ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 13 March 2020
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00402
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness:
Environmental Conditions,
Well-Being and Aesthetic Experience
Helga Synnevåg Løvoll 1 , Knut-Willy Sæther 2* and Mark Graves 3
1
Department of Physical Education, Volda University College, Volda, Norway, 2 Department of Religious Studies, Volda
University College, Volda, Norway, 3 Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA,
United States
Edited by:
Stefano Mastandrea,
Roma Tre University, Italy
Reviewed by:
Hernan Casakin,
Ariel University, Israel
Tove Irene Dahl,
Arctic University of Norway, Norway
*Correspondence:
Knut-Willy Sæther
setherk@hivolda.no
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Environmental Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 30 September 2019
Accepted: 21 February 2020
Published: 13 March 2020
Citation:
Løvoll HS, Sæther K-W and
Graves M (2020) Feeling at Home
in the Wilderness: Environmental
Conditions, Well-Being and Aesthetic
Experience. Front. Psychol. 11:402.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00402
Environmental conditions affect one’s aesthetic experience in natural environments.
Understanding that effect requires accounting for the conditions affecting one’s attention
and experience. Rather than attempt to reduce and control environmental factors,
we compare two similar groups during naturally occurring, intense and overwhelming
conditions and examine the relationship between common characteristics as well as
environment and group differences. Participants undertook a 5-day, winter, wilderness
adventure training course designed to challenge their considerable wilderness and
leadership skills under two different extreme weather conditions but within the same
wilderness area (n = 47 full participation). In addition to pre- and post-adventure
questionnaires, participants responded daily during the wilderness experience to briefly
describe a self-selected, strong experience of nature; characterize its associated feeling
states; and answer questions probing eight aesthetic aspects of the experience.
Participant strong experience of nature related to hedonic and eudaimonic feelings
in different ways depending upon environmental conditions. In particular, strong
correlations occurred between agreement ratings with “I felt at home in nature” daily
experience reports and satisfaction with life and personal growth trait measures, but
primarily during sunny and cold conditions on a high plateau (PG: Pearson r = 0.51;
SWL: r = 0.70) and not significantly in stormy and wet weather in a mountain
forest. In addition, experience narratives that correspond to strongest agreement to
feeling at home in nature were examined for shared themes and synthesized into
six dimensions: focus on sensory experiences at a particular moment, self-reflection,
wonder, appreciation of beauty, positive emotions, and insight of relation to nature.
These findings actualize the notion of wonder, aroused by sudden feelings or by
reflection, as a salient ingredient in feeling at home in wilderness. The finding of
feeling at home in nature, as the most important feature relating to feelings and wellbeing, is discussed in relation to self-awareness, philosophical thinking, and potential
ethical awareness.
Keywords: aesthetic experience, awe, beauty, natural environment, sublime, well-being, wilderness, wonder
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
1
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
experience is an experience of a particular time and place, i.e.,
“event.” There are commonalities among aesthetic experiences
that enable them to be collected as “aesthetic experience,” but
one does not have a general experience aesthetically, one only
has particular aesthetic experiences, and thus the environmental
context plays a crucial role. The field of environmental aesthetics
spans many approaches to how one appreciates nature (Carlson,
1998, 2000), and one crucial topic in environmental aesthetics
is the relationship between aesthetic experience and aesthetic
judgment (Stecker, 2005). For Stecker, these two are strongly
intertwined, and for him the aesthetic experience is not only
about what is pleasing, but about what one values as important.
Such an approach opens up a complex understanding of what
is happening in an aesthetic experience. According to Berleant
(1998), environmental aesthetics needs to cover more than what
is, in one sense, visual pleasing. The experience of nature, or
the surrounding environment, is about several aspects, such as
space, volume, time, movement, color, light, smell, sound, touch,
order, and meaning. For Berleant, in environmental aesthetics the
experience of beauty in nature has to be understood in a complex
way as “. . . the pervasive aesthetic value of an environmental
situation” (Berleant, 1998, p.118).
Related to aesthetic experiences in nature is the notion of
wonder. Wonder is undoubtedly a complex phenomenon. One
way to understand the relationship between aesthetic experiences
in nature (such as beauty and the sublime) and wonder is that the
former activates the latter. The experience of beauty stimulates
wonder: What is this beauty I am experiencing? Why is it so? We
might reflect in a similar way concerning the sublime (Sæther,
2017). Robert Fuller relates these phenomena by saying: “Wonder
most frequently occurs as a response to something that strikes
us as intensely powerful, real, or beautiful” (Fuller, 2012, p. 70).
In one sense, as one encounters nature, one might talk about
the experience of wonder, in line with experience of the sublime
and beauty. However, wonder is a larger, more overreaching,
profound, and subtle concept (Fuller, 2012).
Wonder has at least two dimensions: as something in nature
which evokes a feeling of wonder and something motivating
humans for reflection and further search for insight (Sæther,
2017). This motivation is a kind of an inner flow on the part of,
for example, the scientist as described by Ralph Waldo Emerson:
“Men love to wonder, and this is the seed of science.” (Ledley,
2009, p. 246). We can describe this inner flow as a shared
experience for everyone in one’s search for understanding of the
world. For Sophia Vasalou, such a flow is not only intellectual, as
in a search for understanding, but also functions as a motivation
for practices (Vasalou, 2012). Hence, in understanding wonder,
this phenomenon can motivate toward an ethical awareness.
Both dimensions of wonder, those induced by sudden feelings
and those motivated by reflection, can be explored as experiences
with relevance for ethical awareness. An ethical awareness is
important to feel deeply connected to nature as one of the
most important virtues of our time, addressing how to respond
recording to environmental crisis (Vetlesen, 2015). For Seel
(1998) our aesthetic experiences in nature are pointing toward
an ethical dimension of what we strive for and hope for: “. . .
the aesthetic of nature is [. . .] simultaneously part of an ethics
INTRODUCTION
When moving outdoors into the wilderness, various aesthetic
experiences take place. In a sweeping landscape just moving one’s
head may change one’s experience radically, so outdoor aesthetic
experience is dynamic in a way that differs from looking at a
piece of art (Chenoweth and Gobster, 1990, p. 2). In wilderness,
the always shifting conditions over spatial perspectives and time
result in multi-dimensional stimuli across all one’s senses. By
selective interest, one might choose to pay attention to shifts of
environmental conditions, focus on certain objects in wilderness,
attend to inner processes of mental or spiritual states, or simply
struggle for satisfying needs and comfort in harsh conditions.
From moment to moment, one’s selective attention shifts among
sensory stimuli and one’s felt experience of them. William James
likens one’s attention to a “stream of thoughts,” and one’s selective
interest plays a key role in understanding experience in contrast
to utter chaos (James, 1890, p. 402). Wilderness adventure
provides considerable potential for complex experiences, as there
is room for silence, comfort, and contemplation on one hand,
and challenging, even terrifying, surprising and overwhelming
situations on the other. In this paper, we intend to identify
core characteristics of the aesthetic wilderness experience in
Norwegian winter mountains.
Studying the complex, equivocal, and perplexing phenomena
of aesthetic experience and well-being in a wilderness
context requires multiple perspectives including both holistic
approaches–to ensure study of the actual phenomena in their
long-standing historical context–and reductionist approaches
to enable empirical discovery and analysis sufficient for novel
insight into their enigmatic interrelationship. Although the need
for such a span occurs regularly in the emerging empirical study
of many complex phenomena, the examination of aesthetic
experience in particular demands attention to that complexity, as
the holistic-reductionist spectrum can itself be an essential aspect
of the aesthetic experience.
Aesthetic experiences are important for humans as they affect
mood and indirectly promote well-being (Mastandrea et al.,
2019). Our approach to aesthetic experiences in nature is in
line with Tomlin (2008) reflections that stress the transformative
and evaluative dimensions of aesthetic experience (rather than
only its analytical or defining characteristics). For Tomlin,
an experience of high value gives the subject a new sort of
consciousness not accessible through other experiences. “What
transforms [a] kind of perception to an aesthetic experience is
that it becomes an ‘event’.” (Tomlin, 2008, p. 7). In the process of
understanding experiences to be transformative and evaluative,
there are qualitative differences among several facets of the
experience, and among these: the role of beauty and sublime
dimensions in aesthetic experiences (different characteristics),
the role of hedonic and eudaimonic experiences in well-being
(different affective dimensions), and the role of stimulus-driven
and goal-directed attention in the way one orients in wilderness
(different involuntary and voluntary attention).
Environmental aesthetics identities that, because aesthetics
depends upon attention and its evaluative and transformative
effects, it also depends upon to what one attends. The aesthetic
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
2
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
is traditionally understood as a response to the sublime. Fred D.
Ledley describes the sublime as causing a sense of exaltations
and awe. William Wordsworth describes such experiences as
“impressions of power, feeling of apprehension, dread, fear, or
wonder” (Ledley, 2009, p. 248). The sublime also includes a
sense of duration in which “individuality is lost in the general
sense of duration belonging to the earth itself ” (Ledley, 2009).
Alexander (2014, p. 52) expresses the sublime as “a pleasure
in the way that nature’s capacity to overwhelm our powers of
perception and imagination is contained by and fuels our rational
comprehension.” In the extension of both the experience of
beauty and the sublime, the experience of wonder is relevant
to emphasize. The experiences of beauty and the sublime are
intertwined with the experience of wonder. Wonder is evoked by
a surprising situation, such as changes in weather, having a novel
perception of something in nature.
We understand the sublime as “. . . as a pleasure in
the way that nature’s capacity to overwhelm our powers of
perception and imagination is contained by and fuels our rational
comprehension. . .” (Alexander, 2014, p. 59), and the sublime
evokes “a sense of exaltation and awe, a sense of duration in
which individuality is lost. . .” (Ledley, 2009, p. 248). To examine
the sublime empirically, we draw upon an emerging literature
on the psychology of awe, where Keltner and Haidt (2003) finds
beauty the most predominant experiential theme, and Yaden
et al. (2018) finds natural scenery the most predominant trigger
eliciting awe. Although awe may include constructs unrelated
to the sublime and the sublime has other aspects in addition
to awe (Sæther, 2017), considering awe in an aesthetic context
enables bridging empirical investigations of awe and aesthetics to
begin creating an empirical foundation for studying experiences
of the sublime. Considering levels of connectedness-to-nature as
traits, the intensity of transcendent and awe-inspired experiences
seems to increase (Davis and Gatersleben, 2013). However, in
this latter study, connectedness-to-nature appeared to be a trait
that can be trained.
Investigating traits for aesthetic nature experiences, a twofactor structure was recently identified: One relating to traditional
perceptions of beauty, typically focusing on beautiful scenery,
while the other relates to the sublime, typically by deeper
immersion and experiences of awe (Graves et al., 2020).
In the beauty-dimension (seven items), this correlated with
strong relationships and communion with nature, while in
the sublime-dimension (eight items), this correlated with the
importance of fulfillment and peace. In the current study,
we explore if sublime aspects of aesthetic nature experiences
also yield situational wilderness experiences, and if so, how
we can characterize and understand these experiences. Nature
has an important impact of our overall well-being. From an
environmental psychology perspective, the presence of nature
is first and foremost known as having a stress reducing effect
(see for example Hartig et al., 1991; Laumann et al., 2003). To
be in natural environments is an effective arena for emotion
regulation and important for one’s everyday well-being (Johnsen
and Rydstedt, 2013). Thus, daily hikes help to reduce stress and
regulate emotions. Sensory experiences in nature are moreover a
source of positive emotions (Ballew and Omoto, 2018) and being
of the individual conduct of life [. . .] for aesthetics, being
concerned with specific forms of and opportunities for processoriented activity, is generally part of an ethics of the good life.”
(Seel, 1998, p. 342).
Another, although closely related, way of relating aesthetics
and ethical awareness is developed by Bergmann. He coined the
term aesth/ethics to emphasize aesthetics as strongly intertwined
with ethics (Bergmann, 2011). Bergmann shows that aesth/ethics,
with the slash, indicates that ethics is embedded continuously
in perception. If ethics is defined as a discursive reflection on
moral problems, we cannot exclude people’s mental capacities
and separate aesthetic competence from moral competence, thus
the perception of moral problems must be prior to their reflection
and possible solution, he says (Bergmann, 2011). Bergmann’s
concept is to develop a specific contribution to eco-theology, and
he does so by exploring three concepts, with relevance for our
findings: inhabitation, Beheimatung, and atmosphere.
The first, inhabitation, recalls us to take seriously the
perception of space and life, and works as a first step for the
following two. “Beheimatung,” the German word for making
oneself at home, addresses the question of belonging or feeling
at home. When addressing “feeling at home in nature,” we
need to have in mind that it might mean different things in
various contexts. For Bergmann, the question one needs to ask
is how to make oneself at home at “Earth, our home” which we
collectively are spoiling. The “feeling at home in nature” is an
experience or feeling taking place in the extension of aesthetic
experiences in nature. For Bergmann, aesthetic experiences is also
about a self-aware human reflection on one’s living-in-particularsurroundings (Bergmann, 2006, p. 336). In addition, Bergmann’s
notion of atmosphere is relevant for our context, because it
emphasizes the interconnectedness of the inner and outer, the
bodily and the spiritual, the surrounding and the inhabitation.
An awareness of who we are, and how we are interconnected
with nature is of major importance. A lack of awareness creates
alienation and awareness is a skill to be nourished and developed
(Bergmann and Eaton, 2011, p. 3). For Bergmann and Eaton,
awareness is an aspect of how we sense and perceive the world
in a specific way. The way of seeing things is prior to the way of
acting, it is about our senses and perceptions and how we actually
pay attention. It includes all our senses: what we see, taste, hear,
and touch. Such an aesthetic awareness influences the kinds of
questions we ask, how and what we reflect upon, and ultimately
how we answer our queries (Bergmann and Eaton, 2011, p. 3).
Aesthetics, as the way of seeing things, is according to Bergmann
a trajectory to ethical awareness.
The traditional understanding of beauty in nature relates to
the pleasing dimension in experience specific objects (beauty
in small scale) and the pleasing of beautiful scenery (beauty
in large scale). The former is the heritage from Kant, the
latter the tradition from Joseph Addison and Francis Hutcheson
(Sæther, 2017). Compared to the experience of beauty we might
describe the experience of the sublime as more holistic and
evoking a wide range of feelings (Graves et al., 2020). John
Baille argued for this back in 1747. He says the sublime is
a function of the grandeur of objects (in nature), while the
experience of beauty takes place in a smaller scale. Further, awe
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
3
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
one moment to another. However, some experiences might be
more important, as we pay attention to some aspects of the
adventure when thinking of strong experiences of nature. Intense
experiences in nature moreover carries the potential for rare,
life changing experiences in the deep interpretation of peakexperiences (Maslow, 1976). The intense environmental context
for the studies necessarily becomes a factor in the investigation
enabling study of the relationship between environment and
aesthetic experience of nature.
Outdoor environment provides many health promoting
ingredients. For example, coastal landscape provides therapeutic
values in experiencing emotional, embodied and often shared
connections with the coast (Bell et al., 2015). There might be
differences in personality traits and preference of places, whereas
introverts prefer mountains more than extroverts, and introverts
are happier in wooded landscapes than in open areas (Oishi
et al., 2015). Emotional experiences of landscapes were moreover
enhancing the relationship between place-identity and well-being
in Swedish mountains (Knez and Eliasson, 2017). The more
bonded one felt with the place, the better well-being. Taking these
differences account, there might be differences in how the forest
adventure differs from mountain adventure in understanding
aesthetic nature experiences.
In mountain areas, there are many weather changes that could
influence the overall judgment of the experience. Experiencing
cold and wet circumstances could result in low scores on
hedonic well-being but these experiences could be less relevant
to eudaimonic well-being. Strong winds, heavy rain or snow
or extremely cold could moreover influence our judgments and
what we choose to attend to. As we tend to remember events
based on experiences of peak, ends and specific emotions in
our overall judgment (Fredrickson, 2000), weather issues might
influence our perceptions of peak, ends and specific emotions,
or they are less relevant. We assume that weather issues are
important in the overall experiences of the wilderness adventure,
but we do not know to what degree weather issues influence
aesthetic nature experiences.
Our aim is to explore how the dimensions of aesthetics
and well-being characterize situational experiences during 5-day,
winter, wilderness adventures. Based on data collection from
two, similar yet distinct, environmental conditions, we wish to
identify structures that are common and divergent through these
adventures. In addition, we found feeling at home in nature to be
a very important dimension for aesthetics and well-being in our
study, and we investigate that further.
We explore three complementary questions that relate
aesthetic experience and well-being within a wilderness
environment:
more vitalized (Ryan et al., 2010). In the outdoor setting, one’s
social relations also improve, in being more caring for each other
(Weinstein et al., 2009).
Moreover, certain activities in the natural environment feed
different positive emotions: While pleasant feelings associate
with life satisfaction, striving to use one’s potentials or seeking
meaning relates to eudaimonic well-being (Vittersø et al., 2010;
Vittersø and Søholt, 2011; Vittersø, 2016). Both dimensions
are important in a fully functional life. Wilderness thus carries
potential for complex aspects of well-being, where aesthetic
pleasure might associate with life satisfaction and aesthetic
interest might associate with personal growth. Awe, as a positive
emotion taking place in aesthetic nature experience, transforms
us toward a reorientation of our lives, goals, and values (Fuller,
2012; Sæther, 2017). While the function of emotions to some
degree is known in well-being research (Vittersø, 2016), the
identification of intentionality: when and why these emotions
occur in the natural environment, are less known. Both aesthetic
pleasure and aesthetic interest are identified during wilderness
experiences, whereas aesthetic interest most typically can be
interpreted to the active approach to valuing the natural
environments as sacred, construction of new meaning, and
feeling a connection with the powerful unseen forces of wild
nature (McDonald et al., 2009), which could correspond to
understanding the sublime.
The distinction between the influence of aesthetic nature
experiences and the mere presence of nature is hard to
draw, as our attention shifts between paying attention to
sensory stimuli and intentionality, by selective interest. In the
brain, there appears to be at least two systems connected
to attention: the role of the attention shift by the orienting
network and the role of focusing attention by the alerting
network. In addition, an executive network makes the overlap
and selection between the different systems (Posner, 2008).
These different attention systems are connected to the stimulus
driven attention and the goal directed attention (Corbetta and
Shulman, 2002). Although both systems interact in a situation of
normal sensory experience, there is a selection process switching
from one system to the other, called the “attention shift”
(Broadbent, 1956), which is dependent on the competition of
the different system processing network. This insight can be
related to aesthetic nature experiences as these are embedded in
perception, which according to Bergmann and Eaton is about
seeing in a specific way, i.e., awareness and to pay attention
(Bergmann and Eaton, 2011).
In the wilderness, it is likely that both the orienting and
alerting networks provide aesthetic experiences in visual, hearing,
smelling, tasting, and touching sensory experiences – both as
basic qualities of nature and as sudden shifts or movements,
what identifies as involuntary attention called “soft fascination”
(Kaplan and Kaplan, 1995). Moreover, there could be more
goal-directed attention in seeking for some special qualities, for
example in looking for rare plants or animals or in striving
to use skills to keep warm and dry, or even in striving to
achieve a state of well-being, for example in being mindful.
During a winter day in the snow, with skis and backpack,
one may have all kinds of emotional experience, shifting from
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
1. What characterizes core aesthetic dimensions in
wilderness?
2. How do those aesthetic experiences affect well-being?
3. What is the role of aesthetics and its affective aspects
associated with feeling at home in nature?
We do this by analyzing the core aesthetic dimensions and
well-being measures using quantitative methods, identifying the
4
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
significance of feeling at home in nature, and explore the aesthetic
and affective dimensions of belonging predominantly using
qualitative methods.
In addition, questionnaires regarding aesthetic traits and
well-being were conducted before and after each expedition,
described below.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants and Environmental
Research Contexts
Because of the key role environmental context plays in
in situ study of aesthetics, we describe a study with identical
experimental design and similar participants undertaken in
two different environmental contexts. The analytical methods
remain the same between both studies, and because (preand post-adventure) trait instruments taken in a controlled
(classroom) environment showed no differences between the
participant groups, we can relate differences between groups to
the environmental context.
The holistic-reductionist methodological complexity needed for
studying aesthetics and well-being in a natural environment
affects at least two aspects of the present study. First, our
empirical approach uses mixed methods with quantitative
analysis of survey data and experience reports as well as
qualitative text analysis of experience report narratives. Second,
our theoretical approach focuses narrowly on how the aesthetic
experience in wilderness adventure affects well-being and also
branches out philosophically to include not only the narrow
experience of beauty in nature but also the sublime, its associated
feelings of awe and wonder, and feelings of interconnectedness,
communion, and belonging in the wilderness experience. This
multifaceted approach enables careful investigation of the full
aesthetic experience and its interrelationship with a richer
conception of well-being.
We examine one’s aesthetic communion with nature and
strong experiences in an expansive and attention-demanding
wilderness setting, in particular its effect on overall well-being.
Toward that end, we examined students undergoing training
to guide wilderness expeditions before, during, and after a 5day, intense wilderness adventure designed to challenge their
considerable wilderness and leadership skills. The students do not
yet have skills that would be considered as expert or exemplary
as leaders. Examining a participant pool with greater outdoor
adventure skills than a typical adult, hopefully yields insight into
the same phenomena experienced by numerous people during
shorter and/or less intense wilderness adventures.
Total Sample
Within the context of a formal education program in leading
extreme outdoor wilderness adventures, a group of students
from a University College in Norway were followed through
their 5-day expedition to the winter mountains in 2017
in Norway (n = 26, M age = 26.1 years, 42.3% females).
24 students reported on the pre- and post-tests, before
and after the wilderness experience (92.3%), while 21
volunteered to answer questions during trip (81%). The
following year, an additional study was conducted with a
new group of students from the same University College
in the same mountain area. From a group of 43 students
(M age = 24.5 years, SD = 2.6, 51.2% females), 37 students
reported on the pre- and post-tests, before and after the
wilderness experience (86%), while 26 students volunteered
to answer questionnaires during trip (60% participation).
Altogether 62 students out of 67 reported on pre- and postmeasures of the wilderness expedition. Forty-seven of 67
reported on experience reports.
Mixed Methods
A combination of quantitative measures and qualitative
narratives were used to detect and explore details in the aesthetic
experience of nature. Moments of subjective experiences
identified by each participant as “strong experiences of nature”
were narratively described and quantified using aesthetic and
affective measures for the intensity of aesthetic dimensions
and feelings. Using the participant’s rating of intensity for
the experiences and feelings, corresponding narratives were
selected to analyze using qualitative methods, to expand the
research paradigm not only to include close-ended, but also
open-ended data (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). An iterative
process was used in classifying the selected, high-intensity,
experience reports, first investigating the total sample, and
second, investigating similarities and differences between the
two different contexts. Third, as quantitative methods identified
feeling at home as a significant experience, thematic analysis
was used to characterize feeling at home in the wilderness. By
focusing on the daily moment chosen by participants as a strong
experience and using the quantitative aspects of the experience
reports to select narratives for qualitative analysis, mixed
methods are well integrated (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Environmental Context 1: Forest-Stormy
During the first wilderness expedition, there was a full storm for
4 days, and it was necessary for safety reasons to discontinue the
plan to reach the high-altitude plateau over the tree line. As a
consequence, the whole expedition took place in the forest. The
student group was divided in three smaller independent groups,
with three leaders (one female leader). They all moved in the same
area, but in separate camps, not in sight of each other. Students
lived in self-built snow caves some of the days. For simplicity we
call this group “forest-stormy.”
Environmental Context 2: Plateau-Cold
During this wilderness expedition, it was sunny, but the
temperature was very low (minus 25◦ C). This time, the groups
succeeded in reaching the high-altitude plateau, and moved for
a longer distance in the mountain. They lived in self-built snow
caves some of the days. The group of 43 students were divided
into four groups, each group with a leader (one female leader).
The groups moved in a wide area, not in sight of each other. For
simplicity we call this group “plateau-cold.”
5
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
theory-generated questions: (1) I experienced beautiful scenery,
(2) I was aware of small details in nature, (3) I appreciated
variety in nature, (4) I felt everything was connected in nature
(or: I felt everything in nature was connected), (5) I felt at home
in nature, (6) I felt nature evoked wonder, (7) I felt beauty in
nature evoked wonder, and (8) I felt nature evoked awe and
respect. These questions do not operate as a scale to measure one
phenomenon but give an opportunity to find empirical evidence
to theory-driven questions capturing different dimensions of
aesthetics. Each item was asked in Norwegian translation (the
native language of participants) and measured on a Likert scale
1–7. To ensure similar meaning between English and Norwegian,
the questions were based upon aesthetics literature available in
English but formulated in Norwegian. The Norwegian questions
were back translated into English and from this translation a
new translation into Norwegian by an independent NorwegianEnglish speaking researcher was made.
Instruments for Psychological Traits
Students were given (pre- and post-adventure) trait instruments
in a classroom environment, including measures of satisfaction
with life and personal growth.
Satisfaction With Life Scale
Five items for Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Pavot and
Diener, 1993) were used on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (e.g.,
“In most ways my life is close to my ideal,” “I am satisfied
with my life”).
Personal Growth
We used a personal growth composite based on four different
dimensions, each measured by three items: Curiosity (Amabile
et al., 1994) (e.g., I enjoy to deal with new tasks presented
for me), Absorption (Kashdan et al., 2004) (e.g., When I
participate in an activity, I have a tendency to be so involved
that I “forget time”), Complexity (e.g., I like to hear about
new ideas), and Competence (e.g., I like to meet challenging
tasks). Complexity and Competence were based on California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) from International Personality
Item Pool (IPIP, 2002; HPI Science ability HIC). Each item
was measured on a bipolar scale from 1 to 5, ranging from
“disagree” to “fully agree.” This measure of personal growth
is used in other publications (Kopperud and Vittersø, 2008;
Straume and Vittersø, 2015).
Human Subjects Review
Students were invited to participate during a regularly scheduled,
wilderness leadership course. They were informed in writing that
they could withdraw from the project at any time and for no
reason. The data would then be deleted. Data was collected by
paper and pencil, with no personally identifiable information,
as only a participant-generated id was used. Students were
asked to use an anonymous code (not identifiable for the
researchers) to group the questionnaires together. Following
national rules of personal information safety by the Norwegian
Centre for Research Data (NSD), no additional written consent
was necessary, given the process used to collect and store data.
The project also was reviewed for appropriate informed consent
though the university college where the study took place.
Instruments During Nature Experiences
During the wilderness experience, participants were asked to
record questionnaire responses in a hand-written diary.
Strong Experiences of Nature
Inspired by the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM; Kahneman
et al., 2004) and Event Reconstruction Method (ERM; Grube
et al., 2008), each student was asked to describe a strong
experience of nature daily in a diary made especially for the
data collection. The instruction was: “Thinking about this day
in the mountains, select one event when you felt a strong
experience of nature. Describe this strong experience.” Five lines
with open space were available for the answer. Based on this
strong experience, we asked students to report quantitatively
on questionnaires regarding aesthetical nature experiences and
feeling states. This diary was distributed at the start of the
wilderness expedition and collected at the end of the expedition.
Students were asked to report on the same questions for 5 days.
Design and Procedures
Pre- and post-questionnaires of traits were distributed in
ordinary classes the week before and the week after the
wilderness expedition. As these classes were obligatory to join
the wilderness expedition, all students had the opportunity to
participate in the survey.
During each expedition, students reported daily on their
experiences in a diary, collected afterward by the researcher
and their research assistants, who were also wilderness leaders.
Students were friendly reminded in the evenings to fill out
their daily experiences after they had come safely into their
sleeping bags in the evenings, using head torch and pencil to fill
out the questions.
Feeling States
In relation to the self-selected episode, students were asked
to report how intensely they felt during the episode. Three
hedonic feelings (satisfaction, pleasure, and happiness) and three
eudaimonic feelings (interest, engagement, and enthusiasm) were
gauged on Likert scales (1–7) based on an adjusted version of the
Basic Emotion State Scale (Vittersø et al., 2005).
Quantitative Analysis
Descriptives
Collapsed measures of the 5 days experience sampling on each
question of the aesthetic situational nature experience were
calculated to find mean scores and standard deviations for
the wilderness experience at group level (see Table 1). Three
analyses were performed: the entire sample and the split foreststormy and the plateau-cold samples. Analyses were performed
in SPSS, version 25.
Aesthetic Situational Nature Experiences
As we were unaware of a suitable questionnaire to examine
aesthetic experience in nature, we tested eight novel aesthetic
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
6
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
Feeling States
Correlations
Hedonic and eudaimonic feelings were correlated with eight
different items of the aesthetic nature experience. Satisfaction
with life and personal growth from the post-measure of
the wilderness expedition were correlated with “felt at home
in nature.”
For hedonic feelings, reliability tests showed a Cronbach’s alpha
α = 0.80 (in forest-stormy) and α = 0.96 (in plateau-cold). For
eudaimonic feelings, α = 0.95 (in forest-stormy) and α = 0.95
(in plateau-cold).
Correlations
Qualitative Analysis
In the hedonic and eudaimonic measures of how the strong
experience of nature felt, there were similarities between the two
environmental conditions on some items, but others differed in
their correlation to aesthetic questions. For example, “beauty in
nature evoked wonder” felt more hedonic in forest-stormy while
more eudaimonic in plateau-cold. To be more aware of details
in nature (item 2), felt more hedonic in forest-stormy and more
eudaimonic in plateau-cold. The most affective dimension of the
aesthetic nature experience related to “felt at home in nature”
(item 5), which had the highest correlations with both hedonic
and eudaimonic feelings for the whole sample. During plateaucold, this item correlated highly with both hedonic feelings
(Pearson r = 0.82, p < 0.001) and eudaimonic feelings (r = 0.91,
p < 0.001), while in forest-stormy, this dimension correlated with
hedonic feelings (r = 0.63, p = 0.011) but not eudaimonic feelings
(r = 0.22, p = 0.459) (see details in Table 2).
Five items had higher correlations with hedonic feelings
during forest-stormy than plateau-cold, but these differences
did not reach the level of significance. Similarly, seven of the
items had higher correlations with eudaimonic feelings during
plateau-cold than forest-stormy. “Felt at home in nature” reached
significance (z = 3.16, p < 0.01), as did “felt nature evoked awe”
(z = 2.54, p < 0.05).
Hedonic and eudaimonic feelings were related to well-being
in different ways, too. In the whole sample, hedonic feelings
correlated with personal growth (r = 0.42, p = 0.015). Looking
closer to forest-stormy, hedonic feelings were important for
personal growth, but did not reach a level of significance (r = 0.38,
p = 0.184). Eudaimonic feelings were also relevant for personal
growth (r = 0.34, p = 0.260). Satisfaction with life was not
related to either hedonic (r = 0.04, p = 0.896) nor eudaimonic
feelings (r = −0.13, p = 0.677). In plateau-cold, hedonic feelings
correlated with both satisfaction with life (r = 0.47, p = 0.033) and
personal growth (r = 0.51, p = 0.022). Eudaimonic feelings did
not reach levels of significance for correlation with satisfaction
with life (r = 0.28, p = 0.229) but correlated with personal growth
(r = 0.49, p = 0.033).
The question of feeling at home in nature from the experience
reports was correlated with life satisfaction and personal growth.
In forest-stormy, personal growth correlated with feeling at
home, approaching levels of significance (r = 0.49, p = 0.073).
In plateau-cold, feeling at home in nature correlated with both
life satisfaction (r = 0.70, p < 0.001) and personal growth
(r = 0.51, p = 0.022).
The coding from subthemes (events) and main themes (context)
toward synthetic dimensions was discussed and agreed upon by
two investigators. Experience reports were selected for closer
investigation when participants also answered the question of
“felt at home in nature” with the strongest Likert response. Only
quotes that were also reported as 7 on the Likert Scale 1–7 were
included. With this selection, 13 quotes from the forest-stormysample, and 26 quotes from the plateau-cold-sample satisfied
the selection criteria, suitable for narrative investigations. First,
all narratives were read through and coded by two independent
researchers. Next, dimensions across the narratives were agreed
upon, based on thematic understanding of the narratives. Third,
the researchers analyzed each narrative in terms of synthetic
dimensions, which were deduced based on shared themes in the
narratives. The inductive analysis process follows the strategy of
theme-oriented analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
RESULTS
Descriptives
Mean scores for each of the items from the questions of
aesthetic situational nature experiences indicated similarities
and differences on group level between the forest-stormyand the plateau-cold-sample. Calculated with the two-sample
t-test, the first question “I experienced beautiful scenery” was
reported as stronger in plateau-cold than in forest-stormy.
This finding was close to significant (p = 0.051). Changes in
other scores were not significant between these small samples
(see Table 1 for more details). All data was checked to be
normally distributed.
TABLE 1 | Means for situational aesthetic nature experiences.
Aesthetic situational
nature experiences
Forest-stormy
Valid (n = 12)
Plateau-cold
Valid (n = 20)
M
SD
M
SD
I experienced beautiful scenery
4.63
1.18
5.45
0.87
I was aware of small details in nature
5.17
0.92
5.19
0.94
I appreciated variety in nature
5.45
1.12
5.47
0.96
I felt everything was connected in nature 4.79
0.81
4.77
0.94
I felt at home in nature
4.89
1.06
5.14
1.03
I felt nature evoked wonder
4.81
1.49
4.92
1.19
Regression Analysis
I felt beauty in nature evoked wonder
4.33
1.60
4.67
1.25
I felt nature evoked awe and respect
5.05
0.92
4.87
1.58
In the combined sample, a regression analysis of the in situ
aesthetic nature experiences for all eight items were used as the
independent variables of the post-measure of personal growth.
Only respondents with no missing were included.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
7
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
TABLE 2 | Correlations between aesthetic nature experiences and feeling states.
Total sample
Hedonic
Forest-stormy
Eudaimonic
Hedonic
Eudaimonic
Plateau-cold
Hedonic
Eudaimonic
I experienced beautiful scenery
0.58*
0.40*
0.68**
0.59*
0.54*
0.46*
I was aware small details in nature
0.42*
0.55**
0.60*
0.45
0.33
0.60*
I appreciated variety in nature
0.45*
0.53**
0.55*
0.48
0.40*
0.61*
I felt everything was connected in nature
0.29
0.40*
0.75**
0.41
0.45*
0.68*
I felt at home in nature
0.75**
0.61**
0.63*
0.22
0.82**
0.91**
I felt nature evokes wonder
0.43**
0.43*
0.42
0.27
0.44*
0.59**
0.48
0.38
0.60*
0.37
0.46*
I felt beauty in nature evoked wonder
0.48**
0.51**
I felt nature evoked awe and respect
0.27
0.35
0.64*
−0.05
−0.5
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
This model had an explained variance of R2 = 42.4, p = 0.151.
Only item 8 “I felt nature evoked awe and respect” was significant
in the model, as a negative predictor (t = -2.4, p = 0.03). A second
model was tested based only upon the almost significant item
5 “felt at home in nature” as the independent variable, which
explained less variance, R2 = 13.1, p = 0.04, but in this model, “felt
at home in nature” was a significant predictor (t = 2.2, p = 0.04).
DISCUSSION
Strong experiences of nature inform our well-being in complex
ways. In wilderness, strong experiences of nature relate to
personal growth, and sometimes also satisfaction with life.
“To feel at home in nature” arises as the most important
feature relating to aesthetic nature experience. This feature
includes sensory experiences as well as reflections, which
actualize the notion of wonder. In order to understand
aesthetic nature experiences in the wilderness, the study of
winter expeditions yields some clarity into the effect of
environment on aesthetic experience and well-being as well
as opportunities for theoretical insights. There appear to
be both some stable elements and some context-dependent
elements within the aesthetic nature experience that require
careful analysis.
Qualitative Analysis
Narratives that corresponded to “felt at home in nature” (= 7
on the Likert scale) were extracted from SPSS and copied into
a word file. Next, the first and second author read independently
through the material and some common characteristics appeared:
looking at phenomena of light, such as stars, aurora borealis,
the sun, and campfire. Participants also frequently observed
phenomena related to fauna and flora, such as trees and traces
of animals. Many report experiences of silence in nature. Some
narratives also report of some sort of “movement” as strong
experience. This movement is either when they are moving
through a particular environment, e.g., the forest, or a movement
from one local environment to another, expressing a transition,
e.g., moving from the forest into the high mountain. Further,
the narratives were related to some broader synthetic dimensions
after a full theme-oriented analysis. See an extraction of this
analysis in Table 3 (full data available in Appendix 1).
Narratives analyzed by synthetic dimensions were: (1)
Description of a certain moment with focus on sensory
experiences: e.g., “To come through the pine forest and feel the
sun warming in the face and the sound of the wind whizzing in
the trees”; (2) Description of self-reflection: e.g., “The feeling of
being alone in the pine forest”; (3) Description of wonder: e.g.,
“Met on some fresh animal tracks”; (4) Description of a certain
moment of appreciation of beauty: e.g., “We walked past a lovely
old pine tree. The branches and trunk twisted around in a stylish
way”; (5) Situations focusing positive emotions, e.g., “When I had
time to enjoy breakfast with the morning sun in the middle of
me”; and (6) Insight of relation to nature: e.g., “Walk through
the woods of skiing, with everything you need to survive on your
back makes you feel strongly connected to nature.” Some of the
narratives included more than one synthetic dimension among
these six synthetic dimensions.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Core Characteristics of Aesthetic
Experiences in the Wilderness
When interpreting the results from the combined winter
expeditions, the eight questions regarding aesthetic nature
experience account for 42.4% of the variance of personal
growth. Although the regression analysis in the small
sample did not reach the level of significance, aesthetic
nature experiences seem to be powerful in understanding
this aspect of well-being. However, the items seem to
vary, and dividing participants into their two different
environmental contexts thus informs about similarities and
differences in some of the items. In order to understand
more of the sublime dimension, which we strongly identify
with personal growth (Graves et al., 2020), a deeper
approach is necessary.
In both contexts, strong experiences of nature included same
levels of “awareness of small details in nature” and “appreciations
of variety in nature,” indicating that these dimensions were
equally important across the different contexts. The groups
differed in intensity of experiencing beautiful scenery, which in
forest-stormy was different due to wind and snow. On other
typical qualities, there were some slight differences, such that “felt
at home in nature” was more intense during the plateau-cold
sample. Also, both questions of wonder were more intense during
8
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
TABLE 3 | Example of the analysis process and developing sub-, main-, and synthetic dimensions.
Environmental
context
Narratives
Sub-themes (event)
Main themes
(context)
Synthetic dimensions
Forest-stormy
Come through the pine forest and feel the sun warming in the
face and the sound of the wind whizzing in the trees
Sun warming, sound,
forest
Sounds of wilderness
Description of a certain
moment with focus on
sensory experiences
Plateau-cold
When all the lights from the headlamp were extinguished and
the stars appeared
Stars. Light
Contrast darkness/light
Look at the stars with a friend while we melted snow in 20
minus
Stars. Light. Cold
Forest-stormy
The feeling of being alone in the pine forest
Being alone, forest
Forest reflection/alone
Description of
self-reflection
Met on some fresh animal tracks
Animal tracks
Forest, surprise
Description of wonder
Plateau-cold
Look at animal tracks in the forest
Ice fascination
Fascination of details,
surprise
Saw many animal tracks
Ice-covered bench
Forest-stormy
Plateau-cold
Blackcock (big bird) that flew up
Bird
Snow cave. How amazing is it that you can build something so
nice, cozy and warm by snow? Totally insanely nice and an aha
experience
Snow cave
New snow experience
We walked past a lovely old pine tree. The branches and trunk
twisted around in a stylish way
Tree, forest
Fascination and
aesthetic judgment of
details/forest
When we walked between pine and birch and sang “In the
forest I am free”
Walking and singing.
Forest
Enjoyment
When I had time to enjoy breakfast with the morning sun in the
middle of me
Warmth from sun. Light
Pleasure
Walk through the woods of skiing with everything you need to
survive on your back makes you feel strongly connected to
nature
Connection to nature,
moving, carrying
backpack, forest
Reflection on relation to
nature when moving
Situations focusing
positive emotion
Description of a certain
moment with focus on
sensory experiences
and insight of relation to
nature
adventure. As there are similarities and differences between
one group during forest-stormy and another group during
plateau-cold, there is much more to understand than preference
into different landscapes (Oishi et al., 2015). Also, as all
students were presented with a new landscape, the bonding
effect based on former experiences (Knez and Eliasson, 2017)
could not explain the connection between place and wellbeing. In neither of the groups, students had been in this
particular environment before. Rather, the finding that the
sublime dimension has both context dependent and general
features informs how to understand awareness and how to pay
attention (Bergmann and Eaton, 2011) to this complex and
powerful phenomenon.
the plateau-cold sample. On the other hand, awe and respect
were stronger during the first, forest-stormy year. Although these
differences were informative, the sample sizes (of participants
who rated belonging Likert = 7) were too small for the differences
to reach significance.
Affectively, there were also some similarities and differences
in the two different winter expeditions. All eight aesthetic
items relate to positive emotions, but in different ways. For
example, while the feeling that everything was connected in
nature and feeling at home was hedonic during forest-stormy,
it turns out to be more eudaimonic during plateau-cold. One
explanation could be that during forest-stormy, students had
to work hard in order to keep warm and dry, and when they
succeeded in this, they felt connected to nature, which is a
hedonic feeling. During plateau-cold, focus was much larger
than keeping warm and dry, as during this expedition they
skied for a long distance and could feel connected to nature
in more complex ways, both hedonic and eudaimonic. During
plateau-cold, “felt at home in nature” felt more eudaimonic
than during forest-stormy. During forest-stormy, “felt nature
evoked awe and respect” was not related to affect, as it
correlated neither with hedonic nor eudaimonic feelings. These
findings add more fine-grained knowledge about where and
when hedonic and eudaimonic feelings occur during wilderness
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Description of a certain
moment of appreciation
of beauty
Affective, Experiential, and Philosophical
Aspects Associated With “Feeling at
Home in Nature”
The item that has the strongest affective relevance is the item “I
felt at home in nature.” This was felt more intense during plateaucold than during forest-stormy, with very high correlations
during plateau-cold on both hedonic and eudaimonic feelings,
while only hedonic feelings in forest-stormy. Interestingly, feeling
at home in nature, as a theoretically strong argument for aesthetic
9
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
two of them describe situations of movement in hedonic
interpretations, like downhill skiing, walking and singing, and
also enjoying breakfast. It is likely that eudaimonic feelings
associated with feeling at home in nature thus include an
active interpretation of a sensory experience, identified in the
other synthetic dimensions, but there is also possible that this
dimension is not fully understood in this explorative study.
However, the strong connection between positive emotions and
feeling at home in nature is observed. Positive emotions build
our action repertoire and build resources to see the world in
a more complex manner (Fredrickson, 2004). This could be a
two-way process of (i) positive emotions empowering the feeling
of being at home in nature and (ii) feeling at home, as a safe
or inspiring moment, causing positive emotions, which in both
cases promote our well-being. Feeling at home, as the strongest
positive emotion, relates to Kaplan and Kaplan (1995, p. 193)
interpretation of compatibility in finding a special resonance
between natural environment and human inclinations. This
resonance includes being away from civilization, living with
less effort, supporting psychological well-being, but wilderness
experience also leads to “a sense of awe and wonder and, at the
same time, relatedness” (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1995, p. 194).
Feeling at home is also experienced when (i) a moment of selfreflection takes place, (ii) the experience of wonder is articulated
and (iii) gaining insight of relation to nature. These dimensions
are reflexive and philosophical by nature and could be related to
each other. Description of self-reflection and gaining insight of
relation to nature corresponds to the latter dimension of wonder,
as evoking reflection on what we perceive and experience (e.g.,
being alone in the forest). The former dimension of wonder,
evoked by something in nature, corresponds to the synthetic
dimension of wonder which includes the experience of surprise
and fascination of nature. Thus, in this context wonder, which
is an active approach using the alerting network, takes place in
in a fascination of trees, or experience a bird flying up. These
synthetic dimensions correspond to self-reflection as one of the
central components in wonder (Sæther, 2017), while sensory
experiences and positive emotions, that also could relate to
wonder, display as separate dimensions. Interestingly, in looking
for experiences that correspond to feeling at home in nature,
these wonder-experiences seem to be of the same characters
in the two different contexts, but they had higher frequencies
during plateau-cold.
Wonder spans over a wide range of meanings and is
indubitably a complex phenomenon. Wonder can at least be
distinguished in two ways: as something in nature which evokes
a feeling of wonder and something motivating humans for selfreflection and further search for insight (Sæther, 2017). The
former dimension of wonder has some similarities with the
experience of beauty and the sublime. Experiences of beauty and
sublime can take place as something striking you surprisingly
from “the outside.” On the other hand, the latter experience of
wonder takes place as a kind of reflection on what we perceive.
Deane-Drummond (2009, p. 128) says: “. . . wonder is an even
broader term than beauty and could be said to be prior to
its recognition.” The comprehensiveness of wonder, broadly
understood, is articulated by Schindler (2013, p. 163), describing
nature experience, turned out to be the most affective item in the
plateau-cold sample. Students were emotionally activated when
they recalled an experience that they felt at home in nature.
Informing strong affective aesthetic nature experiences, post
measures of well-being correlated strongly with this item. During
plateau-cold conditions, feeling at home correlated strongly with
satisfaction with life, but this was not found during forest-stormy.
On the other hand, personal growth was correlated with feeling
at home in nature during both adventures. The finding supports
that life satisfaction and personal growth needs to be understood
separately as different facets of well-being (Vittersø, 2016).
Moreover, it is informative that both expeditions related personal
growth to feeling at home in nature, but life satisfaction was
only related to feeling at home in nature during plateau-cold.
Feeling at home in nature was felt affectively different during
forest-stormy and plateau-cold. These are differences on group
level, informing about contextual differences and identifying core
characteristics across the groups. Nevertheless, the strong finding
of feeling at home in nature as the most important feature, as
it is felt strongest and alone predicted personal growth, leads to
the connection of “Beheimatung” and “atmosphere” (Bergmann,
2011), which carries an awareness of who we are and how we are
interconnected with nature, at least as an intense feeling and as
an expression of personal growth.
The thematic analysis of narratives corresponding to “felt at
home in nature” displays synthetic dimension relevant for our
discussion. We recognize how the notion of “feeling at home
in nature” and the interconnectedness in nature corresponds
to descriptions of a certain moment with focus on sensory
experiences, certain moments of appreciation of beauty, selfreflection, wonder, and situations focusing positive emotions
(and even moments with combinations of these dimensions).
First, situations of feeling at home in nature take place when
there is a certain moment with focus on sensory experiences.
Revisiting the role of attention, feeling at home in nature
includes narratives that follow some meaningful patterns in
both samples, patterns that include attentional dynamics from
the orienting and alerting network. Situations of feeling at
home include perceptions of wilderness, such as contrasts of
darkness/light and other visual sensory experiences as well as
tactile ones, exemplified by sudden sights of stars, moon or
northern lights, the warmth from the camp fire or the silence
in forest. These examples of focused experience relate to the
orienting network and can be explained as “soft fascination”
(Kaplan and Kaplan, 1995).
One other synthetic dimension is appreciation of beauty. This
dimension relates to appreciation of certain qualities, such as
certain trees or landscapes, or the perception inside the snow
cave, such as “insanely nice and an aha-experience.” Parsons
(2008) says our experience of beauty is, bottom line, about our
love to something. Talking about beauty in nature, he says, is
about how people have strong feelings of love and attachment to
certain places and things. Thus, the experience of beauty in nature
is about much more than a disinterested contemplation.
Feeling at home strongly relates to positive emotions, with
correlations to both hedonic and eudaimonic feelings. Three of
the narratives associated directly to positive emotions, where
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
10
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
wonder as “. . . a final state, as that-than-which-nothing-furtherought-to-be-sought.”
We also recognize complex experiences as we find
combinations of the previous synthetic dimensions, such
as both sudden feelings and reflection, which underscores
that we cannot differentiate too categorically between the
different dimensions. Even within the different dimensions,
we find complex phenomena, such as wonder. Although we
have to navigate carefully in such complex experiences in
the wilderness, we will address one line of thought which
displays the ethical relevance for feeling at home in nature
(which include aesthetic experiences in nature, wonder and
awareness). According to Robert Fuller (2012), wonder has
some similarities with awe as experience. Awe transforms
us toward a reorientation of our lives, goals, and values, he
says. Further, awe evokes a feeling in us for being part of a
larger whole. For Fuller, both wonder and awe are caused
by novel and unexpected stimuli, challenging our given
conceptual categories.
In light of the experiences of beauty and the sublime (awe)
in wilderness, wonder as an experience can be understood as
taking place together with, and in the extension of, beauty and
awe (Sæther, 2019). When one experiences the beauty and the
sublime in nature, this experience might evoke wonder (Ledley,
2009). Matravers (2012) characterizes this type of wonder as a
reflective state. For Matravers, the experience of beauty and the
sublime in nature evokes a first-order non-cognitive state, and
the resulting feeling can be described as astonishment. Thus,
wonder is about a duration of awareness, and corresponds to our
theoretically unpacking of awareness, feeling at home, and how to
pay attention to our surroundings – in Bergmann’s terms “livingin-particular-surroundings.” Therefore, our analysis of narratives
informs about complex relationships when feeling at home in
nature, where sudden feelings have hedonic and eudaimonic
variation depending on context, and reflection seem to rise across
many of the wilderness situations. Here, we recognize a trajectory
from aesthetic experiences, through wonder, toward a potential
ethical awareness. Such a trajectory corresponds to Bergmann’s
notion of aesth/ethics, including his reflections on inhabitation
and “Beheimatung.”
Feeling at home is also touched upon by García-Rivera (2009).
According to him, in light of our environmental crisis, we need
to address the question of being at home in the cosmos. For
García-Rivera, an emphasis on “place” helps us to understand
what this home or connectedness to nature might take shape,
which corresponds to Bergmann’s notion of inhabitation. The
narratives of feeling at home in the wilderness adventure identify
several important places where feeling connected to nature are
expressed directly, such as when being alone, looking at the stars
or skiing in the forest. García-Rivera says place expresses both
an inner as well as an outer dimension, and the experiences of
such a place – in our context the experience of feeling at home
in nature – is about an intimate immensity actual in space and
time. Thus, aesthetic experiences of nature open for experiences
of feeling at home which addresses deeper emotions involving
belonging, interconnectedness. A recognition of such complex
experiences might evoke ethical awareness.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Strengths and Limitations
The empirical investigation of aesthetic wilderness experiences
is based on experience reports from 47 individuals in a
Norwegian study program. Strengths of the study design in
understanding aesthetic wilderness experiences includes mixing
quantitative measures as well as personal narratives as well as
the examination of challenging environmental conditions. The
utilization of mixed methods seems to be optimal in exploring
deep connections in a complex field, as the integration of
methods leads to more pinpointed knowledge: Quantitative
measures inform intensity of aesthetic dimensions and feelings
connected to these, while qualitative investigations gave feeling
at home, identified as a quantitative finding, a much richer
description and deeper interpretation (i.e., Løvoll, 2019).
One weakness with the current study was the hard work
filling out the questionnaire in the evening, with cold fingers
and in an uncomfortable condition. Consequently, we missed
some participants, especially from the plateau-cold group, and
also some narratives were very short. Nevertheless, we consider
reliability as good, in comparison to other methods like using
observational data or only retrospective data collection after
adventures (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
Our two research contexts include one expedition with worse
weather condition (forest-stormy) than the other (plateau-cold).
As one of the contexts was under the tree line and the other above
the tree line, landscape is one dimension of the context, and the
other is the impact of weather, such as wind, temperature and
snow. In the current analysis, we were not able to distinguish
between other possible combinations of landscape and weather
such as plateau-stormy or forest-cold.
To move forward, the study should be replicated with
other groups and other contexts, including those outside
Norway. Series of studies can produce empirical data for metaanalysis, calculating power for context dependent and context
independent dimensions of the aesthetic wilderness experience.
Moreover, more studies are needed to enable generalizing about
the strong connection we found between feeling at home in
nature and well-being.
Implications
The findings have implications for theoretical and practical
didactical reasons. In understanding the role of environment
for aesthetic experiences, it is important to pay attention to
wilderness, as the non-human-built environment offers a unique
understanding of how aesthetic experiences appear and how
those experiences connect to feelings and well-being. In this
way, the knowledge of aesthetic wilderness experiences can
offer a reference knowledge enabling comparison to aesthetic
experiences within arts and built environments.
The finding that “feeling at home” is a very informative
aesthetic dimension in being positively felt as well as important
for well-being. This relates to belonging in a much wider sense,
which also theoretically connects aesthetics to ethics. For the
outdoor leader, there is a potential in identifying, dwelling, and
cultivating what it is like to feel at home in nature, as this aesthetic
dimension has individual importance, as well as a potential
11
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
for ethical reflection. When considering learning outcomes in
outdoor events or adventures, this dimension should not be
under communicated or overlooked. In a contemporary context,
where the UN’s climate report, and other initiatives, strongly
call for human action in the face of global climate change, the
connection between aesthetics and ethics is an important aspect
in identifying, savoring and cultivating what “feeling at home in
nature” actually means, in a global context, especially with an
understanding of the role of wonder. Also, in a practical didactical
context, the findings give impetus to focus on aesthetic wilderness
experiences, as they provide strong emotional experiences as well
as importance for well-being.
when being self-aware. Our findings contribute to a more refined
and systematic understanding of the characteristics of how
wilderness experiences create aesthetic experiences and wellbeing. We accentuate that aesthetic experiences generate feelings
of nature as our home and, further, creates an ethical awareness
of the value of wilderness.
CONCLUSION
ETHICS STATEMENT
This article has explored three complementary questions that
relate aesthetic experiences and well-being within the wilderness
environment. First, main dimensions of beauty and the sublime
were identified as core features in situational wilderness
experiences. The classical notion of beauty was more important
in the plateau-cold condition.
Second, we found that “beauty in nature evokes wonder” was
hedonic in forest-stormy and eudaimonic in plateau-cold. The
item “felt at home in nature” had very high correlation on both
hedonic and eudaimonic feelings during plateau-cold. In foreststormy, this item only correlated with hedonic feelings. Hence,
we find aspects of this feature to be context dependent. Feeling
at home in nature correlated with both satisfaction with life and
personal growth during plateau-cold while only with personal
growth during forest-stormy.
Third, when exploring feeling at home in nature as an intense
experience, six synthetic dimensions were identified through the
narratives. These six dimensions relate to theories of wonder in
different ways. To feel at home in nature can be understood as a
non-intentional experience but also as an intentional experience
Ethical approval was not provided for this study on human
participants, because there was no person identifiable
information in the collection of data. Details about the process
is described in the Human Subjects Review section of the article.
Written informed consent for participation was not required for
this study in accordance with the national legislation and the
institutional requirements.
REFERENCES
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp
063oa
Broadbent, D. E. (1956). Successive responses to simultaneous stimuli. Qual. J. Exp.
Psychol. 8, 145–152. doi: 10.1080/17470215608416814
Carlson, A. (1998). “Nature: contemporary thoughts,” in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics,
Vol. 3, ed. M. Kelly (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 346–349.
Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art
and Architecture. London: Routledge.
Chenoweth, R. E., and Gobster, P. H. (1990). The nature and ecology of aesthetic
experiences in the landscape. Landsc. J. 9, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.
08.209
Corbetta, M., and Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulusdriven attention in the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 201–215. doi: 10.1038/
nrn755
Davis, N., and Gatersleben, B. (2013). Transcendent experiences in wild and
manicured settings: the influence of the trait “connectedness to nature”.
Ecopsychology 5, 92–102. doi: 10.1089/eco.2013.0016
Deane-Drummond, C. (2009). Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: the
importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cogn. Emot. 14, 577–606.
doi: 10.1080/026999300402808
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual
contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
2020.00402/full#supplementary-material
Alexander, K. B. (2014). Saving Beauty: A Theological Aesthetics of Nature.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennesey, B. A., and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work
preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientation.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 950–967. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950
Ballew, M. T., and Omoto, A. M. (2018). Absorption: how nature experiences
promote awe and other positive emotions. Ecopsychology 10, 26–35. doi: 10.
1089/eco.2017.0044
Bell, S. L., Phoenix, C., Lovell, R., and Wheeler, B. W. (2015). Seeking everyday
wellbeing: the coast as a therapeutic landscape. Soc. Sci. Med. 142, 56–67.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.011
Bergmann, S. (2006). Atmospheres of synergy: towards an eco-theological
aesth/ethics of space. Ecotheology 11, 326–356. doi: 10.1558/ecot.2006.11.3.326
Bergmann, S. (2011). “Aware of the spirit in the lens of a Trinitarian Aesth/Ethics of
lived space,” in Ecological Awareness: Exploring Religion, Ethics and Aesthetics,
eds S. Bergmann, and H. Eaton (Münster: LiT Verlag), 23–39.
Bergmann, S., and Eaton, H. (2011). “Awareness Matters,” in Ecological Awareness:
Exploring Religion, Ethics and Aesthetics, eds S. Bergmann, and H. Eaton
(Münster: LiT Verlag), 1–7.
Berleant, A. (1998). “Environmental aesthetics,” in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Vol.
2, ed. M. Kelly (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 114–120.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
12
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402
Løvoll et al.
Feeling at Home in the Wilderness
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 359, 1367–1377. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.
1512
Fuller, R. (2012). “From biology to spirituality: the emotional dynamics of wonder,”
in Practices of Wonder: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, ed. S. Vasalou (Eugene,
OR: Pickwick Publications), 64–87.
García-Rivera, A. (2009). The Garden of God: A Theological Cosmology.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Graves, M., Løvoll, H. S., and Sæther, K.-W. (2020). “Friluftsliv: aesthetic and
psychological experience of wilderness adventure,” in Issues in Science and
Theology: Nature and Beyond, eds M. Fuller, D. Evers, A. Runehov, K.-W.
Sæther, and B. Michollet (London: Springer), 207–220.
Grube, A., Schroer, J., Hentzschel, C., and Hertel, G. (2008). The
event reconstruction method: an efficient measure of experiencebased job satisfaction. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 81, 669–689.
doi:
10.1348/096317907x251578
Hartig, T., Mang, M., and Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of
natural environment experiences. Environ. Behav. 23, 3–26. doi: 10.1177/
0013916591231001
IPIP (2002). International Personality Item Pool. A Scientific Collaboration for
the Development of Advanced Measurement of Personality Traits and other
Individual Differences. Available online at: http://ipip.ori.org/ (accessed March
1, 2020).
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Henry Holt
and Company.
Johnsen, S. ÅK., and Rydstedt, L. (2013). Active use of the natural environment for
emotion regulation. Eur. J. Psychol. 9, 798–819. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v9i4.633
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. A. (2004).
A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction
method. Science 306, 1776–1780. doi: 10.1126/science.1103572
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1995). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s Bookstore.
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., and Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and
exploration: facilitating positive subjective experience and personal growth
opportunities. J. Pers. Assess. 82, 291–305. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8
203_05
Keltner, D., and Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic
emotion. Cogn. Emot. 17, 297–314. doi: 10.1080/02699930302297
Knez, I., and Eliasson, I. (2017). Relationships between personal and collective
place identity and well-being in mountain communities. Front. Psychol. 8:79.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00079
Kopperud, K. H., and Vittersø, J. (2008). Distinctions between hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being: results from a day reconstruction study
among Norwegian jobholders. J. Posit. Psychol. 3, 174–181. doi: 10.1080/
17439760801999420
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., and Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and
heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol.
23, 125–134. doi: 10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00110-x
Ledley, F. D. (2009). “Visions of a source of wonder,” in Envisioning Nature, Science,
and Religion, ed. J. D. Proctor (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press),
245–270.
Løvoll, H. S. (2019). The inner feeling of glacier hiking: an exploratory study of
“immersion” as it relates to flow, hedonia and eudaimonia. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour.
19, 300–316. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2019.1581084
Maslow, A. H. (1976). Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
Mastandrea, S., Fagioli, S., and Biasi, V. (2019). Art and psychological well-being:
linking the brain to the aesthetic emotion. Front. Psychol. 10:739. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00739
Matravers, D. (2012). “Wonder and cognition,” in Practices of Wonder: Crossdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. S. Vasalou (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications),
166–178.
McDonald, M. G., Wearing, S., and Ponting, J. (2009). The nature of peak
experiences in wilderness. Humanist. Psychol. 37, 370–385.
Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research, 4th Edn. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Oishi, S., Talhelm, T., and Lee, M. (2015). Personality and geography: introverts
prefer mountains. J. Res. Pers. 58, 55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.07.001
Parsons, G. (2008). Aesthetics and Nature. London: Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Pavot, W., and Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol.
Assess. 5, 164–172. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Posner, M. I. (2008). Measuring alertness. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1129, 193–199.
doi: 10.1196/annals.1417.011
Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Warren Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., and
Gagné, M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. J. Environ.
Psychol. 30, 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009
Sæther, K.-W. (2017). Naturens Skjønnhet. En Studie av Forholdet Mellom Estetikk,
Teologi og Naturvitenskap. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Sæther, K.-W. (2019). “Aesthetics at the intersection of science, ethics and
theology,” in Our Common Universe: Exploring the Future of Science, Ethics and
Theology, eds Z. Lehmann, and A. Losch (London: Bloomsbury / T&T Clark
series), 109–124.
Schindler, D. C. (2013). The Catholicity of Reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Seel, M. (1998). “Nature: aesthetics of nature and ethics,” in Encyclopedia of
Aesthetics, Vol. 3, ed. M. Kelly (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 341–343.
Stecker, R. (2005). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction. London:
Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc.
Straume, L. V., and Vittersø, J. (2015). Well-Being at work: some differences
between life satisfaction and personal growth as predictors of subjective health
and sick-leave. J. Happiness Stud. 16, 149–168. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9502-y
Teddlie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publication.
Tomlin, A. (2008). “Introduction,” in Aesthetic Experience, eds R. Shusterman, and
A. Tomlin (New York, NY: Routledge), 1–13.
Vasalou, S. (ed.) (2012). Practices of Wonder: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
Vetlesen, A. J. (2015). The Denial of Nature. Environmental Philosophy in the Era of
Global Capitalism. London: Routledge.
Vittersø, J. (2016). “The feeling of excellent functioning,” in Handbook
of Eudaimonic Well-Being, ed. J. Vittersø (Cham: Springer International
Publishing), 253–276. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_17
Vittersø, J., Dyrdal, G. M., and Røysamb, E. (2005). Utilities and Capabilities: A
Psychological Account of the Two Concepts and Their Relation to the Idea of
a Good Life. Bicocca, Italy: Paper presented at Workshop on Capabilities and
Happiness.
Vittersø, J., and Søholt, Y. (2011). Life satisfaction goes with pleasure and personal
growth goes with interest: further arguments for separating hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. J. Posit. Psychol. 4, 326–335. doi: 10.1080/17439760.
2011.584548
Vittersø, J., Søholt, Y., Hetland, A., Thoresen, I. A., and Røysamb, E. (2010). Was
Hercules happy? Some answers from a functional model of human well-being.
Soc. Indic. Res. 95, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9447-4
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., and Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more
caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 1315–1329. doi: 10.1177/0146167209341649
Yaden, D. B., Kaufman, S. B., Hyde, E., Chirico, A., Gaggioli, A., Zhang, J. W., et al.
(2018). The development of the awe experience scale (AWE-S): A multifactorial
measure for a complex emotion. J. Posit. Psychol. 14, 474–488. doi: 10.1080/
17439760.2018.1484940
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Løvoll, Sæther and Graves. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
13
March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 402