A blog post about the paper ‘Empirical research review on Solastalgia: Place, people and policy pathways for addressing environmental distress’, by Nazifa Rafa, Aiora Zabala, and Lindsay P. Galway, first published: 02 July 2025.

Read the full paper here.

Have you ever felt a pang of grief watching a beloved forest cleared, a dear coastline eroded, or a familiar landscape transformed by development or environmental change? That deep, place-based sorrow has a name— solastalgia.

Coined by philosopher Glenn Albrecht, solastalgia describes the distress we feel when our home environment is degraded while we’re still living in it. Unlike nostalgia (longing for a lost past) or eco-anxiety (fear of future ecological collapse), solastalgia is rooted in the present loss of solace and belonging tied to a place under threat.

Solastalgia has become a lens for understanding climate grief, legal battles (like mining disputes), and mental health crises across the world. Yet the growing pool of empirical applications had become a mélange of definitions and methods. It was urgent to map this expanding field: clarify what solastalgia is (and isn’t) and how it is studied. Such understanding could empower communities, researchers, and policymakers.

So, we undertook a study where we reviewed 41 research empirical papers from the past two decades to understand how solastalgia is studied, which communities are most affected, and what can be done to address it, among others.

This journal’s mission made it the perfect home for our work. Solastalgia sits at the crossroads of ecology, psychology, and social justice, demanding the interdisciplinary perspective that People and Nature champions.

We found that rural and coastal areasare most frequently studied, and climate change, urbanization, and mining are the major triggers. Moreover, researchers employ a wide range of methods to understand solastalgia, with a growing emphasis on its mental health and collective well-being implications.

However, vulnerability to this emotional distress isn’t random. People living in these regions, particularly women, ethnic minorities, Indigenous peoples, and those with lower incomes, experience solastalgia more acutely due to systemic inequities, deep ties to place, and fewer opportunities to address or adapt to the change.

More importantly, responses vary widely. Some communities restore ecosystems or migrate; others build social resilience through storytelling, activism, or cultural practices. Sometimes, without supportive policies, these efforts can lead to maladaptation.

Our review reveals critical gaps in solastalgia research.

First, place isn’t just physical. “Home” means different things across cultures. Future work must centre these lived experiences.

Second, power matters. Solastalgia intertwines with colonialism, race, and inequality. An intersectional lens is essential.

Third, we need better tools. Quantitative scales often miss the nuance of solace-loss. Mixed-method designs can bridge this gap.

Ignoring solastalgia risks overlooking a hidden dimension of the climate crisis and environmental degradation. Based on evidence from our study, we urge:

All of us to recognize that protecting places isn’t just about ecosystems but also about the well-being of those who call them home.

Policymakers to integrate solastalgia into mental health programs, climate adaptation plans, and environmental impact assessments.

Researchers to collaborate with communities in defining and measuring place-based distress.

Read the full paper here.