After decades of decline, populations of large carnivores and other threatened species of wildlife have begun to recover in Europe. Reasons for this development include hunting regulations, conservation efforts, and changes in land use, such as the abandonment of agricultural fields (Apollonio et al., 2010; Chapron et al., 2014). Such developments count as ecological successes. Together with survival of the species and increased chances that they regain functional significance in local ecologies, the increasing abundance of these animals means that people can more frequently interact with them in the landscapes that they share (Penteriani et al., 2016). Thus, at the same time that wildlife management, environmental regulations and other forms of protective action have prevented the extinction of species, they have also prevented the extinction of experiences that people can have with those species (Pyle, 1993; Soga and Gaston, 2016).

Yet, the experiences people may have with recovering species such as wolves can differ widely, and the social consequences of some such human–wildlife interactions have become the focus of intense debate between groups. Defined in terms of, for example, rural versus urban residence (Johansson et al., 2016b), different livelihoods and life-styles (e.g., farming and animal husbandry, hunting with dogs; Eklund et al., 2020; Eriksson et al., 2020), and value orientations and attitudes (Sponarski et al., 2013). These groups can hold widely divergent opinions about the animal species in question as well as the management of them. This means that the debate about human–wildlife interaction involves not only perceived negative impacts of particular animals as threats to personal safety, livelihood and lifestyle, but also infected social conflicts between local populations and other stakeholders, including the governmental authorities charged with managing wildlife (Redpath et al., 2013). The intensity of the debate increases with a perceived lack of understanding of the psychosocial consequences of the presence of particular animals and of the burden that wildlife management measures can impose on individuals and the collective, particularly in rural areas (Eklund et al., 2020; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015).

This debate contrasts starkly with movement toward scientific consensus on the positive values of nature experience for human health and subjective well-being (e.g., Bratman et al., 2019). However, the research behind this emerging consensus has largely focused on the experience of people in the urban populations of wealthy, industrialized countries (e.g., Hartig et al., 2014). It has also typically represented what people take to be “nature” in a limited set of contexts, with a particular emphasis on recreational activities (Hartig et al., 2011). At the same time, it has represented “nature” in a coarse manner, for example as green space, without attending to more specific ecological characteristics of the natural environment, including the particulars of the funga, flora and fauna in a given setting (e.g., Velarde et al., 2007; Markevych et al., 2017; Marselle et al., 2021).

Recognizing this latter limitation of the research on nature and health, some researchers have begun to study benefits of experiences with specific, ecologically relevant aspects of natural settings.¹ For example, recent years have seen claims that parks and other greenspaces with higher levels of species diversity and abundance will engender more psychological benefits of relevance to health (e.g., Fuller et al., 2007; Cameron et al., 2020). However, the set of studies on beneficial encounters with biodiversity remains relatively limited in important respects. The implications of the diversity and abundance of animals other than birds and butterflies have largely been neglected, and the focus has remained on experiences of urban residents within a recreational context (Jorgensen and Gobster, 2010). So, although such studies have addressed important knowledge gaps relevant to understanding the health values of encounters with wildlife, they have not directly addressed persistent concerns that fuel debates like those about the presence of wolves, deer, and other animals that some people see as hazards or pests and others see as highly valued components of the environment.

Although neglected in research on nature experience and health, the ambivalent feelings and attitudes evidenced by the parties to such debates have received much research attention in the field of human dimensions of wildlife (e.g., Decker et al., 2012). In this field, the concepts of nature and biodiversity translate into wildlife and specific animal species (e.g., Manfredo, 2008). Moreover, the empirical research is often situated in the urban-wildland interface or in rural areas, where residents have more frequent and different types of encounters with wildlife than those available to urban residents, and within a range of contexts that includes but is not limited to consumptive and non-consumptive recreational activities. The plethora of human–wildlife interactions as well as the species specific interactions in such contexts has been shown by social network analysis (Pătru-Stupariu et al., 2020). Human–wildlife interactions with different species can trigger both positive and negative feelings (Jacobs et al., 2014; Eriksson et al., 2020) and accompanying physiological responses (e.g., with bears, wolves, moose, and hares; Flykt et al., 2013). For some people, encounters with certain mammal and bird species may evoke awe and fascination, and an increasing abundance of such animals may therefore enhance the recreational quality of the local nature, attracting tourism income while also boosting residential satisfaction (e.g., Jorgensen et al., 2007). For other people, the same animal species may constrain recreational and residential quality, due to concerns about encounters (Kubo and Shoji, 2014). In other cases, people generally may show a high degree of consensus regarding the desirability – or undesirability – of a particular species. For example, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, a known abundance of ticks (Ixodes ricinus) causes people to limit their outdoor activities and take protective measures in certain areas (Slunge and Boman, 2018). Similarily, Nordström (2010) found that a high degree of exposure to floodwater mosquitoes (Aedes sticticus) and (Aedes vexans) was reliably associated with diminished psychological well-being in local residents. In attending to such phenomena, work in the field of human dimensions of wildlife offers a useful complement to research on the positive health values of “nature” and encounters with preferred, unthreatening expressions of biodiversity.

The non-material contribution of wildlife could be considered both as positive and negative, and be represented in a broad set of psychological well-being outcomes (Methorst et al., 2020). This paper supports further integration of research in environmental psychology, the psychology of emotion, conservation biology and human dimensions of wildlife by nuancing the understanding of psychological outcomes of increasing wildlife abundances in landscapes shared by people and wildlife across the urban-rural gradient. Our integration of this research adheres to the call from the International Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for a broad approach to the valuation of “nature’s contributions to people” that goes beyond economic cost – benefit analyses (Pascual et al., 2017). Importantly the research serves to provide a contextualized understanding of what may be experienced as a contribution of wildlife in different cultures, groups and settings (Díaz et al., 2018). Toward these ends, we propose a psychological framework for understanding how wildlife may contribute to or hinder people’s opportunities for psychological restoration in local natural settings. We also offer a model of how people behave up to, during and after an encounter with wildlife.

In the following, then, we first briefly consider theory concerned with human–environment relations in general. Next, we outline the more specific theories about emotional appraisals and restorative experience that we draw on in characterizing the person’s transaction with the environment in the encounter with wildlife. So prepared, we offer our integration of the theories and apply the model with some examples set in the Swedish context. In closing, we discuss our framework and model with a view to their use in understanding nature’s contributions to people’s health and wellbeing. An integrated understanding of the psychological processes at work should facilitate communication and decision-making about the contribution of wildlife in nature conservation and management.

A general approach to understanding the values of animate and inanimate aspects of the natural environment refers to their implications for human health and well-being through processes of adaptation. This approach treats wildlife as an aspect of nature that can influence health and well-being via pathways in four broad domains (see Figure 1). Each of the domains includes known and unknown but potentially discoverable pathways by which wildlife can come to have implications for the given aspect of adaptation to the environment. Thus, the presence and activities of wildlife in the local environment can affect health and well-being, both negatively, by undermining adaptation (i.e., by causing harm) and positively, by supporting adaptation (i.e., by helping people to build and restore adaptive capacities and by reducing harm).

Figure 1 further indicates that pathways in one domain can relate to pathways in the other domains. Relations between pathways may be competitive, as when the presence and/or activities of a given animal evoke strong fear in a person (activating one or more pathways within the domain of causing harm) and so aggravate stress that a person seeks to escape while in the natural setting (disallowing the operation of one or more pathways in the domain of restoring capacities). Yet, pathways in the different domains may also show complementary relations over time, as when a person who knows a threatening animal may be encountered in the setting acquires the knowledge and behavioral skills needed to manage a potentially harmful encounter (pathways in the building capacities domain) and so can come to enjoy the presence of the animal in its natural habitat (enhancing the restorative quality of the setting). It follows that pathways in each of the domains can work to relate the presence and activity of wildlife to human health and well-being in diverse ways over widely varying spans of time, from the momentary to the total life course.

Although Figure 1 severely simplifies a complex reality, it closely resembles other models that have proven useful in organizing and guiding research in other areas within the nature-and-health field. For one, it explicitly distinguishes between what actually exists in the environment and what the person comes to experience there; however, rather than more general representations of the environment, such as nature (Hartig et al., 2014; Bratman et al., 2019) and biodiversity (Marselle et al., 2021), our model starts from the wildlife that exists in the environment and the encounters that people may have with that wildlife. The organization of pathways into broad domains follows the example of Markevych et al. (2017), who addressed the positive effects of greenspace on health, and the example of Marselle et al. (2021), who addressed both positive and negative health effects of biodiversity. Our inclusion of a domain of pathways by which wildlife can cause harm follows the example of Marselle et al. (2021); however, in contrast to their example, our model acknowledges that wildlife can harm human health without any encounter taking place. It thus acknowledges that the presence and activity of wildlife can engage different pathways to health and well-being not only through the encounters that people have with the wildlife but also in ways that involve only some awareness of the possibility of an encounter or that are entirely outside of the awareness of the people affected. Finally, as in the presentation of these previous models, we acknowledge that the strength of an effect realized through a given pathway in any of the domains may depend on characteristics of the given context and of the people involved.

In theory, one or more pathways in all four of the domains could become engaged by a particular animal or species of animal in a given encounter and/or in repeated encounters over time. Also, these pathways could work within a broad range of contexts for wildlife encounters, from feeding birds outside one’s home to tracking lions as a hunter to visiting a remote region as an eco-tourist. Here, to simplify our presentation while also addressing issues of widespread concern, we narrow our focus to a smaller set of pathways and contexts. First, we focus on the operation of pathways within two domains, those of causing harm and restoring capacities, and we propose a psychological framework to understand how the presence of wildlife species may constrain or contribute to opportunities for restoration. Second, we focus on encounters that occur in local natural settings that people can access from their homes on a regular basis in daily life. In making this choice, we define the natural settings of interest not only in terms of their accessibility to people but also in terms of their status as ordinary habitat for the animals that those people could encounter. Thus, although we do not consider many other contexts of interest or health-relevant pathways that could become engaged with wildlife encounters, we nonetheless address a set of pressing issues that extend over relatively many people and animal populations in many places. Our presentation here thus has broad relevance.

We see important reasons to focus here on pathways in the restoring capacities and causing harm domains. Restoration has long been recognized as an important motive for visits to natural areas in urbanized countries (e.g., Knopf, 1987; Home et al., 2012). Similarly, access to opportunities for restoration in natural settings figures prominently among those who own a second home in a rural area (Fransson and Hartig, 2010). For people who have their sole or primary residence in rural areas, both daily demands and restoration opportunities are situated in rural settings, and wildlife may figure in the demands they face as well as in their restoration opportunities, for good or ill. Furthermore, the pathways of the restoration and causing harm domains, such as stress recovery or threat of attack, will in this context ordinarily have implications for pathways in the other domains, as when a person decides whether or not to wind down from stressful work by taking a walk in a nearby natural setting (i.e., physical activity as a pathway to health and well-being through the capacity building domain) (e.g., Staats et al., 2003; Dzhambov et al., 2018).

When people actively seek restoration in a natural setting, wildlife presence may play into the restorative opportunities in one or more of three general stages in a restorative process: before a visit when choosing a suitable setting, during a visit while engaging with the setting, and after a visit through feedback that influences future setting choices based on the experience just had in given setting. In any one of these stages, the potential for restoration may compete with the potential for harm of some kind in determining the degree to which the person benefits from the experience. For example, a person may choose to go to a given setting specifically to experience wildlife, as when a bird watcher heads toward a site where a rare species has been reported, or a person may deliberately avoid a setting, as when a berry picker avoids a nearby forest because brown bears have been reported there. In this paper, we focus on restoration as it unfolds on site, as one or more people are engaged with the setting. We outline how the experienced presence of different wildlife species can work to sustain or undermine restoration a person has sought with a visit to a natural setting.

Why might different wildlife species trigger different psychological responses? Why might these responses differ between people? How might contextual factors work to amplify or soften responses? How do these various aspects of an encounter, taken together, play into the restoration that a person realizes during a nature experience? Here we draw on general and specific theories within psychology to address processes of approach and avoidance based on people’s emotional appraisal of the presence of wildlife in relation to perceived opportunities or constraints for restoration in the natural setting. Within psychology, the interplay between the person and the surroundings gets described in terms of diverse, continuously ongoing psychological processes. As a general theory in environmental psychology, the Human–Environment Interaction (HEI) model (Küller, 1991) treats the outcome of this interplay as dependent upon the individual’s integrated appraisal of the activity engaged in, the perception of the physical and social environmental contexts, and the characteristics of the individual (e.g., socio-demographic background, personality, emotional disposition toward and prior experience with given animal species). Applied to potential or actual encounters with wildlife, the HEI model indicates that the description of the psychological processes of interest would involve reference to characteristics of both the people and the animal(s) involved (Johansson et al., 2012a, 2016b). Further, the HEI model indicates that the psychological process description would attend to the specific behavioral context in which the person or people and the animal(s) meet – the respective activities they are engaged in (e.g., a person gathering berries; an adult animal feeding) – as well as physical and social aspects of the context (e.g., the person is alone but at a distance from a female bear with cubs in a place that affords little possibility for escape). In this latter regard, we recognize that the person or people involved may experience the animal(s) simply as features of the physical environment to observe, or as a kind of social partner with whom they interact. Thus, we acknowledge that the ways in which the animal(s) in question perceive and act toward the people involved (cf. Sahlén et al., 2015), are important aspects of the description of the psychological processes of interest; however, we focus here on the human responses.

Building on the model of pathways from nature to health and on the HEI model as a general theory in environmental psychology, we can draw on more specific theories to provide descriptions of interrelated psychological processes running through the encounters that people have with wildlife. In the following, we comment on approach-avoidance tendencies that people show in response to features of the environment, and briefly overview research on characteristics of the person and the animal that can influence a person’s appraisals during an encounter. We outline the two areas of theorizing we integrate: on aspects of restorative experience as situated in natural settings, and on the particulars of ongoing emotional appraisal. We acknowledge the significance of the animal(s) own experience in the given encounter, but in the present account we will only refer to it insofar as it has relevance for the experience of the person or people involved.

Appraisal theory of emotion asserts that several processes of approach and avoidance in response to an environmental stimulus, in our case the presence of an animal, may run in sequence and in parallel at different levels of cognitive elaboration, and that they may to affect one another. HEI as a general theory, and SRT and ART as specific theories, encourage the understanding that the restorative potential of a situation involving wildlife is not adequately represented in terms of a person’s general appraisals (e.g., utility and fear) arising from transactions between the characteristics of the animal and the cultural and individual characteristics of the person. Rather, the restorative outcome of a wildlife encounter would depend on multiple processes of appraisal of the animal in the particular situation, taking into account the role the person adopts in the situation and the activity related to that role. The appraisal processes that run continuously during the encounter may moreover yield results that are congruent or competitive with the components of experience that permit and promote restoration. Thus, the dynamics of situation-specific processes, some automatic and others more deliberative, would shape the restorative outcome.

Features of the natural setting and the social situation would also figure in these appraisal processes during a wildlife encounter and so influence the restorative quality of the experience. The unfolding of the restorative process would depend on the extent of the natural setting, considered both in experiential terms as described in ART and also from an ecological perspective, as suitable habitat where wildlife could be present. The unfolding of the restorative process would also depend on how well the person could gain distance from daily demands in the setting. The presence of other people and who they are would also matter. For example, people in areas with large carnivores in self-reports states stronger fear of an encounter if they would be accompanied by a child (Frank et al., 2015; Johansson et al., 2019). In other word, features of the natural setting and of the social situation would have a moderating role in appraisals and avoidance-approach responses during an encounter. Appraisals and avoidance-approach responses will bear on the unfolding of restorative processes through their influence on permitting and promoting factors, as outlined in the following paragraphs and illustrated in Figure 2.

Put in terms of CPM, the relevance appraisal as it bears on the permission of restoration would, in line with both SRT and ART, involve attention to threat. The relevance appraisal of the animal would therefore include consideration of its taxon, specific features such as its size and present behavior (e.g., whether it is moving toward one), as well as comparisons with previous experiences of wildlife associated with threat and danger. These parameters could be expected to elicit sensory motor and schematic appraisal processes that build further on the same and perhaps additional animal characteristics (e.g., the speed at which it is moving toward one) as well as appraisals on a conceptual level that draw more deliberatively on cultural factors and personal experiences. It is likely that the sensory motor and schematic appraisals would dominate in the face of an imminently threatening animal, eliciting immediate avoidance responses that would interrupt restorative processes and induce stress. Appraisals on the conceptual level could also reduce the restorative potential of the setting if the person appraises the presence of an animal as somewhat threatening but cannot think about a way to cope that would be compatible with their personal norms. If the appearance of the animal would not be considered relevant as threatening or disgusting, or if the individual should find that they could cope with the situation, then the appraisal could instead result in an approach response.

Attention Restoration Theory stipulates another set of permitting factors on which appraisals of relevance would bear. These factors include the congruence of the presence of the animal with the perception of being away from the daily demands and the perceived compatibility with the activity in which the individual is engaged. These appraisals would mainly occur at the conceptual level, addressing relevance, potential implications, coping and the normative significance of further attending to the animal. If these appraisals would not be supportive of being away and/or compatibility, the animal encounter would likely result in neither avoidance nor approach, and thereby have little effect on the further course of the restorative process(es). But, if the appraisals would support perceptions of being away and compatibility, as with the appearance of a rare and sought-after bird in front of the bird watcher, the attention to the animal would elicit approach responses. This leads us to discuss how appraisals can bear on factors that promote restoration.

Stress Recovery Theory asserts that restoration is promoted by features of the setting that evoke positive affect and hold non-vigilant attention. These features could include how the animal fits into the configuration of space in the setting, a natural content that also enhances complexity and provides a distinct focal point. They could also be specific animal features, such as aesthetic traits of bio-behavioral similarity. ART asserts that restoration is promoted by soft fascination, enabled by a sense of being away and sustained by the perceived extent of the setting and compatibility in the activity there. Animals not being appraised in ways relevant to promoting factors would not receive further appraisals and have little impact on the further unfolding of restoration. However, if the person attends to the animal effortlessly, the implications of this fascination can then become a focus of appraisal: what will happen if staying in the situation watching the animal? If the individual finds the consequences may be negative and difficult to cope with, then there would be an avoidance response and the restorative process would not gain from further engagement with the animal. However, if the persons finds no negative consequences and/or is able to cope with remaining in the situation, then further approach responses would be possible. In this sequence, the implications of continued engagement presumably relate to being away and compatibility, as when the person breaks off engagement with the animal to turn back to the planned activity for which they have a limited amount of time. Even if the person finds that they could cope with the situation, however, continued engagement with the animal could violate personal or social norms, and so lead to avoidance and so an inability to realize the additional restorative value the encounter could provide were it to continue. For example, the bird watcher who sees the rare bird recognizes it is nesting, and that their presence is stressing the bird. Thus, the appraisal of a violation of norm congruence triggers an avoidance response that simultaneously interferes with the interconnected experiences of fascination, being away and compatibility, limiting the restorative value of the time in the setting.

In the Scandinavian countries, natural settings play an important role for consumptive as well as appreciative activities. About half of all Swedes have actively chosen to live close to nature, and in a national survey 80% of people reported that they spend leisure time in nature (Fredman et al., 2019). Sweden’s area is dominated by boreal forest managed for logging purposes, for the most part highly accessible from main roads and forest roads (Zimmermann et al., 2014). Less than 5% of the area of the country is covered by agricultural or urbanized land, and human density is often less than one person per km² (Zimmermann et al., 2014). Even in the most densely populated areas in the southern parts of the country, natural settings are not far away, and many are accessible by regular public transport. Thus, much of Sweden’s area serves as habitat for animals that people can encounter during recreational and other activities.

Clearly, Swedes do respond differently to different species. Based on factor analysis of national survey data, Johansson et al. (2012b) identified two main groups of animal fears. The first involved the four large carnivores found in Sweden (brown bear, wolf, lynx, and wolverine). The second involved fear of disgust-relevant animal species (tick, wasp, and snakes). Qualitative research in a Swedish context confirms that diverse native animal species such as moose, roe deer, wild boar, ticks and snakes become associated with threatening experiences, but for quite different reasons (e.g., fright, discomfort, destruction of property; Hagström, 2014). Geographical differences in people’s experiences of the different animal species may influence feelings and attitudes toward them (Johansson et al., 2016b; Eriksson et al., 2020). The abundance of species such as wolves and wild boars provoke much debate in some areas, while other species, such as roe deer, may be of more limited concern and yet others, such as the squirrel, may pass with little comment. The discussion is primarily framed in terms of animal husbandry and hunting interests versus conservation interests in the case of wolves; of threats to agriculture in the case of wild boar; and of threats to forestry in the case of roe deer. From the general perspective of nature’s contributions to people (Díaz et al., 2018), it would, however, also be relevant to illustrate the potential positive values of these species, as from a restoration perspective. Starting from our framework, we now outline different scenarios related to the play of restorative processes during an encounter with a wolf versus a roe deer while spending time in nature. We propose that each scenario should be analyzed in at least four aspects:

These four aspects are treated sequentially in the sections to follow. In treating them, we also consider the appraisals of permitting and promoting factors at their different levels (sensory-motor, schematic, and conceptual). Furthermore, appraisals likely to occur at the conceptual level are further analyzed according to matters of relevance, implication, coping potential, and norm congruence.

This paper sheds light on some of the intangible aspects of nature’s contributions to people. Referring to broad domains of adaptive pathways between wildlife and human health and well-being, we have considered how people’s exposure to and experience with wildlife presence and activity can engage pathways in the domains of both restoring capacities and causing harm (cf. Marselle et al., 2021). Moreover we illustrate how this is likely to occur through parallel and partly overlapping appraisal processes, running from physiological to cognitively elaborated approach and avoidance responses (Leventhal and Scherer, 1987). Our framework and the accompanying process model thereby contribute to the literature by specifying potentially significant psychological processes running during encounters with wildlife. This makes it possible to gain further depth in the understanding of how people’s personal experiences of nature matter to well-being outcomes. Our framework takes the perspective of the individual, and it draws inspiration from general theory on human–environment interaction and specific theory on emotional appraisal to integrate current views in the fields of human dimensions of wildlife and restorative environments. Our approach thus brings current discussions on nature and human health into alignment with discussions of the psychosocial consequences of wildlife conservation (e.g., Decker et al., 2012; Hartig et al., 2014).

With the integration of the two research fields we indicate that generalized appraisals concerning wildlife species and human interaction with these species affect the momentary appraisal processes during a specific encounter in a specific natural setting and consequently the restorative outcome of the visit to the setting. The core idea thus brought forward here is that the restorative value of natural settings can be expected to vary depending on the presence of wildlife, taking into account the ways in which people’s appraisals can differ across species, physical and social environmental contexts, and specific situations. Moreover, the restoration outcome would depend on appraisals of a potential wildlife encounter before, during and after a nature visit. The framework thus offers new ways to consider the diversity of wildlife in terms of nature’s contributions to people. The framework handles both the current negativity bias in the literature on human–wildlife relationships (Buijs and Jacobs, 2021) and the un-reflected view of nature as something unequivocally positive in much of the literature on the restorative aspects of nature.

Although we assume continuously ongoing appraisal processes, with our framework we propose that the analysis of appraisals during a nature visit ought to first attend to several aspects of the total situation. First among these is the human-animal interaction as it involves animal characteristics, general human appraisals, and cultural and individual factors. Such a description relies on results of research on human dimensions of wildlife and aids understanding of whether an encounter with the animal species in question is more likely to elicit approach or avoidance. The individual’s emotional disposition toward an animal would be one factor moderating the relevance appraisal of intrinsic pleasantness of an encounter with the animal.

Second, contextual factors of the nature visit should be investigated including the natural setting and the social situation, as suggested by general theory concerned with human–environment interactions (the HEI model; Küller, 1991). As for the natural setting, the physical features and their configuration should be considered. One feature would be the spatial extent, another the density of the vegetation. The perception of such features could say something about how well a natural setting regardless of presence or absence of animal species might provide for restorative experiences (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), including perceived prospect and refuge known to play into the perceived safety (Gatersleben and Andrews, 2013). The social situation holds similar importance, as the appraisal of an animal encounter can go in different directions depending on whether, for example, an accompanying person would reinforce or mitigate threat responses (Frank et al., 2015; Hartig, 2021).

Further, appraisals of factors permitting and promoting restoration should be taken into account. Our process model aligns with the claim of conventional restorative environments theory that threatening wildlife will result in avoidance and constrained restoration, if not elevated stress (Ulrich, 1983). If the encounter is experienced as safe, it may promote restoration, especially if the encounter is also compatible with intended activity, strengthens the experience of being away, and evokes fascination. The encounter could thus deepen the engagement with the natural setting, sustaining restoration. The model also acknowledges that appraisals at different levels of cognitive elaboration in parallel and in sequence result in approach/avoidance responses that feed into the restorative process. Thus, the extent to which the combined critical appraisal parameters permit and promote restoration shapes the restorative outcome of a wildlife encounter during a visit to a natural setting.

The CPM (e.g., Scherer, 2001) offers a means to systematically describe the processing of the critical appraisal parameters, as shown in the scenarios examples given above. The usefulness of this model has previously been demonstrated in research on people’s emotional responses toward diverse wildlife species (e.g., Eklund et al., 2020; Johansson et al., 2020). This earlier research shows that the appraisals of coping potential in relation to an encounter situation would be of particular significance for regulating fear responses. The predictability of animal behavior and controllability of one’s own reaction in an encounter situation seem especially important (e.g., Johansson et al., 2019). In our examples, the focus was on the persons’ appraisal processes, and animal behavior was kept constant. This may not be the case in a real encounter situation, and variation of animal behavior should be considered, especially concerning their gaze and speed and direction of movement, as these are characteristics likely to inform relevance appraisals (Scherer, 2001).

Considering that restoration includes appraisal processes before (expectations), during (experience), and after a visit (reflections), it could be expected that coping potential would have a critical role in the feedback loop from reflections on previous nature visits to planning and expectations for future visits. Since our application of the framework and process model here has focused upon the experience during a visit, we have not discussed this loop in detail. We think, though, that the coping appraisal would also be central to it. From a human health and well-being perspective it would be valuable to further study those situations where restoration is hindered or even counteracted to understand how people cope with such situations and potentially re-appraise the value of a particular natural setting.

We see possibilities for further informing these matters of process and outcomes through reference to other research and theory. We have chosen not to invoke here the extensive research on responses to snakes and spiders in animal phobia (e.g., Öhman et al., 2001), as phobic responses may reflect biologically prepared learning that follows elicitation patterns different from those seen with fear for other animals (Seligman, 1971). That is, in terms of emotional dispositions regarding intrinsic unpleasantness (Jacobs et al., 2012; Jacobs and Vaske, 2019), biologically based fear dispositions occupy a different category than dispositions for other stimuli. More attention is also needed with regard to the interpersonal processes in animal encounter situations where a person is in the company of other people. As illustrated in our scenario with the man and the child, company might affect the coping potential and the extent to which the encounter promotes restoration of one person through participation in another’s experience. This aspect could be further analyzed by means of relational restoration theory (Hartig, 2021).

The next step then is to empirically test the framework and process model. In this, transdisciplinary collaboration will help to ensure high quality descriptions of natural settings and wildlife species, appropriate use of psychological theory and methodology, and involvement of policy-makers. Insights in wildlife policy, management and conservation status will guide choices among the most relevant wildlife species in various natural settings of concern. From a methodological perspective, triangulation is called for. A first step would be to systematically collect qualitative information about different people’s personal experiences of wildlife during their visits to natural settings for psychological restoration. Cross-sectional studies could test the validity of the framework in both urban and rural contexts, and among different groups. In line with considerations of nature’s contribution to people and the call for integrating local knowledge, we illustrated the application of the framework with examples of people seeking restorative experiences in their local nature settings. The proposed integration of psychological processes is, however, generic; it can also be used to understand how wildlife figures in restorative outcomes among nature tourists and others. Knowledge about the appraisal processes and their relative importance for the restorative outcome could be experimentally tested, in simulated as well as real settings. Mobile methods including both psychophysiological measures and self-reports would be useful in this (Flykt et al., 2013).

Wildlife conservation and management need to go hand-in-hand with efforts to support human health and well-being; from the perspective of policy-making, a One Health approach is needed². In this case, it means that concerns related to public health must be integrated with nature conservation, considering not only the prevention of disease in humans and protection of animal populations but also the building of capacities that depend on co-existence, including ethical sensibilities regarding the rights of other species to exist and thrive (Leopold, 1970; Moline, 1986). This is not easy task, but here we show one way forward by describing the role that wildlife encounters can play in restorative experiences, thus opening for new ideas and bridges to other fields. For example, reliance on nature for restorative experiences seems to promote environmental concern and a broad range of pro-environmental behaviors (Hartig et al., 2007).

In recent years, wildlife management plans in Sweden and elsewhere have acknowledged people’s fear of large carnivores to overcome impact and social conflicts. Psycho-social stress caused by certain species has also been referred to lately (Nordström, 2010; Zahl-Thanem et al., 2020). We think that additional psychological perspectives could enlighten the current debate on wildlife and wildlife management. The understanding of the role of wildlife in restorative processes strengthens a more integrated approach to wildlife conservation, and constitutes a salutogenic stance for policy discussions and social conflicts over wildlife (see also Buijs and Jacobs, 2021).

Our paper points to the need to better understand human-animal interactions, their contextualization in terms of the features of the natural setting and social situations, and the individual’s appraisals of relevance, implications, coping potential and norm congruence as they relate to the permission and promotion of restoration. Furthermore, our approach offers concepts associated with established instruments for evaluating outcomes of transformative changes to current approaches to nature conservation and wildlife management, required to achieve sustainable use of natural settings. Attention to these psychological processes opens for a more informed dialog about wildlife by accounting for people’s experiences in a more systematic way. The proposed framework and process model can thus support bottom-up processes contributing to local nature conservation and management in relation to restorative opportunities.

The original contributions generated for this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

All authors have contributed to funding acquisition and development of the theoretical framework presented here. MJ drafted the manuscript, with substantial inputs of text, graphic representations, and critical commentary from AF, JF, and TH. All authors revised the text.

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.