The biophilia and topophilia hypotheses provide a foundation on which to understand the distress, pain or sickness that has been reported with environmental change of home or territory. This is the phenomenon of ‘solastalgia’ \cite{ALBRECHT,2019,Albrecht_2007}.
Glenn Albrecht, an Australian environmental philosopher coined the term ‘solastalgia’ after reflecting on the environmental impacts of open cut coal mining and pollution of local power stations on the residents of the Upper Hunter Region of NSW in Australia. He writes that ‘solastalgia’ reflects a “specific form of melancholia connected to a lack of solace and intense desolation” associated with place-based distress \cite{albrecht2005a}. Mental distress and psychiatric disorders are expected to arise from the direct effects of climate-related disasters as well as the indirect effects of such events (e.g. disruption to food supply and damage to community wellbeing) \cite{Berry_2009,Hayes_2018}. In fact, the number of people experiencing psychological trauma exceeds those with physical injury by 40–1 \cite{j2007}, and weather related disasters have increased by 44% since the year 2000 \cite{Watts_2018}. Critically, there is now strong evidence to conclude that we humans are contributing to such change, a phenomenon known as anthropogeneic climate change. Research reporting on ratings of peer-reviewed climate-science and self-ratings by climate change scientists themselves has indicated that there is 97% endorsement of humans contribution to the warming climate \cite{Cook_2013}. Unfortunately, this finding remains under appreciated in a brave new world of alternative facts and disinformation \cite{Lewandowsky_2013,Lewandowsky_2017}.
In our original GENIAL model \cite{Kemp_2017}, we described an important role for positive social ties and community on health and wellbeing. Interestingly, others \cite{Beery_2015,Nurse_2010} have argued that the boundaries of ‘community’ should be extended to the environment including soil, water, plants and animals, in order to facilitate love and respect, and a commitment to environmental sustainability. Feelings of guilt, shame, fear, emotional discomfort and solastalgia have been associated with motivation to engage in environmental sustainability behaviours \cite{Albrecht_2007,DICKERSON_1992,Kaiser_2008,Malott_2010}. Others have proposed an ‘aesthetics of elsewhere’, which involves encouraging a double aesthetic judgment of ‘here’ and ‘elsewhere’ to induce an aesthetic melancholia to influence consumption decisions \cite{maskit2011}. By contrast, others have argued for a positive psychology of sustainability \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2014,Corral_Verdugo_2012,obrien2016}, a strategy that may help to foster what has been described as sustainable wellbeing \cite{Kjell_2011}. In a study on 606 undergraduate students in Mexico \cite{fraijo-sing2011}, researchers reported that pro-ecological, altruistic, frugal and equitable behaviors reflect the behaviours of a sustainably-oriented person, and that these sustainable behaviours have positive psychological consequences. Prior research had shown that individuals engaging in pro-ecological behaviours – such as resource conservation – report greater happiness \cite{Brown_2005}, that altruism leads to greater long-term happiness \cite{ja1995}, and that frugality predicts greater psychological wellbeing, satisfaction and motivation \cite{Brown_2005}. More equitable individuals however, had been reported to be less happy due to the ‘negative hedonic impact of inequality in society’. It is notable here that climate change exacerbates existing inequities \cite{Hayes_2018}.
Others have proposed the concept of ‘sustainable happiness’ \cite{2016}, defined as “happiness that contributes to individual, community, and/or global well-being without exploiting other people, the environment, or future generations”\cite{obrien2010} thus differentiating it from “sustaining happiness” or “sustainable increases in happiness” \cite{s2007}. More recently, a structural model of the relationships between character strengths, virtues and sustainable behaviours has been presented in which all 24 character strengths \cite{p2004} are associated with all four sustainable behaviours (i.e. altruistic, frugal, equitable and pro-ecological behaviours) \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2015}. This body of work provides a useful foundation on which psychological scientists may advocate a role for the discipline in addressing environmental challenges, such that pro-environmental behaviours also provide opportunities to promote happiness and build resources for resilience, in addition to much-needed environmental benefits \cite{Clayton_2016,fraijo-sing2011,Corral_Verdugo_2012}. The grave threat that human beings face may also inspire a variety of positive feelings such as altruism, compassion, optimism as well as a sense of purpose “as people band together to salvage, rebuild, and console amongst the chaos and loss of a changing climate” \cite{Hayes_2018}, reflecting ‘active hope’ \cite{c2012}.
While the emerging positive psychology of sustainability \cite{Corral_Verdugo_2015,Kjell_2011,Corral_Verdugo_2012,obrien2016} provides a clear link between individual and environmental wellbeing, it is also notable that the vast majority of people do not engage in proenvironmental behaviours [REF?]. Recent qualitative research \cite{langen2017} has investigated the psychological processes that not only foster such behaviours, but those that can lead one to become agents for change. The researchers interpreted their findings in the context of ‘salutogenesis’ \cite{ANTONOVSKY_1996}The salutogenic concept emphasises a key role for a ‘sense of coherence’ for managing and overcoming stress. This ‘sense of coherence’ reflect feelings of confidence that stimuli in the (internal and external) environment are comprehensible, manageable and meaningful. The researchers reported that grassroots activists relied on values and attitudes, rather than cognitive assessments of the problems. The researchers emphasised that the problems are so vast that limits are imposed on knowledge (i.e. comprehensibility), arguing that emotions are a key mediator between the appraisal of a situation and motivation to take action. The difficulty in comprehending problems associated with climate change, and the intangibility and invisibility of such change may even lead individuals to sit on their hands and do nothing, a phenomenon known as ‘Giddens Paradox’ \cite{a2009}. Maschkowski and colleagues also contrast the ideological foundation of consumer society (‘the more we consume, the better off we are’) with a sense of personal responsibility for change, reporting that grassroots activists had an improved perceived quality of life, speculating that these improvements were attributable to empowerment and social cohesion, providing a sense of meaning and purpose in life (i.e. meaningfulness). Finally, concrete and collective action was observed to enhance positive emotions and mastery experiences subsequently enhancing beliefs about self-efficacy (i.e. manageability) \cite{langen2017}.
In summary, exposure to nature provides a host of benefits that have direct impacts on wellbeing - even when controlling for the benefits of physical activity [XXX INFLUENTIAL REF?? XXX] - and may even promote commitment to proenvironmental behaviours. Although psychological scientists have been criticised for contributing to the problem of consumerism and materialistic pursuits, we have observed emerging research interest in the concepts of sustainable happiness and wellbeing, directly linking positive psychology to concepts relating to sustainability and proenvironmental behaviours. While some authors have questioned whether it is possible to quantify wellbeing \cite{Crawshaw_2008}, arguing that wellbeing is a holistic concept that is difficult to pin down within a “culture of growing self-interest propagated within pervasive neoliberal ideology” \cite{Dooris_2017}, we suggest otherwise, although much work in this area remains to be done. Researchers have begun to begun to propose broader conceptualisations of health and wellbeing incorporating individual, family, community and societal dimensions \cite{Dooris_2017}, as well as the need to support the wellbeing of future generations \cite{Lindstr_m_2010}. While psychological scientists have typically emphasised a role for the individual in enhancing and improving wellbeing (i.e. the individualist approach to health), sociologists have emphasised the role of the state (the structuralist approach to health). Future research on wellbeing will require us to step outside our disciplinary silos, and conduct inter-disciplinary, even trans-disciplinary research that harnesses both approaches. Behaviour change is difficult especially in regards to the adoption of proenvironmental behaviours. It is a perhaps relief that one can be motivated to act against climate change, irrespective of personal importance placed on climate change itself and whether or not one is a ‘believer’ or ‘skeptic’ by appealing to economic advancement and building community \cite{Bain_2015}.
INTEGRATE:
http://www.thrivingplacesindex.org/, “This year, we have strengthened the sustainability and equality domains to underline the vital importance of delivering the conditions for wellbeing in a way that challenges current power imbalances and recognises the rights of future generations.“
XXX
Exposure to nature is another route through which an individual can experience eudaimonia (Passmore & Howell, 2014), among others (Ruini & Ryff, 2016).
 INTEGRATE: A recent has even demonstrated that climate change has already increased societal inequality XXX INTEGRATE AND DISCUSS: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1816020116. DISCUSSED HERE: http://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/, which may fuel XXX political grievances, XXX and terrorism. [REF]