The deep green lines on her left wrist stand in contrast to her olive skin tone. They intersect to form an intricately patterned leaf, similar to those found on a birch tree. She carries this permanent souvenir of the natural environment with her everywhere.
Johnna Bratt’s tattoo photo courtesy of Elana Rofel
The tattoo reminds Johnna Bratt, a student at Barnard College, to never forget where she comes from. Her father owns Bratt Tree Company; a small family owned and operated business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Bratt Tree Company helps residents of the Twin Cities with their tree service needs by offering trimming and removal services. Her dad’s success has afforded her the opportunity to attend college in New York City, an environment much different then the one she experienced growing up on a tree-lined Minnesota street called Birch Avenue. To Bratt, home has never been quite the same since a tornado in 2011 swept through her town, destroying over two thirds of the trees that had been there. The natural environment is a definitive part of her identity. The tattoo provides her with a constant connection to nature when she lives in a city where trees and nature are hard to come by. Why does nature hold such a sentimental value to individuals like Bratt?
The answer can be found in the texture of the leaves, the dynamic shape of the clouds, and the soft cry of the birds. These details found in nature all nurture humans’ restoration, peace, and joy. The complexities of our natural environments, otherwise known as “soft fascinations,” are crucial to our mental restoration. Research points to a positive relationship between our environment and subjective well-being.
Literary giants and influential thinkers like Aldo Leopold and Henry David Thoreau dedicated decades to describing humans’ relationship with nature in their prose, but it wasn’t until 1984 that the connection was fully, intensely and academically explored, this time by Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson. Wilson wrote in his book Biophilia of the existence of a “human innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes.” The biophilia hypothesis explains the evolutionary relationship between our cognitive functioning and the natural environment. Our rich human history with nature beginning with our role as hunters and gatherers, for example, has shaped our cognitive and emotional functions. Humans have an intrinsic need to interact with their environment, Wilson argued, and this relationship can be leveraged to explore how the growing issue of sustainability can impact our communities and society as a whole.
How we define happiness is important to understanding the relationship. While philosophers have been unraveling this question for centuries, researchers often dichotomize happiness into eudemonic well-being or the happiness that comes from a sense of fulfillment versus hedonic well being or self-gratification. The United Nation’s first World Happiness Report published in 2012 explains the two types of happiness as our daily emotions versus our overall fulfillment and evaluation of life.
For further proof, look to Scandinavia. Where Denmark is ranked the happiest country year after year, with Sweden and Norway following not too far behind. At the root of Scandinavia’s success is their collectivist approach to government, which results in progressive environmental policies. These policies nurture a commitment to sustainability and environmental awareness—where in Copenhagen for example, it is not uncommon for individuals to bike to and from work every day even in the worst weather.
But, the success of these developed nations and the struggles of other’s does not extend to the distinct challenges that developing nations face. In particular, Bhutan is shaping their development around their environment. Bhutan has forgone traditional measures of national well-being, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in favor of Gross National Happiness (GNH).
Bhutan may be on to something. Nic Marks developed the Happy Planet Index, an index that measures the relationship between our experienced well-being, life expectancy, and our ecological footprint. He reports that we are “not living on a happy planet. In fact, none of the countries measured successfully achieve high life expectancy, well-being while living within environmental limits.”
The UN even began to incorporate sustainability in its measure of well-being. The 2012 World Happiness Report states that happiness is linked to the “quest” for sustainable development. UN Secretary General Ba Ki-moon says that, “We need a new economic paradigm that recognizes the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic, and environmental well-being are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness.”
Politicians in the U.S. often frame this elusive “quest,” as a tradeoff. Sustainability is cited as a deterrent to happiness because it inhibits our freedom of choice. Politicians are focused on what we, as a society would have to give up in order to live sustainably—our SUV’s for example—with the assumption that we would have to compromise our happiness.
If finding refuge in the natural environment provides immediate gratification to individuals—just look to Johnna Bratt—then sustainability should be a policy that nurtures both our subjective and overall well-being.