Next Article in Journal
Legal Conditions for Refugees’ Mental Health: Implications of Legislative Changes in Programs for Newly Arrived Refugees in Sweden
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Everyday Living Areas for Deinstitutionalized Community-Living People with Mental Illness
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Lost Connections: Why the Growing Crisis of Loneliness Matters for Planetary Health

Nova Institute for Health, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA
Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
ORIGINS Project, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Challenges 2023, 14(3), 31;
Submission received: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 4 July 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023

1. Introduction: An Epidemic of Loneliness

Healthy social connections—belongingness and relatedness to others—are considered to be basic human needs [1]. Yet, many societies are plagued with growing levels of isolation and loneliness, polarization, and growing distrust of others. In the years immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, there was much discussion in popular media about a “loneliness epidemic”. The United States Surgeon General, Vivek H. Murthy, helped spark the discussion in 2017 when he declared loneliness as an epidemic in several mainstream media articles [2,3]. Although labelling this as an “epidemic” might have seemed hyperbolic, a recent meta-analysis and systematic review supports the conclusion that loneliness has been increasing over time [4] (Figure 1). The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have compounded loneliness, worsening an already-bad situation [5,6].
Loneliness is a subjective emotional experience of psychological pain associated with a mismatch between the actual and desired level of personal social relationships. In addition to the considerable emotional impact, there are growing concerns that social isolation and loneliness are undervalued risk factors for disease and mortality [7]. Thus, while we might debate the adjectives that best describe loneliness at scale, it is a serious affliction linked to premature death from both mental and physical ill-health [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. This includes insomnia, depression, suicidal ideation, and many chronic diseases associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and even alterations in the gut microbiome, which mediate many physiological effects [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
In other words, loneliness is implicated in many aspects of the growing personal, social, and economic burden of chronic disease threatening many societies, and this requires coordinated efforts to understand the interconnected web of causation and consequences. It is therefore an issue of great concern and relevance to the Challenges journal as we seek interdisciplinary solutions to complex interdependent problems affecting “people, places, and planet”.
The negative relationship between human flourishing and loneliness appears to be to be bidirectional, and therefore potentially self-perpetuating [15]. In other words, the physical and emotional consequences of loneliness add to social withdrawal, further magnifying community disintegration, lack of support, resentment, fear, and isolation. This culture of separation is implicated in declining altruism and environmental concern, increasing individualism, apathy, and hopelessness, as discussed below.
At scale, this is highly relevant to the transdisciplinary planetary health agenda, which is concerned with promoting flourishing across all systems—from the personal to the global level [16]. Planetary health calls for an expansive view of all factors that threaten human flourishing, and integrated approaches to addressing threats to sustainability and our relationship with the natural systems [17]. In this context, isolationism and social fragmentation undermine collective efforts to address the global challenges to flourishing.
Effective actions to promote flourishing depend on pro-social attitudes and pro-environmental attitudes for meaningful change. Efforts to engage individuals, strengthen communities, and improve social cohesion are therefore essential to the planetary health agenda—with clear benefits for individuals and local environments.

2. Lost Connections: Causes, Pathways, and Wider Implications

If loneliness is rising in populations, what might be driving that increase? Some have pointed at increases in screen time and social media use as a displacement factor relevant to lower in-person social interaction. For example, in one cohort study, adolescents’ feelings of loneliness increased sharply after 2011 [18]. Those with low in-person social interaction and high social media use reported the most loneliness. This is not a uniquely American problem. The increase in adolescent loneliness appears to be a worldwide phenomenon [19]. This is also a factor in the rising incidence of “nature-deficit” disorder [20,21]—displacing meaningful relationships with nature as well as traditional social relationships. Problematic smartphone use among youth is a significant concern, with rising global trends for additive behaviors [22]. However, this is unlikely to be the sole, or even the most significant, factor in the crisis of loneliness.
Although loneliness is often studied at the level of individual behavior and perception, it is a reflection of wider community conditions, social structures, and even physical conditions. For example, neighborhoods that are devoid of green spaces, community facilities, and public transport are associated with higher rates of loneliness and a perceived shortage of social support [23,24]. This may mediate the well-described relationship between green space and health [23,25]. It is also consistent with how community safety, crime, and fear are influenced by green space, or a lack thereof [26,27].
In this context, it is clear why loneliness does not sit on a level socioeconomic field. A lower socioeconomic position predicts a higher probability of reporting loneliness [28]. Specifically, zip codes known to have higher unemployment, poor access to healthcare, lower income, poor transportation, and disproportional numbers of marginalized persons are the very locations where mean loneliness scores are higher [29]. These are also the neighborhoods with less access to green spaces, lower social cohesion, poor health, and shorter life expectancy [30,31,32].
At a deeper level, “lonely societies” appear to those permeated with loss of trust [33]. Distrust is associated with social withdrawal and loneliness [34]. Declining trust in politicians, governments, and other authorities is correlated with interpersonal distrust—greater distrust of other people in general [35]. This has been amplified following the COVID-19 pandemic [36]. Growing suspicion of institutions reduces trust between strangers, within-group cooperation, commitment, and pro-social behavior [36]. This erodes the fabric of society and sets the stage for increasing prejudice, conflict, polarization, and extremism [36]. This “spiritual crisis”—the loss of deeper meaning and shared purpose—may now present one of the greatest threats to humanity.
These tandem “lost connections” to community and to nature are implicated in the rising challenges to both human health and that of the natural environment. As community cohesion declines, people are less likely to engage in activities that promote a sense of connection, belonging, and purpose in life [37,38]—all of which are important for health and longevity [39]. Similarly, as people grow less connected to nature and pessimistic about the environment, they are less likely to engage in actions to protect it [38].

3. Loneliness from a Planetary Health Perspective

In one sense, planetary health is concerned with ensuring the basic needs of humanity in a sustainable way—nourishment through sustainable sources of quality food, sustainable water needs, and safety through an environment without war and violence. Since belonging is a need rather than a luxury [40], addressing loneliness and social connections can be considered a transdisciplinary concern, central to planetary health.
Like most matters in planetary health, loneliness is steeped in complexity. The socioeconomic drivers and biopsychosocial variables related to loneliness are many, and a deeper understanding of these interconnected factors will be an important step in developing policies and practices aimed at reducing loneliness [41]. As just one example, food insecurity is associated with significantly higher odds of loneliness in youth [42]. At the same time, loneliness is also a distinct social determinant of health, which suggests that measures addressing loneliness have the potential to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities [43]. For now, evidence-informed interventions aimed at reducing loneliness at larger community scales remain limited [44].
Even small increases in loneliness at population levels can have a significant ripple effect. Loneliness is a sign that individuals have disengaged; therefore, it represents a health problem to the individual and to society as a whole. Since loneliness, especially chronic loneliness, is associated with withdrawal from pro-social behavior [45,46], it represents the loss of pro-social, and arguably pro-environmental, behaviors at scale. This underscores the wide-ranging value of promoting positive, meaningful social connections for the benefits of individuals, communities, and global systems—and the importance of transgenerational approaches (Figure 2).

4. Social Prescribing Has Benefits for People, Place, and Planet

More than 100 years have passed since an Editorial in the Pennsylvania Medical Journal argued that loneliness is a factor in the development of “psychoneuroses”, and that it is “high time” that physicians consider loneliness in clinical care [47]. Despite the increased awareness of loneliness, a recent study of patients attending a primary care clinic in an underserved urban area found that over 40% experience significant loneliness—two times the already-high prevalence estimates previously reported in USA primary care [48].
In 2022, experts called for enhanced screening of loneliness in primary care to cope with the mounting “Pandemic of Loneliness” [49], and encouraged social prescribing by healthcare providers, including nature-based interventions, as a potentially effective way to reduce loneliness [50,51,52]. In this context, strategies for individuals, such as mindfulness and pro-social behavioral interventions, have been proposed [53,54,55]. However, at the community level, social prescribing, art, and nature-based solutions also have wider benefits for social cohesion and the health of societies more generally [56]. It is encouraging to see government-funded initiatives, such as the UK Growing Health Together (GHT) place-based health creation program, which focus on health, equity, and sustainability through social relationships, creativity, and nature connectedness. This initiative, led by our colleague Gill Orrow in Surrey, takes an ecological approach to health and models how we can cultivate personal, population, and planetary health through grassroots approaches [57].
This also calls for infrastructure policies to create healthier neighborhoods that are highly walkable, with equitable access to gardens, community services, and creative social spaces [24]. In a recent Australian study, a lower cumulative incidence of loneliness was observed among people with more green space within 1600 m of their home, especially for people living alone; the results of this nationally representative cohort study suggest that achieving urban greening targets of 30% of the total area could lower the odds of cumulative incident loneliness by up to 26% among adults in general, and by 52% among adults who live alone [58]. Notably, stronger relationships with nature through contact with green space also increases pro-environmental attitudes and actions [59,60]. Restoring these crucial connections may therefore provide a critical common pathway to mitigate adversity and promote the physical [61,62,63,64] and spiritual well-being of individuals [62,65,66,67] and communities [27,68]. It also enhances personal (and collective) social and environmental responsibility [69,70,71].

5. Conclusions: The Need to Prioritize Belonging and Spiritual Well-Being

Loneliness is just one of many manifestations of the social crisis facing many societies. It is another signpost pointing to the urgency of prioritizing the spiritual well-being of individuals and communities to tackle the many threats to health at all scales [72]. Challenges is committed to encouraging research, advocacy, and actions to address these complex social challenges through transdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. We welcome diverse contributions that explore ways of improving social cohesion and belonging, and of strengthening interpersonal relationships and connections with the natural world. Not only will these efforts provide tangible avenues for creating solutions, but they will also help restore optimism—a powerful positive influence motivating engagement and social cohesion in shared efforts towards meaningful change [73,74].


I wish to acknowledge Alan C. Logan for his historical research, which has been included herein.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. Martino, J.; Pegg, J.; Frates, E.P. The Connection Prescription: Using the Power of Social Interactions and the Deep Desire for Connectedness to Empower Health and Wellness. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2017, 11, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. McGregor, J. This Former Surgeon General Says There Is a Loneliness Epidemic and Work is Partly to Blame. Available online: (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  3. Murthy, V. Work and the Loneliness Epidemic. Available online: (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  4. Buecker, S.; Mund, M.; Chwastek, S.; Sostmann, M.; Luhmann, M. Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychol. Bull. 2021, 147, 787–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ernst, M.; Niederer, D.; Werner, A.M.; Czaja, S.J.; Mikton, C.; Ong, A.D.; Rosen, T.; Brahler, E.; Beutel, M.E. Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 2022, 77, 660–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Su, Y.; Rao, W.; Li, M.; Caron, G.; D’Arcy, C.; Meng, X. Prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2022, 35, 29–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kanbay, M.; Tanriover, C.; Copur, S.; Peltek, I.B.; Mutlu, A.; Mallamaci, F.; Zoccali, C. Social isolation and loneliness: Undervalued risk factors for disease states and mortality. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2023, May 23, e14032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barnes, T.L.; Ahuja, M.; MacLeod, S.; Tkatch, R.; Albright, L.; Schaeffer, J.A.; Yeh, C.S. Loneliness, Social Isolation, and All-Cause Mortality in a Large Sample of Older Adults. J. Aging Health 2022, 34, 883–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hackett, R.A.; Hamer, M.; Endrighi, R.; Brydon, L.; Steptoe, A. Loneliness and stress-related inflammatory and neuroendocrine responses in older men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2012, 37, 1801–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, C.S.; Shin, G.E.; Cheong, Y.; Shin, J.H.; Shin, D.M.; Chun, W.Y. Experiencing social exclusion changes gut microbiota composition. Transl. Psychiatry 2022, 12, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, H.; Xia, N. The role of oxidative stress in cardiovascular disease caused by social isolation and loneliness. Redox Biol. 2020, 37, 101585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. McClelland, H.; Evans, J.J.; Nowland, R.; Ferguson, E.; O’Connor, R.C. Loneliness as a predictor of suicidal ideation and behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 274, 880–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Erzen, E.; Cikrikci, O. The effect of loneliness on depression: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2018, 64, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Qi, X.; Malone, S.K.; Pei, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Wu, B. Associations of Social Isolation and Loneliness with the Onset of Insomnia Symptoms among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in the United States: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Psychiatry Res. 2023, 24, 115266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Allen, R.; Prescott, J.; McHugh, S.; Carson, J. Loneliness and mental health at the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic in England. Health Soc. Care Community 2022, 30, e2374–e2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C.; Bristow, J.; Rozzi, R.; Moodie, R.; Redvers, N.; Haahtela, T.; Warber, S.; Poland, B.; Hancock, T.; et al. Exiting the Anthropocene: Achieving personal and planetary health in the 21st century. Allergy 2022, 77, 3498–3512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Twenge, J.M.; Spitzberg, B.H.; Campbell, W.K. Less in-person social interaction with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 2019, 36, 1892–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Twenge, J.M.; Haidt, J.; Blake, A.B.; McAllister, C.; Lemon, H.; Le Roy, A. Worldwide increases in adolescent loneliness. J. Adolesc. 2021, 93, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pergams, O.R.W.; Zaradic, P.A. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 80, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Larson, L.R.; Szczytko, R.; Bowers, E.P.; Stephens, L.E.; Stevenson, K.T.; Floyd, M.F. Outdoor Time, Screen Time, and Connection to Nature: Troubling Trends Among Rural Youth? Environ. Behav. 2019, 51, 966–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Olson, J.A.; Sandra, D.A.; Colucci, E.S.; Al Bikaii, A.; Chmoulevitch, D.; Nahas, J.; Raz, A.; Veissiere, S.P.L. Smartphone addiction is increasing across the world: A meta-analysis of 24 countries. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 129, 107138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maas, J.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place 2009, 15, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Bergefurt, L.; Kemperman, A.; van den Berg, P.; Borgers, A.; van der Waerden, P.; Oosterhuis, G.; Hommel, M. Loneliness and Life Satisfaction Explained by Public-Space Use and Mobility Patterns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Zelenski, J.M.; Warber, S.; Robinson, J.M.; Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L. Nature Connection: Providing a pathway from personal to planetary health. Challenges 2023, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bogar, S.; Beyer, K.M. Green Space, Violence, and Crime: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2016, 17, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Branas, C.C.; South, E.; Kondo, M.C.; Hohl, B.C.; Bourgois, P.; Wiebe, D.J.; MacDonald, J.M. Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2946–2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kung, C.S.J.; Pudney, S.E.; Shields, M.A. Economic gradients in loneliness, social isolation and social support: Evidence from the UK Biobank. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 306, 115122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tong, S.; Mullen, R.A.; Hochheimer, C.J.; Sabo, R.T.; Liaw, W.R.; Nease, D.E., Jr.; Krist, A.H.; Frey, J.J., 3rd. Geographic Characteristics of Loneliness in Primary Care. Ann. Fam. Med. 2019, 17, 158–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Kawachi, I.; Kennedy, B.P. Health and social cohesion: Why care about income inequality? BMJ 1997, 314, 1037–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Daniels, K.M.; Schinasi, L.H.; Auchincloss, A.H.; Forrest, C.B.; Diez Roux, A.V. The built and social neighborhood environment and child obesity: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Prev. Med. 2021, 153, 106790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rapoliene, G.; Aartsen, M. Lonely societies: Low trust societies? Further explanations for national variations in loneliness among older Europeans. Eur. J. Ageing 2022, 19, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rotenberg, K.J.; Addis, N.; Betts, L.R.; Corrigan, A.; Fox, C.; Hobson, Z.; Rennison, S.; Trueman, M.; Boulton, M.J. The relation between trust beliefs and loneliness during early childhood, middle childhood, and adulthood. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 36, 1086–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schyns, P.; Koop, C. Political Distrust and Social Capital in Europe and the USA. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 96, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. van Prooijen, J.W.; Spadaro, G.; Wang, H. Suspicion of institutions: How distrust and conspiracy theories deteriorate social relationships. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 43, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fernando, J.W.; O’Brien, L.V.; Burden, N.J.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Greens or space invaders: Prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 50, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McAfee, D.; Doubleday, Z.A.; Geiger, N.; Connell, S.D. Everyone Loves a Success Story: Optimism Inspires Conservation Engagement. Bioscience 2019, 69, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hill, P.L.; Turiano, N.A. Purpose in life as a predictor of mortality across adulthood. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 25, 1482–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117, 497–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lim, M.H.; Eres, R.; Vasan, S. Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: An update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2020, 55, 793–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, H.; Gu, Z.; Zeng, L.; Guo, T. Do Global Adolescents With Food Insecurity Feel Lonely? Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 820444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meisters, R.; Putrik, P.; Westra, D.; Bosma, H.; Ruwaard, D.; Jansen, M. Is Loneliness an Undervalued Pathway between Socio-Economic Disadvantage and Health? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hsueh, Y.C.; Batchelor, R.; Liebmann, M.; Dhanani, A.; Vaughan, L.; Fett, A.K.; Mann, F.; Pitman, A. A Systematic Review of Studies Describing the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Potential Harms of Place-Based Interventions to Address Loneliness and Mental Health Problems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Archer Lee, Y.; Lay, J.C.; Pauly, T.; Graf, P.; Hoppmann, C.A. The differential roles of chronic and transient loneliness in daily prosocial behavior. Psychol. Aging 2022, 37, 614–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sabato, H.; Abraham, Y.; Kogut, T. Too Lonely to Help: Early Adolescents’ Social Connections and Willingness to Help During COVID-19 Lockdown. J. Res. Adolesc. 2021, 31, 764–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Anon. Loneliness as a factor in the psychoneuroses. Penn Med. J. 1919, 22, 454–455. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hooker, S.A.; Stadem, P.; Sherman, M.D.; Ricco, J. Patient loneliness in an urban, underserved family medicine residency clinic: Prevalence and relationship to health care utilization. Fam. Pract. 2020, 37, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lonergan-Cullum, M.; Hooker, S.A.; Levy, R.; Ricco, J. A New Pandemic of Loneliness. J. Am. Board. Fam. Med. 2022, 35, 593–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cramer, H.P.E.-i.-C. Social Prescribing: Bringing the Community (Back) into Medicine. J. Integr. Complement. Med. 2022, 28, 285–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Morse, D.F.; Sandhu, S.; Mulligan, K.; Tierney, S.; Polley, M.; Chiva Giurca, B.; Slade, S.; Dias, S.; Mahtani, K.R.; Wells, L.; et al. Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob. Health 2022, 7, e008524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Leavell, M.A.; Leiferman, J.A.; Gascon, M.; Braddick, F.; Gonzalez, J.C.; Litt, J.S. Nature-Based Social Prescribing in Urban Settings to Improve Social Connectedness and Mental Well-being: A Review. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2019, 6, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Teoh, S.L.; Letchumanan, V.; Lee, L.H. Can Mindfulness Help to Alleviate Loneliness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 633319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Velloze, I.G.; Jester, D.J.; Jeste, D.V.; Mausbach, B.T. Interventions to reduce loneliness in caregivers: An integrative review of the literature. Psychiatry Res. 2022, 311, 114508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Fritz, M.M.; Walsh, L.C.; Cole, S.W.; Epel, E.; Lyubomirsky, S. Kindness and cellular aging: A pre-registered experiment testing the effects of prosocial behavior on telomere length and well-being. Brain Behav. Immun. Health 2021, 11, 100187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Crisp, N. Human flourishing in a health-creating society. Lancet 2021, 397, 1054–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Orrow, G. Designing an ecological approach to health. BMJ 2021, 375, n2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Astell-Burt, T.; Hartig, T.; Eckermann, S.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; McMunn, A.; Frumkin, H.; Feng, X. More green, less lonely? A longitudinal cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2022, 51, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zelenski, J.M.; Desrochers, J.E. Can positive and self-transcendent emotions promote pro-environmental behavior? Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 42, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jacobs, T.P.; McConnell, A.R. Self-transcendent emotion dispositions: Greater connections with nature and more sustainable behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Craig, J.M.; Logan, A.C.; Prescott, S.L. Natural environments, nature relatedness and the ecological theater: Connecting satellites and sequencing to shinrin-yoku. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2016, 35, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Logan, A.C.; Selhub, E.M. Vis Medicatrix naturae: Does nature “minister to the mind”? Biopsychosoc. Med. 2012, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Harvey, D.J.; Montgomery, L.N.; Harvey, H.; Hall, F.; Gange, A.C.; Watling, D. Psychological benefits of a biodiversity-focussed outdoor learning program for primary school children. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 67, 101381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Capaldi, C.A.; Passmore, H.; Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Dopko, R.L. Flourishing in nature: A review of connecting with nature and its application as a well-being intervention. Int. J. Wellbeing 2015, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. Mindfulness in Nature Enhances Connectedness and Mood. Ecopsychology 2019, 11, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Murphy, S.A. Happiness is in our Nature: Exploring Nature Relatedness as a Contributor to Subjective Well-Being. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 12, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. South, E.C.; Hohl, B.C.; Kondo, M.C.; MacDonald, J.M.; Branas, C.C. Effect of Greening Vacant Land on Mental Health of Community-Dwelling Adults: A Cluster Randomized Trial. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e180298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Zelenski, J.M.; Dopko, R.L.; Capaldi, C.A. Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Prescott, S.L.; Logan, A.C. Down to Earth: Planetary Health and Biophilosophy in the Symbiocene Epoch. Challenges 2017, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Prescott, S.L.; Greeson, J.M.; El-Sherbinii, M.S. No Health without Mental Health: Taking Action to Heal a World in Distress—With People, Places, and Planet ‘in Mind’. Challenges 2022, 12, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. McAfee, D.; Reinhold, S.L.; Alleway, H.K.; Connell, S.D. Environmental solutions fast-tracked: Reversing public scepticism to public engagement. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 253, 108899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Prinzing, M.; Nguyen, K.L.; Barbara Fredrickson, B. Does Shared Positivity Make Life More Meaningful? Perceived Positivity Resonance Is Uniquely Associated with Perceived Meaning in Life. PsyArXiv 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Living in crowded isolation: the decline in meaningful in-person interactions due to addictive smartphone technology is another factor influencing isolation and loneliness, as “social” media promotes anti-social behavior. (Artwork created by the author, S.L.P.).
Figure 1. Living in crowded isolation: the decline in meaningful in-person interactions due to addictive smartphone technology is another factor influencing isolation and loneliness, as “social” media promotes anti-social behavior. (Artwork created by the author, S.L.P.).
Challenges 14 00031 g001
Figure 2. Wide-ranging personal and collective benefits of promoting positive connections in early life: cultivating a sense of connection to “people, places and planet” in early life has long-term implications for future well-being, including physical and emotional health, positive relationships, and pro-social and pro-environmental attitudes as adults.
Figure 2. Wide-ranging personal and collective benefits of promoting positive connections in early life: cultivating a sense of connection to “people, places and planet” in early life has long-term implications for future well-being, including physical and emotional health, positive relationships, and pro-social and pro-environmental attitudes as adults.
Challenges 14 00031 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prescott, S.L. Lost Connections: Why the Growing Crisis of Loneliness Matters for Planetary Health. Challenges 2023, 14, 31.

AMA Style

Prescott SL. Lost Connections: Why the Growing Crisis of Loneliness Matters for Planetary Health. Challenges. 2023; 14(3):31.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prescott, Susan L. 2023. "Lost Connections: Why the Growing Crisis of Loneliness Matters for Planetary Health" Challenges 14, no. 3: 31.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop