness describes one’s self-concept within the natural world (Nisbet et al., 2009). A person high in nature-relatedness considers all parts of nature necessary and sees ecological damage as damage to oneself (Nisbet et al., 2009). Higher levels, therefore, also correlate with greater concern for nature, which makes one more susceptible to eco-anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Dean et al., 2018; Nisbet et al., 2009). In contrast, research has found that higher levels of nature-relatedness correlate with lower generalized anxiety (Martyn & Brymer, 2016), positively correlate with perceived resilience (Ingulli & Lindbloom, 2013), and can act as a protection against functional impairment in response to eco-anxiety (Dean et al., 2018).

Present research

Since young people and environmental scientists are particularly vulnerable to eco-anxiety, the current study looks at the potential additive effect of these factors in undergraduate populations where both these groups intersect. The study examines ES majors’ eco-anxiety, nature-relatedness, resilience, and pro-environmental behavior compared with nonenvironmental science (NES) majors. Three research questions guided our choice to measure these four variables.

First, are undergraduate ES majors experiencing significantly higher levels of eco-anxiety than NES majors? This is an important question because, although eco-anxiety is not a pathology, higher levels could indicate that these students are more at risk for associated functional impairment (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021). Furthermore, it would support previous research recommendations to develop more psychologically supportive methods inside and outside the classroom to promote mental health and career longevity (Pihkala, 2020c; Wallace et al. 2020).

Second, does one who is more nature-related experience higher levels of eco-anxiety, resilience, or both simultaneously? Developing a connection to nature is a common recommendation for people experiencing eco-anxiety, in part, because it is associated with increased psychological resilience (Ingulli & Lindbloom, 2013). When investigating the mental health of climate change scientists, Fraser et al. (2013) observed that knowledgeable conservationists “cannot be in nature without the full awareness that they are in the presence of evidence of intractable degradation” (p. 78). ES majors’ coursework typically involves spending more time in nature compared with NES majors. Their choice of major and time spent in nature could indicate higher levels of nature-relatedness. Is this closeness to nature corresponding to increased eco-anxiety or resilience—or both? Although not a causal study, understanding the relationship between these three variables in a student population immersed in climate change data will give insight into how their relationship with nature may affect their mental health (Fraser et al., 2013).

Third, do levels of pro-environmental behavior correlate with levels of eco-anxiety? This is an important question because pro-environmental behavior is evidence of practical action and is often seen as a healthy response to eco-anxiety (Kurth & Pihkala, 2022). Measuring this variable among undergraduates, especially those in the ESs, will give us insight into how these students manage their eco-anxiety.

A previous study found a trend toward higher levels of self-reported eco-anxiety among ES undergraduates at an Australian University in response to a researcher-designed survey (Kelly, 2017). Our study builds on and adds to this research by utilizing validated eco-anxiety scales to further quantify levels of this variable and gain data on undergraduate populations in the United States.

We hypothesized that higher levels of eco-anxiety and nature-relatedness would be reported by ES students compared with NES majors. In addition, we predicted that we would find a positive correlation between nature-relatedness and resilience, with both variables being reported at higher levels among ES majors. We further hypothesized that nature-relatedness scores and eco-anxiety levels would correlate with pro-environmental behavior levels.

Methods

Participants

The participant number was originally 185, with 41 ES majors and 144 NES majors (recruited from two large sections of a general psychology class). After removing all participant responses with 3 or more missing data points, the final number of participants was 169, with 36 ES majors and 133 NES majors ranging in age from 18 to 24 (mean [M] = 20.01, standard deviation [SD] = 1.82). NES majors included psychology (n = 27), education (n = 22), business (n = 19), premed (n = 14), undeclared (n = 10), criminal justice (n = 8), art (n = 6), and communication studies (n = 6) and 21 students from 12 other majors consisting of less than 6 individuals. When asked to identify themselves, 57.4% of participants identified as female, 36.7% identified as male, and 5.9% identified as non-binary, genderqueer or gender nonconforming, transgender, or preferred not to specify. At the time of the survey, there were 98 ES majors in the Environmental Science program; therefore, 36 participants represented 37% of the program’s majors.

Materials

We built a 118-question survey using previous research on eco-anxiety, nature-relatedness, and resilience (Ingulli & Lindbloom, 2013; Kelly, 2017; Nisbet et al., 2009) and validated scales measuring each variable. There were seven demographic questions describing age, gender, race, religion, politics, college year, and college major. Nine additional questions focused on participants’ personal experience with climate change, the environment of their childhood, where they most often learned about climate change, and how well prepared they felt by their professors and coursework to handle climate change.

At the time of this study’s design, only the following two validated instruments measuring eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety were available in the literature: the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale and the Climate Change Anxiety Scale. The 13-question Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (Hogg et al., 2021) measures the subscales of rumination, affective symptoms, behavioral symptoms, and anxiety over personal impact on climate change. It begins by asking, “Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems, when thinking about climate change and other global environmental conditions (e.g., global warming, ecological degradation, resource depletion, species extinction, ozone hole, pollution of the oceans, deforestation)?” Participants were asked to rate the frequency of their experiences such as being “Unable to stop thinking about future climate change and other global environmental problems” and “Worrying too much,” using a 4-point scale consisting of options as follows: 0 = not at all, 1 = several of the days, 2 = over half of the days, and 3 = nearly every day. The Climate Change Anxiety Scale (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020) is a 22-question scale measuring the subscales of cognitive–emotional impairment, functional impairment, experience of climate change, and behavioral engagement. Respondents indicated if these statements were personally applicable by rating their frequency on a 5-point scale with the options as follows: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = almost always. Examples of statements included “Thinking about climate change makes it difficult for me to sleep” and “I have problems balancing my concerns about sustainability with the needs of my family.”

The 21-question Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet et al., 2009) was used to measure nature-relatedness levels. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1, disagree strongly” to “5, agree strongly.” Examples of questions include “I enjoy being outdoors, even in unpleasant weather” and “I am not separate from nature, but a part of nature.”

To measure the participants’ engagement in pro-environmental behavior, we chose the 11-question Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (Mateer et al., 2022). Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “0, never” to “6, as frequently as possible.” Statements included “Avoided buying products with excessive packaging” and “Talked to others in your community about environmental issues.”

We used the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale to measure levels of resilience. The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003) is a 25-question instrument measuring how a participant has felt over the past month. It uses a 5-point scale ranging from “0, not true at all” to “4, true nearly all of the time.” Statements include “I am able to adapt to change” and “I am not easily discouraged by failure.”

Procedure

After institutional review board approval from a mid-Atlantic public university, the 118-question survey was made available online to undergraduate participants on SurveyMonkey. Undergraduate participants were recruited through the online SONA system that allows General Psychology students, which include a broad variety of majors, to participate in student research projects as part of their course requirements. The SONA description of the project read, “How do you feel about nature? Are you more of an ‘indoor cat’ or an ‘outdoor cat’? How much do you think or worry about the environment? There are no wrong answers! By taking part in this survey, you’ll help us to learn more about KU students’ relationship with nature.” In addition, we recruited ES majors by visiting classrooms in person and introducing the study using the same language as the SONA advertisement. Professors teaching these classes could use their discretion in offering extra credit as a survey participation incentive.

Results

This study compared the levels of eco-anxiety, nature-relatedness, resilience, and pro-environmental behavior between ES majors and NES majors and examined the relationships between these four variables.

The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (Hogg et al., 2021) was used to measure rumination, affective symptoms, behavioral symptoms, and anxiety over one’s personal impact on climate change. On the whole scale, although the ES majors scored higher (M = 0.90, SD = 0.81) than NES majors (M = 0.69, SD = 0.68), these differences were not statistically significant [t(167) = 1.55, p = 0.06]. However, when t-tests were conducted comparing subscale scores between groups, two significant differences were found. On the subscale of rumination, results showed that the ES majors (M = 0.89, SD = 0.88) reported significantly higher levels than the NES majors [M = 0.49, SD = 0.75; t(167) = 2.76, p < 0.05], 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.11, 0.69]. The effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was d = 0.52, indicating a medium effect. An independent t-test also showed that, on the subscale of anxiety over personal impact, ES majors (M = 1.06, SD = 0.89) scored significantly higher than the NES majors (M = 0.58, SD = 0.76; t(167) = 3.17, p < 0.001), 95% CI [0.18, 0.77]. The effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was d = 0.60, indicating a medium effect.

The second instrument used to measure eco-anxiety was the Climate Change Anxiety Scale (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). As hypothesized, a one-tailed independent t-test showed that ES majors (M = 1.60, SD = 0.77) scored significantly higher than NES majors [M = 1.39, SD = 0.59; t(167) = 1.81, p < 0.05], 95% CI [0.14, 0.28]. The effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was d = 0.34, indicating a small effect. These findings support the hypothesis that higher levels of eco-anxiety would be found among ES majors in comparison with NES majors.

Analyses of scores on the Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet et al., 2009) revealed a significant difference between ES majors (M = 4.06, SD = 0.46) and NES majors [M = 3.50, SD = 0.51; t(167) = 6.05, p < 0.001], 95% CI [0.38, 0.75]. The effect size, as measured by Cohen’s d, was d = 1.14, indicating a large effect. Correlational analyses found a positive correlation between nature-relatedness and the Climate Change Anxiety scores [r(167) = 0.326, p < 0.001] and the Hogg Eco-Anxiety scores [r(167) = 0.370, p < 0.001]. These results support the hypothesis that ES majors would show higher levels of nature-relatedness than NES majors. They also demonstrate a connection between nature-relatedness and eco-anxiety.

Analysis of scores from the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003) showed no significant differences between ES majors (M = 67.39, SD = 12.80) and NES majors (M = 65.32, SD = 14.66). A correlation analysis of the Connor–Davidson Resilience and nature-relatedness scores found a positive correlation between the two variables [r(167) = 0.209, p < 0.001]. These findings support our hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between resilience and nature-relatedness but do not support our hypothesis that higher levels of resilience would be found among ES majors. An analysis of the correlation between resilience and nature-relatedness within the different groups revealed a higher but nonsignificant correlation within ES majors [r(34) = 0.326, p = 0.052] compared with NES majors [r(131) = 0.178, p = 0.041].

Finally, the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (Mateer et al., 2022) was used to measure engagement in this variable. Independent t-test results showed significantly higher engagement among ES majors (M = 34.28, SD = 11.95) and NES majors [M = 25.96, SD = 3.46; t(167) = 3.70, p < 0.001]. Correlational analyses showed a positive correlation between nature-relatedness and pro-environmental behavior [r(167) = 0.591, p < 0.001]. In addition, correlational analyses found a positive correlation between the Hogg Eco-Anxiety scores and pro-environmental behavior [r(167) = 0.420, p < 0.001] and the Climate Change Anxiety scores and pro-environmental behavior [r(167) = 0.509, p < 0.001]. These data support the hypothesis that both nature-relatedness and eco-anxiety positively correlate with pro-environmental behavior.

Discussion

This study sought to investigate the multifaceted experience of eco-anxiety among undergraduate ES majors compared with majors unrelated to ES. Specifically, we looked at how immersion in disturbing climate data and a closer relationship with the natural world could correlate with eco-anxiety and resilience. The study considered the variables of nature-relatedness, resilience, and pro-environmental behavior to build a composite of these possible correlational relationships. Our ultimate objective was to determine if ES undergraduates could potentially benefit from classroom support that promotes resilience and career longevity.

Strengths and limitations

The scales used to measure eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety have a high degree of reliability and validity (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Hogg et al., 2021). This contributed to and built on previous eco-anxiety research focused on undergraduates in Australia that exclusively used author-designed measurements (Kelly, 2017). In addition, by examining levels of eco-anxiety, nature-relatedness, resilience, and pro-environmental behavior within the same sample, we were able to capture a snapshot of how these variables simultaneously correlate.

Limitations of our study include a comparatively small sample size of ES majors and the inclusion of only one U.S. university’s population in the participant pool. In addition, although the validated scales we used to measure eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety were a strength of our study, they may have also been limiting factors. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale scoring metric is designed so that higher numbers indicate severe levels of eco-anxiety that could suggest serious impairment in daily life (Hogg et al., 2021). Likewise, one of the objectives of the Climate Change Anxiety Scale was to measure functional impairment associated with climate change anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). Thus, both scales’ emphasis on functional impairment may have resulted in overall lower levels of anxiety reported by participants.

General discussion

Across all measures of eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety, ES majors reported higher scores than NES majors. Significantly higher levels were reported by ES majors across all subscales of the Climate Change Anxiety Scale. Within the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale scores, results indicated significantly higher levels of rumination and anxiety over personal impact among ES majors.

Although this was not a causal study, we predicted that we would find higher levels of nature-relatedness among ES majors, and results showed that these students do report significantly higher levels. In addition, a positive correlation between nature-relatedness and eco-anxiety was observed, which is supported by previous research (Dean et al., 2018).

To examine the outcomes of eco-anxiety and nature-relatedness in the lives of undergraduates, we measured resilience. Previous research has found that a deeper connection to nature can positively correlate with a person’s perception of their resiliency (Ingulli & Lindbloom, 2013). Although our results showed a positive correlation between nature-relatedness and resilience, data did not reveal significantly higher levels among ES majors than NES majors despite their significantly higher levels of nature-relatedness.

In addition, ES majors reported significantly higher levels of pro-environmental behavior. When examined alongside their higher levels of eco-anxiety, the results are supported by previous research that found correlations between ecofriendly action and higher levels of eco-anxiety (Ágoston et al., 2022; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). In addition, the authors of the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (Hogg et al., 2021) noted that higher levels of the two subscales of rumination and anxiety over personal impact “do not contribute to negative mental health outcomes and may promote engagement in PEB [pro-environmental behavior]” (p. 20). However, these findings should be interpreted with cautious optimism, as previous research has also found that in less controllable problematic circumstances—such as climate change—focusing only on the problems and corresponding solutions can actually increase anxiety (Ágoston et al., 2022), which could result in functional impairment that eventually decreases pro-environmental behavior (Hogg et al., 2021).

The higher levels of nature-relatedness reported by ES majors indicate that they see themselves as part of their ecosystem—an ecosystem that is rapidly deteriorating. The natural world that they care deeply about may no longer be a source of resilience to the same previous degree. Rather, it has potentially become a source of eco-anxiety (Fraser et al., 2013). Many students may choose the ES major because nature represents a respite from the complicated problems of the human world (Ray, 2018). However, as they progress in their studies, they gradually learn just how interconnected and complex their relationship is with the natural world. A kind of “ethical claustrophobia” can develop as a result (Clark, 2020). As environmental studies professor and essayist Sarah Jaquette Ray relates, “I often feel like a parent whose job it is to facilitate my students’ awakening to a world whose grim future stands in stark contrast to their precollege idealism” (Ray, 2018, p. 299). The more students learn about the natural world, the more they may feel the troubling sense that their relationship with it is actually damaged (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Ray, 2018).

The consensus across previous research is that there is an urgent need to support climate change frontline workers in developing resilience (Fraser et al., 2013; Pihkala, 2020c; Wallace et al., 2020). Fundamental to building this resilience is fostering “radical hope,” which can be “defined as a determination to continue living and to find meaningfulness, even though we cannot know how well humanity can succeed in mitigating the environmental crisis” (Pihkala, 2020c). Ecophilosopher Joanna Macy and physician Chris Johnstone describe this as “active hope” (Macy & Johnstone, 2022). They observe that “in a process known as adversity activated development, our very act of” acknowledging the planet’s crises “can help us discover a more enlivening sense of what our lives are about, what we’re here to do, and what we’re truly capable of” (Macy & Johnstone, 2022, p. 3).

Future research should focus on measuring the impacts of ES education techniques that incorporate strategies to build resilience and foster this vital active hope. It would be beneficial to explore an approach (Fielding et al., 2014; Pihkala, 2020b) that integrates psychological resources into curricula to support mental and behavioral health among young environmental scientists (Wallace et al., 2020). This interdisciplinary approach needs to normalize the acknowledgment of eco-anxiety in scientific communities, facilitate avenues to build connections with both the human and more-than-human community, and foster practices that provide personal meaning (Clayton et al., 2017; Macy & Johnstone, 2022; Pihkala, 2020c).

Part of this interdisciplinary approach also needs to emphasize developing healthy coping and self-regulatory skills (Clayton et al., 2017). Environmental researcher and writer Panu Pihkala (2020b, p. 18) recommends “integrating eco-anxiety and ecological emotions more firmly” in environmental education. A component of these institutional efforts would need to include candid discussions about the experience of eco-anxiety and effective coping strategies used by classmates, professors, scholars, and activists (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Gilford et al. 2019; Pihkala, 2020b). Environmental educators Wallace et al. suggest that professors build relationships within the classroom by acknowledging their own feelings of anxiety, despair, and existential struggles while creating a safe environment for students to also share their feelings. In addition, they suggest that self-care and rest be encouraged, supported, and normalized within curricula and academia (Wallace et al., 2020). Peer support communities could provide additional opportunities for expressing difficult emotions, as well as an environment for ongoing mental health education (Gilford et al., 2019; Pihkala, 2020b; Wallace et al., 2020).

Fundamental to these resilience-building efforts to foster personal meaning and collective action is the development of self-efficacy (Gilford et al., 2019; Ojala, 2012; Pihkala, 2020b). For example, social psychology concepts are not typically taught in ES curricula (Jacobson et al., 2012). However, major obstacles to motivating pro-environmental behavior in the general public are apathy and denial (Fielding et al., 2014; Jacobson et al., 2012). Investigating the psychology underpinning these roadblocks to change could equip future scientists with the necessary knowledge to frame their findings more effectively (Jacobson et al., 2012) and build impactful coalitions. This deeper understanding of motivating factors would strengthen students’ self-efficacy, which directly contributes to psychological resilience (Doherty & Clayton, 2011).

In addition, it would be useful to perform longitudinal research that examines levels of eco-anxiety and resilience over the undergraduate ES majors’ four years of education to determine if and how levels change over time and with knowledge acquisition.

Conclusion

Taken together, this study’s results give evidence that ES majors report feeling more connected to nature and experiencing higher levels of eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety. These findings are supported by previous studies that have found similar correlations between these variables (Dean et al., 2018; Nisbet et al., 2009). However, these students do not experience the higher levels of resilience often associated with nature-relatedness (Ingulli & Lindbloom, 2013). ES students’ higher engagement in pro-environmental behavior potentially indicates that they may be currently channeling their eco-anxiety into positive action. In the long term, however, there may be a risk of burnout if other sources of resilience are not fostered (Fraser et al., 2013). When compared to municipal governments taking steps to shore up their infrastructure in preparation for more destructive weather events to come, the situation sharpens into exact focus. Their preemptive and adaptive strategy applies to academia, as well (Fielding et al., 2014). Strengthening social and psychological infrastructure at the classroom level provides students with the tools necessary to build resilience (Pihkala, 2020c; Wallace et al., 2020).

Although their levels of eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety do not indicate functional impairment, incorporating strategies that build resilience and active hope (Macy & Johnstone, 2022) within the classroom could potentially help them develop the skills to “live with ambiguity” in the fragile and threatened ecosystem and experience the psychological benefits of connection to nature while feeling simultaneously “both grief and joy” there (Pihkala, 2020c). This could help them channel their eco-anxiety into practical action as students and equip them with the tools to sustain this action in the coming years, as ES professionals.

The next generation of environmental scientists is tasked with measuring the destruction of the natural world that they love and with trying to save it. They need to be equipped with the psychological skills and peer/institutional support required to shoulder this unprecedented challenge (Fraser et al., 2013; Gilford et al. 2019; Wallace et al., 2020).

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Meghan Owenz for her time and expertise and Dr. Jacob Sewall, Dr. Christopher Habeck, Dr. Gregory Setliff, Dr. Kaotar El Mounadi, and Dr. Steven Schnell for their support of this project.

Authors’ Contributions

M.K.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing—Original and subsequent drafts, Visualization, Project administration, and Formal analysis (equal). G.S.: Validation, Data Curation, Formal analysis (equal), and Writing—Review (supporting).

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare that the research was done in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships.

Funding Information

The authors have received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ágoston

, Csaba

, Nagy

, et al. (2022). Identifying types of eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, eco-grief, and eco-coping in a climate-sensitive population: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 2461; doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042461

Albrecht

, Sartore

G.-M.

, Connor

, et al. (2007). Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change. Australasian Psychiatry: bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 15 Suppl 1, S95–S98; doi: 10.1080/10398560701701288

Bourque

, & Cunsolo Willox

. (2014). Climate change: The next challenge for public mental health? International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 26, 415–422; doi: 10.3109/09540261.2014.925851

Bryant

. (2019, August 25). What is climate grief? Climate & mind. Available from: http://www.climateandmind.org/what-is-climate-grief [Last accessed: April 24, 2023].

Clark

. (2020). Ecological grief and Anthropocene horror. American Imago, 77, 61–80; doi: 10.1353/aim.2020.0003

Clayton

, & Myers

. (2015). Conservation Psychology: Understanding and Promoting Human Care For Nature (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Clayton

, Manning

C.M.

, Kyrgsman

, & Speiser

(2017).Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, and ecoAmerica.

Clayton

. (2018). Mental health risk and resilience among climate scientists. Nature Climate Change, 8, 260–261; doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0123-z

Clayton

, & Karazsia

B. T

. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434

10.

Clayton

, Manning

C. M.

, Speiser

, et al. (2021). Mental Health And Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Inequities, Responses. American Psychological Association, and ecoAmerica: Washington, D.C.

11.

Connor

K. M.

, & Davidson

J. R. T

. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82; doi: 10.1002/da.10113

12.

Costello

, Abbas

, Allen

, et al. (2009). Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet (London, England), 373, 1693–1733.

13.

Cunsolo

, & Ellis

N. R

. (2018). Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change, 8, 275–281; doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2

14.

Davenport

. (2017). Emotional Resiliency in the Era of Climate Change: A Clinician’s Guide. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London, UK.

15.

Dean

J. H.

, Shanahan

D. F.

, Bush

, et al. (2018). Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 1371–1389; doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071371

16.

Doherty

T. J.

, & Clayton

. (2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change. The American Psychologist, 66, 265–276; doi: 10.1037/a0023141

17.

Fielding

K. S.

, Hornsey

M. J.

, & Swim

J. K

. (2014). Developing a social psychology of climate change: Editorial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 413–420; doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2058

18.

Fraser

, Pantesco

, Plemons

, Gupta

, & Rank

S. J

. (2013). Sustaining the conservationist. Ecopsychology, 5, 70–79; doi: 10.1089/eco.2012.0076

19.

Fritze

J. G.

, Blashki

G. A.

, Burke

, et al. (2008). Hope, despair and transformation: Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 2, 13; doi: 10.1186/1752-4458-2-13

20.

Gilford

, Moser

, DePodwin

, et al. (2019). The emotional toll of climate change on science professionals. Eos, 100; doi: 10.1029/2019EO137460

21.

Head

, & Harada

. (2017). Keeping the heart a long way from the brain: The emotional labour of climate scientists. Emotion, Space and Society, 24, 34–41; doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2017.07.005

22.

Hickman

, Marks

, Pihkala

, et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5, e863–e873; doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3

23.

Hogg

T. L.

, Stanley

S. K.

, O’Brien

L. V.

, et al. (2021). The Hogg Eco-Anxiety scale: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102391; doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102391

24.

Ingulli

, & Lindbloom

. (2013). Connection to nature and psychological resilience. Ecopsychology, 5, 52–55; doi: 10.1089/eco.2012.0042

25.

Jacobson

S. K.

, Carlton

J. S.

, & Devitt

S. E. C

. (2012). Infusing the psychology of climate change into environmental curricula. Ecopsychology, 4, 94–101; doi: 10.1089/eco.2012.0014

26.

Kelly

. (2017). Eco-Anxiety at university: Student experiences and academic perspectives on cultivating healthy emotional responses to the climate crisis. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, 2642. Project (ISP) Collection. 2642. Available from: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2642

27.

Kurth

, & Pihkala

. (2022). Eco-anxiety: What it is and why it matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 981814; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814

28.

Lertzman

R. A

. (2015). Environmental Melancholia: Psychoanalytic Dimensions of Engagement. Routledge: Hove, UK; New York, NY, USA.

29.

Macy

J. M.

, & Johnstone

. (2022). Active hope: How to Face The Mess We’re In With Unexpected Resilience And Creative Power (Revised ed.). New World Library.

30.

Martyn

, & Brymer

. (2016). The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1436–1445; doi: 10.1177/1359105314555169

31.

Mateer

T. J.

, Melton

T. N.

, Miller

Z. D.

, et al. (2022). Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale. American Psychological Association; doi: 10.1037/t87178-000

32.

Nairn

. (2019). Learning from young people engaged in climate activism: The potential of collectivizing despair and hope. YOUNG, 27, 435–450.

33.

Nisbet

E. K.

, Zelenski

J. M.

, & Murphy

S. A

. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740; doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748

34.

Ogunbode

C. A.

, Pallesen

, Böhm

, et al. (2023). Negative emotions about climate change are related to insomnia symptoms and mental health: Cross-sectional evidence from 25 countries. Current Psychology, 42, 845–854; doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01385-4

35.

Ojala

. (2012). Regulating worry, promoting hope: How do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7, 537–561.

36.

Pihkala

. (2020a). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12, 7836; doi: 10.3390/su12197836

37.

Pihkala

. (2020b). Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability, 12, 10149; doi: 10.3390/su122310149

38.

Pihkala

. (2020c). The cost of bearing witness to the environmental crisis: Vicarious traumatization and dealing with secondary traumatic stress among environmental researchers. Social Epistemology, 34, 86–100; doi: 10.1080/02691728.2019.1681560

39.

Ray

S. J

. (2018). Coming of age at the end of the world. In: Bladow

& Ladino

. (eds.), Affective Ecocriticim (pp. 299–319). University of Nebraska Press.

40.

Relman

, & Hickey

W. (2019).

More than a third of millennials share Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s worry about having kids while the threat of climate change looms. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennialsamericans-worry-about-kids-children-climate-change-poll-2019-3.

41.

Swim

J. K.

, Stern

P. C.

, Doherty

T. J.

, et al. (2011). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. The American Psychologist, 66, 241–250; doi: 10.1037/a0023220

42.

Thompson

, Fisher

H. L.

, Dewa

L. H.

, et al. (2022). Adolescents’ thoughts and feelings about the local and global environment: A Qualitative Interview Study. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 27, 4–13; doi: 10.1111/camh.12520

43.

Van Susteren

. (2018). The psychological impacts of the climate crisis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 25–26.

44.

Wallace

R. L.

, Greenburg

, & Clark

S. G

. (2020). Confronting anxiety and despair in environmental studies and sciences: An analysis and guide for students and faculty. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 10, 148–155; doi: 10.1007/s13412-020-00609-6

45.

Wolfe

S. E.

, & Tubi

. (2019). Terror management theory and mortality awareness: A missing link in climate response studies? WIREs Climate Change, 10; doi: 10.1002/wcc.566