Nature Enhanced Meditation: Effects on Mindfulness,Connectedness to Nature,and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Abstract

Previous research suggests that meditation, a mindfulness exercise, could result in increased connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Exposure to nature also is associated with these outcomes. It was hypothesized that meditation alongside stimuli reminiscent of the natural environment would produce enhanced effects. Participants (N = 97) were randomly assigned to complete a 4-week online meditation program consisting of a guided meditation paired with either nature sounds (“nature group”) or spa-like sounds (“control group”). Mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior were assessed before and after the program. Meditation, in general, produced increases in mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Additionally, the nature group had a greater rate of change in connectedness to nature when compared to the control group. The results extend previous cross-sectional research by demonstrating the beneficial effects of meditation on pro-environmental behavior and its theorized mechanisms, which may be informative for future research and interventions.

Keywords

sustainable behavior green behavior natural environment mindfulness meditation

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), climate change is a worldwide environmental concern that has become an immediate threat to human health, safety, wellbeing, industry, and economy. Due to these far-reaching adverse outcomes, and evidence suggesting they are caused by human activity (Wuebbles et al., 2017), behavioral researchers have begun to examine mechanisms of pro-environmental behavior that could serve to reduce and reverse negative environmental impact. The current study examines one such mechanism (i.e., mindfulness meditation) and its effects on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior.

Meditation and Mindfulness

Mindfulness has been conceptualized from numerous perspectives, which includes westernized mindfulness (e.g., Langer, 1989) and those rooted in Buddhist traditions (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 1990). As explained by Pagnini et al. (2019), the two contain overlapping principles, such as focus on the present moment. The two are distinct, however, in that Langerian mindfulness centers around external stimuli and recognizing its novelties, whereas Kabat-Zinn (1990) suggests mindfulness also includes introspective awareness. Thus, a widely used definition of mindfulness from the Buddhist perspective is the purposeful focus of attention to the present moment in a non-judgmental way (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). An individual in a mindful state is fully engaged in the current moment and does not attempt to judge or label what is occurring and, instead, allows the present moment to unfold with unconditional acceptance. Attending mindfully to the current moment is the exact opposite of a mindless state, which can be characterized by a wandering mind and the execution of behaviors with little cognitive effort (i.e., “autopilot”). However, allowing the mind to wander and acting in autopilot is the default for most people in daily life; it is the norm to be mentally absorbed in either the past or future, inadvertently avoiding the present moment (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; Siegel et al., 2008).

Fortunately, mindfulness can be learned and developed by practicing various forms of meditation (Siegel et al., 2008). The purpose of practicing mindfulness from Kabat-Zinn’s (1990) perceptive is not to modify thoughts and feelings that are experienced, but instead to recognize and allow the flow of thoughts and emotions without reacting to them. Just as physical fitness is cultivated from routinely engaging in exercise, mindfulness is cultivated by regularly engaging in meditation practices that help to train and increase attentional focus (Siegel et al., 2008). There also appears to be a dose-response relationship regarding the practice of mindfulness. The more a person engages in mindfulness meditation techniques, the more that person garners mindfulness (Siegel et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that over half of the mindfulness trainings included in a meta-analytic review produced insignificant changes in mindfulness, which the authors indicate were likely due to low power within such studies. Nevertheless, a medium-sized effect across studies was detected and changes in mindfulness appeared to remain stable over time (Visted et al., 2015). These results suggest that sufficiently powered mindfulness meditation programs may contain efficacy to increase mindfulness and its psychological and behavioral benefits, such as greater subjective well-being, reduced negative affect and psychological distress, and higher frequencies of pro-social behavior (Dunn et al., 2013; Keng et al., 2011; Vargo & Silbersweig, 2012). An additional benefit of mindfulness seems to be engagement in pro-environmental behaviors.

Mindfulness and Pro-Environmental Behavior

The relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behaviors (i.e., behaviors that protect or avoid harm to the environment; Geiger, Otto et al., 2018) has received considerable research attention in recent years. Because of this, there is a growing body of evidence (though modest in its current state) suggesting that the two may be related; individuals who are more mindful, also tend to engage in more pro-environmental behavior (see Geiger, Grossman et al., 2018 for a review). Theoretical framework outlined by Amel et al. (2009) suggests that humans’ limited cognitive resources may produce the natural tendency for people to perform everyday behaviors automatically, or without much forethought, in order to conserve cognitive resources for other tasks (e.g., occupational work). This implies that many people often do not take the time to carefully consider the consequences of their behavior, which may include actions that negatively affect the environment, such as overusing electricity or purchasing products with excessive packaging (Amel et al., 2009; Rosenberg, 2004). In contrast, mindful individuals are increasingly likely to act with awareness and intentionally seek choices that are not harmful—or even beneficial—to the environment (Amel et al., 2009; Barbaro & Pickett, 2016; Brown & Kasser, 2005; Geiger, Otto et al., 2018; Jacob et al., 2009; Panno et al., 2018).

In addition to the evidence provided by cross-sectional research, the relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior has generated some initial support from longitudinal and experimental studies (but also see Geiger et al., 2020). In a pilot study of 16 individuals engaging in an 8-week environmental education and mindfulness course, participants showed a significant decrease in estimates of carbon footprint while participating in the program, but—due to the small sample size—the authors note that these results should be considered preliminary and interpreted with caution (Grabow et al., 2018). Tang et al. (2017) randomly assigned participants to engage in a westernized mindful learning intervention (i.e., induced awareness of the current situation and environment) or a mindless learning activity (i.e., “mindless” categorization tasks) and found that participants who were exposed to the mindful learning intervention had greater intentions to engage in pro-environmental behavior than participants in the mindless learning condition. A similar procedure implemented by Wang et al. (2019) produced results indicating that participants who were in the mindful learning condition had significantly stronger beliefs in the existence of climate change following the intervention than participants in the mindless learning condition. Interestingly, the effect of mindfulness on climate change beliefs was partially mediated by connectedness to nature, which also has been identified as a key mediator in the relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior (Geiger, Grossman et al., 2018).

Mindfulness and Connectedness to Nature

Connectedness to nature can be understood as the extent to which an individual feels a sense of oneness with the natural environment (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) and has garnered empirical evidence as an outcome of mindfulness (see Schutte & Malouff, 2018 for a meta-analysis). Being in a mindful state can enhance an individual’s non-judgmental awareness of his or her senses (e.g., sights, sounds, smells) and the surrounding environment stimulating those senses (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown et al., 2007). Therefore, mindful people may feel a heightened sense of connection to their environment, because they are attuned to how their surroundings are currently affecting them (e.g., through the stimulation of senses) and how their behaviors are simultaneously affecting their surroundings (Amel et al., 2009; Schutte & Malouff, 2018).

Although mindfulness, as a dispositional trait, is associated with increased levels of connectedness to nature (Barabro & Pickett, 2015; Howell et al., 2011; Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013), exposure to nature is thought to be a necessary component within the relationship (Howell et al., 2011; Schutte & Malouff, 2018). This notion is supported by results indicating that exposure to nature—in and of itself—can generate increased levels of connectedness to nature (Mayer et al., 2009); however, those who meditate in nature report higher levels of connectedness to nature than those who are only exposed to nature (Unsworth et al., 2016). These results suggest that contact with nature may interact with mindfulness meditation to produce an elevated sense of connection with the natural environment. It is currently unclear how the interactive effect compares to mindfulness meditation alone, though it is expected that meditation in nature would result in higher levels of connectedness to nature when compared to meditation in a different context. It also is expected that the relatively larger increase in connectedness to nature (i.e., experienced by individuals who meditate in the context of nature) would result in heightened frequencies of pro-environmental behavior.

Connectedness to Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Several theorists suggest that pro-environmental behaviors are motivated by a sense of belongingness to nature (Barbaro & Pickett, 2016; Davis et al., 2009; Hoot & Friedman, 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). The need to belong is seen as a crucial motivation for human behavior. For example, past research suggests that people seek to solidify group membership (i.e., fulfilling the need to belong) by engaging in altruistic behaviors toward those they identify with (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Extending this framework beyond social relationships to the natural world, Mayer and Frantz (2004) found that individuals who felt closely connected to nature were less likely to harm nature and more likely to exhibit eco-friendly acts. One reason this may be the case is that individuals who feel connected to the natural world identify it as part of them and, thus, perceive the need to protect it from harm (Davis et al., 2009; Hoot & Friedman, 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Connectedness to nature has also predicted consistent commitment to pro-environmental behaviors, in which people actively consider the environmental consequences of their actions and choose to reduce their harmful ecological impact (Davis et al., 2009; Hoot & Friedman, 2011). Therefore, a sense of interconnectedness with nature seems to produce the realization that the environment needs to be continually cared for and defended, because harm to the environment may directly or indirectly harm the self (Wang et al., 2019). Although the relationship between connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior is relatively well documented, less research has focused on connectedness to nature as a mechanism through which mindfulness may motivate pro-environmental behavior.

Current Study

The current study adopted a perspective akin to the Buddhist mindfulness perspective (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) to examine the effects of a 4-week online mindfulness meditation program on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior by utilizing a pre-post experimental design. Previous cross-sectional research found that connectedness to nature partially mediated the relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior (Barbaro & Pickett, 2016). This suggests that change in mindfulness (which could result from engaging in meditation) should predict similar changes in connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Additionally, meditation within the context of nature is expected to create a mindful experience in which the individual is aware of his or her senses and feels a heightened connectedness to nature. In the current research, meditation is coupled with stimuli that is reminiscent of a natural environment (i.e., guided meditation paired with nature sounds) to compare its effects with meditation performed within a different context (i.e., paired with spa-like sounds, such as soothing tones and music). Thus, connectedness to nature is expected to mediate the relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior, while the context in which the meditation occurs (i.e., nature stimuli versus spa-like stimuli) should moderate the association between mindfulness and connectedness to nature.

It was hypothesized that meditation, in general, would produce increases in mindfulness (Hypothesis 1), connectedness to nature (Hypothesis 2), and pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 3), but participants exposed to auditory nature stimuli while meditating would experience a greater rate of change in connectedness to nature (Hypothesis 4) and pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 5) than those not exposed to auditory nature stimuli. It also was hypothesized that the change (i.e., the difference in scores from pre-test to post-test) in connectedness to nature would partially mediate the relationship between changes in mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 6). It was further hypothesized that the mediated effect would be moderated by condition, whereas participants who were exposed to nature sounds and had large increases in mindfulness would have a greater increase (i.e., from pre-test to post-test) in connectedness to nature compared to participants exposed to spa-like sounds (Hypothesis 7).

Methods

Participants

Participants were 97 undergraduate students at a large university in the Midwestern United States who completed a 4-week meditation program. The majority of participants identified as female (84.5%; n = 82) and the remainder identified as male (15.5%; n = 15). Participants were primarily Caucasian/White (66.0%; n = 64), while 12.4% (n = 12) were Middle Eastern/Arabic, 4.1% (n = 4) were Asian-American, 4.1% (n = 4) were African-American/Black, 4.1% (n = 4) were Hispanic/Latino(a), and 9.3% (n = 9) were multiracial. The average age of participants was approximately 21 (M = 21.09, SD = 5.37) and ages ranged from 18 to 49 years old. Most participants had previously engaged in meditation within their lifetime (58.8%; n = 57), which consisted of 20.6% (n = 20) of participants who engaged in meditation 1 to 2 times, 12.4% (n = 12) who meditated 3 to 5 times, 9.3% (n = 9) who meditated 6 to 10 times, 4.1% (n = 4) who meditated 11 to 20 times, and 12.4% (n = 12) who meditated more than 20 times.

Design and Procedure

Participants were recruited from a psychology subject pool at a large university. The study was advertised on the subject pool system as a 4-week, online meditation program examining the effects of meditation on behavior. Interested participants were instructed to click a link that directed them to the consent form and pre-test questionnaire. Consenting participants completed the pre-test questionnaire and were subsequently given further instructions regarding the 4-week meditation program. These instructions indicated that they would receive an email from the project staff containing a link to a 15-min guided meditation—for which they were instructed to use for each meditation session—and engage in meditation 5 days per week for the entire 4 weeks. Prior to receiving an email from research staff, participants were—unknowingly—randomly assigned to one of two conditions: “nature” or “control.” Both groups contained identical guided meditations (i.e., the same voice recording in which a male voice actor followed a mindful breathing script presented in Stahl and Goldstein [2010]), but had different background noises accompanying them. The nature condition contained sounds that would typically be found in natural settings, such as rushing water and birds chirping. The control condition contained soothing background noises (i.e., tones and music) that were reminiscent of a spa or yoga class. The Qualtrics webpage that housed the meditations was designed to ensure that each participant accessed the 15-min guided meditation 5 days per week. Participants were assigned unique identification numbers that they entered each time they accessed the meditation. The Qualtrics webpage was continuously monitored and participants who did not attempt the meditation 5 days per week, did not fully complete the 15-min meditation, or who spent an excess amount of time on the webpage (i.e., more than 17 min before continuing to the next page, which suggested that the participant was not following the guided meditation and did not remain in the present moment) were considered incomplete and were sent a gentle reminder email. Participants who did not complete at least three meditations for two or more weeks were dismissed from the study. At the end of the 4-week program, participants were emailed a link to the post-test questionnaire, which they were instructed to complete within 1 week of their final meditation. Participants were compensated with partial course credit subsequent to the pre-test questionnaire (i.e., two credits) and following completion of the post-test questionnaire (i.e., five credits). All study procedures were approved by the first author’s affiliated Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Mindfulness

The Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) was used to assess mindfulness. The 39-item FFMQ consists of statements regarding the five facets of mindfulness: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity. At pre-test, participants were asked to rate the extent to which each statement was generally true for them on a scale from 1 (never or very rarely true) to 5 (very often or always true). At post-test, the prompt was revised to ask participants the extent to which each statement was generally true for them over the past 4 weeks. The present sample displayed good internal consistency at pre-test (α = .88) and excellent internal consistency at post-test (α = .93). Pre- and post-test scores on the FFMQ were strongly correlated (r = .71, p < .01).

Connectedness to nature

The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer & Frantz, 2004) was used to assess connectedness to nature. The 14-item CNS is comprised of statements such as “I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me” and “I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the natural world.” At pre-test, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At post-test, the prompt was revised to ask participants the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement over the past 4 weeks. CNS had good internal consistency at pre-test (α = .85) and excellent internal consistency at post-test (α = .90). Pre- and post-test scores on the CNS were strongly correlated (r = .69, p < .01).

Pro-environmental behavior

The Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010) was used to assess pro-environmental behaviors. The 17-item PEBS consists of four domains of private sphere pro-environmental behaviors: Energy/Water Use, Waste Behavior, Transportation, and Eco-Friendly Shopping. At pre-test, participants were asked to indicate how often they generally engage in each behavior on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always). At post-test, the prompt was revised to ask participants how often they engaged in each behavior over the past 4 weeks. PEBS had good internal consistency at pre-test (α = .80) and acceptable internal consistency at post-test (α = .79). Pre- and post-test scores on the PEBS were strongly correlated (r = .72, p < .01).

Results

Data Preparation

Excluding the power analysis, all data preparation analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 25). A total of 230 participants consented to participate and completed the pre-test questionnaire. However, 75 participants did not complete a single meditation or any other study procedures following the pre-test questionnaire. An additional 55 participants were dismissed from the study due to inactivity. Finally, two participants failed to complete the post-test questionnaire after adhering to the meditation protocol. Given these 132 participants did not provide post-test data, they were excluded from the analyses. There were no significant differences at pre-test (i.e., gender, age, race/ethnicity, previous engagement in meditation, mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior) between participants who completed all study procedures and those who did not.

Given the considerable attrition from pre-test to post-test, a power analysis was conducted in G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) to examine the adequacy of the sample size. Prior research utilizing mindfulness inductions observed medium to large between-group effects (i.e., d = .57–.85) for constructs such as mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior (Tang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019). Although these effect sizes could be used as estimates, a more conservative effect size (i.e., d = .30) was specified, because the between-group effects of a 4-week mindfulness meditation program on connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior were unclear. The specified effect size was accompanied in the analysis by α = .05, 1−β = .85, and r = .7 among repeated measures. The minimum sample size needed to detect a small- to medium-sized effect based on these criteria was 82 (“Nature” n = 41; “Control” n = 41), which indicated the sample size was sufficient.

Normality of data was assessed through the examination of histograms, z-scores, skewness, and kurtosis for each study variable at both pre-test and post-test. Histograms and z-scores revealed an outlier who was removed from the analyses due to extreme scores (i.e., z-scores less than −3.00) on two study variables—resulting in a total sample size of 97 (i.e., 48 assigned to “Nature”; 49 assigned to “Control”). All other participants had z-scores that were greater than −3.00, but less than 3.00 for all study variables. Skewness and kurtosis indices for all study variables fell well within acceptable estimates of normality (i.e., <|1|) at both time points.

Between-group comparisons were made to identify potential differences in demographic characteristics and study variables. There were no significant differences between the nature and control groups in regard to gender, age, race/ethnicity, and previous engagement in meditation. Additionally, there was a non-significant between-group difference in the average number of meditations completed across the 4-week study period (M = 18.98, SD = 1.5 across the entire sample). Further, there were no significant between-group differences in mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior at pre-test (means and standard deviations can be seen in Table 1).

Table 1.

Study Variable Means and Standard Deviations at Pre- and Post-Test.

	Nature (n = 48)	Control (n = 49)
Pre-test
Mindfulness	3.10 (0.48)	3.22 (0.49)
Connectedness to nature	3.32 (0.76)	3.42 (0.62)
Pro-environmental behavior	2.33 (0.46)	2.42 (0.37)
Post-test
Mindfulness	3.36 (0.55)	3.43 (0.52)
Connectedness to nature	3.66 (0.69)	3.55 (0.65)
Pro-environmental behavior	2.44 (0.57)	2.48 (0.39)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

Mixed-Model Analysis of Variance

Three separate Mixed-Model Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were conducted using SPSS (Version 25) to examine changes from pre-test to post-test, as well as differences between the nature group and control group. That is, one Mixed-Model ANOVA was conducted for each dependent variable (i.e., mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior). The first Mixed-Model ANOVA examined mindfulness as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect of time (i.e., overall change from pre-test to post-test), F(1, 95) = 35.67, p < .01, η² = .27, but no significant interaction. The second examined connectedness to nature as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 95) = 18.71, p < .01, η² = .17, and a significant interaction between time and condition, F(1, 95) = 4.25, p = .04, η² = .04. Post-hoc analyses were then conducted to probe the significant interaction. There was a non-significant between-group difference at post-test and a non-significant within-group change for the control group. However, there was a significant within-group change for the nature group, F(1, 47) = 15.40, p < .01, η² = .25, which indicated that the nature group had a greater rate of change in connectedness to nature relative to the control group. The third Mixed-Model ANOVA examined pro-environmental behaviors as the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 95) = 8.12, p < .01, η² = .08, but no significant interaction. There were no significant between-group differences at post-test. Means and standard deviations can be seen in Table 1, and meditation’s effect on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior can be seen in Figures 1 to 3, respectively.

Figure 1.

Mindfulness pre- and post-test means and standard errors by condition.

Figure 2.

Connectedness to nature pre- and post-test means and standard errors by condition.

Figure 3.

Pro-environmental behavior pre- and post-test means and standard errors by condition.

Conditional Process Analysis

Computation of change scores

Change scores were computed to examine the associated change among variables from pre-test to post-test. For each study variable (i.e., mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior), pre-test scores were subtracted from post-test scores, which produced positive means for all constructs. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlation coefficients for the computed change scores can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Based on Change Scores.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Mindfulness	—
2. Observing	0.54**	—
3. Describing	0.79**	0.33**	—
4. Acting with awareness	0.67**	0.02	0.55**	—
5. Nonjudging	0.57**	−0.32	0.30**	0.33**	—
6. Nonreactivity	0.61**	0.38**	0.36**	0.26*	0.11	—
7. Connectedness to nature	0.23*	0.26**	0.20	0.01	0.04	0.23*	—
8. Pro-environmental behavior	0.32**	0.30**	0.24*	0.08	0.22*	0.18	0.35**	—
Mean	0.24	0.18	0.17	0.29	0.32	0.23	0.23	0.09
Standard deviation	0.39	0.66	0.59	0.60	0.68	0.55	0.54	0.31

p < .05. **p < .01.

Moderated mediation

A moderated mediation—also referred to as a conditional process analysis—was conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017) to examine the theoretical, structural relationships between change scores. Connectedness to nature was specified as the mediator in the relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior, while condition (i.e., nature or control) was specified as the moderator between mindfulness and connectedness to nature. All predictor variables were centered to a mean of zero prior to conducting the moderated mediation, which was done to aid the interpretation of the intercept. The analysis suggested that the change in mindfulness had a direct relationship with the change in pro-environmental behaviors (c’ = .21, t = 2.68, p < .01). Additionally, change in mindfulness was indirectly related to change in pro-environmental behaviors through change in connectedness to nature. That is, change in mindfulness predicted change in connectedness to nature (a_1i = .38, t = 2.66, p < .01), and change in connectedness to nature predicted change in pro-environmental behavior (b_i = .17, t = 3.00, p < .01). Further, condition nearly moderated (i.e., trending toward significance) the path from change in mindfulness to change in connectedness to nature (a_3i = −.54, t = −1.95, p = .054). The model produced an R² of .12 in connectedness to nature and .18 in pro-environmental behavior. The structural model with coefficients and p-values can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Moderated mediation: condition (i.e., nature vs. control), change in mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior.

Simple slopes

Although the interaction between condition and change in mindfulness did not meet the p < .05 threshold, the trending status suggested that there may be some differences between the nature and control groups in regard to change in connectedness to nature. This also was suggested by the significant interaction of time and condition in the Mixed-Model ANOVA results (i.e., where connectedness to nature served as the dependent variable). Therefore, simple slopes tests were conducted to examine the interaction. Results suggested that participants who had a high changes (i.e., +1 standard deviation) in mindfulness and were in the nature condition had a significantly higher changes in connectedness to nature than those with low changes (i.e., −1 standard deviation) in mindfulness (for both the nature and control conditions), β = .46, t = 2.87, p < .01. Additionally, participants who had a high changes in mindfulness and were assigned to the nature condition had a significantly higher changes in connectedness to nature than those with high changes in mindfulness, but were assigned to the control condition, β = −.38, t = −2.78, p < .01. In other words, participants who were assigned to the nature condition and had high changes in mindfulness had the greatest increases in connectedness to nature. A plot of the interaction can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Interaction between change in mindfulness and condition on change in connectedness to nature.

Exploratory Analyses

Pearson correlations, which can be seen in Table 3, were computed to examine cross-sectional associations between the mindfulness subscales (i.e., observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreactivity), connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior based on pre-test scores. The observing subscale was most strongly associated with both connectedness to nature (r = 0.45, p < .01) and pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.33, p < .01).

Table 3.

Pearson Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Based on Pre-Test Scores.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Mindfulness	—
2. Observing	0.43**	—
3. Describing	0.73**	0.30**	—
4. Acting with awareness	0.73**	0.03	0.46**	—
5. Nonjudging	0.64**	−0.14	0.27**	0.49**	—
6. Nonreactivity	0.64**	0.32**	0.31**	0.28**	0.26*	—
7. Connectedness to nature	0.45**	0.45**	0.18	0.27**	0.19	0.41**	—
8. Pro-environmental behavior	0.42**	0.33**	0.31**	0.27**	0.15	0.30**	0.50**	—
Mean	3.16	3.31	3.24	3.16	3.16	2.88	3.37	2.37
Standard deviation	0.48	0.69	0.76	0.78	0.85	0.71	0.70	0.42

p < .05. **p < .01.

Additionally, five separate Mixed-Model ANOVAs were conducted to explore the differential effects of meditation on each mindfulness subscale. Similar to the primary analysis, for which mindfulness was examined as a unitary construct, there was a significant main effect of time for observing (F[1, 95] = 7.51, p < .01, η² = .07), describing (F[1, 95] = 8.53, p < .01, η² = .08), acting with awareness (F[1, 95] = 22.28, p < .01, η² = .19), nonjudging (F[1, 95] = 20.77, p < .01, η² = .18), and nonreactivity (F[1, 95] = 16.21, p < .01, η² = .15). There were no significant interactions for any of the mindfulness subscales.

Further, change scores were computed for the mindfulness subscales to examine their associations with change in connectedness to nature by condition, as well as their direct associations with change in pro-environmental behavior. There were no significant interactions between any of the change in mindfulness subscales and condition predicting change in connectedness to nature, with the exception of change in the describing subscale (a_3i = −.56, t = −3.08, p < .01). A simple slopes analysis suggested that participants who were in the nature condition and who had high changes in the describing subscale had significantly higher changes in connectedness to nature than participants who had low changes in the describing subscale (β = .59, t = 3.60, p < .01) or were in the control condition (β = −.49, t = −3.60, p < .01). Pearson correlations that explored the direct associations between the change in mindfulness subscales and the change in pro-environmental behavior can be seen in Table 2. Notably, changes in the observe subscale were most strongly associated with changes in pro-environmental behavior (r = .30, p < .01).

Discussion

The current study produced novel data that expands the empirical understanding of meditation and its effects on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Previous research has indicated cross-sectional associations between constructs (e.g., Barbaro & Pickett, 2016), while experimental and longitudinal work has shown that westernized mindful learning interventions can increase pro-environmental intentions and behaviors (Grabow et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2017). Other research conducted by Geiger et al. (2020), however, did not find any significant effects for a mindfulness-based intervention on sustainable consumption behavior (e.g., buying organic produce). Thus, further research was necessary to address gaps in the literature and provide insight into the nuanced relationships between variables. There was a particular dearth of research examining changes in pro-environmental behavior and its theorized mechanisms across multi-week mindfulness meditation programs. It also was unknown if the effects of meditation would be enhanced when coupled with auditory stimuli reminiscent of the natural environment, compared to other stimuli (e.g., spa-like sounds). The current study explored these ideas and found that meditation led to significant increases in all variables, and meditation within the context of nature produced enhanced effects on connectedness to nature.

In particular, the results of the study indicated that there were significant increases in mindfulness (Hypothesis 1), connectedness to nature (Hypothesis 2), and pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 3) from pre- to post-test for both meditation groups combined (i.e., nature and control). The effects of meditation on mindfulness and connectedness to nature were large, while meditation produced a medium-sized effect on pro-environmental behavior. These results suggest that meditation may be a fairly effective tool to increase pro-environmental behavior and its theorized mechanisms. However, although the results are consistent with some of the mindfulness interventions used in previous research (Grabow et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019), the practical significance of these findings (particularly increases in pro-environmental behavior) remains in question. It is unclear if the significant increase in pro-environmental behavior led to behavioral changes that would have a substantial impact on environmental harm. Previous research suggests that private sphere pro-environmental behaviors (such as those assessed in the current study) are not associated with more momentous forms of environmental harm, such as carbon footprints (Huddart Kennedy et al., 2015). Additionally, those who perform everyday pro-environmental behaviors have statistically equivalent ecological footprints to those who do not engage in any pro-environmental behaviors (Csutora, 2012). Thus, it is entirely possible that a larger effect on pro-environmental behavior is necessary to combat colossal environmental issues, such as climate change, at the individual level.

Results also indicated that there was a significant interaction between time and condition predicting connectedness to nature (Hypothesis 4), but not for pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 5). Upon examining the significant interaction, there was a greater rate of change (i.e., from pre-test to post-test) among participants in the nature group compared to participants in the control group. This provides initial evidence that meditation within the context of nature may enhance its effect on connectedness to nature, which may be partially due to the restorative effects (e.g., attention restoration) that accompany exposure to the natural environment (Kaplan, 1995). Of course, it should be highlighted that meditation, in general, produced a large and medium-sized effect on connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviors, respectively, but the between-group differences (i.e., interaction effects) were small or nonexistent. Thus, the between-group inferences that can be made from this study alone are limited.

It is conceivable that meditation occurring in a more naturalistic setting would produce even greater rates of change or larger effects, which could result in post-test differences between the nature and control groups. Relative to authentic experiences that engross multiple senses, the restoration that stems from engagement with the natural environment (Kaplan, 1995) may be lessened by the use of simulated auditory stimuli. This notion is supported by a series of studies conducted by Mayer et al. (2009), which found that exposure to virtual nature had a weaker effect on connectedness to nature than exposure to actual nature. Therefore, the current results show a promising trend, but further research, particularly in a naturalistic setting, is needed to fully understand the impact of nature-based meditation on connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior.

Additionally, engaging in meditation for an extended period of time may produce larger effects (Siegel et al., 2008). A 4-week meditation program is relatively short (i.e., compared to 8-week programs that are used in much of the meditation literature) and more engagement in meditation may be necessary to harvest its full effects. Thus, although the current study observed some significant relationships and substantial effect sizes, meditation coupled with a natural context for a lengthier period of time (e.g., 8 weeks) may generate levels of connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior that are beyond the effects of meditation in a different context.

Although practicing mindfulness through meditation is generally expected to increase conscious awareness and direct attention toward the current moment (Siegel et al., 2008), a stronger effect on connectedness to nature also may have occurred if the meditation had been tailored to the auditory stimuli. For example, the voice actor’s explicit guidance toward the sounds of rushing water or birds chirping could have more effectively focused attention on the natural environment. This conceivably could result in heightened connectedness to nature when compared to a focus on the current moment more broadly, because a generic focus may result in increased attention toward other aspects of the current moment, such as one’s own breathing rhythm. However, given the current study was interested in comparing two contexts of meditation using auditory cues, it was most methodologically appropriate to present both groups with the identical guided meditation, but with distinct accompanying stimuli (i.e., nature sounds vs. spa/yoga sounds). It remains an intriguing question as to whether or not instruction that specifies attention toward nature stimuli would yield larger effects.

The current study also examined changes in connectedness to nature as a mechanism in the relationship between changes in mindfulness and changes in pro-environmental behavior (Hypothesis 6). Results suggested that the changes in scores (i.e., pre- to post-test) for mindfulness are directly related to the changes in pro-environmental behavior. This relationship was partially mediated by changes in connectedness to nature, which provides support for the hypothesized associations and previous cross-sectional research (Barbaro & Pickett, 2016). Within this relationship, it also was hypothesized that condition (i.e., nature vs. control) would interact with changes in mindfulness to predict changes in connectedness to nature (Hypothesis 7). Given that there was a non-significant interaction, this hypothesis was not supported. However, the trending p-value (i.e., p = .054) suggested that examination of the interaction might be worthwhile and indicated that participants in the nature group who had high positive changes in mindfulness had significantly greater increases in connectedness to nature than participants in the control group. This suggests that a mindful individual, especially when he or she is in a mindful state, is receptive to environmental contextual cues. Stimuli that are reminiscent of the natural environment, in particular, may help to develop a sense of connectedness with nature.

Additional analyses were conducted to explore the associations between independent mindfulness facets, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. The results indicated that the observing subscale was most strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior (i.e., relative to the other mindfulness facets), which is consistent with the cross-sectional research reviewed by Geiger, Grossman et al., (2018). Additionally, changes in the describing subscale significantly interacted with condition to predict changes in connectedness to nature. Further analysis of the interaction indicated that participants in the nature group who had high positive changes in the describing subscale had significantly greater increases in connectedness to nature than participants in the control group. Although it is surprising that only the describing facet interacted with condition to predict connectedness to nature, a possible interpretation is that the describing subscale is the only context-dependent mindfulness facet. Whereas global changes in mindfulness may foster the development and understanding of one’s emotional experiences and spiritual connections (including connectedness to nature), perhaps exposure to nature is necessary for people to begin to articulate their connection with the natural environment. However, further empirical studies that examine global mindfulness, as well as the mindfulness facets, are necessary to make conclusions regarding the nuanced effects of nature-based meditation on connectedness to nature and subsequent pro-environmental behavior.

Taken together, the results provided broad support for the theoretical frameworks outlined by Amel et al. (2009) and Mayer and Frantz (2004). Amel and colleagues suggested that people commonly default to cognitively automatic (or “mindless”) consumption decisions that adversely affect the environment. The results of the current study suggested that engagement in meditation, and its subsequent increases in mindfulness, may allow people to mindfully attend to their behaviors in ways that minimize harm to the natural environment. In other words, mindfulness meditation can decrease the automaticity of behavior (Siegel et al., 2008), which appears to generalize to pro-environmental behavior.

Although the induction of mindfulness may directly result in a greater frequency of pro-environmental behavior, mindfulness also may influence connectedness to nature and indirectly affect sustainable behavior. As highlighted by Mayer and Frantz (2004), identifying with nature implies a perceived sense of oneness or belongingness with nature. An individual who identifies with nature should have considerable motivation to protect to the environment, because harm to the environment may result in harm to the self. The results of the current study supported these ideas. Mindfulness meditation, especially within the context of nature, appeared to result in a stronger sense of connection with nature, thus decreasing the likelihood of engaging in what could be perceived as self-harming behavior (i.e., environmental harm). Instead, people who strongly identified with nature engaged in relatively high frequencies of pro-environmental behavior.

Implications

The current study has several implications for the extant literature and interventions aimed toward increasing pro-environmental behavior. First, the results provided pre-post support for the notion that mindfulness meditation can effectively increase connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior. This is an important contribution to the current literature, given that most research to date is cross-sectional and very few studies have examined the effects of mindfulness meditation on pro-environmental behavior using a pre-post experimental design. The current study, therefore, demonstrated encouraging results that advocate for the incorporation of meditation programs as a mechanism to improve pro-environmental behavior.

However, although mindfulness interventions, such as meditation in the current study, have resulted in increased pro-environmental behavior (Grabow et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2017), relying on such strategies as an interventional method for larger societal change should be cautioned. Such programs appear to be promising at the individual or group levels, but contain small cohorts. The relatively small number of influenced individuals (i.e., formalized meditation programs are accessible to few people) suggests that meditation programs are unlikely to achieve the large societal shift in mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior that are necessary to combat the environmental threats associated with climate change. Instead, social norms campaigns that captivate larger audiences could encourage engagement in meditation or other mindfulness exercises and may generate more robust change compared to the simple introduction of meditation programs. Alternatively, it has been suggested that changing consumption norms or product availability (e.g., limiting product choices to only those that have minimal impact on the environment) would allow people to engage in “mindless” pro-environmental behavior (Amel et al., 2009). This could be a valuable adjunctive or short-term solution, but may introduce other “mindless” environment harming behaviors that were not accounted for in the intervention. Given the association between changes in mindfulness and changes in pro-environmental behavior, the development of mindfulness among large groups of people should be a primary goal of intervention efforts.

Limitations

The current study is not without limitations. First, participants were United States university students and results may not generalize to other populations, such as the broader United States population or people in other areas of the world. Additionally, participants were primarily Caucasian/White and identified as female; it is unclear if a different composition of demographics could alter the results. Based on the theoretical framework outlined above, however, the same pattern of results is expected regardless of the demographic proportions in a particular sample. Specifically, the limited cognitive resources that encourage mindless behavior—such as behaviors that are harmful to the natural environment—is a human attribute that should affect all people, regardless of their demographics. Of course, further empirical data may be needed to support this claim.

There also are limitations concerning the self-report measures used in the current study. Although the measures have demonstrated solid psychometric properties and have been extensively utilized in previous research, self-report measures may be susceptible to social desirability, misinterpretation, and other methodological issues, especially in regard to behavioral measures (e.g., pro-environmental behavior). Additionally, the utilized timeframe of the post-test measures (i.e., “over the past 4 weeks”) is a limitation, because it may have produced overly conservative estimates. It is suspected that the assessed constructs incrementally increased as the intervention progressed. Thus, the effects on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior may have peaked immediately following the intervention period, and these effects may have been diluted by the assessment of constructs “over the past 4 weeks.”

The assigned conditions and utilized stimuli also are associated with some limitations. The current study contained a control condition for the context in which meditation occurs, but did not have a control for meditation in general, such as a wait-list control group. Additionally, the efficacy of the particular audio used in the current study was unclear at the onset of the study—despite the effective use of the script and mindful breathing techniques to increase mindfulness in other meditation programs (e.g., Canby et al., 2015; Visted et al., 2015). Nonetheless, the results of the current study indicate that the auditory stimulus did indeed increase mindfulness, regardless of the sounds accompanying it (i.e., nature or spa-like sounds), which provides some evidence of its efficacy and validity. A related limitation—though inherent to meditation programs—is the extent to which the participants adhered to the instructions of the guided meditation (e.g., bringing attention to their breath). There is a possibility that participants, instead of closely following the guidance of the audio recording, sat quietly and let their mind wander. This may have contributed to a dampened effect of meditation that could have otherwise had a greater impact on connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior. The current study also has limited external validity due to the use of auditory stimuli as contextual cues of environment (i.e., nature or spa/yoga setting), as opposed to exposing participants to the actual environments. Although this is a limitation, the results provide some support the use of “virtual nature,” which may extend the utility and accessibility of nature-based interventions.

A final limitation is the sizable attrition rate that was observed between pre-test and post-test measurement time points. Much of the attrition was thought to be a result of the compensation timeline (i.e., two credits granted after completion of pre-test; five credits granted after completion of post-test), because many participants (i.e., n = 75) did not complete a single meditation. This suggests several participants may have intended to only complete the pre-test and receive two credits. A different compensation strategy (e.g., one that disbursed compensation across the entire program) may have yielded greater longevity and adherence to the program.

Future Directions

Future research should seek to utilize advanced measurement tools, extend the length and external validity of mindfulness interventions, offer additional measurement time points, increase the sample size, and add supplementary control conditions. More specifically, other methods of collecting pro-environmental behavior data, such as the calculation of individuals’ carbon footprint through the monitoring of food consumption, travel, and energy usage, have shown promise in previous research (Grabow et al., 2018). Such methods may provide the most accurate depictions of individuals’ behavior and would be an informative “next step” for future research that examines the effects of mindfulness meditation. Additionally, comparing the context of meditation within naturalistic settings (i.e., actual nature or a spa/yoga class) would extend the external validity of the results. As is suggested by previous research (Mayer et al., 2009), naturalistic settings also may produce more profound effects on connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behavior than the use of “virtual nature” in the current study. The effects of meditation on pro-environmental behavior also may be enhanced if future interventions target the observing facet of mindfulness, which was most strongly associated with pro-environmental behavior, but was least affected by meditation. Further, engaging in meditation for an extended period of time (e.g., 8 weeks) may be beneficial for future research. A related suggestion is to introduce additional assessment points to observe change over time, or add a “follow-up” assessment to examine if changes are sustained after the meditation program has ceased. Utilizing a larger sample size in future research also would be favorable. Such an adjustment may enhance demographic representation and could strengthen power and the ability to detect effects that were trending toward significance in the current study (i.e., the differential association between changes in mindfulness and changes in connectedness to nature between conditions). Finally, research examining the general effects of meditation on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior should consider utilizing a wait-list control—or another control condition—to further isolate the effects of meditation. Future research that is consistent with these recommendations is necessary to fully grasp the extent of the associations between meditation, mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior.

Conclusion

The current research provided pre-post support for the beneficial effects of meditation on mindfulness, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Results also provided some preliminary evidence to suggest that the effects of meditation may be enhanced if occurring within the context of nature. Although future research is needed to further probe the effectiveness of nature-based meditation, and meditation more broadly, these results expand the current knowledge base and provide supplementary evidence for mindfulness as a mechanism to increase pro-environmental behavior. Interventions aimed toward achieving large societal shifts in mindfulness may be advantageous to reduce environmental harm and prevent the negative effects associated with climate change.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Travis N. Ray

Author Biographies

Travis N. Ray is a doctor of Philosophy student, concentrating in social and health psychology, within Oakland University’s Department of Psychology. His interests fall within two primary lines of research. The first examines masculinity and how it relates to violence and aggression. The second examines the interconnectedness between individuals and the natural environment, such as the psychological benefits of being in nature and predictors of pro-environmental behavior.

Scott A. Franz is a recent graduate from Oakland University, for which he obtained a Master of Science in Psychology. His research examines predictors of pro-social and pro-environmental behavior.

Nicole L. Jarrett received a Master of Science in Psychology, with a concentration in behavioral health, from Oakland University in 2017 and is currently pursuing a Master of Public Health at Oakland University with expected graduation in 2020. Her primary research interests include mindfulness, emotion regulation, sleep processes, and resilience.

Scott M. Pickett is an associate professor at the Center for Translational Behavioral Science in the Department of Behavioral Sciences at Florida State University College of Medicine. His research examines emotion regulation, including psychological flexibility and mindfulness, in an attempt to understand how emotion regulation processes influence cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

References

Amel

E. L.

Manning

C. M.

Scott

B. A.

(2009). Mindfulness and sustainable behavior: Pondering attention and awareness as means for increasing green behavior. Ecopsychology, 1(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2008.0005

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

Hopkins

Krietemeyer

Toney

(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

Barbaro

Pickett

S. M.

(2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.026

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Brown

K. W.

Kasser

(2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

(2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

Creswell

J. D.

(2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298

Canby

N. K.

Cameron

I. M.

Calhoun

A. T.

Buchanan

G. M.

(2015). A brief mindfulness intervention for healthy college students and its effects on psychological distress, self-control, meta-mood, and subjective vitality. Mindfulness, 6(5), 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0356-5

Csutora

(2012). One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9187-8

10.

Davis

J. L.

Green

J. D.

Reed

(2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001

11.

Dunn

Callahan

J. L.

Swift

J. K.

(2013). Mindfulness as a transtheoretical clinical process. Psychotherapy, 50(3), 312–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032153

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

13.

Geiger

S. M.

Fischer

Schrader

Grossman

(2020). Meditating for the planet: Effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on sustainable consumption behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 52(9), 1012–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519880897

14.

Geiger

S. M.

Grossman

Schrader

(2018). Mindfulness and sustainability: Correlation or causation?. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.010

15.

Geiger

S. M.

Otto

Schrader

(2018). Mindfully green and healthy: An indirect path from mindfulness to ecological behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2306. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02306

16.

Grabow

Bryan

Checovich

Converse

Middlecamp

Mooney

Torres

E. R.

Younkin

S. G.

Barrett

(2018). Mindfulness and climate change action: A feasibility study. Sustainability, 10(5), 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051508

17.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

18.

Hoot

R. E.

Friedman

(2011). Connectedness and environmental behavior: Sense of interconnectedness and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30(1), 89–100.

19.

Howell

A. J.

Dopko

R. L.

Passmore

H. A.

Buro

(2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037

20.

Huddart Kennedy

Krahn

Krogman

N. T.

(2015). Are we counting what counts?: A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environment, 20(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.837039

21.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Summary for policymakers: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectorial aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 20, 2019 from www.ipcc.ch/reports/ar5/wg2/

22.

Jacob

Jovic

Brinkerhoff

M. B.

(2009). Personal and planetary well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9308-6

23.

Kabat-Zinn

(1990). Full catastrophe living: the program of the stress reduction clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. Dell Publishing.

24.

Kaplan

(1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182.

25.

Keng

S. L.

Smoski

M. J.

Robins

C. L.

(2011). Effect of mindfulness of psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006.

26.

Killingsworth

M. A.

Gilbert

D. T.

(2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932–932. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439

27.

Langer

(1989). Mindfulness. Addison-Wesley.

28.

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(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

29.

Mayer

F. S.

Frantz

C. M.

Bruehlman-Senecal

Dolliver

(2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745

30.

Pagnini

Cavalera

Rovaris

Mendozzi

Molinari

Phillips

Langer

(2019). Longitudinal associations between mindfulness and well-being in people with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 19(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2018.11.003

31.

Panno

Giacomantonio

Carrus

Maricchiolo

Pirchio

Mannetti

(2018). Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: The mediating role of social dominance. Environment and Behavior, 50(8), 864–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517718887

32.

Rosenberg

E. L.

(2004). Mindfulness and consumerism. In Kasser

Kanner

A. D.

(Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 107–125). American Psychological Association.

33.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

(2018). Mindfulness and connectedness to nature: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.034

34.

Siegel

R. D.

Germer

C. K.

Olendzki

(2008). Mindfulness: What is it? Where does it come from? In Didonna

(Ed.), Clinical handbook of mindfulness (pp. 17–36). Springer.

35.

Stahl

Goldstein

(2010). A mindfulness-based stress reduction workbook. New Harbinger Publications.

36.

Tang

Geng

Schultz

P. W.

Zhou

Xiang

(2017). The effects of mindful learning on pro-environmental behavior: A self-expansion perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.03.005

37.

Unsworth

Palicki

S. K.

Lustig

(2016). The impact of mindful meditation in nature on self-nature interconnectedness. Mindfulness, 7(5), 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0542-8

38.

Vargo

D. R.

Silbersweig

D. A.

(2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296

39.

Visted

Vøllestad

Nielsen

M. B.

Nielsen

G. H.

(2015). The impact of group-based mindfulness training on self-reported mindfulness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 6(3), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0283

40.

Wang

Geng

Schultz

P. W.

Zhou

(2019). Mindfulness increases the belief in climate change: The mediating role of connectedness with nature. Environment and Behavior, 51(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738036

41.

Whitmarsh

O’Neill

(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(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003

42.

Wolsko

Lindberg

(2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2013.0008

43.

Wuebbles

D. J.

Fahey

D. W.

Hibbard

K. A.

Dokken

D. J.

Stewart

B. C.

Maycock

T. K.

(2017). USGCRP: Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment, volume I. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC (p. 470). https://doi.org/10.7930/J0J964J6.