People in general deal with stress in different ways, and one of the ways is relaxing in a natural beautiful garden with different types of flowers. There is an increasing empirical study that demonstrates urban green space (UGC) as therapeutic since it allows city dwellers to relax and engage with nature (Frumkin et al. 2017; Hartig et al. 2014). People who enjoy green spaces have been found to enjoy positive emotional well-being (Ballew & Omoto 2018), good cognitive functioning (Bratman et al. 2019), are well-behaved (Guéguen & Stefan 2016) and have excellent physiological responses, such as heart rate variability, pulse rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, cortical brain activity, and diurnal cortisol profiles (Haluza, Schönbauer & Cervinka 2014; Neale et al. 2020; Roe, Aspinall & Ward Thompson 2017). Furthermore, a study done in the Netherlands by Van den Berg et al. (2010) found that people who lived in an area with a high amount of green space within a 3 km radius were less affected by a stressful event than those who lived in an area with a low amount of green space. Moreover, a study done in South Africa found that those who live in green spaces are less depressed compared with those who live in less green spaces (Tomita et al. 2017) and have lower rates of mortality from all causes (Mitchell & Popham 2008).

Throughout history, mankind has had a close relationship with nature, mostly for sustenance (Keniger et al. 2013). The use of gardens in medical care has a long history. The idea of relations between human health processes and natural environments and gardens can be traced back to the medical spas and monastery gardens in the Middle Ages and as far back as Ancient Egypt and Persian Empires (Gerlach-Spriggs, Gerlach-Spriggs & Bass Warner 1998; Prest 1988). After the Second World War, human perception of nature as a means of direct consumption and exploitation shifted to a more mutualistic relationship in which people actively sought out interaction with nature for recreation and enjoyment (Fuller & Irvine 2010; Irvine et al. 2010). Interacting with nature may therefore be important, not only for survival but also for human quality of life on a personal level mentally and physically (Bailey & Kingsley, 2020).

Empirical evidence from various studies shows that seeing nature is important to people and is an effective means of relieving stress and improving well-being (Leather et al. 1998). In addition, being in nature has positive effects on physical health (Richardson & Mitchell 2010), psychological well-being (Fuller et al. 2007), cognitive ability (Han 2009), and social cohesion (Shinew, Glover & Parry 2004). Furthermore, the ability to see or experience green space also reduces domestic violence, quickens healing times, reduces stress, improves physical health, and effectuates cognitive and psychological benefits (Sullivan & Kuo 1996). Natural-based therapy and horticultural therapy have been proven to significantly enhance recovery of both cognitive abilities and levels of stress (Adevi et al. 2018). Qualitative studies (see Grahn et al. 2010; Sahlin et al. 2012) have revealed that clients health and well-being improved when therapy sessions were carried out in rehabilitation gardens. Visiting therapeutic gardens or green spaces may improve mood (Cordoza et al. 2018), regulate emotions (Lee 2017), reduce stress (Goto et al. 2018), lower body inflammation (Ng et al. 2018), and improve quality of life (Korn et al. 2018).

According to Olszewska-Guizzo et al. (2020), as a result of limited treatment availability and a growing number of people suffering from depression, testing for new self-care interventions such as visitation to therapeutic gardens may augment traditional treatment methods. Several protective resilient factors enhance teacher resilience, but the one that speaks mostly to teacher resilience in a privately funded independent school is the power of the green space within the school ecology.

The role of school leaders, for instance, principals in supporting teachers to adapt and cope with stressors cannot be underestimated and it has garnered much attention from researchers recently. Previous studies have shown that principal autonomy-support (PAS), which is defined as the perception of teachers that their principal motivates and empowers them (Collie, Bostwick & Martin 2020; Klassen, Perry & Frenzel 2012), is directly associated with teacher well-being (Collie & Martin 2017; Collie et al. 2020; Holliman, Revill-Keen & Waldeck 2022; Nie et al. 2015). The autonomy support that teachers receive from their principal could mitigate the increase in stress levels and consequently improve teachers’ well-being (Mendoza & Dizon 2024). In the school system, one main factor that may influence how stress affects teachers’ well-being is the support they receive from school leaders such as principals (Hascher & Waber 2021). Ryan and Deci (2000) were of the view that self-determination of an individual’s well-being is linked to one’s environment that is conducive to one’s basic psychological needs – self-determination theory. In any place of work, autonomy support is regarded as an important need-support that satisfies one’s basic psychological need for autonomy (Slemp et al. 2018).

The positive impact of PAS in an educational context has been widely documented (Berkovich & Hassan 2022; Chang, Leach & Anderman 2015; Collie & Martin 2017; Collie et al. 2020; Corbin et al. 2023; Holliman et al. 2022). For instance, Reeve et al. (2004) found that autonomy support for teachers increases student-level engagement, improves teachers’ well-being (Collie & Martin 2017; Collie et al. 2020; Holliman et al. 2022), and enhances life satisfaction and work motivation (Ebersold, Rahm & Heise 2019; Maas et al. 2022; Nie et al. 2015). Teachers who perceive their principal as providing them with autonomy-supportive supervision are less likely to experience negative effects of stress on their well-being (Mendoza & Dizon 2024), giving them a sense of control and empowerment which ultimately makes them resilience and able to cope with stress (Collies et al. 2020). Principal autonomy support may create a positive work environment that promotes well-being by fostering positive relationships and open communication between teachers and their principals (Nie et al. 2015), reducing stress and burnout (Chang et al. 2015), and a greater sense of professional accomplishment and overall well-being even in the faces of global health crises (Kraft, Simon & Lyon 2021). These findings seem to provide some clues in terms of the inherent capabilities of principals to provide and offer support resources to educators for instance open communication lines, fair expectations, recognising effort and organisational capacity-building initiatives (Hayes, Flowers & Williams 2021; Kraft et al. 2021; McLeod & Dulsky 2021; Weiner et al. 2021). This article aims to investigate how the power of nature and support from principal and colleagues reduces teacher stress and promotes teacher resilience.

Resilience is a complex construct that could be explored through a dynamic framework of systems using the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2007). At the centre of Bronfenbrenner’s theory is the belief that development and behaviour are the results of a complex network of internal and external systems. An attribute that enhances or inhibits resilience can be measured at each level of the system. The teacher being at the centre of the model is being influenced by the systems. The microsystems comprise the social roles and the interpersonal relationships with the family, colleagues at work, mentors and close friends. The mesosystems comprise two or more contextual settings, one of which does not include the target individual (Kangas-Dick & O’Shaughnessy 2020) – and teacher resilience could be well understood when it lies within the cultural and social contexts of the local communities (Johnson et al. 2014; Papatraianou et al. 2018). Resilience is regarded as a quality of both individuals and their environments, with factors at each systemic level that can either promote or inhibit resilience (Ungar 2013).

Looking at the teacher characteristics and moving outwards through bioecological systemic levels, the attributes of close others, social roles, and interpersonal factors seem to play an integral role in bolstering resilience in teachers both quantitatively and qualitatively (Ainsworth & Oldfield 2019; Doney 2013; Gu & Day 2013; Johnson et al. 2014; Le Cornu 2013; Mansfield, Beltman & Price 2014; Papatraianou & Le Cornu 2013). In addition, trusting and collegial relationships with other adults, for instance, peers, colleagues, mentors, and administrators are often pointed out as being an important source of social support that empowers teacher resilience (Buchanan et al. 2013; Gu & Li 2013). Furthermore, support received from school leaders, such as school principals also enhances resilience, particularly when principals establish collaborative relationships and encourage professional development (Papatraianous & Le Cornu 2014; Peters & Pearce 2012). The meso-and exosystemic levels play a crucial role in terms of public policy. It is critical to consider public policies and societal expectations that require teachers to be equipped with resilience strategies to overcome any adversity in the course of their work. Concerning this theoretical framework, this study believes that resilience is systemically embedded in the internal and external systems that could be sourced for by teachers in privately funded independent schools. According to Ungar (2013), it is important to recognise the significant role of the environment and recommend understanding resilience through the social-ecological model. This implies that one has to ‘navigate’ the socio-ecological environment to access health resources to become resilient.

Therefore, in the context of life-threatening events, resilience is the way individuals or groups of people find their way to psychological, cultural and/or physical resources in the environment to enhance their well-being. Moreover, their ability to do this must be culturally meaningful to them (Ungar 2013). Owing to the above theoretical framework, I believe that the protective factors that enable teachers to adapt and cope with stressors in a privately funded independent school are the result of social interaction within the school ecology. This theoretical framework was used to interpret the results of the study.

The school selected as the site for the research was both purposeful and convenient. As the main goal of the study was to describe how teachers in a privately funded independent school adapt and cope with stressors in their school and the protective resilience factors that support them, I purposefully selected one privately funded secondary school as a site for the research. The researcher also selected this school as it was convenient as he was employed at the school and data collection would be easier. The researcher was aware of possible researcher bias created by this selection because of his teaching position at the school but attempted to address such biases in the collection and analysis as discussed later.

The researcher requested permission from the principal of the school to involve staff members of the school in the study. Informed consent was requested from all participants. The researcher decided to approach all teachers employed at the school, a total of 16 full-time employed teachers, to be part of the study. However, only 11 teachers decided to be part of the study, that is, those who returned their consent forms and completed their incomplete sentences. Teachers were, therefore, selected purposefully as full-time employed teachers at this particular school, which is a privately funded independent school. Given the aim of the study, all teachers employed were regarded as possible information-rich cases.

In most qualitative research, Creswell (2003:17) states that researchers collect several forms of data and often spend a great deal of their time in the ‘natural setting’ where they gather the information needed. To understand and explore how teachers in a privately funded independent school cope and adapt to stressors and the protective resilience factors that enable them to do this, the researcher used semi-structured interviews and incomplete sentences to collect data from the participants. Firstly, incomplete sentences were provided to all teachers who had agreed to participate in the study. These incomplete sentences were put in sealed envelopes and handed out to those teachers who had given informed consent to be included in the study.

Incomplete sentences are part of an assessment battery to determine personality structure which is based on psychodynamic theory (Holaday, Smith & Sherry 2000). For this study, incomplete sentences were not used to assess personality but rather used as a qualitative data collection technique to collect data from the participants. The gist of the incomplete sentences was to allow teachers the freedom to express their views on how they adapt and cope with stressors and what protective resilience factors enable them to daily adapt and cope with stressors through reflection on the incomplete sentences.

Secondly, an invitation was extended to all teachers who had participated and completed the incomplete sentences to be part of individual semi-structured interviews. In all, 11 teachers returned their completed incomplete sentences and consent forms. An interview is a data collection tool that is used to collect data or information from the participants in their natural settings (Myburgh & Strauss 2013). The technique was appropriate for this study because the aim was to understand and explore how teachers cope and adapt to stressors and the protective resilience factors that support them. The interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim. One of the main reasons for using the technique in this study was to allow for flexibility, which helped the researcher investigate the phenomenon in-depth (meaning it allowed the participants to express themselves as freely as possible).

Individual interviews were conducted by an independent colleague researcher studying towards a Master’s qualification in educational psychology. This colleague was chosen because they had training in counselling skills and interviewing. The reasoning for this was that since the researcher was part of the staff, there might be possible bias during interviews which could compromise the trustworthiness of the study.

The interviews and incomplete sentences were analysed using content analysis, which is ‘a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use’ (Krippendorff 2004:18). Analytical constructs are used:

Since this study is qualitative, inductive qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the data gathered from the field. The data were organised in the following ways: open coding, creating categories and abstraction. When using open coding, the researcher wrote notes and made headings in the text while reading. Everything that was written down was re-read several times. Thereafter, the researcher wrote as many headings as was necessary on the sides to ensure all the content was covered (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). Finally, the headings were transferred onto a coding sheet to generate categories.

After the open coding, the researcher wrote down a list of categories, grouping them under the main headings in order ‘to reduce the number of categories by collapsing those that were similar or dissimilar into broader, higher categories’ (Burnard 1991:462). By using inductive content analysis to create the categories, the researcher could decide, through interpretation, which themes would be placed in the same category.

The last process which was ‘abstraction’ involved using the categories that had been generated to articulate a general description of the research topic or research question (Polit & Beck 2004). To find names for each category, words that were representative of the content were used. Thereafter, subcategories that had similarities were grouped as categories and these categories in turn were grouped as main categories (Dey 1993). This abstraction process continued until it had been reasonably exhausted. Incomplete sentences were analysed similarly to how the interviews were analysed, after which the researcher triangulated the various data sources to arrive at the same pattern of themes that ran across the data.

Analysis was subjected to independent review through member checking and supervisor feedback. In the discussion of the analysis and findings, teachers are numbered A1–A11.

Before participants were recruited into the study, ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg Ethics Review Committee (ref. no. 2017-083). Permission to recruit participants from the school was first obtained from the principal and the directors of the school. Thereafter, the purpose of the study was explained to the staff during a staff meeting and those who voluntarily wanted to be part of the study were invited and their consent was obtained in the form of a letter that they signed.

In terms of the physical environment (green space or the garden), most of the participants indicated that the calmness of the school environment helps them to destress whenever they are at school and feel overwhelmed with work-related issues. Some of them were of the view that just walking around the school garden and sitting under the trees relieves them from the day’s stress. One participant noted the following concerning the green space in the school:

Participant A9’s view concurred with the study done by Ballew and Omoto (2018), where people who enjoyed, green space were found to enjoy positive emotional well-being.

The green space around the school is something Participant A3 is fond of:

Participant A3 felt that coming out to enjoy the green space relieved her stress, and she felt fortunate to have a beautiful school surrounded by gardens or a green space that serves as a respite when teaching becomes overwhelming. This assertion by Participant A3 concurs with the study done by Van den Ber et al. (2010), in that those who lived in an area with a large amount of green space within a 3 km radius were less affected by a stressful event than those who lived in an area with a low amount of green space. Another teacher explained:

The school being surrounded by green space is something Participant A7 is happy about. Just going to sit outside and take in some fresh air while relaxing in the gardens relieves her stress and makes her calm. She is of the view that it is not the physical buildings alone that make a school but also the natural green space. This natural green space adds some kind of natural beauty to the school which serves as a place of relaxation.

Another participant, A10, noted a ‘good environment’ that included neat classrooms, and a serene atmosphere coupled with green space – these help her feel joy and relax anytime she feels stressed. Therefore, a good working environment could be a source of a protective factor that bolsters employee resilience. Participant A11 viewed the natural school environment as supportive in relieving some stress:

According to Participant A11, the natural school environment could be the green space around the school, and the serenity that surrounds the school. This assertion by Participant A11 is supported by the study done by Cordoza et al. (2018:511) where nurses who took work breaks and went and relaxed in the hospital garden were found to reduce work burnout and were reported feeling ‘less stressed after getting some fresh air’ in the garden. Therefore, the natural environment is an important resource that enhances resilience within the context of the school.

Regarding the role of the physical environment in contributing to teacher resilience in the school, it also emerged that colleagues’ and the principal’s support in the school play a vital role in teacher resilience:

Participant A9 verbalised that the support he got from the school principal in terms of mentoring training plays a significant role in his teaching. The literature revealed that teachers who receive support from school leaders often cope with the stress that comes along with their jobs and that it motivates and empowers them, thereby improving their well-being (Collie & Martin 2017; Collie et al. 2020; Holliman et al. 2022; Klassen et al. 2012; Nie et al. 2015). Participant A10 is of the view that if she can openly discuss her challenges with the principal without any restriction and the kind of support that comes from the principal assists her to go about her duty as a teacher without feeling the pressure of the workload:

This assertion coincides with the work of Reeve et al. (2004) that autonomy support for teachers by their principals promotes students’ engagement in the classroom and improves teachers’ well-being (Collie & Martin 2017; Collie et al. 2020; Holliman et al. 2022) and enhances life satisfaction and work motivation (Ebersold et al. 2019; Maas et al. 2022; Nie et al. 2015). Therefore, teachers who perceive their principal as providing them with autonomy and supportive supervision are less likely to experience the negative effects of stress on their well-being (Mendoza & Dizon 2023), giving them a sense of control and empowerment – this ultimately makes them resilience and able to cope with stress (Collie et al. 2020).

Participants A7, A8, A9, A10 and A11 expressed the same sentiment regarding the kind of support they received from their colleagues and the principal as the reason for their resilience despite the stress that comes with the workload at the school:

In addition, the open-door policy adopted by the principal where teachers can express their views and where their views are taken into consideration when decisions are made makes them feel valued and appreciated. This culture in the school ensures that teachers want to come to work. Trusting and collegial relationships with other adults, for instance, peers, colleagues, mentors, and administrators are often pointed out as being an important source of social support that empowers teacher resilience (Buchanan et al. 2013; Gu & Li 2013). Furthermore, support received from school leaders such as school principals also enhances resilience, particularly when principals establish collaborative relationships and encourage professional development (Papatraianous & Le Cornu 2014; Peters & Pearce 2012).

Taking into consideration the characteristics of the participants and moving outwards through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systemic levels, the attributes of colleagues and the principal of the school seem to have played an integral role in promoting resilience among the teachers in the school (Ainsworth & Oldfield 2019; Doney 2013; Gu & Day 2013; Johnson et al. 2014; Le Cornu 2013; Mansfield et al. 2014; Papatraianou & Le Cornu 2014) in addition to the role of the green space.

From the findings and the conclusion of this study, further research could be conducted in other educational institutions such as private schools (state-subsidised) and government schools in urban and rural areas to explore protective factors that promote teacher resilience. In addition, owners of private schools or the management team in government schools could adopt a policy of creating green spaces (gardens) as it would go a long way in relieving teachers’ and learners’ stress thereby enhancing their resilience.

Initially, all 16 staff members were interested in the study; however, only 11 returned their consent forms; thus, the entire staff were not included in the study. Even so, I still feel that having many staff participants was deemed sufficient to understand the issue under investigation from a qualitative perspective. The selection of the site may have led to researcher bias as it was convenient for the researcher because he was a full-time staff member at the time.

However, steps were taken to minimise the bias by employing an independent researcher, namely a researcher studying towards a qualification as an Educational Psychologist to conduct the interviews on the researcher’s behalf. In addition, the researcher was mindful of his beliefs and expectations as a staff member which could have influenced the findings and discussion of results. To overcome these prejudices, the researcher tried to be as open-minded as possible and devoid of any prejudices. Finally, the findings from the study cannot be generalised because participants were selected from only one school as the study was qualitative and highly contextual.