By Merve Kurt, PhD Researcher in Psychology, School of Humanities, Social Sciences & Law, University of Dundee
On the ground in front of you, there is already enough to begin. A few fallen leaves, some loose stones, a seed head and a pinecone can slowly become a circle. You sit for a moment with what you have made. Then, instead of preserving it or taking it away, you let the weather take it apart.
This simple act draws on Buddhist psychological ideas of mindful attention and impermanence in a practical, embodied way. The circular form gives attention somewhere to return to; the fallen materials remind the maker that everything being handled is already part of a changing place; and the final dissolution allows impermanence to be encountered directly, rather than only understood as an idea. In this sense, the practice invites a relationship with control. The maker arranges, responds, adjusts and witnesses, while also recognising that wind, gravity, moisture, texture and time are shaping the form too.
My name is Merve Kurt, and I am a PhD researcher in psychology at the University of Dundee, with a background in arts-based practice, mindfulness and community-based work. I have recently published a free, open-access article in The International Journal of Ecopsychology that develops a theoretically grounded field protocol for co-constituted mandala-making in nature. The article brings together ecopsychology, Buddhist psychology, posthumanist and new materialist thinking to ask how a simple outdoor making practice might support attention, regulation, tolerance of uncertainty and a more relational orientation toward place.
At its simplest, the protocol invites participants to create temporary circular patterns outdoors using only materials that have already fallen to the ground, and then to allow the pattern to disperse. But the practice is not only about making a nature mandala. It is also a way of exploring how attention, material conditions, ecological ethics and impermanence come together in a situated, trauma-sensitive process.
Why “co-constituted” mandala-making?
I use the term co-constituted to describe a process in which a person’s attention and choices interact with the conditions around them. This does not mean treating leaves, stones or wind as if they had human-like intention. It means that the form emerges through relationship. A stone tilts. A leaf will not stay where it was placed. The wind moves an edge. Damp ground changes what is possible. You gather only what is already loose on the ground, with no picking and no pulling, so habitats stay undisturbed, and the place itself helps shape what is made.
For participants, these small interruptions can become meaningful. They invite a shift away from control and outcome, and toward attention, adjustment and responsiveness. The practice asks a question: can we meet uncertainty without forcing it into order? Can we make something with care while knowing it will not last?
The final stage of the protocol is intentional dissolution. The mandala is not kept as a permanent artwork. It is witnessed, and then allowed to disperse through time, weather, gravity, animal movement, or, where appropriate, a very light gesture from the maker. This closing stage is central rather than incidental. There is a distant structural echo here of Tibetan sand mandala traditions, where an ordered form is intentionally dissolved; however, this protocol is secular, non-liturgical and based on found outdoor materials. It offers a way of practising completion without possession. In all, the protocol moves through eight unhurried stages, from arriving and settling, through gathering and arranging, to witnessing and finally letting the pattern go.
Trauma-sensitive and access-oriented design
Because the practice involves uncertainty, impermanence and letting go, trauma-sensitive facilitation is essential. The protocol is built around choice, pacing and dosage. Participants can pause, simplify, move, keep their eyes open, shorten reflective moments, or opt out of any stage. Language is invitational rather than prescriptive, and the aim is never to push anyone into emotional disclosure. In higher-risk clinical contexts, this would require appropriately trained facilitators, safeguarding procedures and clear referral pathways.
It can also be adapted for different bodies, sensory needs and access requirements. A mandala can be made on a raised surface, in a courtyard, on a balcony, in a local park, beside a hospital garden, or as a micro-mandala using only a few materials. It needs no idealised wild landscape and no purchased resources.
This matters because access to green space is not equally distributed. Nature-based practice should not assume that everyone feels safe, welcome or culturally at ease outdoors. So, the protocol needs to be piloted with attention to who facilitates, who takes part, where it happens, and what local histories and meanings are attached to the land.
What could a pilot explore?
The protocol has not yet been formally evaluated, and I make no claim that it treats anything. Instead, the article identifies four process-level shifts that a proportionate pilot or study could explore:
- Attentional humility: noticing that the maker is not the sole author of what emerges, and that the stone, the wind and the ground all shape the final form.
- Sensory and affective regulation: whether slow, multisensory contact with place supports settling, grounding or a change in mood, and at which stages of the practice this happens.
- Tolerance of contingency: staying with disruption, imperfection and change, such as a piece that will not balance or an edge the wind keeps moving, without needing to control every outcome.
- Relational orientation toward place: developing a more careful, non-extractive relationship with the site and its materials, including what it is like to gather mindfully and to leave the mandala behind.
Could you pilot or evaluate it with me?
I am now looking for partners to pilot, adapt, or evaluate the protocol in real-world settings: nature-based wellbeing, creative health, social prescribing, community mental health, and settings that work alongside displaced or structurally marginalised communities. That might be a short pilot workshop, an evaluation collaboration, or a knowledge-exchange session. If any of this resonates with your work, I would be glad to talk.
You can read the full open-access article.
To explore a pilot, or simply to share ideas, email me at 2676527@dundee.ac.uk (Merve Kurt, University of Dundee).
Banner photo: Merve Kurt. All rights reserved.