BACKGROUND: Individuals treated for cancer experience myriad disease– and treatment-related sequelae that contribute to psychological and symptom-related distress (Ahles & Saykin, 2001; Aktas et al., 2010; Carlson et al., 2011; Gilchrist et al., 2009). In the environmental psychology literature, fostering experiences with nature and the natural environment has contributed to directed attention restoration (e.g., Berto, 2005; Cimprich & Ronis, 2003; Hartig et al., 2003), recovery from stress (Heerwagen, 1990; Ulrich et al., 1991), reduced pain (Diette et al., 2003), and various other health-related benefits (Maas et al., 2006; Moore, 1981; Ulrich, 1984; van den Berg et al., 2010). There exists the potential that promoting human-nature relationships in individuals treated for cancer might contribute to lower experiences of distress, as well as promote improved experiences of health, quality of life, and well-being.PURPOSE: The purpose of this presentation is to share with attendees our experience using the constructivist grounded theory methodology (ConGTM; Charmaz, 2006) relative to the study of human-nature-health relationships. The purpose of the study being presented was to explore how individuals treated for cancer relate to nature and the natural environment, and to develop a theoretical framework highlighting the underlying processes that manifest such relationships.METHOD: The ConGTM is located within the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm, and espouses a relativist ontology and subjective-transactional epistemology. In ConGTM, the role of the researcher is explicitly acknowledged throughout data collection, interpretation, and analyses. Individuals diagnosed and treated for cancer were recruited and theoretically sampled from local cancer centres, support groups, and the broader community. Data were collected using in-depth, semi-structured interviews, and interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim. Data were interpreted and analyzed following the constant comparative method, which iteratively compares base units of coded data to developed categories, themes, and the emerging theoretical framework (Charmaz, 1990, 2006, 2009).DISCUSSION: At the time of abstract submission, data collection had just begun and, therefore, it was not then clear what exactly the nature of our experiences would be. In addition to discussing the resultant framework, we will share a candid discussion of this methodology, including our successes and drawbacks, as well as general strengths and weaknesses of ConGTM in human-environment studies. In the environmental psychology field, qualitative methods are not often adopted, and it is unclear if the ConGTM has been previously employed in this area. Thus, we believe this presentation will introduce researchers to novel methods that permit a deeper understanding of human-environment relationships.