Nature connectedness
Nature connectedness is a psychological construct referring to the extent to which individuals experience a subjective sense of relationship or affiliation with the natural world, often involving the incorporation of nature into one's self-concept.[1][2] It encompasses affective, cognitive, and experiential dimensions of human-nature bonds, distinct from mere exposure to natural settings.[3] Empirical research, primarily from environmental and positive psychology, has established reliable measurement through validated self-report scales such as the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) and Nature Relatedness (NR-6), which correlate with behavioral indicators like time spent in nature.[4][5] Higher levels of nature connectedness are consistently linked to enhanced subjective well-being, including greater happiness and eudaimonic functioning, with meta-analytic evidence showing moderate positive associations (e.g., r ≈ 0.27 for happiness).[6][7] These connections extend to pro-environmental attitudes and actions, where nature connectedness mediates the effects of nature exposure on sustainable behaviors.[3][8] Interventions aimed at fostering nature connectedness, such as guided nature immersion or mindfulness practices in natural settings, demonstrate causal improvements in connectedness scores and downstream benefits like reduced mental health symptoms, though long-term effects require further longitudinal study.[9][10] Childhood nature experiences emerge as a key antecedent, predicting adult connectedness and associated outcomes, underscoring developmental influences.[11] Despite robust correlational evidence, debates persist regarding the convergent validity across scales and potential cultural variations in conceptualization, highlighting the need for cross-validated, globally representative measures.[12][13]
Conceptual Foundations
Definition and Core Concepts
Nature connectedness denotes the subjective psychological bond individuals form with the natural world, characterized by a sense of inclusion of nature within one's self-concept.[14] This construct emphasizes an experiential, cognitive, and affective integration, where nature is perceived as an extension of the self rather than a separate entity.[3] Empirical definitions highlight it as a stable trait predisposing individuals to feel emotionally affiliated with natural environments, distinct from mere physical exposure or knowledge of ecology.[15] Core components include affective affinity, manifesting as positive emotions toward nature; cognitive awareness of human-nature interdependence; and experiential immersion through sensory engagement.[16] For instance, the Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale operationalizes this by diagramming overlapping circles representing self and nature, quantifying perceived unity.[17] Unlike transient states induced by outdoor activities, nature connectedness reflects enduring dispositional tendencies, correlating with self-reported vitality and life satisfaction in cross-sectional studies.[6] Distinctions from related constructs are crucial: it surpasses biophilic responses, which are innate preferences, by incorporating deliberate relational depth.[2] While some research frames it as a pathway to well-being via perceived belonging to a broader ecological community, causal directions remain debated, with longitudinal data suggesting bidirectional influences rather than unidirectional effects from connectedness to outcomes.[18] This trait-like quality is evident in its moderate heritability and stability over time, as inferred from twin studies and retest reliabilities exceeding 0.70 in validated scales.[19]Historical Origins and Biophilia Hypothesis
The concept of human affinity for nature predates modern psychology, with early articulations emerging in the Romantic era as a reaction against Enlightenment rationalism and industrial mechanization. Romantic thinkers, active from the late 18th to mid-19th centuries, emphasized nature's sublime power and restorative essence, viewing it as a vital counterbalance to urban alienation and a conduit for emotional and spiritual authenticity.[20] Poets such as William Wordsworth, in works like Lyrical Ballads (1798), depicted immersive experiences in natural landscapes as essential for human fulfillment, fostering a sense of unity with the environment that anticipated later psychological notions of connectedness.[20] This philosophical tradition influenced American transcendentalism, particularly Henry David Thoreau's Walden (1854), which chronicled his two-year experiment in simple living at Walden Pond to cultivate deliberate awareness and interdependence with the natural world. Thoreau argued that such immersion revealed nature's moral and aesthetic lessons, promoting self-reliance while critiquing societal disconnection from ecological rhythms—ideas rooted in empirical observation rather than abstract theory. These precursors laid groundwork for viewing nature connection as integral to human well-being, though they lacked the evolutionary framing of later hypotheses. The biophilia hypothesis formalized these intuitions within evolutionary biology. Proposed by entomologist Edward O. Wilson in his 1984 book Biophilia, it asserts that humans harbor an innate emotional and cognitive affiliation with living organisms and natural systems, shaped by genetic predispositions honed over millions of years of hominid evolution in biodiverse habitats.[21] Wilson contended this "innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes" conferred survival advantages, such as enhanced threat detection and resource acquisition, and argued its neglect in modern environments contributes to psychological deficits.[22] While the term "biophilia" originated with psychoanalyst Erich Fromm in 1973 to denote a healthy love of life, Wilson's application emphasized a species-specific, heritable affinity for nature, testable through behavioral and neuroscientific evidence.[23] Wilson expanded the hypothesis in The Biophilia Hypothesis (1993, co-edited with Stephen R. Kellert), integrating multidisciplinary evidence to support its causal role in human development, positing that biophilic responses—such as preferences for complex, verdant landscapes—manifest universally across cultures and ages.[21] Empirical validation has since included studies showing faster infant habituation to natural patterns over artificial ones, aligning with the hypothesis's predictions of evolved predispositions rather than purely cultural learning.[24] Critics, however, note that while biophilia explains baseline attractions, individual variation and cultural overlays complicate universal claims, requiring rigorous longitudinal data to disentangle innate from acquired elements.[25]Measurement and Psychological Constructs
Assessment Tools and Scales
Several self-report scales have been developed to quantify nature connectedness, primarily through psychological constructs like affective bonds, cognitive appraisals, and experiential engagement with the natural environment. These tools vary in length, dimensionality, and focus, with psychometric evaluations confirming their reliability and validity across diverse populations. Common measures include the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), the Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS), and the Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale, each capturing distinct facets of human-nature relationships supported by empirical factor analyses and convergent validity tests.[26][27] The CNS, introduced by Mayer and Frantz in 2004, comprises 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, assessing trait-level feelings of emotional unity and community with nature, such as "I feel an affinity with other living organisms" or "When I think of my place in nature, I feel a sense of belonging." Validation studies report internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach's α) ranging from 0.78 to 0.85, with evidence of convergent validity through positive correlations with pro-environmental behaviors and well-being measures, though some critiques note potential cultural limitations in non-Western samples.[28][29][27] The NRS, developed by Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy in 2009, features 21 items across three subscales—NR-Self (personal ontology), NR-Perspective (external worldview), and NR-Experience (physical familiarity)—using a 5-point response format, exemplified by "I feel part of nature" or "The beauty of nature recharges my energy and spirit." It demonstrates strong overall reliability (α = 0.87) and has been shortened to a 6-item version (NR-6) with comparable psychometrics (α ≈ 0.83), showing predictive validity for ecological attitudes but weaker subscale stability in some translations.[30][4][31] The INS scale employs a single-item graphical method, where respondents select from seven pairs of overlapping circles labeled "self" and "nature" to indicate identification overlap, offering a nonverbal, rapid assessment of cognitive inclusion akin to the Inclusion of Other in Self paradigm. An extended four-item version (EINS), proposed in 2016, enhances reliability (α = 0.89) by varying circle representations while maintaining brevity and cross-cultural applicability, though it risks subjectivity in visual interpretation.[32][33]| Scale | Items | Dimensions | Reliability (α) | Key Validation Year(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNS | 14 | Unidimensional (emotional connection) | 0.78–0.85 | 2004, 2023[27] |
| NRS | 21 (or 6 in NR-6) | Three (self, perspective, experience) | 0.87 (full); 0.83 (short) | 2009[4] |
| INS/EINS | 1 (or 4) | Unidimensional (overlap identification) | 0.89 (EINS) | 2002, 2016[32] |