From vanishing ecosystems to cultural losses: Shared dimensions of ecological grief

Ecological grief often concerns places and environments that are meaningful not just to one person but to entire communities. Whether it is the disappearance of glaciers, the destruction of forests, or the extinction of a species, the loss resonates widely. The emotion is embedded in shared identities, traditions, and attachments, making ecological grief fundamentally collective.

A new philosophical study argues that ecological grief, the emotional response to climate-related destruction and environmental loss, should be understood not as an individual reaction but as a shared emotion deeply rooted in community and cultural identity. The research traces how ecological grief differs from conventional grief and why its collective character makes it a defining emotion of the climate crisis.

The paper, titled “Ecological Grief as a Shared Emotion” and published in Emotion Review, examines the nature of ecological grief, the ways it is expressed, and the implications of recognizing it as a collective phenomenon rather than a purely personal one.

What makes ecological grief distinct from personal grief?

Traditional grief has long been studied in the context of bereavement, where the loss of a loved one is felt deeply at the individual level. Ecological grief, by contrast, arises from the loss of ecosystems, species, landscapes, or cultural practices tied to the natural world. The authors argue that while it shares some features with personal grief, it is distinguished by its scope, scale, and the kind of objects being mourned.

Ecological grief often concerns places and environments that are meaningful not just to one person but to entire communities. Whether it is the disappearance of glaciers, the destruction of forests, or the extinction of a species, the loss resonates widely. The emotion is embedded in shared identities, traditions, and attachments, making ecological grief fundamentally collective.

This framing challenges the assumption that grief is primarily private. By extending the analysis to ecological grief, the authors suggest that grieving environmental losses is part of a broader human response to living in a time of accelerating climate disruption.

How is ecological grief shared within communities?

The study identifies several ways in which ecological grief is shared. At the most basic level, it can be communicated between individuals, or spread through emotional contagion, much like other emotions. However, the authors argue that these mechanisms do not fully capture what makes ecological grief distinct.

Instead, ecological grief is shared more profoundly as fellow feeling. Communities that endure large-scale losses, such as wildfires, droughts, or rising sea levels, experience these disruptions collectively. The grief becomes part of their shared reality, producing a sense of solidarity and mutual recognition.

The research also highlights group-based grief as a central feature. Unlike bereavement, which typically concerns a personal relationship, ecological grief is oriented around the loss of shared places and practices. These losses are not only physical but cultural, affecting rituals, livelihoods, and ways of life. For example, when a fishing community loses access to degraded waters, the grief is experienced as a blow to collective identity as well as material survival.

The process of grieving itself is also collective. Environmental loss often unfolds gradually and ambiguously, such as the slow disappearance of biodiversity or desertification of fertile land. This makes grieving an ongoing, shared process rather than a one-time event. Communities negotiate, acknowledge, and accommodate these losses together, giving ecological grief a temporal and process-oriented dimension that is especially suited to being shared.

What are the wider implications of shared ecological grief?

The study raises broader questions about how societies respond emotionally to climate change and environmental destruction. By framing ecological grief as a shared emotion, the authors point to the potential for collective acknowledgment and action. Grief becomes not only a personal burden but also a social and political force that can galvanize communities.

The paper also suggests that ecological grief may extend beyond current generations. Because environmental losses can affect future communities and even reshape cultural continuity, ecological grief invites consideration of intergenerational responsibility. It forces reflection on how present societies relate emotionally to the losses endured by future people.

The authors further raise the possibility of expanding the concept of shared grief beyond human communities. If ecological grief concerns the destruction of ecosystems and species, it prompts the question of whether non-human beings might be considered participants in this shared emotional landscape. While primarily a philosophical exploration, this idea underscores the interconnectedness of ecological losses across species boundaries.