A Multidisciplinary Exploration of Wellbeing: From Neurobiological Foundations to Environmental and Social Determinants

Abstract

Wellbeing, a concept encompassing physical, mental, and social dimensions of health, has garnered increasing attention across diverse fields, from psychology and neuroscience to public health and urban planning. This research report provides a comprehensive overview of wellbeing, exploring its multifaceted nature, underlying mechanisms, and key determinants. We begin by defining wellbeing and differentiating between hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives. Subsequently, we delve into the neurobiological substrates of wellbeing, examining the roles of neurotransmitters, brain structures, and neuroendocrine systems. We then investigate the influence of environmental factors, including the built environment and access to nature, on wellbeing. Furthermore, we explore the critical role of social determinants, such as socioeconomic status, social support, and community connectedness. Finally, we discuss the limitations of current research and outline future directions for advancing our understanding of wellbeing and developing effective interventions to promote it.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Wellbeing is not merely the absence of disease or distress; it represents a positive state of physical, mental, and social flourishing (Ryff, 1989). It encompasses a sense of purpose, satisfaction with life, resilience in the face of adversity, and positive relationships with others (Diener, 1984). The burgeoning interest in wellbeing stems from a growing recognition of its profound impact on individual health, societal productivity, and overall quality of life. Individuals with higher levels of wellbeing tend to exhibit better physical health outcomes, increased longevity, enhanced cognitive function, and greater social engagement (Steptoe et al., 2015). Moreover, societies with higher levels of wellbeing often experience greater economic prosperity, reduced crime rates, and stronger social cohesion (Helliwell et al., 2019). This report aims to provide a multidisciplinary overview of wellbeing, exploring its complex interplay of biological, psychological, environmental, and social factors. We will critically examine existing theories and evidence, highlighting the gaps in our knowledge and proposing directions for future research.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Defining Wellbeing: Hedonic and Eudaimonic Perspectives

Defining wellbeing is a complex and ongoing endeavor, with various conceptualizations emerging from different philosophical and scientific traditions. A key distinction lies between hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

• Hedonic wellbeing, often equated with subjective wellbeing (SWB), focuses on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. It is typically assessed through measures of life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect (Diener et al., 1985). A hedonic approach emphasizes experiencing positive emotions and avoiding negative ones, viewing happiness as the ultimate goal.

• Eudaimonic wellbeing, in contrast, emphasizes living a meaningful and fulfilling life, characterized by self-realization, purpose, and engagement in activities that align with one’s values (Ryff, 1989). It involves cultivating personal strengths, contributing to something larger than oneself, and experiencing a sense of autonomy and mastery. Measures of eudaimonic wellbeing often include assessments of purpose in life, personal growth, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, and self-acceptance.

While hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing are often correlated, they represent distinct constructs with unique predictors and outcomes (Keyes et al., 2002). For instance, engaging in altruistic activities may not always lead to immediate pleasure, but it can contribute to a greater sense of meaning and purpose, thereby enhancing eudaimonic wellbeing. Furthermore, some research suggests that eudaimonic wellbeing may be more strongly associated with long-term health outcomes than hedonic wellbeing (Ryff et al., 2006). It is important to note that a balanced approach, incorporating both hedonic and eudaimonic elements, is likely to be most conducive to overall wellbeing. Recent theories also emphasize the importance of psychological flexibility – the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and accept difficult emotions – as a key component of wellbeing (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010).

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Neurobiological Substrates of Wellbeing

The experience of wellbeing is deeply rooted in the neurobiology of the brain. Neurotransmitters, brain structures, and neuroendocrine systems all play crucial roles in regulating mood, motivation, and social behavior, which are fundamental components of wellbeing.

• Neurotransmitters: Several neurotransmitters are implicated in the neurobiology of wellbeing. Serotonin, often referred to as the “happiness neurotransmitter,” is involved in regulating mood, sleep, appetite, and social behavior (Berger et al., 2009). Dopamine, another key neurotransmitter, plays a crucial role in reward processing, motivation, and pleasure (Schultz, 2007). Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is an inhibitory neurotransmitter that promotes relaxation and reduces anxiety (Cryan & Slattery, 2009). Endorphins, naturally produced opioid peptides, are released in response to stress or exercise and can produce feelings of euphoria and pain relief (Boecker et al., 2008). Dysregulation of these neurotransmitter systems has been linked to various mental health disorders, including depression and anxiety, which can significantly impair wellbeing.

• Brain Structures: Specific brain structures are also critically involved in wellbeing. The prefrontal cortex (PFC), particularly the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC) and ventromedial PFC (VMPFC), plays a key role in executive functions, decision-making, and emotion regulation (Davidson et al., 2000). The amygdala, a brain region involved in processing emotions, particularly fear and anxiety, is also important for wellbeing (LeDoux, 2000). The hippocampus, crucial for memory and learning, is also implicated in wellbeing, as it plays a role in autobiographical memory and the ability to recall positive experiences (Cabeza & St Jacques, 2007). Furthermore, the insula, which processes interoceptive information (i.e., bodily sensations), contributes to self-awareness and emotional experience (Craig, 2002).

• Neuroendocrine Systems: The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, a key neuroendocrine system involved in stress response, is also implicated in wellbeing. Chronic stress can lead to HPA axis dysregulation, resulting in elevated cortisol levels, which can negatively impact mood, sleep, and immune function (Chrousos, 1998). Furthermore, the oxytocin system, involved in social bonding and attachment, is associated with feelings of trust, empathy, and social support, all of which contribute to wellbeing (Carter, 1998). Research using techniques like fMRI and EEG has shown that engaging in activities known to promote wellbeing, such as meditation and mindfulness practices, can alter brain activity and connectivity in these regions, suggesting that wellbeing is not simply a subjective experience but is reflected in measurable changes in brain function (Hölzel et al., 2011).

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Environmental Determinants of Wellbeing

The environment, both natural and built, plays a significant role in shaping wellbeing. Access to green spaces, exposure to natural light, and the design of living and working environments can all impact physical and mental health.

• Natural Environments: Research consistently demonstrates the positive effects of exposure to nature on wellbeing. Spending time in green spaces, such as parks, forests, and gardens, has been linked to reduced stress levels, improved mood, enhanced cognitive function, and increased physical activity (Ulrich et al., 1991; Hartig et al., 2014). The biophilia hypothesis suggests that humans have an innate connection to nature, and that exposure to natural elements promotes a sense of calm and restoration (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Studies have shown that even brief exposure to natural scenes can lower blood pressure, heart rate, and cortisol levels (Ulrich, 1984). Furthermore, access to green spaces has been associated with reduced risk of mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety (Gascon et al., 2015).

• Built Environments: The design of the built environment can also significantly impact wellbeing. Factors such as lighting, air quality, noise levels, and access to social spaces can all influence mood, productivity, and social interaction (Evans & McCoy, 1998). For instance, natural light has been shown to improve mood, reduce fatigue, and enhance cognitive performance (Figueiro et al., 2002). In contrast, exposure to excessive noise can lead to stress, sleep disturbances, and impaired cognitive function (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Biophilic design, which incorporates natural elements into the built environment, aims to create spaces that are both aesthetically pleasing and health-promoting. This can involve incorporating natural light, ventilation, green walls, water features, and natural materials into the design of buildings and urban spaces (Kellert et al., 2008).

• Orangeries and Wellbeing: Considering the specific context provided, the connection between an orangery’s design and overall wellbeing is particularly relevant. Orangeries, designed to maximize natural light exposure and often incorporating plants and greenery, embody the principles of biophilic design. The abundance of natural light in an orangery can regulate circadian rhythms, improve mood, and enhance Vitamin D production. The presence of plants can improve air quality, reduce stress, and create a calming sensory experience. The dedicated space of an orangery can also provide a sanctuary for mindfulness practices, such as meditation and journaling, further promoting wellbeing. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge potential drawbacks, such as the cost of construction and maintenance, and accessibility limitations for some populations. Further research is needed to quantify the specific benefits of orangeries and similar spaces on wellbeing, considering factors such as design features, individual preferences, and cultural context.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Social Determinants of Wellbeing

Social factors, such as socioeconomic status, social support, and community connectedness, play a crucial role in shaping wellbeing. These factors can influence access to resources, opportunities, and social interactions, which are all essential for a healthy and fulfilling life.

• Socioeconomic Status (SES): Socioeconomic status (SES), encompassing income, education, and occupation, is strongly associated with wellbeing. Individuals with higher SES tend to have better access to healthcare, education, and nutritious food, which can promote physical and mental health (Adler & Ostrove, 1999). They also tend to experience less stress and have greater opportunities for personal growth and social engagement. Conversely, individuals with lower SES often face numerous challenges, including poverty, food insecurity, inadequate housing, and exposure to environmental hazards, which can negatively impact their wellbeing. The link between SES and wellbeing is complex and multifaceted, involving both material and psychosocial factors. For example, perceived social status and social comparisons can also influence wellbeing, even after controlling for objective measures of SES (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009).

• Social Support: Social support, encompassing emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance from others, is a powerful buffer against stress and a strong predictor of wellbeing. Individuals with strong social support networks tend to experience lower levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness, and they are better able to cope with stressful life events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Social support can also promote physical health by encouraging healthy behaviors, such as exercise and healthy eating. The benefits of social support extend beyond individual wellbeing; strong social networks can also contribute to community cohesion and resilience. Research suggests that both the quantity and quality of social support are important for wellbeing. Having a few close, supportive relationships may be more beneficial than having a large number of superficial acquaintances.

• Community Connectedness: Community connectedness, referring to the sense of belonging and connection to one’s local community, is another important social determinant of wellbeing. Individuals who feel connected to their community are more likely to participate in civic activities, volunteer their time, and support local businesses, which can contribute to a stronger and more vibrant community (Pretty et al., 1996). Community connectedness can also provide access to resources and opportunities, such as social programs, recreational activities, and employment opportunities. Factors that promote community connectedness include social gatherings, community events, shared spaces, and opportunities for social interaction. Conversely, factors that can undermine community connectedness include social isolation, crime, and lack of trust.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Mindfulness Practices and Wellbeing

Mindfulness practices, such as meditation, yoga, and mindful breathing, have gained increasing popularity as tools for promoting wellbeing. Mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment, cultivating awareness of thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations (Kabat-Zinn, 1990).

• Mechanisms of Action: Mindfulness practices are believed to promote wellbeing through several mechanisms. Firstly, they can reduce stress by regulating the HPA axis and decreasing cortisol levels (Grossman et al., 2004). Secondly, they can enhance emotion regulation by increasing awareness of emotions and promoting acceptance of difficult feelings (Chambers et al., 2009). Thirdly, they can improve attention and cognitive function by strengthening neural connections in the PFC (Hölzel et al., 2011). Fourthly, they can foster self-compassion and kindness towards oneself and others, which can enhance social relationships and reduce feelings of isolation (Neff, 2003).

• Empirical Evidence: Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness practices for improving wellbeing. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), a structured program that combines mindfulness meditation, yoga, and body scan exercises, has been shown to reduce stress, anxiety, and depression, and to improve overall wellbeing (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), which combines mindfulness practices with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), has been shown to be effective in preventing relapse in individuals with recurrent depression (Segal et al., 2002). Furthermore, studies have shown that even brief mindfulness interventions can improve mood, attention, and working memory (Brown et al., 2007). While the evidence for the benefits of mindfulness practices is growing, it is important to note that not everyone responds equally to these interventions. Factors such as individual differences, motivation, and adherence to the practice can influence outcomes. Further research is needed to identify the most effective mindfulness practices for different populations and to understand the long-term effects of mindfulness on wellbeing.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

While our understanding of wellbeing has advanced significantly in recent years, there are still several limitations to current research. One limitation is the reliance on self-report measures, which can be subject to biases, such as social desirability and recall bias. Future research should incorporate more objective measures of wellbeing, such as physiological indicators (e.g., cortisol levels, heart rate variability) and behavioral data (e.g., social interaction patterns, physical activity levels). Another limitation is the lack of longitudinal studies, which are needed to understand the long-term trajectories of wellbeing and the factors that contribute to its stability and change. Future research should also focus on identifying the mechanisms through which various interventions, such as mindfulness practices and environmental interventions, promote wellbeing. Furthermore, it is important to consider cultural differences in the conceptualization and measurement of wellbeing. The relative importance of hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing may vary across cultures, and measures of wellbeing should be adapted to reflect these cultural differences. Finally, future research should focus on developing and evaluating interventions to promote wellbeing at both the individual and societal levels. This includes interventions that target modifiable risk factors, such as stress, social isolation, and unhealthy behaviors, as well as interventions that promote supportive social environments and access to resources.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Wellbeing is a multifaceted concept that encompasses physical, mental, and social dimensions of health. It is influenced by a complex interplay of biological, psychological, environmental, and social factors. Understanding the neurobiological substrates of wellbeing, the impact of environmental and social determinants, and the effectiveness of mindfulness practices is crucial for developing effective interventions to promote wellbeing. While current research has provided valuable insights into the nature of wellbeing, there are still several limitations and gaps in our knowledge. Future research should focus on addressing these limitations and advancing our understanding of the complex interplay of factors that contribute to wellbeing. By adopting a multidisciplinary approach and incorporating both objective and subjective measures of wellbeing, we can develop more effective strategies to promote wellbeing at both the individual and societal levels, ultimately leading to a healthier, happier, and more resilient world.

Many thanks to our sponsor Elegancia Homes who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Adler, N. E., & Ostrove, J. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: What we know and what we don’t. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 3-15.
• Berger, M., Gray, J. A., & Roth, B. L. (2009). The expanded biology of serotonin. Annual Review of Medicine, 60, 355-366.
• Boecker, H., Sprenger, T., Spilker, M. E., Henriksen, G., Koppenhoefer, M., Wagner, K. J., … & Valet, M. (2008). The runner’s high: Opioidergic mechanisms in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2523-2531.
• Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211-237.
• Cabeza, R., & St Jacques, P. (2007). Functional neuroimaging of autobiographical memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 219-227.
• Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818.
• Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 560-572.
• Chrousos, G. P. (1998). Stressors, stress, and neuroendocrine integration of the adaptive response. The 1997 Hans Selye Memorial Lecture. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 851(1), 311-335.
• Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310.
• Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655-666.
• Cryan, J. F., & Slattery, D. A. (2009). GABAB receptors and depression. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 30(11), 561-567.
• Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation—a possible prelude to violence. Science, 289(5478), 591-594.
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.
• Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
• Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: The role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 85-94.
• Figueiro, M. G., Rea, M. S., Bullough, J. D., Rea, M. S., & Stevens, R. G. (2002). Light at night, circadian disruption and breast cancer: assessment of existing evidence. Melatonin research, 1(2), 1-11.
• Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 218(8), 861-869.
• Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35-43.
• Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207-228.
• Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (Eds.). (2019). World happiness report 2019. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
• Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., Ott, U., … & Davidson, R. J. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36-43.
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte.
• Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility: Integrating positive psychology and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 865-879.
• Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J. H., & Mador, M. (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
• Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007.
• LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 155-184.
• Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85-101.
• Pretty, J., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (1996). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: the discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2), 149-162.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
• Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069.
• Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Dienberg Love, G. (2006). Positive health: connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1471), 1683-1694.
• Schultz, W. (2007). Behavioral dopamine signals. Trends in Neurosciences, 30(5), 203-210.
• Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. Guilford Press.
• Stansfeld, S. A., & Matheson, S. (2003). Noise pollution and mental health. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(4), 243-248.
• Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 690-696.
• Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
• Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230.
• Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.