Content uploaded by Katherine Arbuthnott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katherine Arbuthnott on May 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20
There’s nothing like the real thing: nature
connection andemotion in outdoor and online
songs for nature workshops
Katherine D. Arbuthnott, Glenn C. Sutter, Joyce Belcher & Sheena Stewart
To cite this article: Katherine D. Arbuthnott, Glenn C. Sutter, Joyce Belcher & Sheena
Stewart (2022): There’s nothing like the real thing: nature connection andemotion in
outdoor and online songs for nature workshops, Environmental Education Research, DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2022.2074377
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2074377
Published online: 13 May 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
There’s nothing like the real thing: nature connection
and emotion in outdoor and online songs for nature
workshops
Katherine D. Arbuthnotta , Glenn C. Sutterb , Joyce Belcherc and Sheena
Stewartd
aCampion College, University of Regina, Regina, Canada; bRoyal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, Canada; cJoyce
Belcher Coaching, Regina, Canada; dUniversity of Regina, Regina, Canada
ABSTRACT
Given the value of natural environments for climate change solutions
and human health, public support for preserving and restoring natural
ecosystems is important. One avenue to such support is to increase
connection to nature, so it is important to understand factors that influ-
ence this characteristic. In the context of Songs for Nature workshops,
we examined whether online and outdoor nature contact increase nature
connection in a similar manner. Results indicated that online workshops
also improved mood, but they did not significantly increase nature con-
nection ratings. Outdoor workshops improved both nature connection
and mood. This suggests that both online and outdoor environmental
programs can influence emotions but outdoor experiences in natural
settings may be necessary to strengthen nature connection.
As numerous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports indicate, the need for
substantive climate change action is urgent. Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, as is the
rate of biodiversity loss, and the continued destruction of natural landscapes necessary for
ecosystem services. If we continue to emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases at current rates,
global temperatures are expected to increase almost 5 °C above pre-industrial levels, substan-
tively above the range associated with Holocene conditions. If we do not reduce emissions and
halt the destruction of natural habitats, the rich biodiversity of the planet will be severely
impacted, causing the extinction of at least 60% of organisms.
There is growing evidence (e.g. Drever et al. 2021; Stafford et al. 2021) that some of the best
strategies to prevent these catastrophes are ‘nature-based solutions’ aimed at preserving and
rebuilding natural terrestrial landscapes. The importance of forests and trees for carbon seques-
tration have long been known, but more recent research suggests that other landscapes such
as peat bogs, wetlands, and grasslands may be even more efficient at sequestering carbon (e.g.
Dass et al. 2018; Li, Song, and Jiang 2013). Nature-based solutions also mitigate other ecological
problems by filtering toxins from water and air, providing biodiverse habitat, and reducing the
effects of extreme weather such as floods, droughts, and heat. These reports indicate that
preservation and restoration of natural landscapes are the most efficient and economical solu-
tions to rapidly halt the progress of our current climate and biodiversity crises. Nature-based
solutions reflect current understanding of natural ecosystems and can be adapted as this
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Katherine D. Arbuthnott katherine.arbuthnott@uregina.ca Campion College, University of Regina, Regina,
Canada
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2074377
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 13 July 2021
Accepted 3 May 2022
KEYWORDS
Nature connection;
nature contact; emotion;
hope; outdoor education;
music education; Songs
4 Nature
2 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
knowledge grows, whereas technological solutions to environmental challenges have much less
flexibility and can cause unintended consequences to ecosystem function.
Developing and enacting nature-based solutions requires a radical shift in the way people
value land, biodiversity, and other resources. Capitalist worldviews and value systems have led
to extractive infrastructures and economies that are unsustainable in our current contexts
(Steffen et al. 2015). Government departments of ‘natural resources’, for example, focus almost
exclusively on resource extraction – mining of minerals and fossil fuels, forestry, agriculture –
rather than preservation. Nature-based solutions, in contrast, require recognizing that functional
ecosystems are worth much more to human life and livelihoods than the isolated elements
that can be extracted from them. How can such a radical shift in our assessment of nature be
accomplished? Government, civic, and industrial leaders will need widespread public support
to make such changes, so increasing public motivation to preserve natural landscapes is essential.
Natural landscapes and human health
Although perspective and behaviour change is difficult, regardless of the need (e.g. Griskevicius,
Cantu, and van Vugt 2012), awareness of personal benefits associated with the changes can help.
There is clear evidence that diverse natural landscapes not only provide effective solutions for
climate and biodiversity problems, but also directly improve many aspects of human health (e.g.
Bratman et al. 2019; Kuo 2015). According to the World Health Organization, ‘health’ is more than
the absence of illness and the good functioning of our bodies. Good health includes physical,
emotional, cognitive, and social wellbeing, and there is growing evidence that spending time in
natural landscapes provides benefits on all of these fronts. Contact with nature1 reduces stress
(e.g. Roe et al. 2013; Ward Thompson et al. 2012) and negative emotions and increases positive
emotions (e.g. McMahan and Estes 2015). Living close to natural landscapes increases lifespan
and improves health during those extra years (e.g. Browning and Lee 2017; James et al. 2016;
Villeneuve et al. 2012). Nearby vegetation, including that in urban parks, improves air quality,
protects us from intense heat, and facilitates healthy behaviors, such as exercise and interacting
with others. Spending time in nature also improves our cognition, particularly concentration (e.g.
Berman, Jonides, and Kaplan 2008) and self-control (e.g. Beute and de Kort 2014). This is observed
naturally, as well as in the lab. For instance, children who live near natural landscapes show better
achievement in school (e.g. Kuo et al. 2018) and adults whose workplaces are surrounded by
greenery are more productive, as well as being more satisfied with their jobs (e.g. Bjørnstad, Patil,
and Raanaas 2015). People are also more affiliative and socially effective after spending time in
a park or woodland - more generous, more cooperative with teammates, and more helpful to
strangers (e.g. Guéguen and Stefan 2016; Piff et al. 2015; Weinstein et al. 2015). To put it simply,
one of the most effective health behaviours is to find the nearest patch of nature and enjoy it.
With more opportunities to experience and enjoy nature, the changes needed to enact
nature-based solutions to our environmental woes may be easier to accept. The combined
problems of climate change and biodiversity loss would be reduced by preserving and restoring
natural landscapes, and the presence of such healthy landscapes would also benefit human
health in many ways. This would increase motivation for the radical changes in economies and
lifestyles that are required if we are to escape the worst effects of climate change and envi-
ronmental collapse.
Decline in nature connection
Unfortunately, despite growing knowledge of the importance of nature for human health, people
are less aware of the natural world than ever. Increased urbanization and the ubiquity of
extractive economies have resulted in lower levels of nature connection (e.g. Bratman et al.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3
2015; Pilgrim et al. 2008). For instance, Kesebir and Kesebir (2017) examined popular fiction,
movies, and song lyrics from 1950 to 2014, assessing the relative frequency of ‘nature words’
such as the names of birds, trees, flowers, and geological features such as hills and rivers and
‘human artifact words’ such as furniture, tools, and building nouns. They found that the use of
nature words in fiction declined steadily over the latter half of the 20th century, with a drop of
about 22% for tree and flower names. Similar declines were observed for song lyrics and movies.
In contrast, the use of human artifact words increased over the entire century, particularly in
fiction. This indicates, they argue, that creative artists have less access to nature concepts in
their memories, and lower expectations that nature concepts would evoke a response in their
audience members. A similar study of animated films made between 1937 and 2009 showed
fewer outdoor scenes over time as well as less biodiversity in the scenes that were shown
(Prévot-Julliard, Julliard, and Clayton 2015).
Findings such as these indicate a global decline in awareness of and appreciation for nature
(aka connection to nature). It follows that to increase public acceptance for nature-based solu-
tions for climate change mitigation, programs that increase nature connection may be vital.
Songs for nature
Even brief encounters with the nature in parks or natural history museums increase nature
connection (Arbuthnott, Sutter, and Heidt 2014; Brooks et al. 2017; Neill, Gerard, and Arbuthnott
2019), and combining nature contact with artistic activity may be a particularly effective way
to increase nature connection (e.g. Arbuthnott and Sutter 2019; Bruni et al. 2017). The Songs
for Nature (S4N; www.songs4nature.ca) program was developed in the prairies of Saskatchewan
in 2016 (Arbuthnott and Sutter 2019) and continues to be offered. Research associated with
S4N participants across this time shows a consistent improvement in nature connection as well
as in the balance between positive and negative emotions. Such applied programs are important
to assess the ‘ecological validity’ of the laboratory-based research described above.
In addition to the health benefits of contact with natural landscapes, there is laboratory
evidence that exposure to ‘virtual nature’ through pictures, films, and virtual reality has a salutary
effect on emotional experience. Relatively few studies directly compare the magnitude of virtual
and actual nature experiences, but those studies indicate that actual nature experiences improve
mood significantly more than do virtual experiences (e.g. Brooks et al. 2017, experiment 3), even
for virtual reality (e.g. Palanica et al., 2019; Soliman, Peetz, and Davydenko 2017; Valtchanov
and Ellard 2010). It is not known, however, whether virtual nature contact increases nature
connection. By circumstance, the COVID-19 pandemic provided the opportunity to examine this
question in an ecologically valid manner. When COVID-19 swept the world in the early months
of 2020, we were planning an S4N workshop, and decided to offer an online version of the
program rather than cancel it. Two such online workshops have since been conducted, in July
2020 and February 2021.
S4N workshops aim to create a supportive experience where participants can pursue and
get constructive feedback on their musical ideas. To this end, an overall framework is provided
for each workshop, but participants are not required to engage in any of the activities, including
creating songs. This principle applies mostly to in-person workshops, of course. During online
workshops, we asked participants to attend and participate in each session because of the
reduced contact time (90 min sessions vs full days) and to keep their computer cameras on to
encourage social interaction.
The frameworks for in-person camps are very similar, starting with an evening session on
Thursday and finishing Sunday early afternoon. Mornings start with yoga and evenings end
with a chance to visit and sing around a campfire. The Thursday evening session includes
pre-workshop questionnaires, introductions, and discussing participant goals and expectations.
4 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
Friday includes a self-directed nature-immersion exercise, art stations, facilitated group writing
(True Nature Writing), a guided hike, a discussion of songwriting tips, and initial brainstorming
for a group song. Saturday is less structured to provide participants with more time for indi-
vidual composing and reflection, in addition to completing the group song and putting on a
public concert. Sunday morning is also relatively open, and participants complete the
post-workshop questionnaires before they depart. Individual sessions with mentors are provided
throughout the retreat.
The online workshops were necessarily different because of challenges around holding people’s
attention and encouraging interaction in a virtual setting. The frameworks used were broadly
similar and sessions were scheduled to start midweek and continue over two weekends, so
participants could use weekend days to explore natural areas where they lived.2 Online workshops
also included art-based creativity exercises, facilitated group writing, discussions about songwrit-
ing, opportunities to contribute to a group song, and individual sessions with mentors. Interactive
activities included online polls, nature “vignettes” and online resources about nature-inspired
creativity, opportunities to collaborate and provide feedback through a private Facebook group,
and homework assignments. The online workshops also focused on specific themes: gardening
(planting seeds, tending to the seedlings, watering and weeding, and harvest) for the summer
workshop and resilience (relief, recovery, rebuilding) for the winter workshop. Case study research
using pre-test and post-test measurement of moods, nature connection, and other characteristics
was incorporated into the program, similar to assessments of nature-based community programs
used in health care (e.g. Bloomfield 2017; Gigliotti, Jarrott, and Yorgason 2004; Howarth et al.
2020; Rogerson et al. 2020), and this was continued for online workshops.
The present study
This study examined the effects of nature-inspired songwriting activities conducted in outdoor
and online formats. Laboratory-based comparisons of outdoor and virtual nature contact indicate
significant emotional improvements for both (e.g. Brooks et al. 2017), but the S4N program
enables examination of these effects in a real-world context. Most importantly, we examined
whether online nature contact can increase nature connection.
Nature connection increases motivation to preserve natural landscapes and engage in other
pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Capaldi, Dopko, and Zelenski 2014). However, once this moti-
vation is present, emotional wellbeing influences people’s capacity to act on their motives. People
who experience positive emotions more frequently than negative emotions, a situation described
as ‘flourishing’ (e.g. Barber, Bagsby, and Munz 2010), have more attention and energy to devote
to activities than do those who experience a higher balance of negative emotions. The emotion
of hope may be particularly important for pursuits that are associated with global concerns like
climate change, where people can feel overwhelmed and powerless. Hope has been described
as having a positive expectation for achieving a desired goal (Martin-Krumm et al. 2014), which
may be especially relevant in this context. To assess whether outdoor and online S4N workshops
influenced these experiences, we measured nature connection, hope, and emotions (positive,
negative, and self-transcendent) at the beginning and end of each workshop.
The outdoor and online workshops differed in a number of ways, as is common with applied
community-based research (e.g. Bloomfield 2017; Howarth et al. 2020; Rogerson et al. 2020). The
outdoor workshops were weekend retreats: participants shared meals in a communal kitchen,
and sessions occurred primarily outdoors in a large campground. The online workshops were
conducted over four evening ‘Zoom’3 sessions from 7 to 9:30 pm over the course of 2-week
periods. In addition, participants and mentors interacted online on a group Facebook page and
in one-to-one meetings with mentors between whole group meetings. Participants from all
workshops had the opportunity to perform in a public event two weeks after the last session.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5
For the outdoor camps that performance was in person, and for the online workshops the
concerts were held online. The outdoor and online workshops thus differed in the amount of
social contact between participants, as well as in the number of contact hours. Given these
differences, formal comparison of the formats cannot be conducted but understanding the
relative effects of similar programs presented in different formats is important for applied pur-
poses, so we also used the case study data to conduct an exploratory comparison of format.
Two workshops were included in the case studies of each format, the last two outdoor
workshops conducted before the pandemic and the two online workshops conducted during
the pandemic. The outdoor camps occurred in the spring and fall of 2019, and the online camps
occurred in the summer of 2020 and the winter of 2021. All four workshops involved the same
four songwriting mentors and research team. Songwriting presentations and discussions were
similar for both, as were the opportunities for assistance with creation and production of par-
ticipants’ songs. Nature as a source of inspiration was explicitly discussed and showcased in
mentor songs throughout all workshops.
Other than the time and social contact differences (and pandemic conditions) associated
with workshop format, the primary difference was in the type of nature contact. For the outdoor
workshops, participants spent time in various natural settings including grasslands, wooded
areas, and lakefronts. In contrast, nature contact was virtual for the online workshops, including
images and videos of the outdoor camp settings, photographs and paintings of natural scenes,
and nature settings or experiences that were described in song.
Methods
Participants
Participants for all workshops were recruited through social media (Facebook, Instagram, and
Twitter) posts and Facebook live events that were shared by the songwriting mentors, and
through the websites of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum and SaskMusic, the provincial music
association. The outdoor workshops had 20 (spring 2019) and 8 participants (fall 2019); and the
online workshops had 20 participants each. For all S4N workshops, participation in research is
voluntary and not all participants complete both pre-test and post-test questionnaires. The
number of participants who completed at least parts of both pre- and post-test measures for
the selected workshops was 19 and 6 for the outdoor workshops and 18 and 17 for the online
workshops.4
The spring 2019 workshop was conducted May 30–June 2 at Moose Mountain Provincial Park
in southern Saskatchewan. The fall 2019 workshop was conducted Sept 12–15 at Arlington
Beach in southern Saskatchewan. The 2020 online workshop was conducted in the summer
(July 9–21) and the 2021 online workshop was conducted in winter (Feb 3–15).
For the outdoor workshops, participants’ ages ranged from 27 to 68 years (M = 50.04, SD = 14.25),
14 of the 27 participants were female and 13 were male. For the online workshops, participants’
ages ranged from 23 to 74 years (M = 49.59, SD = 15.29, and 18 of the 32 participants were
female (3 participants did not report gender, and the rest were male).
Measures
Nature connection: inclusion of nature in self scale (Schultz 2002) and NR-6 (Nisbet
and Zelenski 2013)
The primary focus of S4N workshops is songwriting, so we strive to keep research measures as
brief as possible. We originally used the 21-item Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet, Zelenski, and
Murphy 2009) to assess nature connection (Arbuthnott and Sutter 2019) but have been exper-
imenting with shorter measures in subsequent workshops. For that reason, two different measures
6 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
were used to assess participants’ connection to nature for the two outdoor workshops. For the
Spring 2019 workshop, Schultz’s (2002) single-item Inclusion of Nature in Self (INS) scale was
used. This scale assesses participants’ conception of their relationship with the natural world
with seven Venn diagrams showing areas of overlap between circles for Self and Nature ranging
from no overlap (coded as 0) to complete overlap (coded as 6), with graded overlap between
the two extremes. Participants select the diagram that best reflects their relationship with the
natural environment. The INS shows good validity, such as consistency with other measures of
nature connection (NEP, Dunlap and van Liere 1978; NRS, Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy 2009),
biospheric attitudes, and pro-environmental behaviours (Schultz 2002).
For the fall 2019 outdoor workshop and both online workshops, we used the NR-6 measure
of Nature Relatedness. The NRS-6 shows good internal consistency (α = .85), and predictive
validity (positive correlations with other nature connection measures such as NEP, INS (r = .68),
as well as significant positive correlation with nature contact and pro-environmental behaviour;
Nisbet and Zelenski 2013). Participants rate their agreement with six statements such as ‘I always
think about how my actions affect the environment’ and ‘My relationship to nature is an import-
ant part of who I am’, using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Reliability for the online workshop samples was α = .85, and was not measured for the
outdoor workshop sample because it included only 6 participants.
Given the use of two different measures, scores for the nature connection measures were
calculated as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The maximum score for the INS
was 6, and for the NRS-6 was 5 (calculated as the average rating across the 6 items).
Emotion: PANAS (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988) and EES (Huta and Ryan2010)
To measure participants’ experience of positive and negative emotions, we used the PANAS
(Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1988), which is frequently used to measure emotional benefits in
studies of nature contact (e.g. Brooks et al. 2017; Crawford and Henry 2004; McMahan and Estes
2015; Neill, Gerard, and Arbuthnott 2019). The psychometric properties of the scale have been
well established, and its easy administration fit well with the needs of our applied situation.
This scale independently measures Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) by asking par-
ticipants to rate the extent they feel 20 moods (10 of each valence) on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all or very slightly) to 5 (extremely). PA includes moods such as excited, enthu-
siastic, and proud, and NA includes states such as angry, nervous, and afraid. Participants were
instructed to rate their current emotional experience (i.e. “Right now”). For the current samples
the internal reliability was α = .83 and .92 for PA in the outdoor and online groups, respectively,
and α = .82 and .87 for NA in the outdoor and online workshops, respectively.
Research indicates that self-transcendent emotions are also important for well-being (Huta
and Ryan 2010), and may be particularly influenced by nature (e.g. Brooks et al. 2017; Neill,
Gerard, and Arbuthnott 2019; Piff et al. 2015; Pritchard et al. 2020; Shiota, Keltner, and Mossman
2007). To measure these emotions, we added ten items from the Elevating Experience Scale
(EES), including awe, gratitude, and fascination, and asked participants to rate them on the
same 5-point scale as the PANAS items. Pre-test reliabilities for these samples were α = .92 and
.90 in outdoor and online workshops, respectively.
Hope: state hope scale (Snyder et al.1996)
Hope may be a particularly important emotion for dealing with our current environmental
challenges (e.g. Solnit 2016), and is also central for artists, because it reflects confidence and
motivation to pursue creative goals. We used the State Hope Scale (Snyder et al. 1996) to
measure participants’ confidence and resilience. This scale has two subscales, Pathways, which
assesses participants’ judgment of available strategies to solve their current problems, and
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 7
Agency, which assesses participants’ judgment of their ability to act on these strategies
(Martin-Krumm et al. 2014). Each subscale includes three items, such as ‘There are lots of ways
around any problem I am facing now’ (Pathway) and ‘At the present time I am energetically
pursuing my goals’ (Agency). Participants indicated their agreement with each statement using
a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 5 (definitely true). This scale shows good
internal reliability (α = .93) and validity, responding appropriately to events that would influence
hope such as positive or negative performance experiences and feedback (Snyder et al. 1996).
In the current samples, reliability for the State Hope scale was α = .82 and .91 for the outdoor
and online workshops, respectively.
Qualitative report
One essay-type question, ‘How are you different now than when you arrived at the first session
of this workshop?’, was included at the end of the post-test questionnaires for one workshop
of each format (spring 2019 and winter 2021). This question is leading in that it assumes a
change of some sort as a result of the workshop experience, but no other information was
given. Changes, if experienced, could have included knowledge, skills, emotions, or any other
element a participant noticed. Responses to this question were analyzed as descriptions of what
participants were aware of changing as a result of their S4N experience.
Procedure
Ethics approval for all studies was granted by the Research Ethics Board of the University of
Regina. Consent for participation in the research was obtained as soon as all participants arrived
for the outdoor workshops, and prior to both pre-test and post-test questionnaires for the
online workshops. For the outdoor workshop, participants completed paper and pencil ques-
tionnaires. The pre-test questionnaire was completed on the first evening (Thursday), following
general introductions. The post-test questionnaire was completed on the last day (Sunday), prior
to the final lunch. For the online workshop, participants completed the questionnaires online,
using Qualtrics. They were sent a link to the pre-test questionnaire a day before the first meet-
ing, and were sent a link to the post-test on the day after the last meeting.
Given the timing structures of the two workshop formats, the interval between pre-test and
post-test differed. For outdoor workshops 2.5 days separated the evaluations; for online work-
shops the delay between questionnaires was 8 days. All participants completed the questionnaires
at the same time for outdoor workshops, but the same control was not available for online
workshops because participants accessed the questionnaire links at different times. Most par-
ticipants completed the post-test the morning following the last session. The latest completion
of the online post-test questionnaire was 2 days after the workshop.
Results
The nominal scores for each factor improved from pre- to post-test for both workshop formats.
Scores for Nature Connection, PA, EES, and both subscales of Hope increased, while NA scores
decreased (see Table 1).
To examine whether these rating changes were significant, we conducted paired t-tests of
each subscale, separately for each workshop format.5 For the outdoor format, post-test ratings
significantly differed from pre-test ratings for all subscales: Nature Connection, t(22) = 4.40, p
< .001; PA, t(23) = 5.19, p < .001; NA, t(22) = −3.42, p = .002; EES, t(22) = 7.78, p < .001,
Hope-Pathway, t(22) = 5.34, p < .001; Hope-Agency, t(22) = 2.34, p = .033. For the online format,
post-test ratings differed significantly from pre-test ratings for PA, t(24) = 2.24, p = .035 and
EES, t(24) = 2.45, p = .022.6 Thus, outdoor nature contact significantly influenced emotional
8 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
wellbeing in several ways as well as increasing nature connection. Online nature contact sig-
nificantly improved positive and elevating emotions, but did not significantly affect nature
connection, nor did it increase hope or decrease negative emotions.
The comparison of ratings before and after the workshops answers the primary questions
of the study, the relative effects of different workshop formats is useful for applied programs
such as this. For this reason, we conducted an exploratory comparison between formats, but
these analyses should be considered cautiously, given the differences between format conditions.
For this analysis, we first assessed whether the pre-test ratings differed significantly for the two
workshop formats, using independent t-tests for each subscale. These analyses indicated that
pre-test scores were the same for both groups, with the exception of EES, t(57) = 2.31, p =
.024. At the beginning of the workshops, participants rated their self-transcendent emotions
lower in online workshops (M = 2.97) than for outdoor workshops (M = 3.49). Scores for Nature
Connection were also marginally different, t(56) = 1.89, p = .065, with initial nature connection
ratings lower for the outdoor participants (M = 71.39%) than online participants (81.15%).7 The
difference for this scale may reflect, in part, the different measures of this factor, since selection
of the Self-in-Nature diagram for the Schultz scale, used for one of the outdoor workshops,
resulted in lower scores than did the NR-6 scale used for the other workshops. Changes across
each workshop were assessed relative to the same scale, however, so the within-workshop
comparison is valid for both workshop formats.
We then conducted a 2 (format: outdoor vs. online) × 2 (time: pre- vs. post-test) ANOVA of
each subscale. For all subscales the main effect of Time (pre-test vs. post-test) was significant,
indicating that both outdoor and online workshops had the same beneficial influences on emo-
tions and nature connection (see Table 2). However, the significant 2-way effects of Format x
Time for Nature Connection, F(1, 45) = 5.13, p = .028, ηp2 = .103, and EES, F(1, 46) = 8.48, p =
.006, ηp2 = .156, indicate that there were significant differences in the magnitude of these benefits
for the two formats. Specifically, changes in both nature connection and self-transcendent emo-
tions were much larger for the outdoor workshop format. Mean Nature Connection scores changed
12.23% for outdoor workshop participants vs. 3.72% for online participants. For EES, mean ratings
increased 24.4% for the outdoor format versus 9.8% for the online format. These results suggest
that, like the comparisons of outdoor and virtual nature in lab settings, benefits are evident for
both types of nature contact, but some benefits are larger for outdoor nature contact than for
virtual contact. In particular, nature connection did not significantly increase with online workshops.
Qualitative impressions
Theme Examples
Personal: Emotions
Outdoor: “I am energized and humbled”; “I feel a great deal more confident in my writing”; “I feel more
hopeful about life/living the life I want”
Table 1. Mean scores and standard deviations for outdoor and online workshops (2 of each).
Outdoor format Online format
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
N M sd Msd N M sd Msd
NC 23 71.39 16.42 83.62 14.99 24 81.15 12.88 84.87 11.44
PANAS PA 24 3.40 .62 4.12 .66 25 3.07 .79 3.45 .67
NA 23 1.60 .50 1.23 .25 26 1.75 .67 1.54 .50
EES 23 3.49 .84 4.71 .48 25 2.97 .78 3.46 .89
Hope Path 23 3.83 .67 4.35 .42 26 3.68 .54 3.88 .69
Agency 23 3.54 .58 3.83 .57 26 3.40 .91 3.52 .68
PANAS and Hope scores indicate the mean rating across all items in each subscale. PA = positive affect;
NA = negative affect; EES = elevating experience. NC = Nature Connection; shown as % of highest possible
score for each scale
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9
Online: “a little more energized about music in general”; “More confident in my songwriting abilities”
Personal: Motivation
Outdoor:” I’m reminded of what it feels like to look at the world through a creative lens”; “I’m reminded
of the creative magic that comes from living and breathing my music, and collaborating in a creative
community”; I am regularly conscious of concerns for environmental issues and keep up with them.
Reconnecting with nature make it more a priority for me now”
Online: “I’m more curious about the craft of songwriting”; “increase in inspiration to write & production of
songs”; “I feel a deeper sense of commitment to nature & to this musical community”
Personal: Behaviour
Outdoor: “I have been inspired to go home and songwrite with a plan and new process in mind”; “I have
been reminded of the practice of writing more consistently to ‘lubricate’ the mind and exercise it”; “I am
now contemplating a solo aspect to my music, independent of my bands, and can see how it might be
possible”; “I feel stronger and better prepared to press forward with my book project tomorrow”
Online: “the workshops have inspired me to get more heavily into my writing practice”
Social: connection to others
Outdoor: “I have more of a sense of belonging to a musical community & access to future opportunities
through meeting new people”
Online: “I feel more like a part of a music community”
Social: connection to nature
Outdoor: “I have been deeply impacted by the natural surroundings”; “on an emotional level, I feel more
deeply connected [to nature], having spent more time outside alone, with time to connect”
Table 2. ANOVA results of format (outdoor/online) by time (pre/post test) analyses.
Scale df Factor F P ηp2
NC 45 Format 2.29 .137 .048
Pre/Post-test 18.00 <.001 .286
Format × time 5.13 .028 .102
PA 47 Format 9.71 .003 .171
Pre/Post test 25.01 <.001 .347
Format × time 2.42 .127 .049
NA 47 Format 4.58 .037 .089
Pre/Post test 8.65 .005 .155
Format × time 0.71 .405 .015
EES 46 Format 23.98 <.001 .343
Pre/post test 44.87 <.001 .494
Format × time 8.48 .006 .156
Hope-Path 47 Format 3.50 .068 .069
Pre/Post-test 14.87 <.001 .240
Format × time 2.33 .134 .047
Hope-agency
47 format
1.57 .217 .032
Pre/Post-test 4.18 .047 .082
Format × time 0.60 .444 .013
Table 3. Qualitative analyses (one of each workshop type).
Outdoor workshop Online workshop
Category Content %Ps # Ps Rank % Ps # Ps Rank
Personal Emotion 83 15 167 8 1
Motivation 50 9 3 25 3 4
Behavior 33 6 5 25 3 4
Connection Social 61 11 250 6 2
Nature 44 8 4 42 5 3
10 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
Online: “I feel a deeper sense of commitment to nature”; “my appreciation for nature was deepened which
is important to me since nature & wildlife are a key part of my spiritual and creative experience”
Participants’ open-ended comments about how they were different as a result of the workshop
experience were examined using content analysis to identify themes. Eighteen participants
responded to this question for the outdoor workshop, and twelve participants responded for
the online workshop. The analysis of comments indicated very similar themes for both workshop
formats, describing both personal and social changes (see Table 3). Personal changes included
emotional states, motivation, and behaviour. Social changes included connections to others,
especially ‘musical friends’, and connection to nature.
The relative frequency of comments related to each theme was similar across the two formats
(see Table 3). For both, most participants mentioned emotional changes, including increased
confidence and energy (83% of participants for outdoor workshop; 67% for online workshop).
The second most frequent theme for both groups was social connection to others, especially
musical friends (67% for outdoor and 50% for online workshops). The most substantive differ-
ence in the proportion of participants mentioning a theme was for motivation: In the outdoor
workshop 50% reported increased motivation for specific goals such as writing or song pro-
duction whereas only 25% of those who participated in the online workshop did so.
The lower proportion of online participants who explicitly mentioned these benefits may
reflect the smaller magnitude of changes for the online workshop. However, the similarity of
comments across the formats suggests that participants may not have been explicitly aware of
different influences of workshop format on their emotional experiences or nature connection.
This may, in part, explain why so few people directly consider the influence of spending time
in nature as a remedy for dysphoric mood.
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to examine whether online nature contact in the context
of artistic activity increases nature connection in a manner similar to outdoor nature contact.
The results suggest that they do not. Despite reporting higher initial nature connection scores,
participants in the online S4N workshops did not show improved nature connection after the
workshop, unlike those in the outdoor workshops.
The most important implication of this finding is that an increase in nature connection by
contact with nature may require people to spend time in natural landscapes. Exposure to nature
scenes on screens may not suffice. We argue that increasing public nature connection is import-
ant to motivate adoption and acceptance of nature-based solutions to climate change. Evidence
indicates that preservation and restoration of natural landscapes is the most effective and
economical strategy to address our urgent environmental needs (Drever et al. 2021; Stafford
et al. 2021), and public support is necessary for adoption of these strategies. This means that
outdoor education programs encouraging activity in parks and wilderness areas may be essential
components of public climate mitigation programs.
However, the absence of significant increase in nature connection scores for online workshops
could be attributable to factors specific to this study such as the initially higher baseline rating
or the pandemic experience (i.e. a history effect). If experiences associated with the pandemic
somehow limit changes to nature connection from nature contact, this will become evident in
future S4N workshops conducted outdoors but with public health strategies such as social
distancing and masks. However, the present pattern of results showing growth of nature con-
nection for outdoor workshops echoes the suggestions of Baxter and Pelletier (2019) who posit
that differences between actual and virtual nature contact are similar to in-person vs. screen-based
meetings with friends. Both immersion in natural settings and in-person meetings contain
multi-sensory factors that are not available in technologically-mediated contacts (e.g. scents,
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11
skin-based sensations such as touch or the feel of sun and wind). Baxter and Pelletier (2019)
suggest that sensorily-limited virtual experiences can temporarily satisfy connection needs (e.g.
for long-distance relationships), but that immersive experiences may be necessary for more
durable attachment with either people or nature.
Increasing the nature connection of artists may be particularly valuable, since they produce
popular culture which could serve to draw public attention to the natural environment and its
value in our lives. The decline of nature representations in public culture since 1950 (e.g. Kesebir
and Kesebir 2017) corresponds with declining ecological literacy (Balmford et al. 2002), so
reversing the cultural trend may similarly increase nature knowledge and connection. If this is
the case, developing outdoor programs similar to S4N for musicians, writers, visual artists, and
media artists may be especially useful. For instance, increasing support for preserving natural
landscapes could occur in stages. Many people are working to preserve natural landscapes in
their home areas, motivated by the health, climate change, or biodiversity benefits of such
landscapes. If more natural areas are preserved and restored as a result of these efforts, others
who are less strongly connected to nature will also reap benefits. If, as this happens, popular
culture enables more people to notice the value of nature in their lives, this could evoke a shift
in social norms, enabling sufficient public support for changes in land management practices
to prevent the worst consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss.
The exploratory comparison between formats indicates that the greater emotional benefits
of actual nature contact compared to virtual contact in laboratory settings generalizes to eco-
logically valid applied settings. Although exposure to natural environments of any type improves
emotions, larger benefits are observed for outdoor nature contact, both in the lab and in applied
programs. However, even the reduced emotional benefit of virtual and online nature contact
can be beneficial. For educators, these results indicate that arts-based environmental programs
can effectively serve goals related to emotional health, whether they are delivered either outdoors
or online. Given increasing concern about the mental health of children and youth (e.g. Twenge
2017), developing such programs is important for educators, especially programs that have
flexible delivery options.
Online environmental programs can also benefit nature preservation efforts, especially for
those with high levels of nature connection as was observed for participants in our online
workshops. Strong connection to nature motivates the preservation of natural landscapes but
emotional wellbeing is important to enable people to act on their motives. People who expe-
rience positive emotions more frequently than negative emotions are more capable of engaging
in the difficult work of behaviour change than are those who experience more negative emo-
tions. The observation that positive and self-transcendent emotions increased for online workshop
participants suggests that such experiences could improve people’s capacity for difficult behaviour
changes. Thus, online and virtual nature exposure could serve a valuable purpose in both
educational and public settings, even though spending time outdoors in nature is preferable.
Limitations and future research
There are several limitations of the comparison between workshop formats. Conducting song-
writing workshops online and in outdoor settings require different schedules, in this case a
single weekend versus evening sessions over a two-week period. Outdoor workshops also
involved the physical presence of mentors and participants, including shared meals, collaborative
music-making, and ample opportunities for small group gatherings. In contrast, collaboration
and contact were much more constrained in online workshops. Participants were encouraged
to use the group Facebook page to interact and initiate collaborations, and each session ended
with a version of a campfire session, but direct musical collaboration was prevented given the
timing lags that occur in online videoconferencing settings such as Zoom. Using online methods
12 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
to offer environmental education is challenging: even when steps are taken to encourage social
interaction and provide insights about the natural world, group connection is much less effective
than with in-person contact, and the same is apparently true for feeling connected to nature.
Activities that encourage personal creativity may help since they give people a chance to reflect
on and share experiences, and also require some vulnerability, but the limitations of an online
space still impose constraints. In contrast, using artistic creation as the focus of outdoor pro-
grams can lead to rich, meaningful experiences, both for individual participants and larger groups.
Each workshop also involved a small sample of participants, quite a few of whom did not
complete all research measures. The number of participants in each workshop is also a necessary
feature of community-based programs, and the voluntary nature of research participation is
required by ethical considerations, but both factors create a limitation for research comparisons.
People who register in a program called ‘Songs for Nature’ are undoubtedly a selective sample,
with higher connections to nature than the general public. This means that the changes in nature
connection observed over the course of the workshops likely reflect strengthening of existing
attitudes, rather than attitude changes. Given the urgency of environmental actions, however,
such shifts for already committed citizens are important to increase efforts to mitigate and adapt
to climate change, especially for artists who can influence social norms and public attention.
Online workshops are also more accessible than outdoor weekend camps, which is one of the
benefits of online program delivery. Outdoor workshops require participants to travel, which limits
attendance to local residents. Thus some of the participants in the online camps were from other
provinces. Time accessibility also differs for the two formats, requiring outdoor workshop partic-
ipants to be available for three days, compared to 90 min intervals over four evenings. These
differences are characteristic of the formats so arguably are not confounds but rather the essence
of what is being studied, and why case study methods were used. However, the fact that online
workshops were conducted during the pandemic while outdoor workshops occurred before this
life-altering global experience does complicate interpretation of these results. As can be seen in
Table 1, pre-test scores for emotions and hope were nominally lower for online than outdoor
workshops, as would be expected given the challenges of the pandemic.8 However, these differ-
ences were significant only for self-transcendent emotions (as well as the higher initial nature
connection scores), according to the exploratory comparison analysis. It remains to be seen whether
the pattern of results observed in this study can be attributed to pandemic experiences, rather
than to workshop format. We will continue to examine this issue in future S4N workshops.
Given the value of nature-based solutions to climate change and the health benefits of
nature contact, it would be useful if online arts-based environmental programs, which are more
accessible in many ways, could help to increase appreciation for the natural environment. Thus,
future research could continue to examine this possibility, including programs designed for
other types of popular artists, such as writers and filmmakers.
Conclusion
To increase nature connection, outdoor nature contact appears to be necessary. Such outdoor
contact also significantly improves emotional states and both aspects of hope. Online nature
contact, in contrast, improves only emotional wellbeing through increased positive and
self-transcendent emotions. Conducting outdoor activities combined with artistic activity in the
company of others with similar interests may be a useful way to counteract the worrisome
decline in awareness of the natural environment and its importance to human health and survival.
Notes
1. We define nature widely as the organisms, objects, and events associated with the non-human world,
including vegetation and wildlife in urban, rural, and wilderness settings. Research on the health benefits
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 13
of nature contact varies across studies, but generally includes human managed nature such as urban parks
and gardens as well as wilderness ecosystems.
2. We did not measure whether or not participants used the suggestion to engage in nature exploration
during the workshops.
3. Zoom is a commercial videoconferencing platform that has been widely used during the covid-19 pandemic.
4. The online workshop participants who completed parts of both questionnaires were less likely to complete
the full questionnaires than were outdoor workshop participants, so the data for each format included
more equal samples than these numbers indicate. The number of participants who were included in each
analysis is shown in Table 1.
5. Some participants did not complete both pre- and post-test measures for all factors, so the degrees of
freedom vary across subscales. See Table 1 for the Ns contributing to each measure.
6. Nature Connection, t(23) = 1.46, p = .157; NA, t(25) = -1.31, p = .203; Hope-Pathway, t(25) = 1.41, p = .171;
Hope-Agency, t(25) = 0.82, p = .420
7. Nature connection ratings were relatively high at the start of the online workshops, perhaps because
pandemic restrictions gave people more time to appreciate the things around them, particularly nature.
8. It should be noted that during the times both online workshops were conducted the provincial COVID-19
case numbers were in decline, although the decreases were larger during the summer than the winter
workshops. The decrease in case numbers could have influenced online participants’ moods over the course
of the workshops, but these changes were less than those for outdoor camps, so this factor did not like-
ly overshadow the mood-lifting impacts of nature contact to a great degree.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This program was received from Environment & Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada, and the Royal
Saskatchewan Museum.
ORCID
Katherine D. Arbuthnott http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5363-4777
Glenn C. Sutter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5280-0024
References
Arbuthnott, K. D., and G. C. Sutter. 2019. “Songwriting for Nature: Increasing Nature Connection and Well-Being through
Musical Creativity.” Environmental Education Research 25 (9): 1300–1318. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1608425.
Arbuthnott, K. D., G. C. Sutter, and C. T. Heidt. 2014. “Natural History Museums, Parks, and Connection to Nature.”
Museum Management and Curatorship 29 (2): 102–121. doi:10.1080/09647775.2014.888818.
Balmford, A., L. Clegg, T. Coulson, and J. Taylor. 2002. “Why Conservationists Should Heed Pokémon.” Science
(New York, N.Y.) 295 (5564): 2367–2367.
Barber, L. K., P. G. Bagsby, and D. C. Munz. 2010. “Affect Regulation Strategies for Promoting (or Preventing)
Flourishing Emotional Health.” Personality and Individual Differences 49 (6): 663–666. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2010.06.002.
Baxter, D. E., and L. G. Pelletier. 2019. “Is Nature Relatedness a Basic Human Psychological Need? A Critical Examination
of the Extant Literature.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 60 (1): 21–34. doi:10.1037/cap0000145.
Berman, M. C., J. Jonides, and S. Kaplan. 2008. “The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature.” Psychological
Science 19 (12): 1207–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x.
Beute, F., and Y. A. W. de Kort. 2014. “Natural Resistance: Exposure to Nature and Self-Regulation, Mood, and
Physiology after Ego-Depletion.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 40: 167–178. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.004.
Bjørnstad, S., G. G. Patil, and R. K. Raanaas. 2015. “Nature Contact and Organizational Support during Office
Working Hours: Benefits Relating to Stress Reduction, Subjective health complaints, and sick leave.” Work
(Reading, Mass) 53 (1): 9–20. doi:10.3233/WOR-152211.
Bloomfield, D. 2017. “What Makes Nature-Based Interventions for Mental Health Successful?” BJPsych International
14 (4): 82–85. doi:10.1192/s2056474000002063.
14 K. D. ARBUTHNOTT ETAL.
Bratman, Gregory N., Christopher B. Anderson, Marc G. Berman, Bobby. Cochran, Sjerp. de Vries, Jon. Flanders,
Carl. Folke, et al. 2019. “Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective.” Science Advances 5 (7):
eaax0903. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0903.
Bratman, G. N., G. C. Daily, B. J. Levy, and J. J. Gross. 2015. “The Benefits of Nature Experience: Improved Affect
and Cognition.” Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005.
Brooks, A. M., K. M. Ottley, K. D. Arbuthnott, and P. Sevigny. 2017. “Nature-Related Mood Effects: Season and Type
of Nature Contact.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 54: 91–102. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.10.004.
Browning, M., and K. Lee. 2017. “Within What Distance Does “Greenness” Best Predict Physical Health? A Systematic
Review of Articles with GIS Buffer Analyses across the Lifespan.” International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 14 (7): 675. doi:10.3390/ijerph14070675.
Bruni, C. M., P. L. Winter, P. W. Schultz, A. M. Omoto, and J. J. Tabanico. 2017. “Getting to Know Nature: Evaluating
the Effects of the Get to Know You Program on Children’s Connectedness with Nature.” Environmental Education
Research 23 (1): 43–62. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1074659.
Capaldi, C. A., R. L. Dopko, and J. M. Zelenski. 2014. “The Relationship between Nature connectedness and hap-
piness: a meta-analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 976. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
Crawford, J. R., and J. D. Henry. 2004. “The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct Validity,
Measurement Properties, and Normative Data in a Large Non-Clinical Sample.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology
43 (3): 245–265. doi:10.1348/0144665031752934.
Dass, P., B. Z. Houlton, U. Y. Wang, and D. Warlind. 2018. “Grasslands May Be More Reliable Carbon Sinks than
Forests in California.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (7): 074027. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39.
Drever, C. R. S. C. Cook-Patton, F. Akhter, P. H. Badiou, G. L. Chmura, S. J. Davidson, et al. 2021. Natural climate solutions
for Canada. Science Advances, 7, eabd6034. Downloaded from http://advances.sciencemag.org on June 5, 2021
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. van Liere. 1978. “The “New Environmental Paradigm”: a Proposed Measuring Instrument and
Preliminary Results.” The Journal of Environmental Education 9 (4): 10–19. doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875.
Gigliotti, C. M., S. E. Jarrott, and J. Yorgason. 2004. “Harvesting Health: Effects of Three Types of Horticultural
Therapy Activities for Persons with Dementia.” Dementia 3 (2): 161–180. doi:10.1117/1471301204042335.
Griskevicius, V., S. M. Cantu, and M. van Vugt. 2012. “The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behavior: Implications
for Marketing, Policy, and Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 31 (1): 115–128.
doi:10.1509/jppm.11.040.
Guéguen, N., and J. Stefan. 2016. “Green Altruism: Short Immersion in Natural Green Environments and Helping
Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 48 (2): 324–342. doi:10.1177/001391514536576.
Howarth, M., A. Griffiths, A. da Silva, and R. Green. 2020. “Social Prescribing: A ‘Natural’ Community-Based Solution.”
British Journal of Community Nursing 25 (6): 294–299.
Huta, V., and R. M. Ryan. 2010. “Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and Overlapping Well-Being Benefits
of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives.” Journal of Happiness Studies 11 (6): 735–762. doi:10.1007//
sl0902-009-9171-4.
James, P., J. E. Hart, R. F. Banay, and F. Laden. 2016. “Exposure to Greenness and Mortality in a Nationwide Prospective
Cohort Study of Women.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124 (9): 1344–1352. doi:10.1289/ehp.1510363.
Kesebir, S., and P. Kesebir. 2017. “A Growing Disconnection from Nature is Evident in Cultural Products.” Perspectives
on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 12 (2): 258–269.
doi:10.1177/1745691616662473.
Kuo, M. 2015. “How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible
Central Pathway.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1093. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093.
Kuo, M., M. H. E. M. Browning, S. Sachdeva, K. Lee, and L. Westphal. 2018. “Might School Performance Grow on
Trees? Examining the Link between “‘Greenness’ and Academic Achievement in Urban, High-Poverty Schools.”
Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1669. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01669.
Li, Z., Z. Song, and P. Jiang. 2013. “Biogeochemical Sequestration of Carbon within Phytoliths of Wetland Plants:
A Case Study of Xixi Wetland, China.” Chinese Science Bulletin 58 (20): 2480–2487. doi:10.1007/s11434-013-5785-3.
Martin-Krumm, C., Y. Delas, M.-A. Lafreniere, F. Fenouillet, and S. Lopez. 2014. “The Structure of the State Hope
Scale.” Journal of Positive Psychology doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.936964.
McMahan, E. A., and D. Estes. 2015. “The Effect of Contact with Natural Environments on Positive and Negative
Affect: A Meta-Analysis.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 10 (6): 507–519. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.994224.
Neill, C., J. Gerard, and K. D. Arbuthnott. 2019. “Nature Contact and Mood Benefits: Contact Duration and Mood
Type.” The Journal of Positive Psychology 14 (6): 756–767. doi:10.1080/17439760.2018.1557242.
Nisbet, E. K., and J. M. Zelenski. 2013. “The NR-6: A New Brief Measure of Nature Relatedness.” Frontiers in Psychology
4: 813. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813.
Nisbet, Elizabeth K., John M. Zelenski, and Steven A. Murphy. 2009. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking
Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 41 (5):
715–770. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 15
Palanica, Adam, Aleksandra. Lyons, Madeline. Cooper, Andrew. Lee, and Yan. Fossat. 2019. “A Comparison of Nature
and Urban Environments on Creative Thinking across Different Levels of Reality.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 63: 44–51. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.006.
Piff, Paul K., Pia. Dietze, Matthew. Feinberg, Daniel M. Stancato, and Dacher. Keltner. 2015. “Awe, the Small Self,
and Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (6): 883–899. doi:10.1037/pspi0000018.
Pilgrim, S. E., L. C. Cullen, D. J. Smith, and J. Pretty. 2008. “Ecological Knowledge is Lost in Wealthier Communities
and Countries.” Environmental Science & Technology 42 (4): 1004–1009. doi:10.1021/es070837v.
Prévot-Julliard, A. C., R. Julliard, and S. Clayton. 2015. “Historical Evidence for Nature Disconnection in a 70-Year
Time Series of Disney Animated Films.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 24 (6): 672–680.
doi:10.1177/0963662513519042.
Pritchard, A., M. Richardson, D. Sheffield, and K. McEwan. 2020. “The Relationship between Nature Connectedness and
Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Happiness Studies 21 (3): 1145–1167. doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6.
Roe, J. J., C. Ward Thompson, P. A. Aspinal, M. J. Brewer, E. I. Duff, D. Miller, R. Mitchell, and A. Clow. 2013. “Green
Space and Stress: Evidence from Cortisol Measures in Deprived Urban Communities.” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 10 (9): 4086–4103. doi:10.3390/ijerph10094086.
Rogerson, M., C. Wood, J. Pretty, P. Schoenmakers, D. Bloomfield, and J. Barton. 2020. “Regular Doses of Nature:
The Efficacy of Green Exercise Interventions for Mental Wellbeing.” International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 17 (5): 1526. doi:10.3390/ijerph17051526.
Schultz, P. W. 2002. “Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations.” In Psychology of Sustainable
Development, edited by P. Schmuck & W.P. Schultz, 61–78. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shiota, M. N., D. Keltner, and A. Mossman. 2007. “The Nature of Awe: Elicitors, Appraisals, and Effects on
Self-Concept.” Cognition and Emotion 21 (5): 944–963. doi:10.1080/02699930600923668.
Snyder, C. R., S. C. Sympson, F. C. Ybasco, T. F. Borders, M. A. Babyak, and R. L. Higgins. 1996. “Development and
Validation of the State Hope Scale.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (2): 321–335.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321.
Soliman, M., J. Peetz, and M. Davydenko. 2017. “The Impact of Immersive Technology on Nature Relatedness and
Pro-Environmental Behavior.” Journal of Media Psychology 29 (1): 8–17. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000213.
Solnit, R. 2016. Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Stafford, R. B. Chamberlain, L. Clavey, P. K. Gillingham, S. McKain, M. D. Morecroft, C. Morrison-Bell, and O. Watts.
2021. Nature-based solutions for climate change in the UK: A report by the British Ecological Society. London,
UK. Available at (Eds.) www.britishecologicalsociety.org/nature-based-solutions
Steffen, Will., Katherine. Richardson, Johan. Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo. Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette.
Biggs, et al. 2015. “ Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet.”
Science (New York, N.Y.) 347 (6223): 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855.
Twenge, J. M. 2017. iGen. New York: Atria Books.
Valtchanov, D., and C. Ellard. 2010. “Physiological and Affective Responses to Immersion in Virtual Reality: Effects
of Nature and Urban Settings.” Cybertherapy & Rehabilitation 3: 359–373. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/5350.
Villeneuve, P. J., M. Jerrett, J. G. Su, R. T. Burnett, H. Chen, A. J. Wheeler, and M. S. Goldberg. 2012. “A Cohort
Study Relating Urban Green Space with Mortality in Ontario, Canada.” Environmental Research 115: 51–58.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.003.
Ward Thompson, C., J. Roe, P. Aspinall, R. Mitchell, A. Clow, and D. Miller. 2012. “More Green Space is Linked to
Less Stress in Deprived Communities: Evidence from Salivary Cortisol Patterns.” Landscape and Urban Planning
105 (3): 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015.
Watson, D., L. E. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and
Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (6): 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Weinstein, N., A. Balmford, C. R. DeHaan, V. Gladwell, R. B. Bradbury, and T. Amano. 2015. “Seeing Community for
the Trees: The Links among Contact with Natural Environments, Community Cohesion, and Crime.” BioScience
65 (12): 1141–1153. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv151.
