Towards a unified conceptual framework of eco-anxiety: mapping eco-anxiety through a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Growing awareness of climate change and other ecological crises presents significant challenges to both psychological well-being and collective resilience. Eco-anxiety, a form of psychological distress related to these threats, has garnered increasing attention but remains inconsistently defined and studied across the scientific literature. This scoping review synthesizes findings from 202 articles, examining the definitions, dimensions, correlates, and coping strategies associated with eco-anxiety. It highlights the implications of eco-anxiety for mental health, well-being, and environmental engagement. The review proposes a conceptual framework for understanding eco-anxiety and its related constructs, offering a structured synthesis of current knowledge. By identifying critical gaps, it provides directions for future research on eco-anxiety and the broader psychological impacts of climate change.

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report (Calvin et al., 2023) emphasizes the unprecedented rate and scale of climate and ecological changes driven by human activities. These disruptions are already affecting inhabited regions, directly endangering the physical and psychological health of millions worldwide (Romanello et al., 2023). Indirect consequences are also documented. Notably caused by the growing awareness of the magnitude and complexity of climatic and environmental risks, they include feelings of helplessness, anger, fear, anxiety and worry (Pihkala, 2022b). These indirect consequences—sometimes referred to as eco-emotions—have been shown to pose a challenge to psychological and collective well-being (Clayton et al., 2017, 2021; T. Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Romanello et al., 2023). As climate and environmental changes become increasingly visible in our daily lives and media, understanding how eco-emotions manifest is crucial for addressing their social and psychological implications. Understanding the elicited psychological responses is also essential for informing mental health practices and promoting adaptive coping mechanisms. Additionally, as eco-emotions have been shown to be related to environmental engagement (Kleres & Wettergren, 2017; Ojala, 2022; Sciberras & Fernando, 2021; Stanley et al., 2021), their understanding is crucial for fostering proactive behaviours and supporting the transformations needed to address the climate and environmental crises.

Among existing eco-emotions, eco-anxiety, a rampant phenomenon associated with distress regarding climate and environmental changes (Coffey et al., 2021), has garnered the most attention in recent years. Despite a surge in research, the current literature on the subject remains fragmented making it hard to paint a picture of existing knowledge on the subject and implications for mental health and environmental engagement. While numerous reviews have been published in recent years (e.g., 7–14), they have focused on specific aspects of eco-anxiety such as interventions (Baudon & Jachens, 2021; Bingley et al., 2022), mental health implications (Hayes et al., 2018; Inauen et al., 2021) or specific populations (such as children (Léger-Goodes et al., 2022)). During the period covered by the present scoping review, one review (Coffey et al., 2021) also looked into the operationalization of eco-anxiety, without, however, including other factors associated with eco-anxiety. A comprehensive conceptualization of eco-anxiety that includes determinants, vulnerability and protection factors, and other correlates is still lacking. This scoping review, encompassing 202 scientific articles, aims to address these gaps by providing a structured overview of eco-anxiety. By mapping the key concepts surrounding eco-anxiety—and reporting on sources and available knowledge –, this paper will render the characteristics, extent and scope of the research on the subject, as well as synthesise findings and identify gaps (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). In doing so, this paper aims to advance our understanding of this complex phenomenon and tentatively offer a unified conceptual framework for eco-anxiety.

In this paper, we first review existing definitions of eco-anxiety and clarify its relationship to other eco-emotions. We then outline the associations between eco-anxiety, mental health, well-being, and environmental engagement, identify factors that influence it (either positively or negatively) and provide an overview of documented coping strategies. Finally, we propose a conceptual framework for eco-anxiety based on the findings of our scoping review.

Method

This scoping review aims to map the conceptual and empirical knowledge on eco-anxiety, focusing on its definition, associated factors, and coping strategies. The review encompasses relevant scientific literature on eco-anxiety published until January 2024, with no predefined start date, to capture the emergence and evolution of the term. The review includes literature in both French and English, from the following databases: PsychInfo, CINAHL, Environment Complete, ERIC, Health Policy Reference Center, Medline, Political Science Complete, Psychology and Behavioural Science Collection, Public Affairs Index, SocIndex, Academic Search Complete, Cairn.info Journals, JSTOR Arts & Sciences, Sage Journals, Taylor and Francis Journals.

A comprehensive research strategy was conducted in early 2024 using a range of keywords associated with eco-anxiety and its related constructs. Keywords included:“eco-anxiety”, “climate anxiety”, “ecological grief”, “solastalgia”, “ecoparalysis”, “eco-paralysis”, “ecological doom”, “environmental doom”, as well as “anxiety”, “worries”, “worry”, “distress”, “obsessive compulsive” and “ocd” in combination with keywords related to climate change (“climate change”, “climate crisis”, “climate crises”, “global warming”, “ecological crises”, ecological crisis”, “environmental change”).

Articles were included if they specifically addressed eco-anxiety or closely related concepts, such as climate anxiety. Non-peer reviewed texts, editorials, commentaries were excluded, as well as articles that did not directly address the psychological impacts of climate change. Articles focusing solely on other eco-emotions, such as eco-anger or eco-grief, were also excluded if they did not mention eco-anxiety or climate anxiety. The detailed exclusion criteria are provided in Appendix 1.

The initial database search yielded a total of 3 535 articles, which was reduced to 2 404 articles after removing duplicates. A preliminary screening of titles and abstracts excluded 1,827 irrelevant studies. The remaining 577 articles underwent a full-text review, during which 375 articles were excluded. In the end, 202 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. See PRISMA diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram.

Data were extracted from the final set of articles based on five main categories: 1) definitions of the phenomenon, 2) potential determinants and influencing factors, 3) potential outcomes on well-being, mental health and engagement, 4) coping strategies, and 5) basic article information (author names, publication date, journal title, objectives, methodology and population under study). Relevant information for each category was compiled into a structured table to facilitate a systematic analysis of the collated literature. This approach allowed for an assessment of the current state of knowledge and supported the development of a preliminary conceptual model of eco-anxiety, which is detailed in the following sections.

To ensure the reliability of our screening and data extraction process, four trained research assistants carried out the work under the supervision of the lead researchers. A subset of articles was independently screened and extracted by all research assistants and at least one lead researcher to ensure consistency in applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus meetings to foster a shared understanding of the criteria and improve inter-rate reliability.

Results

Publication trends

Early accounts of climate change impacts resembling eco-anxiety were found as early as 1980 (Kets de Vries, 1980) and 1993 (Mol & Spaargaren, 1993). However, as our review confirms, eco-anxiety is a relatively recent area of research, with fewer than 30 articles predating 2010, and around three quarters of them published in the past 10 years. This trend certainly reflects the growing interest in the subject and highlights a growing recognition of eco-anxiety as an area of concern within the scientific community. Given its relatively new emergence as a research topic, many of the collated studies—especially earlier ones—investigated the phenomenon from a conceptual standpoint. Empirical studies have become more prevalent in recent years, although most of them are cross-sectional. This highlights the pressing need for longitudinal research to better capture the evolution and dynamics of eco-anxiety over time.

Results also show that the literature on the subject stems from a wide variety of scientific fields, reflecting its intersectoral nature and the diverse perspectives from which it is studied: psychology, environment, health, psychiatry, social sciences, education, risk mitigation, geography, etc. However, this diversity also contributes to a highly fragmented body of literature, making it challenging to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Definitions of eco-anxiety

Our review, like others, reveals a range of definitions and conceptualizations of eco-anxiety within the scientific community (see Table 1). These definitions vary in three key aspects: the range of emotions included, the intensity of the experience, and the specific environmental triggers involved.

Table 1.

Examples of definitions of eco-anxiety found in the scientific literature

Definition	Reference
A severe and debilitating worry related to a changing and uncertain natural environment	Albrecht, (2011)
Indirect and vicarious impacts of climate change, which include intense emotions associated with observation of climate change effects worldwide, anxiety and uncertainty about the unprecedented scale of current and future risks to humans and other species	Doherty & Clayton, (2011)
A chronic fear of environmental doom	Clayton et al., (2017)
A deep angst that many people feel nowadays because of environmental destruction	Pihkala, 2018a
The large terrain of affective, cognitive, imaginal, and behavioural processes induced by contact with climate change themes, encompassing both emotional responses and inadequate coping reactions	Lewis et al., (2020)
Forms of negative emotional response to climate change	Clayton & Karazsia, (2020)
The generalized sense that the ecological foundations of existence are in the process of collapse	Pihkala, (2020b)
Emotional and mental states associated with heightened awareness of climate change and concurrent distress in the face of its threatening implications for the future	Baudon & Jachens, (2021)
People’s emotional reaction of concern, worry, anxiety, and fear in view of global climate change threats and concurrent environmental degradation	Ágoston et al., 2022
A state of psychological and sometimes physical discomfort of varying degrees, characterized by apprehension about a more or less distant threat in the future, significantly associated with ecological disaster, which is perceived as uncertain, difficult to predict, and barely controllable.	Gousse-Lessard & Lebrun-Paré, (2022)
The experience of persistent feelings of anxiety regarding degradation of our natural environment	Léger-Goodes et al., (2023)
An emergent form of posthuman knowledge, dominated by vulnerability rather than affirmation	Boyd et al., (2023)

The diversity of existing definitions for eco-anxiety complicates efforts to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and its scope. However, these definitions also offer valuable insights into the various dimensions of eco-anxiety. Understanding and identifying the distinctions and similarities among these definitions is essential for clarifying the boundaries of eco-anxiety and its relation to other eco-emotions.

The range of included emotions

Our analysis reveals that definitions of eco-anxiety vary in terms of the range of emotions they encompass. Eco-anxiety is often described as a state of fluctuating feelings of worry, distress, and apprehension in response to the observed or anticipated effects of climate and environmental changes. However, it seems that eco-anxiety is not limited to anxiety-like responses, as it frequently intersects with other emotions. These may include self-condemning emotions (such as guilt, shame or embarrassment), other-condemning emotions (such as anger, disgust or contempt), other-suffering emotions (such as compassion and empathy), and threat-related emotions (such as fear, anxiety and hopelessness) (Landmann, 2021; Pihkala, 2022b; Treble et al., 2023). Indeed, research indicates eco-anxiety is not an isolated experience (Stanley et al., 2021). This overlap complicates the conceptual boundaries between eco-anxiety and related eco-emotions such as eco-anger, eco-grief, and eco-fear. For instance, some studies suggest that chronic or unrelieved stress and anxiety related to eco-anxiety can evolve into eco-depression (Helm et al., 2018; Pihkala, 2020a). Frustration, a common emotional response to climate change, seems to be associated with both eco-anxiety and eco-anger. Eco-anxiety can also trigger eco-anger, which may in turn manifest as eco-anxiety, especially if repressed (du Bray et al., 2017; Hickman, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Stanley et al., 2021). Similarly, eco-grief and solastalgia are reported to potentially transform into eco-anxiety, especially if not recognized (Ojala et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b, 2024). Eco-guilt or eco-shame, stemming from the perception of inadequate environmental action, may also contribute to eco-anxiety (Ojala, 2007; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b). Additionally, eco-worry has been identified as a mediator between risk perception and impairment related to eco-anxiety (Hajek & König, 2022a). Thus, the distinction between eco-anxiety and other eco-emotions remains blurred, as they often intertwine. Despite these interrelations, it is important not to conflate these concepts altogether, as the literature identifies distinct features among them. For instance, while eco-fear may be a component of eco-anxiety, fear is typically triggered by tangible, immediate and identifiable threats and prompts more direct defensive responses (Ojala et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b). Furthermore, although eco-anxiety and eco-despair share similarities, the latter is more closely related to fatigue (Doherty, 2018; Pihkala, 2020b). Moreover, some research suggests that while eco-anxiety and eco-anger are interconnected, eco-anger’s relationship to environmental engagement may be stronger than that of eco-anxiety, which is also linked to avoidance behaviours (du Bray et al., 2017; Hickman, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Rozuel & Bellehumeur, 2022; Stanley et al., 2021). The nature and extent of these interrelations and distinctions is not yet clear and requires further research.

While the term eco-anxiety is sometimes used as an umbrella term encompassing various eco-emotions, it remains essential to better delineate these concepts while also acknowledging their interconnectedness. To date, research on the subject appears to face challenges in clearly defining the boundaries between different eco-emotions. Our proposed definition (see full definition below) conceptualizes eco-anxiety as being rooted in feelings of uncertainty and uncontrollability, reflecting fear and worry about climate and environmental changes and the perceived inadequacy of societal responses.

Intensity of the experience

Definitions for eco-anxiety also differ regarding the intensity of feelings and emotions they encompass, that is, the severity, persistence and impacts of the emotional response. Indeed, some definitions describe eco-anxiety as severe, debilitating, and persistent (Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Gifford & Gifford, 2016; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023). Others conceptualize it as a spectrum of broad emotions, ranging from mild to acute, related to environmental and climate disruptions (Baudon, 2021; Pihkala, 2018; São Pedro V de et al., 2022). These variations highlight that eco-anxiety can manifest with varying levels of intensity, reflecting the diverse ways individuals experience it. For many, eco-anxiety can be seen as a useful and adaptive reaction to serious and impending threats (Pihkala, 2022a; Stanley et al., 2021; Thompson, 2021). In this perspective, it serves as a recognition of the gravity of the environmental situation (Pihkala, 2020a) and is characterized as a normal, and even constructive, response to the risks, threats, and responsibilities posed by climate change (Boyd et al., 2023; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2021; Rozuel & Bellehumeur, 2022; A. Thompson, 2009; Thompson, 2021). However, when the intensity is higher—becoming invasive and chronic—eco-anxiety can overwhelm individuals and impair daily functioning (Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2021). These differences in definitions underscore the multifaceted nature of eco-anxiety, reflecting both its adaptive potential and its capacity to cause significant distress depending on its intensity.

To better capture this range of experiences regarding eco-anxiety, Hickman et al. (Hickman, 2020) proposed a typology categorizing the phenomenon based on its intensity: mild, medium, significant, and severe. According to this typology, intensity encompasses not only the strength of the emotional response, but also its impacts on well-being and behavior. Such a framework appears useful, as studies suggest that the outcomes of eco-anxiety on well-being and engagement can vary depending on the intensity of the experience (Hickman, 2020; Verplanken et al., 2020). For instance, mild eco-anxiety has been associated with pro-environmental behaviours, whereas more severe forms are reportedly linked to feelings of paralysis and inaction. This typology has also been further explored in relation to children and young people in another article (Hickman, 2024), which is particularly relevant given that this population is considered more vulnerable to eco-anxiety. While this typology provides a helpful conceptual framework, it is important to acknowledge that it remains theoretical and, to date, lacks robust empirical validation.

The stressors of eco-anxiety

Definitions of eco-anxiety also vary with respect to their focus. These distinctions are significant because they influence how eco-anxiety is operationalized, understood, and measured. These variations complicate efforts to estimate its prevalence and compare findings across studies (Treble et al., 2023).

Some researchers confine their definition to emotional reactions specifically regarding the climate threat (Barnwell & Wood, 2022; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Lewis et al., 2020; Mento et al., 2023). Others, however, expand the scope of their definitions to encompass broader global ecological problems, including issues such as scarcity of resources, biodiversity loss, increased pollution, ecosystem destruction, overexploitation of resources, etc (Foster, 2022; Jain & Jain, 2022; Pihkala, 2020b; Smith et al., 2023). Emerging research also highlights that eco-anxiety is not solely tied to environmental and climate changes but can be significantly associated with its social implications. Indeed, for many, the most pressing threat posed by these crises relates to the disruption of their social world, well-being, and security (Barnwell & Wood, 2022; Jalin et al., 2022; Le Goff, 2017; Mento et al., 2023; Ogunbode et al., 2021; Rothschild & Haase, 2023). Worries about social collapse and its potential consequences on health, livelihood, financial security, and relationships thus appear to be strongly associated with eco-anxiety. Additionally, feelings of eco-anxiety seem to be exacerbated by the perceived inadequacy of societal responses. Witnessing the lack of engagement or efficacy in environmental action is frequently mentioned as a triggering factor for eco-anxiety, as it can undermine trust and foster feelings of helplessness and despair (Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Innocenti et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2020; Middleton et al., 2020; R. Thompson et al., 2022). Thus, the sense of moral distress arising from the perceived inaction of governments, companies, communities and individuals also seem to be strongly linked to eco-anxiety. Incorporating social dimensions into the definition of the concept seems essential to fully capture the complexity of the phenomenon. By recognizing the broader socio-ecological context, researchers can better understand how eco-anxiety relates to both well-being and environmental engagement.

While research increasingly highlights the social impacts and implications of eco-anxiety, these dimensions are still rarely included in its definition. Yet, incorporating the social dimension into the conceptualization of eco-anxiety remains essential to fully capture the complexity of this phenomenon.

Suggested definition

After reviewing existing definitions of eco-anxiety and reflecting on their differences, we propose a comprehensive description: eco-anxiety is a sociopsychological state characterized by fluctuating feelings of worry, distress, and apprehension in response to the observed and anticipated effects of climate change and environmental disruptions, as well as their impacts on people’s way of life and the perceived inadequacy of societal responses and policies.

As a sociopsychological state, eco-anxiety encompasses not only internal emotional responses, but also social factors such as inequalities and perceived deficiencies in governmental and societal measures. Rooted in feelings of uncertainty and uncontrollability, it embodies both a fear of environmental catastrophe and the ongoing challenges of grappling with the consequences.

Eco-anxiety varies in intensity, ranging from mild unease to severe distress, and can manifest differently among individuals. It is generally a normal and adaptive response to an abnormal situation caused by environmental and social disruptions, often serving as a motivating force. However, depending on its intensity and how it is experienced, it can also become a source of significant distress or poor well-being.

While eco-anxiety is closely intertwined with other eco-emotions, such as anger and helplessness, it is essential to recognize it as a distinct phenomenon. Acknowledging this distinction underscores the complexity of the emotional landscape shaped by social and environmental challenges, highlighting the nuanced ways individuals experience and respond to ecological issues. Therefore, in our view, eco-anxiety should not be used as an umbrella term for all eco-emotions.

Measuring eco-anxiety

There is no consensus regarding how to measure eco-anxiety, with existing scales differing in their focus and underlying dimensions. In our review, two main scales emerged as the most frequently cited: the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS) (Hogg et al., 2021, 2023; Mathé et al., 2023; Rocchi et al., 2023; Sampaio et al., 2023; Türkarslan et al., 2023) and the Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCAS) (Cruz & High, 2022; Hogg et al., 2023; Innocenti et al., 2021; Wullenkord et al., 2021), both of which have been validated in studies across different populations. The HEAS includes 13 items structured around four dimensions: affective symptoms (such as feelings of fear and worry), rumination related to environmental concerns, behavioural symptoms (such as difficulty sleeping or enjoying social situations), and anxiety about one’s negative impact on the planet (Hogg et al., 2021). The second one includes 22 items, also structured around four dimensions: cognitive and emotional impairment, functional impairment, personal experience of climate change, and behavioural engagement (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). The first two dimensions are considered to constitute subscales for climate change anxiety. Both scales capture various reactions to environmental threats, focusing on how individuals process and respond to environmental and climate changes. The CCAS does not, however, directly measure eco-anxiety per se, but rather an anxiety specifically related to climate change. While the two concepts overlap, eco-anxiety is a broader term that includes emotional responses to a variety of environmental threats, not limited to climate change.

A comparative study found that both scales were similar regarding dimensions and correlations to other variables such as risk perceptions and engagement with environmental news (Hogg et al., 2023). Notably, neither scale explicitly mentions eco-anxiety in its items. Instead, they measure underlying symptoms and manifestations that align with the concept of eco-anxiety. Given the term’s ambiguity and lack of widespread understanding, measuring eco-anxiety directly is less efficient (Takshe et al., 2023).

Other related scales, such as the Environmental Distress Scale (Higginbotham et al., 2006) and the Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS) (Qi et al., 2022), may also offer interesting insights into individuals’ emotional responses to environmental challenges. However, these scales do not directly assess eco-anxiety. They may still be useful for exploring the broader spectrum of emotions linked to environmental concerns.

Reported outcomes of eco-anxiety

Reported impacts on well-being and mental health

Many articles, through this scoping review, mention that eco-anxiety is associated with a vast array of outcomes on individuals’ mental health and well-being. Some of these outcomes are characterized as positive (Hayes & Poland, 2018; Hayes et al., 2018; Middleton et al., 2020; Parmentier et al., 2024; Verplanken et al., 2020). They include, for instance, constructive and adaptive feelings of altruism, compassion, optimism and personal growth. However, most documented outcomes related to well-being and mental health are reported as being negative (Asugeni et al., 2015; Barkin et al., 2022; Clayton, 2021; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Clayton et al., 2017; Cunsolo Willox et al., 2015; Foster, 2022; Gibson et al., 2020; Gifford & Gifford, 2016; Hayes & Poland, 2018; Léger-Goodes et al., 2022; Lutz et al., 2023; Middleton et al., 2020; Mulligan et al., 2023; Noy et al., 2022; Ogunbode et al., 2021; Parmentier et al., 2024; Patrick et al., 2022; Reyes et al., 2021; Rothschild & Haase, 2023; Schwaab et al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2023; Shoib et al., 2024; Stanley et al., 2021; Trombley et al., 2017; Vergunst et al., 2023). They include, for instance, stress, anxiety, depression, reduced life satisfaction, and social isolation. A 2023 study (Galway & Field, 2023) even reported that most respondents in the study (78%) subjectively associated their feelings about climate change with negative outcomes on their mental health. These associations are often complex, and are noted to emerge from the interaction of wide-ranging factors (some acting as stressors, others as protective elements), such as individual resilience, social support, and prior mental health conditions (Taylor, 2020).

Table 2 shows a collated list of the negative impacts identified in the literature. These impacts are classified into five categories: affective impacts, cognitive impacts, behavioural impacts, social impacts, and clinical, subclinical, and physical impacts. Certain impacts, such as fear of death or diminished trust in the future, overlap across more than one dimension (in this case, both the affective and cognitive dimensions) varying across studies. There can also be an overlap in emotional responses that may be part of or emerge alongside eco-anxiety. This co-occurrence may mutually reinforce these emotions. However, no clear sequence or causation emerges from the existing literature. Furthermore, there can be intersections between certain dimensions (e.g., fatigue or social withdrawal can arise from clinical, affective, and behavioural factors), illustrating the interconnectedness of impacts.

Table 2.

List of collated negative impacts of eco-anxiety found in the scientific literature

Types of impacts	Examples	References
Affective impacts	Shock, anger, fear, sadness, worry, distress, despair, helplessness, hopelessness, disempowerment, powerlessness, yearning, bitterness, guilt, shame, frustration, apprehension, fear of the future, overwhelm, grief, diminished trust in the future, decreased life satisfaction, loss of connection with nature	(Bourque & Cunsolo Willox, 2014; du Bray Mv, du Bray, et al., 2017; du Bray et al., 2017; Gibson et al., 2019; Guthrie, 2023; Hajek & König, 2023; Hayes et al., 2018; Hickman et al., 2021; Jalin et al., 2022; Köse, 2023; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Marshall et al., 2019; Mento et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b, 2022a; Temte et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2022; Usher, 2022; Vergunst et al., 2023; Verlie et al., 2021; Warsini et al., 2014; Westoby et al., 2022)
Cognitive impacts	Memory and learning problems, dysphoria, stress, phobias, fear-induced disassociation, rumination, loss of interest in daily life, cognitive dissonance, obsessive thinking, suicidal ideation, decreased or changing sense of identity, preoccupation with loss, concentration issues, fear of death	(Asugeni et al., 2015; Barkin et al., 2022; Barnwell & Wood, 2022; Bingley et al., 2022; Clayton et al., 2017; du Bray et al., 2017; Hogg et al., 2021; Jalin et al., 2022; Landmann, 2021; Mathé et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2024; Rocchi et al., 2023; Sampaio et al., São Pedro V de et al., 2023; 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021)
Behavioural impacts	Conflicts and difficult interpersonal relationships, withdrawal from social and recreational activities, isolation and loneliness, impairment in daily functioning, inability to concentrate, interference with work and occupational issues, acting out, appetite changes, substance abuse, suicide, life decisions such as career choices and family planning (e.g., choice not to have children), fatigue	(Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022; Burke et al., 2018; T. J. Doherty, 2018; Galway & Field, 2023; Gibson et al., 2020; Hajek & König, 2022b; Heeren et al., 2022, 2023; Hickman, 2020; Passmore et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2020b; Van Den Broek, 2023; 2023)
Social impacts	Altered cultural practices and identities, weakened social networks, disrupted collective identities and sense of place, economic impacts, community engagement, family issues, social disharmony	(Asugeni et al., 2015; Bourque & Cunsolo Willox, 2014; Clayton, 2020; Doherty, 2018; Jalin et al., 2022; Middleton et al., 2020; Passmore et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2018b, 2019; Rothschild & Haase, 2023)
Clinical, subclinical and physical impacts	Increased severity or complications of existing mental health disorders or issues, anxiety, generalized anxiety disorder, depression or feelings of depression, mood disorder, trauma or stressor-related disorders, eating disorders, short-term and chronic adjustment disorders, OCD, attachment disorders (in children), hysteria, panic attacks, sleep disorder, perinatal mental health issues, high blood pressure, immune suppression, digestive problems, slowed tissue repair and regeneration, lower self-reported health, nightmares	(Barkin et al., 2022; Boluda-Verdu et al., Bourque & Cunsolo Willox, 2022; 2014; Burke et al., 2018; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Doherty, 2018; Foster, 2022; Gibson et al., 2019; Innocenti et al., 2021; alin et al., J2022; Mento et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2020b; Qi et al., 2022; Rodgers et al., 2022; Thomas et al., 2022; Vergunst et al., 2023; Verlie et al., 2021; Westoby et al., 2022)

While everyone may be susceptible to eco-anxiety and its negative impacts (Doherty, 2018; Lowry, 2011), the specific effects vary widely, and no single individual is affected by all impacts simultaneously. Yet, impacts do tend to be multiple and compounding: individuals may experience various effects concurrently, with each potentially influencing others (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020). The nature and intensity of eco-anxiety’s impacts differ between individuals, shaped by both contextual and personal factors (Griffin, 2019; Helm et al., 2018). As eco-anxiety often persists over time and its effects are cumulative, it may have more significant consequences than one-off events (Burke et al., 2018). Furthermore, some suggest that eco-anxiety may be among the most pervasive psychological impacts of the environmental and climate crises, as it arises not only from direct exposure to these issues but also from indirect exposure, such as media coverage or social discourse (Thompson, 2021).

The implications of eco-anxiety are not solely dependant on the intensity of the emotional response but also on their nature (the types of impacts it has on mental health and daily functioning, for instance). For example, Heeren et al. (Heeren et al., 2023) found that functional impairments in daily life, such as difficulty concentrating or reduced social engagement, were more strongly associated with mental health risks.

As seen in Table 2, eco-anxiety has been associated with certain sub-clinical and clinical impacts, such as disrupted sleep, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. For instance, chronic eco-anxiety has been linked to disruptions in essential functions such as sleep, work, and social interactions (Clayton, 2020), with further potential ties to anxiety (Généreux & Landaverde, 2021; Innocenti et al., 2021), depressive symptoms (Généreux & Landaverde, 2021), or acting-out behaviours (Pihkala, 2020b). In children, relationships have also been found between eco-anxiety and developmental, functional, and performance issues (Doherty, 2018). Eco-anxiety was also connected to lower resilience and reduced perceived well-being (Vergunst et al., 2023), which, in turn, can reduce mental health. However, the directionality of these associations remains unclear, as many studies are cross-sectional.

At this time, there are no indications that eco-anxiety, in itself, should be classified as pathological in the same way as clinical anxiety disorders (Pihkala, 2020a). Clinical disorders considered as pathological are notably maladaptive, cause persistent distress, and generate significant dysfunction. While often distressing, eco-anxiety is generally understood as a rational response to scientifically proven pressing threats of climate and environmental changes. Scholars tend to agree that eco-anxiety represents an adaptive response, reflecting a heightened awareness of the climate crisis and threats (Boyd et al., 2023; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2021; Mento et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2020a, 2022b; Rozuel & Bellehumeur, 2022; Stanley et al., 2021; Thompson, 2009; Thompson, 2021). In this sense, eco-anxiety is a sign that one is in touch with reality. This (eco)lucidity is imperative for making informed choices and adapting our lifestyles to mitigate environmental impacts, foster resilience, and promote sustainable living practices. In this sense, a lack of worry or concern about the current crisis could even represent a less adaptive response, potentially obstructing necessary systemic change. Thus, many argue that eco-anxiety should generally not be seen as a mental health disorder, but rather as an adaptive reaction to environmental and social realities. While it may require support and coping strategies, it does not inherently signify dysfunction or pathology. Concordantly, Thompson (Thompson, 2021) points out that there are no diagnostic criteria and tools available to evaluate climate-related disorders. Longitudinal studies are, however, encouraged to monitor the evolution of eco-anxiety as higher levels have been associated with impairment in daily functioning and significant distress.

Reported impacts on environmental engagement

Many articles, through this scoping review, also suggest that eco-anxiety correlates with environmental engagement. Most authors who have studied the question have indeed observed links between eco-anxiety and various forms of environmental engagement (i.e., any sort of pro-environmental behaviour or intentions, including policy support). Many suggest a positive relation between the two (Ágoston et al., 2024; Arya & Kumar, 2023; Bouman et al., 2020; Chung et al., 2023; Hamlaci Baskaya et al., 2024; Hart, 2013; Heeren et al., 2022; Hickman, 2020; Innocenti et al., 2021; Jain & Jain, 2022; Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Kurth & Pihkala, 2022; Lutz et al., 2023; Maran & Begotti, 2021; Parmentier et al., 2024; Pavani et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2019; Sampaio et al., 2023; Sarrasin et al., 2022; Sciberras & Fernando, 2021; Shao & Yu, 2023; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014; Sundblad et al., 2014; Thier & Lin, 2022; Türkarslan et al., 2023; Verplanken et al., 2020; Wullenkord et al., 2021). Notably, Clissold et al., 2022) highlight that such emotions are relevant for transformative change. Weber (Weber, 2006) also explains that worry and alarmism are necessary for people to take action. Arya and Kumar (Arya & Kumar, 2023) even suggest that understanding eco-anxiety, along with behaviour change theories (such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour), may be a key factor in fostering environmental engagement. On the other hand, however, authors have also observed that eco-anxiety either has no link to engagement (Clayton, 2020; Contreras et al., 2024; Helm et al., 2018; Whitmarsh et al., 2022) or that it is negatively related to it (Albrecht, 2011; Buttlar et al., 2017; Chung et al., 2023; Clayton, 2020; Heeren et al., 2022; Joshua et al., 2023; Maran & Begotti, 2021; Schwartz et al., 2023; Stokols et al., 2009).

While further studies are necessary to clear up the nature of the relation between eco-anxiety and environmental engagement, we believe that certain factors may explain this discrepancy between results. One key factor seems to lie in the different levels of eco-anxiety experienced, as different intensities appear to influence environmental engagement differently. Indeed, increasing levels of eco-anxiety seem associated with increased levels of environmental engagement (Hickman, 2020). Thus, lower levels of eco-anxiety may hinder environmental engagement, notably through protection mechanisms such as denial (Helm et al., 2018; Homburg et al., 2007; Le Goff, 2017; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021). At the same time, studies also suggest that higher levels of eco-anxiety may also limit engagement, through a paralyzing effect called “eco-paralysis” (Albrecht, 2011; Buttlar et al., 2017; Chung et al., 2023; Clayton, 2020; Heeren et al., 2022; Hickman, 2020; Maran & Begotti, 2021; Schwartz et al., 2023; Stokols et al., 2009). Thus, moderate levels of eco-anxiety seem most suited to promote environmental behaviour. More research is needed to find the tipping point after which eco-anxiety becomes a negative influence on behaviour (Chung et al., 2023). Additionally, the way individuals’ experience eco-anxiety, with a predominance of certain dimensions of eco-anxiety rather than others, also seems to be connected to the propensity to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Hogg et al., 2021). The literature suggests that the different dimensions of eco-anxiety (affective, cognitive, behavioural, and anxiety about personal impacts) relate to engagement differently (Hogg et al., 2021; Jain & Jain, 2022; Sampaio et al., 2023). For instance, two studies found that behavioural symptoms were more associated with negative impacts on engagement in various environmental behaviours (Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Türkarslan et al., 2023). Cognitive symptoms and anxiety related to one’s negative impact on the planet, on the other hand, were associated with higher environmental engagement according to another study (Sampaio et al., 2023). Finally, studies also suggest that eco-anxiety’s influence on environmental engagement varies depending on the type of environmental action (environmental activism, private-sphere behaviours, non-activist behaviours in the public sphere and organisational behaviours) (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Jain & Jain, 2022; Ogunbode et al., 2022). Some studies suggest that eco-anxiety has more influence on individual engagement (Ogunbode et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2021), while predicting lower collective engagement (Stanley et al., 2021). Understanding these nuances is essential to identifying how different expressions of eco-anxiety can either facilitate or hinder various forms of environmental engagement. All in all, it seems, for the collated literature, that eco-anxiety can influence environmental engagement, with evidence suggesting both positive and negative associations. The directionality of these relationships remains unclear, and further longitudinal research is needed to better understand the causal mechanisms involved.

While eco-anxiety and environmental engagement appear to be interrelated, their relationship seems bidirectional. Eco-anxiety may be associated with greater environmental engagement, while environmental engagement could, in turn, coincide with changes in eco-anxiety, potentially serving as a coping strategy. In this sense, environmental engagement can serve as both an outcome of eco-anxiety and a coping mechanism that helps individuals regain a sense of agency (Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Sampaio et al., 2023). In the studies that treat environmental engagement as an outcome, the focus is typically on how eco-anxiety influences behaviours such as participation in environmental activities, advocacy, or sustainable practices. These studies often employ a more correlational approach, seeking to identify associations between levels of eco-anxiety and engagement in environmental behaviours. The directionality assumed is that eco-anxiety might encourage individuals to engage in environmental actions. On the other hand, studies that view environmental engagement as a coping mechanism typically investigate how individuals use pro-environmental behaviours to manage their eco-anxiety. These studies are more likely to emphasize the role of environmental engagement as an adaptive response to emotional or psychological distress.

It should also be noted that eco-anxiety is not the only eco-emotion associated with engagement. Studies even suggest that other eco-emotions, such as eco-anger (Contreras et al., 2024; du Bray et al., 2017; Hickman, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Stanley et al., 2021) or eco-guilt (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010), may be better drivers of pro-environmental engagement, although further studies are needed to confirm this. Beyond eco-emotions, other factors, such as risk perception (Chung et al., 2023), environmental attitude (Jain & Jain, 2022), generational effect (Ágoston et al., 2024) and many more, are also known to influence environmental engagement.

Factors associated with eco-anxiety

The reviewed scientific literature highlights that a multiplicity of factors are related to eco-anxiety, reflecting its multifaceted and complex nature. Based on our review, we identified two primary categories of influence factors: 1) stressors and 2) vulnerability and protection factors. Stressors appear to mediate eco-anxiety by inducing or triggering it, while vulnerability and protection factors seem to moderate its intensity and impacts, either exacerbating or alleviating eco-anxiety. This classification emerged inductively from the reviewed articles. It provides a structured framework for understanding the interplay between these factors and eco-anxiety. The nature of the relationship between eco-anxiety and these factors requires further empirical verification due to the predominantly cross-sectional nature of the included studies.

Stressors likely connected to eco-anxiety

Direct experiences with climate and environmental change

While eco-anxiety is more commonly associated with indirect exposure to climate and environmental changes and its societal impacts and responses (H. E. Thompson, 2021), direct exposure is also associated with eco-anxiety. For instance, many studies observed significantly higher levels of eco-anxiety in individuals after they experienced extreme weather events, especially when these experiences caused financial loss or health impacts (Asugeni et al., 2015; Bourque & Cunsolo Willox, 2014; Clayton, 2020; Clissold et al., 2022; Coffey et al., 2021; Galway & Beery, 2022; Généreux & Landaverde, 2021; Ojala et al., 2021; Ramadan et al., 2023; Reser & Swim, 2011; To et al., 2021; Trombley et al., 2017; Twiddy et al., 2022). The proximity and magnitude of impacts caused by climate and environmental changes, whether involving people, homes, livelihoods or other, in fact, seem to be key factors in influencing the intensity of eco-anxiety (du Bray Mv, Wutich, et al., 2017). Factors such as damage potential and novelty of a hazard were also associated with the exacerbation of eco-anxiety (Krewski et al., 2009). Vulnerability to climate change, through chronic illness or economic disadvantage, for example, may also increase vulnerability to eco-anxiety (Hajek & König, 2022a). This highlights the importance of considering personal vulnerabilities, levels and probability of exposure and the nature of encountered hazards when evaluating an individual’s risk of experiencing eco-anxiety. This approach aligns with existing climate change risk assessment models, such as that proposed by Simpson et al’.s (229).

Media

While eco-anxiety can arise from direct contact with climate and environmental changes, it is often shaped by indirect or vicarious exposure, especially through media. As climate change becomes increasingly threatening, media coverage on the subject has expanded significantly (Benoit et al., 2022). For many, especially in Western societies, the media are the primary way people encounter climate change and its impacts (Helm et al., 2018). Through images, texts, news reports, and more, the media are creating “virtual social representations of climate change and unfolding impacts” (Reser & Swim, 2011). This coverage heightens the saliency of the issue in the eyes of the public and amplifies perceptions of climate change as an important threat to our way of life (Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Helm et al., 2018; Reser & Swim, 2011; Stokols et al., 2009). Furthermore, the media have a tendency to emphasize negative outcomes of climate change, such as environmental destruction and human vulnerability, offering limited perspective, nuance, or actionable solutions (du Bray et al., 2017; Ogunbode et al., 2021; To et al., 2021). By exposing individuals to such images and contents repetitively, it increases their perceived vulnerability to the issue (Doherty & Clayton, 2011) and demonstrates the non-sustainability of individual and collective actions (Albrecht, 2011). In doing so, it can also evoke negative emotional responses, including as eco-anxiety, fear, demoralization, and even paralysis or passivity (Galway & Beery, 2022; Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Landmann, 2021; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Treble et al., 2023). For instance, according to a study, young adults exposed to climate change information by the media reported feeling heightened levels of anxiety (Maran & Begotti, 2021).

Critically, this negative—often fear evoking—lens can overshadow more positive or hopeful narratives related to climate change (Pihkala, 2018b). However, a study suggests that, by inspiring eco-anxiety, news coverage on climate change can also reinforce pro-environmental behaviours (Shao & Yu, 2023). Furthermore, not all media coverage exacerbates eco-anxiety. For instance, solution journalism, which focuses on potential pathways to address climate and environmental changes, has been shown to foster greater support for collective climate engagement (Thier & Lin, 2022).

Other indirect sources of exposure to climate change and the ecological disaster

While the media represent the main source of information regarding climate and environmental changes, other channels also contribute to indirect exposure to these issues. Studies notably found that schools, universities, educators, parents, and authority figures could play a significant role in shaping climate knowledge and awareness, and thus become stressors for eco-anxiety (Benoit et al., 2022; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2021; Davidson et al., 2023; du Bray Mv, Wutich, et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2023; Hajek & König, 2022a; Hickman et al., 2021; Hulme, 2008; Krewski et al., 2009; Reser & Swim, 2011; Treble et al., 2023; Twiddy et al., 2022). Here again, the way information is brought up will influence its impacts. However, there is some worry regarding the most fitted way to communicate and teach about climate and environmental changes, while dealing with emotions such as eco-anxiety (Edwards et al., 2023; Olsen et al., 2024). This challenge points to the need for communication and teaching strategies that not only convey the gravity of the situation, but also foster resilience and engagement.

Political inaction

Another central stressor for eco-anxiety that stems from the literature review concerns the perceived inadequacy of political efforts to address climate and environmental changes and their impacts (Diffey et al., 2022; Galway & Field, 2023; Hickman, 2020; Hickman et al., 2021; Le Goff, 2017; Middleton et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2022a; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021). This lack of perceived political efforts to properly protect the population from climate change impacts, either through mitigation or adaptation has been associated with feelings of betrayal towards the government (Rehling, 2022) and abandonment by the government (Middleton et al., 2020). It was also found to be interpreted by individuals as a sign of denial, disavowal or failure of political leaders (Pihkala, 2022a) and to be negatively tied to faith in the future (Elgaaied-Gambier & Mandler, 2021). In turn, the perceived inadequacy of political efforts towards climate and environmental changes was found to contribute to higher levels of eco-anxiety and other negative eco-emotions, such as anger and hopelessness (Hickman et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2022a). It was also associate with behavioural shifts, including withdrawal and rebellious behaviours (Langford, 2002). Furthermore, the lack of consideration for the public’s emotions, concerns, and hopes in climate policymaking was shown to be negatively associated with well-being and climate engagement (Diffey et al., 2022). These findings echo the concept of moral distress, a state of psychological and emotional unwell that arises when individuals are unable to act in accordance with their moral beliefs due to external constraints beyond their control (230). Perceived systemic inaction in addressing and preventing climate and environmental changed may create a dissonance with citizens’ moral and ethical principles, further exacerbating feelings of eco-anxiety (São Pedro V de et al., 2022).

Lack of perceived individual and collective efficacy

Studies also suggest that the perceived inadequacy of both individual and collective efforts towards climate and environmental changes also represents a key stressor for eco-anxiety. High levels of perceived inefficacy in contributing to the fight against climate change, both individually and collectively (Champagne St-Arnaud et al., 2022; Innocenti et al., 2021; J. L. Lewis et al., 2020), have been linked to negative eco-emotions, including eco-anxiety (Clissold et al., 2022; Nice et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2022a; Rehling, 2022; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Taylor, 2020). While part of the issue stems from a lack of perceived efficacy in adaptation and mitigation efforts, another factor is the perceived inability to lead an eco-friendly lifestyle (Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Middleton et al., 2020; R. Thompson et al., 2022). Similarly, observing unsustainable behaviours in others or interacting with individuals who do not share the same sense of urgency about the crisis were also associated with exacerbated feelings of eco-anxiety.

Vulnerability and protection factors

Relation to the environment

Individual characteristics and beliefs influence both the intensity and way eco-anxiety are experienced. People with strong relations with nature and the environment—whether through their values, culture, or profession—reported, in studies on the subject, heightened levels of eco-anxiety. For instance, individuals with pro-environmental values and strong environmental identities were found to experience more worry, anxiety and anger about climate change (Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022;Verplanken et al., 2020). Similarly, people with a greater awareness and knowledge of climate change and related threats were also linked to elevated susceptibility to distress, worry, and anxiety about climate change (Albrecht, 2011; Doherty, 2018).

Place attachment was also linked to higher levels of eco-anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Cunsolo Willox et al., 2015; du Bray et al., 2017; Ellis & Albrecht, 2017; Helm et al., 2018; Middleton et al., 2020; Whitmarsh et al., 2022; Cunsolo et al., 2020). Individuals who feel a deep bond with their land, such as those in Indigenous populations or in rural agricultural populations, were observed to be more vulnerable to the mental health impacts of climate change (Coffey et al., 2021; Cunsolo Willox et al., 2015; Gislason et al., 2021; Léger-Goodes et al., 2022; Shoib et al., 2024). In these populations, changes in land and climate can have significant impacts on occupation, way of life, and culture, compounding feelings of eco-anxiety and distress (Coffey et al., 2021; Cunsolo Willox et al., 2015; Gislason et al., 2021; Léger-Goodes et al., 2022; Shoib et al., 2024). Professions closely tied to climate and environmental changes—such as farmers or climate scientists—are similarly linked to higher levels of eco-anxiety, through direct exposure or higher levels of knowledge regarding climate threats (Coffey et al., 2021; Soutar & Wand, 2022).

While such factors can increase eco-anxiety, they are also associated with positive outcomes. For instance, a strong relation to the environment, environmental awareness, and climate knowledge were also observed to foster emotions such as determination and a sense of control, helping mitigate feelings of worry and dread (Comtesse et al., 2021; Feather & Williams, 2022; Griffin, 2019; Lowry, 2011; Marshall et al., 2019; Mathé et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2022; Rehling, 2022; Slovic, 1987; H. E. Thompson, 2021; Westoby et al., 2022). This dual impact highlights the complexity of the relationship between environmental identity and eco-anxiety.

Psychological factors

Psychological traits and states can also play a significant role in shaping responses to climate and environmental changes, and eco-anxiety. Factors such as a sense of control, certainty, voluntariness, hope, meaningfulness, trust in environmental organizations, resilience, optimism as well as coping and psychological flexibility were associated with lower levels of concern about natural hazards and eco-anxiety (Feather & Williams, 2022; Krewski et al., 2009; Mah et al., 2020; Ramadan et al., 2023; Reser & Swim, 2011; Shao & Yu, 2023; Slovic, 1987). While these traits may provide protective effects—by fostering a sense of agency and adaptability—the absence of these protective traits may increase susceptibility to eco-anxiety. For example, individuals with lower resilience, pessimism, or limited coping flexibility may experience heightened emotional distress related to climate and environmental changes. Additionally, pre-existing mental health issues, such as anxiety disorders or depression, have been linked to elevated eco-anxiety (Reser & Swim, 2011; Sampaio & Sequeira, 2022; Verplanken et al., 2020; Whitmarsh et al., 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021). These findings emphasize the importance of psychological well-being and adaptive traits in mitigating eco-anxiety.

Socio-demographic factors

Certain socio-demographic characteristics were also linked, in the consulted literature, to eco-anxiety. They can indeed shape the context in which individuals experience eco-anxiety by influencing factors such as awareness, perceived sense of agency, and outlook for the future. For instance, younger people, especially those under 24, are frequently noted as being more affected by eco-anxiety (Ágoston et al., 2022, 2024; Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022; Brophy et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2023; Galway & Field, 2023; Hajek & König, 2022a; Heeren et al., 2022; Hickman et al., 2021; Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Léger-Goodes et al., 2022, 2023; Niedzwiedz & Katikireddi, 2023; Patrick et al., 2022; Pinsky et al., 2020; Rocchi et al., 2023; Sampaio & Sequeira, 2022; Sampaio et al., 2023; Stanley, 2023; Stanley et al., 2021; Treble et al., 2023; Usher, 2022; Van Den Broek, 2023; Whitmarsh et al., 2022). However, two studies rather found that older adults, in their 60s, experienced higher eco-anxiety levels (Chung et al., 2023; Niedzwiedz & Katikireddi, 2023). This suggests that age-related patterns may be varying depending on context and other influencing factors. Gender dynamics may also contribute to the experience of eco-anxiety. Some authors observed that women, in addition to being more environmentally active than men, reported higher levels of eco-anxiety (Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2023; Heeren et al., 2023; Hickman et al., 2021; Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; McCright & Sundström, 2013; Niedzwiedz & Katikireddi, 2023; Pihkala, 2022a; Rocchi et al., 2023; Rothschild & Haase, 2023; Searle, 2010; Stanley, 2023; Sundblad et al., 2007). Parents, regardless of gender, are also more prone to feelings of eco-anxiety in comparison to individuals without children (Ekholm, 2020; Ekholm & Olofsson, 2017), possibly due to concerns about their children’s future in the context of climate and environmental changes. Finally, education levels were also associated with varied emotional responses to environmental issues (Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Sampaio et al., 2023). Higher education has been linked to increased awareness and understanding of the climate and environmental crises, as well as provide resources for coping and opportunities for environmental engagement. More research is, however, needed to clarify these relationships (Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Sampaio et al., 2023).

Social support

Beyond individual characteristics, social networks also seem to hold importance in shaping and managing eco-anxiety (Clayton, 2021; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Pihkala, 2019; Sampaio et al., 2023). For instance, being a part of a supportive community was linked to a decrease in eco-anxiety and help with coping notably by fostering a sense of connection and shared purpose (Clayton, 2021; Goldberg et al., 2019; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Reser & Swim, 2011; Thomas et al., 2022). In contrast, being a part of an unresponsive or dismissive community with regard to climate threats was observed to generate higher levels of anger, distrust and anxiety (42,168,191). Additionally, negative social support, such as minimizing the significance of climate impacts or providing false assurances, has also been shown to be detrimental to recovery following a disaster (Trombley et al., 2017).

Societal structures

The scientific literature also sheds light on the importance of societal structures on experiences of eco-anxiety. Climate change occurs within a system marked by social inequities, including disparities in health, economic status, and racial issues, among others, making it a crisis within crises (Barnwell & Wood, 2022; Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022; Guthrie, 2023; Rothschild & Haase, 2023). These intersecting challenges expose certain populations to cumulative and cascading psychological stressors, intensifying the difficulty of coping with climate impacts. Concordantly, individuals in regions with greater adaptive capacity—notably characterized by financial, technological, infrastructural, and organisational resources—were shown to exhibit lower negative emotional responses to climate change compared to less-resourced communities (30,100). Additionally, access to insurance protection, more prevalent in higher-capacity regions, was also associated, in a study, to further reduction of risk perception (Langford, 2002).

Since eco-anxiety is contextually dependant, experiences also vary across socio-cultural contexts. This highlights the importance of broadening our understanding of the phenomenon beyond individualistic perspectives. Furthermore, current literature on the subject disproportionately focuses on populations in Western, democratic, and industrialized contexts, leaving significant gaps in understanding how diverse communities experience eco-anxiety within their unique sociocultural realities. Addressing these limitations is critical to developing a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of eco-anxiety.

Approaches to coping with eco-anxiety

Eco-anxiety, while an adaptive response to the threats posed by climate and environmental changes, can become overwhelming and unsustainable, especially over the long term (Pihkala, 2020a). Thus, being able to cope with eco-anxiety is essential. The way in which individuals cope with eco-anxiety can either alleviate or exacerbate its impacts on well-being, mental health, and environmental engagement. In this sense, coping strategies can be viewed as protection factors (when adaptive) or as vulnerability factors (when maladaptive).

Approximately half of the reviewed articles discussed coping strategies. Through our analysis, we identified four primary coping styles: problem-avoidance, problem-solving, emotional coping, and efficiency-focused strategies. Each of these approaches presents advantages and limitations. Understanding the nuances of these strategies is crucial for fostering resilience and promoting constructive responses to environmental stressors.

Problem-avoidance coping

The problem avoidance coping style encompasses strategies aimed at avoiding the acknowledgment and management of eco-anxiety and its stressors. Table 3 summarizes the collated problem-avoidance coping strategies identified through this review.

Table 3.

List of problem-avoidance coping strategies identified in the consulted scientific literature

Strategies	References
Avoidance of information about climate change	(Clayton, 2020; Homburg et al., 2007; Le Goff, 2017; Mah et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2019)
Avoidance of negative emotions (i.e., suppression or distraction) detachment from the issue (geographically or temporally), distraction from climate change	(Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Mah et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2020b; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021)
Cognitive minimisation or banalisation of climate threats (e.g., denial, disavowal), techno-optimism, selective information gathering aligned with existing beliefs, distancing from individuals who challenge one’s beliefs, closeness with individuals with shared beliefs, positive illusions, false hope.	(Burke et al., 2018; Clayton, 2020; Haseley, 2019, 2019; Helm et al., 2018; Homburg et al., 2007; Hornsey et al., 2015; Le Goff, 2017; Lewis, 2018; Lewis et al., 2020; Mah et al., 2020; Myers, 2014; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Pihkala, 2018b, 2020b; Schwartz et al., 2023; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Van Kessel, 2020; Wullenkord et al., 2021)

Problem-avoidance is generally considered a maladaptive coping strategy, often linked to higher stress levels, and worsened mental health and well-being (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010; Ojala, 2012; Türkarslan et al., 2023). Such strategies were also found to have negative impacts on pro-environmental engagement (Helm et al., 2022; Ojala, 2012, 2013), as negating or minimizing existing threats also reduces the perceived need to act. For the same reasons, however, problem-avoidance strategies, such as denial, are also associated with lower levels of eco-anxiety (Burke et al., 2018; Hickman, 2020; Wullenkord et al., 2021). For example, avoiding distressing climate-related information was linked to lower levels of eco-anxiety (Bingley et al., 2022; du Bray Mv, Wutich, et al., 2017; Hickman et al., 2021; Krewski et al., 2009; Stokols et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2022; Vergunst et al., 2023), as this type of behaviour may provide temporary relief from eco-anxiety. Nonetheless, these positive impacts are mainly observed over short periods only and can be detrimental over the long term, as they have been correlated to emotional suppression and disengagement from important societal issues. Thus, while problem-avoidance may alleviate immediate eco-anxiety, it may also contribute to maladaptive patterns over time, with potential negative associations with resilience and environmental engagement.

Problem-solving coping

Problem-solving coping strategies involve various cognitive and behavioural responses that are directed towards dealing with a stressor (Stanisławski, 2019). They thus pertain to actions aimed towards mitigating climate threats or adapting to their impacts. Table 4 summarizes the collated problem-solving coping strategies found through this review.

Table 4.

List of problem-solving coping strategies identified in the consulted scientific literature

Strategies	References
Information seeking about climate change or related topics (e.g., mitigative and adaptive actions)	(Chawla et al., 2020; Clayton, 2020; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Maran & Begotti, 2021; Noy et al., 2022; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Parry et al., 2022; Ramadan et al., 2023; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Whitmarsh et al., 2022; Wullenkord et al., 2021)
Information sharing and education about climate and environmental changes (especially with children and adolescents)	(Arya & Kumar, 2023; Gousse-Lessard & Lebrun-Paré, 2022; Thomas et al., 2022; Ojala, 2016)
Individual ecological actions (e.g., lifestyle changes such as using alternative modes of transportation, reducing meat consumption, zero-waste shopping)	(Ágoston et al., 2022; Brophy et al., 2022; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Burke et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2020; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Kabasakal-Cetin, 2023; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Ramadan et al., 2023; Whitmarsh et al., 2022)
Confrontation with others (e.g., persuading others to adopt eco-friendly behaviours, challenging others’ beliefs regarding climate change)	(Ágoston et al., 2022)
Collective environmental engagement (e.g., manifesting, activism, participating in socio-ecological initiatives, advocacy for climate justice)	(Ágoston et al., 2022; Baudon & Jachens, 2021; Boluda-Verdu et al., 2022; Brophy et al., 2022; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Burke et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2020; Clayton, 2020; Frydenberg, 2020; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Hickman, 2020; Marks et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2020a; Ramadan et al., 2023; Rehling, 2022; Schwartz et al., 2023; Thomas et al., 2022; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022)

Problem-solving coping strategies are frequently presented as effective tools for managing eco-anxiety in the scientific literature (Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022; Burke et al., 2018; Clayton, 2020; Hickman, 2020; Pihkala, 2020a; van Zomeren et al., 2010; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022). For instance, engagement in ecological movements or actions, one of the predominant problem-solving coping strategies mentioned, was found to be correlated with positive emotions such as happiness (Clayton, 2020), confidence and pride (Gallay et al., 2022), a sense of hope, control and resilience [58], a sense of meaning, empowerment and usefulness (Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022), protection against despair (Woodbury, 2019) and depressive symptoms (Schwartz et al., 2023), as well as promotion of general well-being (Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2022). In addition, activism was found to promote social engagement and ties [57] as well as belief in communal efficacy and agency (Ferguson & Branscombe, 2010).

However, authors also found caveats with this coping strategy. When these strategies are perceived as insufficient or when individual actions feel ineffective against systemic issues, the effectiveness of these strategies may be compromised. Climate change being a “wicked problem” – a complex issue with no clear solution, multiple interdependencies, and evolving challenges—m cannot be fully addressed through individual actions alone. Certain studies (Bingley et al., 2022; Chawla et al., 2020; Sciberras & Fernando, 2021) have associated this difficulty with the aggravation of eco-anxiety and lower well-being in general. This issue was also linked to greater affective impacts and increased worry (Ojala, 2012, 2013) It was also correlated with increased feelings of loneliness (Noy et al., 2022) and higher levels of burnout, guilt, and overwork (Noy et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2020b; Randall, 2005).

Similarly, certain behaviors may serve different psychological functions beyond problem-solving. For example, information seeking—often categorized as a problem-solving coping strategy—may also function as a means of reassurance rather than solely as an attempt to address the problem. However, information-seeking was also related to increased eco-anxiety, namely because of the stressful nature of information on climate change (Bingley et al., 2022; du Bray Mv, Wutich, et al., 2017; Hickman et al., 2021; Krewski et al., 2009; Stokols et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2022; Vergunst et al., 2023). According to the literature, the effectiveness of problem-solving coping strategies can vary notably depending on context and available resources. For instance, social networks (Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022), the type of information one is exposed to (Maran & Begotti, 2021), whether one can accept that they can only help locally (Ágoston et al., 2022) and the presence of hope (Gunasiri et al., 2022; Soutar & Wand, 2022) have been observed to mitigate harmful impacts of problem-solving coping strategies.

Emotional coping

Emotional coping strategies aim to manage the feelings and emotions associated with eco-anxiety and climate change stressors. These strategies include mindfulness, therapy, and emotional reframing, which have been reported to alleviate distress and build resilience. Since climate change is a “wicked problem”, being able to cope on an emotional level is particularly important as individual and collective efficacy are often perceived as limited. Table 5 presents a list of the collated emotional coping strategies identified through this review.

Table 5.

List of emotional coping strategies identified in the consulted scientific literature

Strategies	References
Developing motional awareness through mindfulness and emotional awareness	(Brophy et al., 2022; Lindhe et al., 2023; Mah et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022; Whitmarsh et al., 2022)
Expressing emotions through therapy (e.g., poetry therapy and eco-therapy, ecological drama therapy, horticultural and wilderness work, acceptance and commitment Therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy) and support groups	(Baudon & Jachens, 2021; Budziszewska & Jonsson, 2021, 2022; Chawla et al., 2020; Guthrie, 2023; Helm et al., 2018; Homburg et al., 2007; Jordan, 2014; Lewis et al., 2020; Moore & Duffin, 2020; Nice et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Powers & Engstrom, 2020; Raile, 2024; Rhodes & Dunk, 2023; Stanley et al., 2021; Taylor, 2020; Westoby et al., 2022)
Channeling emotions through breathing exercises, meditation, sports, arts, storytelling science, professions, religion, rituals, etc.	(Gunasiri et al., 2022; Hasbach, 2015; Pihkala, 2020b, 2022b; Raile, 2024; Sakakibara, 2008)
Emotional reframing (e.g., fostering hope, eco-compassion, challenging binary thinking)	(Ágoston et al., 2022; Bingley et al., 2022; Brophy et al., 2022; Burke et al., 2018; Chawla et al., 2020; Clayton, 2020; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Hickman, 2020; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Lindhe et al., 2023; Mah et al., 2020; Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019; Ojala et al., 2021; Parry et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Ramadan et al., 2023; Sanson et al., 2018; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022; Verplanken et al., 2020)
Strengthening trust in individual and collective resilience	(Chawla et al., 2020; Ramadan et al., 2023)
Fostering connection to family, place, culture, and community (to foster discussions and create opportunities for meaningful engagement)	(Bingley et al., 2022; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Noy et al., 2022; Pihkala, 2020a; Thomas et al., 2022)
Seeking social support (e.g., through social media and work)	(Ágoston et al., 2022; Hickman et al., 2021; Léger-Goodes et al., 2023; Mah et al., 2020; Powers & Engstrom, 2020; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Trombley et al., 2017)
Apathy, rumination, catastrophizing, annihilation, withdrawal, anger (maladaptive emotional coping strategies)	(Ágoston et al., 2022; Le Goff, 2017; Sarrasin et al., 2022; Stanisławski, 2019; Van Kessel, 2020; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022)
Self care practices	(Homburg et al., 2007; Powers & Engstrom, 2020)
Contact with and connection to nature	(Chawla et al., 2020; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Guthrie, 2023; Hasbach, 2015; Pihkala, 2020a; Whitmarsh et al., 2022),
School interventions (e.g., lessons, interventions, discussions, stories)	(Davidson et al., 2023; Nice et al., 2022; Olsen et al., 2024; Skilling et al., 2023)
Building emotional resilience	(Brophy et al., 2022)
Humour	(Boykoff & Osnes, 2019; Elgaaied-Gambier & Mandler, 2021)

The scientific literature strongly supports emotional coping strategies as an effective approach for managing with eco-anxiety (Bingley et al., 2022; Hickman, 2020; Homburg et al., 2007; Mah et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b; Soutar & Wand, 2022; Stanisławski, 2019; Takshe et al., 2023; van Zomeren et al., 2010; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022). For example, a study found that, through positive reappraisal of the situation, trust in one’s ability to adapt, and trust in others to do their part, this coping style can promote both well-being and engagement (Ojala et al., 2012). Another study suggests that connecting with one’s environment may reduce distress, anxiety and fear, while also fostering environmental engagement (Takshe et al., 2023). Similarly, humour (through memes, in this study) was observed to increase empowerment and decrease eco-anxiety and other potentially distressing climate change-related emotions (Elgaaied-Gambier & Mandler, 2021) studied. Hope also stands out as a central component of emotional coping, as it has been associated with lower eco-anxiety levels (Ágoston et al., 2022; Brophy et al., 2022; Kelsey, 2016; Ramadan et al., 2023; Rehling, 2022; Soutar & Wand, 2022) and higher levels of engagement in climate mitigation efforts (Ágoston et al., 2022; Gunasiri et al., 2022; Sangervo et al., 2022). In this sense, working on fostering hope can become a strong factor of protection regarding eco-anxiety. However, researchers caution that hope should remain realistic, and not deny the reality of the suffering caused by climate change nor the validity of the feelings that it generates (Marks et al., 2021; Ojala et al., 2012). Unrealistic or naïve optimism can result in passivity and disengagement from climate and environmental action (Clayton, 2020; Pihkala, 2017). Pihkala further supports these findings through the concept of radical or authentic hope, which involves finding meaning in life despite the uncertainty of the future while avoiding the pitfalls of uncritical optimism (Pihkala, 2020b).

Just as for problem-solving coping, emotional coping, when adopted by itself, presents caveats, suggesting that it can be maladaptive. For instance, some research has found that relying exclusively on emotional coping may be linked to passivity or reduced proactive engagement (Clayton, 2020; Pihkala, 2017). Additionally, Clayton 2020) also suggests that relying solely on emotional coping strategies may only offer short-term relief from eco-anxiety. One study also underscores the risk of focusing on negative emotions and negative aspects of the situation through maladaptive emotional coping, which they associated with exacerbated self-criticism and self-doubt (Stanisławski, 2019). Integrating emotional coping with other strategies, such as problem-solving, may thus offer a more holistic approach to managing eco-anxiety.

Efficiency coping and meaning-focused coping

Given the limitations of the problem-solving and emotional coping styles when used by themselves, a hybrid style—referred to as efficiency—is often recommended as a more holistic approach (Gallay et al., 2022; Helm et al., 2022; Hulme, 2008; Kelsey, 2016; Parry et al., 2022; Treble et al., 2023). This coping style combines elements of both problem-solving and emotional coping styles,¹ acknowledging and addressing both the practical and emotional dimensions of eco-anxiety. Efficiency coping involves acknowledging emotions and positively reframing the situation (emotional coping), while simultaneously finding ways to solve the problem and acting towards dealing with the stressor (problem-solving coping) (Stanisławski, 2019). These approaches have been positively associated with environmental engagement, life satisfaction, positive affect, and optimism (Ojala, 2012, 2013).

Authors also talk about meaning-focused coping, a similar style of coping. It does, however, go one step further by encompassing strategies such as positive reappraisal, finding benefits in difficult situations, revising goals, and drawing on existential beliefs to maintain well-being (xHelm et al., 2022). Meaning-focused coping involves regulating emotions not just by reducing negativity but by fostering positive emotions through cognitive and existential strategies. It draws on an individual’s values and beliefs to maintain psychological resilience in the face of stressors.

Because problem-solving and emotional coping styles are complementary and address each other’s shortcomings, efficiency coping has been presented as the best option for dealing with eco-anxiety (Baudon & Jachens, 2021; Chawla et al., 2020; Ojala et al., 2012; Ramadan et al., 2023; Taylor, 2020; Vandaele & Stålhammar, 2022). Evidence has been found supporting the need for this dual approach when coping with climate change (van Zomeren et al., 2010). Indeed, this dual approach may help generate a sense of hope and meaning from problem-solving acts, while also fostering emotional well-being. Through this balance, efficiency coping may reduce the risks of emotional overwhelm or burnout that can arise when one coping style is relied upon exclusively.

Conceptualization of eco-anxiety

This comprehensive overview of eco-anxiety advances our understanding of the phenomenon and allows us to propose a conceptual model of eco-anxiety (see Figure 2). This model illustrates eco-anxiety’s relationship with stressors, vulnerability factors, coping strategies, well-being, and environmental engagement. It highlights the interplay between these components and their role in shaping the adaptive and maladaptive outcomes of eco-anxiety.

Figure 2.

Conceptual model of eco-anxiety.

In this model, eco-anxiety is conceptualized as a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing affective, cognitive, behavioural, and existential dimensions. These dimensions influence how eco-anxiety is experienced. This experience is closely linked to the experience of stressors such as media exposure, extreme weather events, and perceived lack of efficacy of the societal response to climate and environmental changes. It is also influenced by vulnerability and protection factors, including age, social support, and place attachment, which can alleviate or exacerbate the impacts of these stressors. These factors can also influence the outcomes of eco-anxiety. These potential outcomes are dual, touching both environmental engagement, and mental health and well-being. The proposed conceptual model also illustrates the pivotal role of coping strategies in shaping these outcomes, whether they be adaptive or maladaptive. These strategies, which include problem-solving, problem-avoidance, emotional coping, and efficiency, along with vulnerability and protection factors, mediate the relationship between eco-anxiety, well-being, and environmental engagement.

While this model synthesizes findings from existing literature on eco-anxiety, further empirical research is needed to clarify the nature and strength of these relations, particularly with regard to causality. Longitudinal studies would also be relevant, as they could provide deeper insights into how eco-anxiety evolves over time and how interventions targeting coping mechanisms might influence outcomes.

Discussion

This interdisciplinary research presents the results of a scoping review of 202 studies, which synthesizes the current state of knowledge on eco-anxiety, focusing on its definition, dimensions, determinants, and outcomes. This review also identifies key gaps in the literature, offering insights into future research directions. Our holistic approach to eco-anxiety contributes to advancing both conceptual clarity and practical applications.

The findings from this review highlight the inherent complexity of this multifaceted phenomenon, which is notably reflected in the coexistence of multiple definitions in the scientific literature. These definitions also express the rapid evolution of scientific knowledge regarding eco-anxiety. While earlier ones focused primarily on certain specific emotional responses to climate and environmental changes, recent definitions encompass the broader social and political roots from which eco-anxiety also stems and the vast array of responses they can generate. Because of the quantity of definitions, it can be difficult to understand the phenomenon. A holistic and unified definition of eco-anxiety, such as the one proposed here, would facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, benefiting both for the scientific community and mental health practitioners.

Another key finding from our review pertains to the significant role of social stressors in shaping eco-anxiety. While environmental factors like climate change and ecological degradation remain central, social and political dynamics—namely through perceived inadequate responses to climate and environmental changes as well as their individual, collective and societal impacts—emerge as critical stressors for eco-anxiety. These perceptions can contribute to a sense of moral distress, which arises from perceived violations of individuals’ ethical values by insufficient collective and governmental action and may exacerbate psychological impacts through feelings of betrayal and abandonment. This issue and the distress that ensues have become much more apparent in the scientific literature over the past years. Indeed, research shows that people feel a sense of urgency to increase climate action at the governmental state (Champagne St-Arnaud et al., 2022). Even environmental protests have become more and more geared towards governments’ roles in the fight against climate change rather than the environmental changes in themselves (Clark, 2020). These findings thus highlight the importance of including both environmental and socio-political stressors in the conceptualization of eco-anxiety. Incorporating the concept of moral injury into the study of eco-anxiety could also provide a more nuanced understanding of its psychological impacts. Future research on the impacts of these stressors, notably on mental health and environmental engagement is warranted. The interplay between eco-anxiety, moral distress, and environmental engagement also would notably benefit from further exploration to identify effective interventions that can support both individual well-being and collective action.

Furthermore, research on eco-anxiety also shows that it is hard to isolate the concept among other eco-emotions such as eco-anger, solastalgia, and eco-guilt. Although these emotions are distinct, they are intrinsically connected through shared emotional processes. This complexity poses challenges for disentangling these concepts, both in research and practice. They thus cannot and should not be studied distinctly. Further studies mapping the relationships between eco-emotions and defining their boundaries would be relevant.

Research also indicates that eco-anxiety is a normal and adaptative reaction to the situation, potentially serving as a motivator for pro-environmental engagement. At the same time, despite its adaptive potential, eco-anxiety is also negatively linked to well-being, mental health, and environmental engagement, particularly when coping strategies are ineffective or maladaptive. These relationships would benefit from further research as the nature and force of the links remain sparsely studied. For instance, implications for clinical diagnoses, while noted in some research, need to be further explored. There is also a need for studies to examine the nature of the relation between eco-anxiety and environmental engagement. Notably, little is known regarding how each of eco-anxiety’s dimensions relates to pro-environmental engagement. Finding out if Hickman’s (Hickman, 2020) observations regarding eco-anxiety levels and environmental engagement levels can be generalized or not would also be of great importance because it could help distinguish between eco-anxiety that pushes one to action and eco-anxiety that doesn’t. Studies focused on this relation would be beneficial as much remains to be understood.

Because of the potential negative impacts, coping strategies also emerge from this review as having a pivotal influence on the experience of eco-anxiety. They have the potential to either mitigate eco-anxiety and its impacts—when adaptive—or exacerbate them—when maladaptive. While adaptive coping strategies can alleviate negative impacts on well-being and mental health and foster environmental engagement, maladaptive strategies can result in impacts such as cognitive dissonance, impairment in an individual’s functioning (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Myers, 2014), distress, eco-paralysis (Albrecht, 2011; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Hayes et al., 2018; Myers, 2014), anxiety (Pihkala, 2020b), and even depression (Helm et al., 2018). Yet, maladaptive coping strategies, including denial, apathy, and catastrophizing, remain underexplored in the scientific literature related to eco-anxiety. This could be because they were often classified as negative impacts of eco-anxiety rather than as emotional coping strategies. There is, however, a multitude of different concepts surrounding the idea of psychological avoidance of climate change such as denial (Burke et al., 2018; Haseley, 2019; Homburg et al., 2007; Hornsey et al., 2015; Myers, 2014; Pihkala, 2018b), apathy (Le Goff, 2017), catastrophizing (Sarrasin et al., 2022), annihilation (Van Kessel, 2020) and withdrawal (Ágoston et al., 2022). The conceptual constellation of concepts related to psychological avoidance of climate change certainly testifies to the complexity of the phenomenon itself, as they can take many forms, are associated to different outcomes and serve different purposes. A conceptual mapping of psychological avoidance mechanisms clarifies their roles and implications for eco-anxiety.

Even with coping strategies considered as adaptive, certain pitfalls remain (Gunasiri et al., 2022). For instance, while connecting with nature can promote well-being and resilience (Gunasiri et al., 2022; Hasbach, 2015; Powers & Engstrom, 2020), it can also trigger solastalgia (distress caused by environmental degradation and loss of place attachment) (Whitmarsh et al., 2022). Additionally, existing coping theories frequently emphasize problem solving approaches (Helm et al., 2018; Mah et al., 2020; Stanisławski, 2019). However, the “wicked” nature of climate change—a systemic issue that cannot be resolved through individual efforts alone—is not compatible with a problem-solving approach by itself, as it can reinforce feelings of powerlessness and helplessness that often characterize eco-anxiety. This highlights the need to adapt existing coping theories to better account for the unique psychological challenges posed by climate change. More research is needed to identify the most effective strategies for managing eco-anxiety, as significant gaps remain (Clayton, 2020; Helm et al., 2018). Although there are many guidelines and advice on how to intervene with someone whose eco-anxiety is hard to bear, there is a great lack of actual testing of those principles and ideas. For instance, while efficiency coping is most recommended in the literature, its practical application and efficacy require further empirical validation. Additionally, most of the strategies found through the literature focused on individual-level interventions. While these strategies are valuable, the responsibility for coping with eco-anxiety largely falls on individuals rather than society, even though addressing its systemic roots requires collective action. Future research should explore how healthcare providers and public health initiatives can support individuals and communities in building resilience in the face of climate change and managing eco-anxiety effectively. Addressing eco-anxiety within a broader public health framework could contribute to both improved individual well-being and the collective capacity to tackle climate change.

The review also highlights the need to clarify the roles of vulnerability and protection factors, such as age, gender, professions, social networks, and climate literacy, and of stressors, such as information about climate change, social and political response to climate change, and direct experience with climate change, in shaping eco-anxiety. Distinguishing between mediating and moderating factors could deepen our understanding of their influence. Using an ecological model or the determinants of health model could also help identify more influence factors. We also conclude that more studies are needed to explore the contextual sensitivity of eco-anxiety, particularly in underrepresented regions and populations. Additionally, because of the role of information regarding climate change, it would be relevant for future research to look at the impacts of climate change communication strategies on eco-anxiety, notably through the media and the education system. While eco-anxiety levels are relatively low for now, they could increase with the increased saliency of climate and environmental changes in the media and in our environment. It may be useful to learn to take eco-anxiety into account when talking about climate change to avoid spiking levels.

This scoping review did not include a formal risk of bias assessment, as it is not typically required for this type of review. This may however represent a potential limitation in evaluating the quality of the included studies. Additionally, although efforts were made to capture the extent of existing research, the inclusion of only French and English articles may have excluded relevant studies in other languages.

Conclusion

Eco-anxiety represents a complex and evolving phenomenon at the intersection of environmental and social stressors, psychosocial processes, and behavioural outcomes. By synthesizing existing knowledge on the subject, this review wishes to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of eco-anxiety and its implications. The proposed conceptual framework provides a foundation for future research and practical interventions, addressing both individual and systemic dimensions of this issue.

Appendix.

Appendix 1- Exclusion criteria

	Included	Excluded
Theme	Eco-anxiety, climate anxiety, anxiety related to climate change, mental health problems linked to worry about the state of the environment	Anxiety related to other environmental extreme events, no links to climate change, other eco-emotions (no links to eco-anxiety)
Language	English, French	Other languages
Quality	Scientific articles (theoretical, reviews and empirical)	Commentary, editorials, news articles

Funding Statement

The work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [430-2020-00912].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).