Nurturing connection with nature: the role of spending time in different types of nature

Abstract

Connection with nature has been associated with greater participation in a range of biodiversity conservation behaviours, and is increasingly being recognised as a potentially useful policy tool to address conservation outcomes. Yet, understanding of how connection with nature may be nurtured remains poorly understood. This research investigates the extent to which spending time in nature, and in different types of nature, predicted change in connection with nature (captured by the CN-12) over a 12-month period. Data were from a representative sample (based on age, gender, and metropolitan/regional residence) of the adult population in the state of Victoria, Australia, collected via an online survey. Results of analyses of variance and paired-samples t-tests suggested spending time in nature at least monthly was associated with higher connection with nature scores. Results from multiple linear regression and mediation analyses suggested that more time spent in nature (generally), and more time spent in protected areas, waterways, and urban parks (specifically), predicted small increases in connection with nature. These findings suggest that policies that encourage spending more time in nature, including in protected areas, waterways, and urban parks, could be useful for increasing connection with nature and, in turn, addressing biodiversity conservation outcomes. The findings of this research should be of interest to policymakers interested in addressing biodiversity conservation issues.

Full text

RESEARCH
Nurturing connection with nature: the role of spending time in different
types of nature
Melissa Anne Hatty
a
, Felix Tinoziva Mavondo
b
, Denise Goodwin
a
and Liam David Graham Smith
a
a
BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia;
b
Department of
Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
ABSTRACT
Connection with nature has been associated with greater participation in a range of biodi-
versity conservation behaviours, and is increasingly being recognised as a potentially useful
policy tool to address conservation outcomes. Yet, understanding of how connection with
nature may be nurtured remains poorly understood. This research investigates the extent to
which spending time in nature, and in different types of nature, predicted change in
connection with nature (captured by the CN-12) over a 12-month period. Data were from
a representative sample (based on age, gender, and metropolitan/regional residence) of the
adult population in the state of Victoria, Australia, collected via an online survey. Results of
analyses of variance and paired-samples t-tests suggested spending time in nature at least
monthly was associated with higher connection with nature scores. Results from multiple
linear regression and mediation analyses suggested that more time spent in nature (gener-
ally), and more time spent in protected areas, waterways, and urban parks (specifically),
predicted small increases in connection with nature. These findings suggest that policies
that encourage spending more time in nature, including in protected areas, waterways, and
urban parks, could be useful for increasing connection with nature and, in turn, addressing
biodiversity conservation outcomes. The findings of this research should be of interest to
policymakers interested in addressing biodiversity conservation issues.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 3 December 2021
Accepted 27 October 2022
EDITED BY
Cristina Quintas-Soriano
KEYWORDS
Connection with nature;
human-nature relationships;
biodiversity conservation
behaviours; conservation
psychology; contact with
nature; nature experiences
1. Introduction
In recent decades, relationships between humans and
nature have gained increased prominence in the con-
servation literature, with calls to (re)connect people
with nature to foster conservation outcomes and sus-
tainability transformations (Zylstra et al. 2014; Ives
et al. 2018; Riechers et al. 2021). Researchers have
considered human relationships with nature using
a range of definitions and constructs, including nat-
ure connectedness (Richardson et al. 2020), environ-
mental identity (Clayton 2003), inclusion with nature
(Schultz 2002), nature relatedness (Nisbet et al. 2009),
and human-nature connection or connectedness (Ives
et al. 2017, 2018; Barragan-Jason et al. 2021; see also
Tam 2013; Restall and Conrad 2015). While there is
nuance in these constructs, commonalities can also be
noted, with definitions typically referring to a sense of
interrelationship between humans and the natural
world that is subjective and personal, relatively stable
across time, and includes thoughts, emotions, and
behaviours (Hatty et al. 2020). Following Ives et al.
(2017), we seek to capture the range of terminology
and constructs in the literature, adopting the term
connection with nature (CN) ‘because it evokes the
subtle yet important idea that (1) humans are already
an intimate part of nature and (2) that the state
imbues a sense of reciprocity and mutualism’
(Zylstra et al. 2014, pp. 121–122).
Some have argued that CN is an important driver of
behaviours that protect the natural environment (Schultz
2002; Zylstra et al. 2014; Otto and Pensini 2017). Recent
work supports this notion, with positive relationships
described between CN and a broad range of pro-
environmental behaviours (PEB) (Mackay and Schmitt
2019; Whitburn et al. 2019), and between CN and beha-
viours that specifically protect and enhance biodiversity,
or pro-biodiversity behaviours (PBB) (Prévot et al. 2018;
Martin et al. 2020; Richardson et al. 2020).
In recent years, policymakers internationally are
increasingly recognising human-nature relationships in
conservation. The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) includes the vision ‘living in harmony with nature’
(Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat
2011, 2021), while the importance of nurturing CN for
conservation has been presented at a recent CBD
Convention of the Parties meeting (Convention on
Biological Diversity [CBD] 2018) and appears in the
Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report (Convention on
Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat 2020). Such ideas
are also reflected in the biodiversity conservation
CONTACT Melissa Anne Hatty melissa.hatty@monash.edu
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2143570.
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE
2022, VOL. 18, NO. 1, 630–642
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2143570
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

strategies of countries such as New Zealand (Department
of Conservation 2020) and Malaysia (Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment 2016). In Australia, the role
of (re)connecting people with nature to leverage biodi-
versity conservation has been recognised by both fed-
eral and state governments, with the assumption that
doing so will enhance Australians’ valuing of, and will-
ingness to protect, nature (Department of Environ-
ment, Land, Water and Planning [DELWP], 2017;
Australian Government 2019). For (re)connection
with nature to be a useful tool in environmental policy
and management, however, it is necessary to under-
stand the factors that influence CN over time (Restall
and Conrad 2015; Hughes et al. 2019).
Despite increasing recognition of the important
role CN may play in fostering PEB/PBB, understand-
ing how a stable sense of CN develops, is maintained,
or may be nurtured, is somewhat limited (Cleary
et al. 2018; Ives et al. 2018). While researchers have
identified a number of factors that predict CN (e.g.
Lumber et al. 2017; Chawla 2020; Richardson et al.
2020), of particular interest is time spent in nature.
Early research proposed that frequency of time spent
in nature (TIN) was among the strongest predictors of
CN (Kals et al. 1999). Indeed, both frequency of visits to
nature (Cleary et al. 2018; Prévot et al. 2018) and longer
duration of TIN (e.g. hours per day/week: Dornhoff
et al. 2019; Pérez-Ramírez et al. 2021) have been asso-
ciated with greater CN. Further, environmental educa-
tion programs of longer duration may facilitate higher
CN scores post-program than shorter programs (Braun
and Dierkes 2017; Barrable and Booth 2020).
Another question is what types of nature may best
facilitate CN. Much research to date has considered CN
as a generic construct without considering the context or
type of nature people connect to (Ives et al. 2017; Giusti et
al. 2018). Yet, there are many different types of natural
spaces where human-nature interactions occur, such as
domestic, urban and botanic gardens; beaches and water-
ways; and protected areas including national parks
(Clayton and Myers 2009; Keniger et al. 2013). People
likely perceive, interact with, and respond to these different
types of natural spaces in different ways (Davis et al. 2016;
Pasca et al. 2020) which may have implications for how
and when they connect with nature (de Bell et al. 2018).
Some researchers have explored relationships
between time spent in different types of nature and
CN. Schultz and Tabanico (2007) reported increased
CN following a day at a wildlife park, and positive
correlations between CN and the amount of time
spent at a beach or hiking trail, but not a golf course.
Scopelliti et al. (2016) noted that users of parks with
higher natural values (i.e. greater biodiversity) tended to
have higher CN scores than users of parks with lower
natural values (i.e. less biodiversity), while Mena-García
et al. (2020) reported that walking in the countryside
was associated with greater increase in CN than walking
in urban parks. Wyles et al. (2019) described higher CN
following visits to rural than to urban natural areas, and
for visits to protected areas than to non-protected areas.
Together, these studies suggest that time spent in dif-
ferent types of natural environments may influence CN
in different ways, with time spent in areas with higher
natural values, such as national parks, likely to have
a greater influence on CN than time spent in areas
with lower natural values, such as urban parks.
Yet, with increasing urbanisation and decreasing
opportunities to experience wilder-type nature (United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
2019; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020), connecting
urban residents with nature may require spending time
in ‘managed’ contexts such as zoos or urban parks
(Clayton 2017; Cleary et al. 2018). Indeed, future con-
servation efforts may depend on fostering relationships
with urban nature, as this is where nature is most likely to
be encountered (Dunn et al. 2006; Gaston and Soga
2020). Thus, understanding the relationship between
time spent in different types of nature and CN may
have utility in informing policy and programs intended
to (re)connect people with nature (e.g. DELWP, 2017),
particularly in urban contexts.
The primary aim of this research is to explore rela-
tionships between time spent in nature, and in different
types of nature, and CN. While previous research has
used cross-sectional (e.g. Cleary et al. 2018) or pre-post
experimental methodologies (e.g. Braun and Dierkes
2017), this research will consider change over a 12-
month period without an experimental manipulation
but allowing for natural variation in experience.
It has been suggested that repeated experiences in
nature over time are required to develop a stable
sense of CN (Chawla 2020; Salazar et al. 2020; Carr
and Hughes 2021; Clayton et al. 2021). This research,
therefore, considers whether greater frequency of
spending time in nature – generally and in different
types of nature – over a 12-month period predicts an
increase in CN over the same time period.
We propose two hypotheses:
H1 More time spent in nature over the 12-month
period – generally and in different types of nature –
will be associated with increased CN.
H2 The frequency of time spent in nature (generally
and in different types of nature) will mediate the
relationship between CN at Time 1 (baseline) and
CN at Time 2 (12-months later).
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
We used data described by Meis-Harris et al. (2019) and
Hatty et al. (2020), that were part of a larger study
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 631

exploring attitudes toward, and use of, the natural
environment in the state of Victoria, Australia. These
surveys were intended to capture a benchmark of
Victorians’ attitudes toward and experiences of the
natural environment in a broad sense, rather than of
specific places or locations. Data were collected using an
online panel survey company with participants
responding to questionnaires at two time points:
September/October 2018 (Time 1) and September/
October 2019 (Time 2). The total sample (N = 1069)
was broadly representative of the Victorian adult (18+
years) population relative to age, gender, and metropo-
litan/regional residence. Survey questions captured CN,
TIN, and demographics, as described below (Appendix
A). The age range of the final sample (n = 1036) was 19
to 88 years (m = 53.065, SD = 14.790) and comprised
48.8% females (n = 506).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Connection with nature (CN)
The CN-12 was used to capture CN at Time 1 and Time
2. This scale (Appendix B) comprises three dimensions
(CN-Identity, CN-Experience, CN-Philosophy) that are
strongly correlated yet contribute to a higher order
construct (CN-Total) (see Hatty et al. 2020 for explora-
tory and confirmatory factor analyses of the data).
Responses are provided on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Items were aver-
aged to create a composite score (Cronbach’s α: Time 1
= 0.928, Time 2 = 0.924).
2.2.1. Time spent in nature in the past year
The frequency of time spent in nature in the previous
12 months (captured at Time 2) was assessed using
seven items. Participants reported how often they had
generally spent time in nature in the past year (TIN
past year) on a 9-point ordinal scale (1 = never to 9 =
every day). Responses were recoded into four cate-
gories (1 = never/rarely [twice yearly or less]; 2 =
sometimes [monthly]; 3 = often [weekly/fortnightly];
4 = very often [daily/every other day]) to ensure con-
sistency of response options with questions assessing
time spent in different types of nature.
Participants also reported how often they spent
time in six different types of natural areas in the
past year on a 5-point ordinal scale (1 = never to 5
= very often [e.g. daily or every other day]): 1)
a protected or wilderness area (TIN wilderness); 2)
the beach or coastal areas (TIN beach); 3) a lake, river
or other waterway (TIN waterway); 4) a zoo, wildlife
park, or botanical garden (TIN zoo); 5) an urban park
(TIN urban park); and 6) your garden at home, or the
garden of a friend, neighbour or family member (TIN
garden). No further description or examples of these
natural areas were provided, allowing participants to
infer their own meanings of these different types of
nature. Each variable was recoded to create a 4-point
scale (1 = never/rarely [twice yearly or less]; 2 = some-
times [monthly]; 3 = often [weekly/fortnightly]; 4 =
very often [daily/every other day]).
2.2.2. Demographics (age, gender, urbanicity)
Previous research has suggested that age and gender
are both associated with CN and TIN (e.g. Dornhoff
et al. 2019; Hughes et al. 2019; Richards et al. 2020).
Therefore, following Cleary et al. (2018) and
Richardson and Hamlin (2021), we included age (in
years) and gender (male, female, other) as control
variables. In addition, time spent in different types
of nature is likely influenced by the level of access to
different natural areas. We therefore included urba-
nicity (self-reported place of residence: inner city,
urban/suburban, peri-urban, rural) as a control
variable.
2.2.3. Data analyses
We ran descriptive statistics and correlations to provide
an overview of the data. We initially explored whether
spending time in nature (i.e. at least monthly) was asso-
ciated with higher or lower CN (Time 1 and Time 2)
using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) across
TIN categories, with planned contrasts (never/rarely vs
sometimes + often + very often) (Table 1). We then
explored whether CN scores increased or decreased
over the 12-month period using paired samples t-tests
(two-sided p) using CN scores (Time 1 and Time 2) for
each frequency category (never/rarely, sometimes, often,
very often) (Figure 2 and Appendix C).
To assess H1, we conducted two hierarchical mul-
tiple linear regression analyses. In both regressions,
age, gender, and urbanicity were entered at Step 1,
and CN at Time 1 entered at Step 2. In the first
regression, time spent in nature (generally) was
entered at Step 3; in the second regression, time
spent in the six types of nature were entered together
at Step 3. To assess H2, we conducted two mediation
analyses with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals of
indirect effects (5000 bootstrap samples) using the
PROCESS v4.1 macro (Hayes 2022). Analyses were
conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28
(IBM Corp 2021).
Data were screened for assumptions (Field 2013).
Thirty-three cases identified as outliers (CN at Time 1
and/or CN at Time 2 with z scores <> 2.58), with missing
data, and/or with standardised residuals greater than 3.29
were removed (final n = 1036). Inspection of P-P and
ZPRED*ZRESID plots suggested the assumptions of nor-
mality of residuals, linearity, and homoscedasticity
(respectively) were met. Durbin-Watson (1.999–2.007),
VIF (1.030–1.401), and tolerance (0.718–0.983) statistics
indicated the assumptions of independent errors and
multicollinearity were met (Field 2013). An a priori
power analysis suggested the sample would be adequate
632 M. A. HATTY ET AL.

to detect a small effect (n = 818 required for f
2
= 0.020, α
= 0.050, power = 0.800, with 10 predictor variables).
3. Results
Descriptive statistics suggested a relatively even distribu-
tion of participants spending time in nature generally and
in urban parks. In contrast, a majority of respondents had
never/rarely spent time in wilderness areas or zoos/wild-
life parks/botanic gardens, while most had spent time in
domestic gardens often or very often (Figure 1).
Levene statistics for one-way ANOVA indicated
homogeneous variances (Appendix C). ANOVA results
suggested that spending time in nature at least monthly
(i.e. sometimes, often, or very often) was associated with
higher CN scores (Time 1 and Time 2) than spending
little or no time in nature (i.e. never/rarely). This find-
ing was consistent for all TIN variables, with the
exception of spending time at a zoo/wildlife park/bota-
nic garden for CN at Time 2 (Table 1 and Appendix B).
Paired samples t-tests suggested significant increases
in CN (Time 1 to Time 2) for all time spent in nature
variables: TIN past year (often); TIN wilderness, TIN
beach, TIN zoo (sometimes), TIN waterway (some-
times, often), TIN urban park (often, very often), and
TIN garden (very often) (Figure 2).
3.1. H1: more time spent in nature over the 12-
month period – generally and in different types of
nature – will be associated with increased CN
For time spent in nature generally (TIN past year), the
full regression model (Table 2) accounted for 66% of the
variation in levels of CN at Time 2 (adjusted R
2
=
0.657). As expected, CN at Time 1 made the largest
contribution to CN at Time 2 (Step 2: ΔR
2
= 0.603), with
Table 1. One-way ANOVA comparing CN scores (Time 1 and Time 2) across time spent in nature categories (never/rarely,
sometimes, often, very often) for the seven time spent in nature variables. Planned contrasts (never/rarely vs sometimes
+ often + very often) are shown (n = 1036; df = degrees of freedom).
ANOVA Contrast
CN
F
(df = 3) p η
2
F
(df = 1) p η
2
TIN past year Time 1 53.847 <0.001 0.135 102.865 <0.001 0.091
Time 2 73.323 <0.001 0.176 139.861 <0.001 0.119
TIN wilderness Time 1 32.310 <0.001 0.086 30.689 <0.001 0.029
Time 2 36.112 <0.001 0.095 33.214 <0.001 0.031
TIN beach Time 1 11.893 <0.001 0.033 33.646 <0.001 0.032
Time 2 16.181 <0.001 0.045 43.131 <0.001 0.040
TIN water Time 1 23.651 <0.001 0.064 64.224 <0.001 0.059
Time 2 34.768 <0.001 0.092 90.952 <0.001 0.081
TIN zoo Time 1 8.878 <0.001 0.025 4.761 0.029 0.005
Time 2 12.134 <0.001 0.034 2.565 0.110 0.002
TIN urban Time 1 13.555 <0.001 0.038 21.832 <0.001 0.021
Time 2 26.867 <0.001 0.072 47.624 <0.001 0.044
TIN garden Time 1 38.780 <0.001 0.101 26.853 <0.001 0.025
Time 2 41.861 <0.001 0.108 27.373 <0.001 0.026
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents spending time in nature over the past year (never/rarely, sometimes, often, very often):
generally (TIN past year); in protected or wilderness areas (TIN wilderness); at beach or coastal areas (TIN beach); at a lake, river
or other waterway (TIN waterway); at a zoo, wildlife park, or botanical garden (TIN zoo); at an urban park (TIN urban park); and
at a garden at home, or the garden of a friend, neighbour or family member (TIN garden) (n = 1036).
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 633

time spent in nature making a small but significant
contribution to CN at Time 2 (Step 3: ΔR
2
= 0.017).
For time spent in different types of nature (protected/
wilderness area, beach/coast, lake/rive/other waterway,
zoo/wildlife park/botanic garden, urban park, domestic
garden), the full regression model (Table 2) accounted
for 66% of the variation in levels of CN at Time 2
(adjusted R
2
= 0.662). As in the previous analysis, CN
at Time 1 made the largest contribution to CN at Time 2
(Step 2: ΔR
2
= 0.603), with time spent in different types
of nature together making a small but significant con-
tribution to CN at Time 2 (Step 3: ΔR
2
= 0.023). Among
the different types of nature, three significantly pre-
dicted CN at Time 2: time spent in wilderness/protected
Figure 2. Mean CN scores (Time 1 and Time 2) for each category (never/rarely, sometimes, often, very often) of time spent in
nature over the past year: generally (TIN past year [top]); in protected or wilderness areas (TIN wilderness), at beach or coastal
areas (TIN beach); at a lake, river or other waterway (TIN waterway) [centre]; at a zoo, wildlife park, or botanical garden (TIN
zoo), at an urban park (TIN urban park), and at a garden at home, or the garden of a friend, neighbour or family member (TIN
garden) [bottom]. Error bars show standard error of the mean. Significant increases from CN at Time 1 to CN at Time 2 (p < 0.05)
are indicated by asterisks (n = 1036).
634 M. A. HATTY ET AL.

Table 2. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses predicting connection with nature at Time 2 (CN at Time 2), from time spent in nature in the past year (TIN past year: Step 3, left), and time
spent in different types of nature (wilderness, beach, waterway, zoo, urban park, garden: Step 3, right) [SE=standard error, 95% confidence intervals in brackets] (n = 1036).
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3
Regression 1: TIN (past year) Regression 2: TIN (different types)
B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p B SE B β p
Constant 4.367
(4.069,4.665)
0.152 <0.001 0.968
(0.725,1.210)
0.124 <0.001 0.983
(0.746,1.220)
0.121 <0.001 4.367
(4.069,4.665)
0.152 <0.001
Age 0.006
(0.002,0.010)
0.002 0.100 0.002 0.002
(0.000,0.005)
0.001 0.034 0.077 0.002
(0.000,0.005)
0.001 0.034 0.072 0.006
(0.002,0.010)
0.002 0.100 0.002
Gender 0.277
(0.163,0.391)
0.058 0.146 <0.001 0.108
(0.038,0.178)
0.036 0.057 0.003 0.088
(0.019,0.156)
0.035 0.046 0.012 0.277
(0.163,0.391)
0.058 0.146 <0.001
Urbanicity 0.089
(0.019,0.158)
0.035 0.079 0.012 0.009
(−0.033,0.052)
0.022 0.008 0.667 −0.010
(−0.052,0.032)
0.021 −0.009 0.633 0.089
(0.019,0.158)
0.035 0.079 0.012
CN at Time 1 0.769
(0.733,0.806)
0.018 0.788 <0.001 0.722
(0.684,0.760)
0.019 0.740 <0.001 0.968
(0.725,1.210)
0.124 <0.001
TIN past year 0.121
(0.088,0.155)
0.017 0.141 <0.001
TIN wilderness 0.002
(0.000,0.005)
0.001 0.034 0.077
TIN beach 0.108
(0.038,0.178)
0.036 0.057 0.003
TIN waterway 0.009
(−0.033,0.052)
0.022 0.008 0.667
TIN zoo 0.769
(0.733,0.806)
0.018 0.788 <0.001
TIN urban 0.658
(0.402,0.913)
0.130 <0.001
TIN garden 0.002
(0.000,0.005)
0.001 0.034 0.099
F
(3,1032)
= 14.100, Adj. R
2
= 0.037, p < 0.001, f
2
=
0.041
ΔF (
1,1031)
= 1737.367, ΔR
2
= 0.603, p < 0.001, f
2
=
1.519
ΔF
(1,1030)
= 50.625, ΔR
2
= 0.017, p < 0.001, f
2
=
0.017
ΔF
(1,1025)
= 11.572, ΔR
2
= 0.023, p < 0.001, f
2
=
0.024
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 635

areas (TIN wilderness: β = 0.045); lake/river/other
waterway (TIN water: β = 0.051); and urban parks
(TIN urban park: β = 0.096).
3.2. H2: The frequency of time spent in nature
(generally and in different types of nature) will
mediate the relationship between CN at Time 1
(baseline) and CN at Time 2 (12-months later).
We conducted a simple mediator analysis to deter-
mine whether time spent in nature (generally)
mediated the relationship between CN at Time 1
and CN at Time 2. The final model suggested positive
and significant direct and indirect effects; the total
effect of CN at Time 1 on CN at Time 2 was 0.769 (t
= 41.682, p < 0.001), with a direct effect (c) of 0.722 (t
= 37.556, p < 0.001), and indirect effect (ab) of 0.047
(t = 5.875, 95% CI [0.032, 0.065] (Figure 3).
We then conducted a parallel multiple mediator
analysis to determine whether time spent in different
types of nature mediated the relationship between CN
at Time 1 and CN at Time 2. The final model suggested
positive and significant direct and indirect effects. The
total effect of CN at Time 1 on CN at Time 2 was 0.769
(t = 41.682, p < 0.001), with a direct effect (c) of 0.712 (t
= 36.240, p < 0.001). CN at Time 1 predicted all time
spent nature variables (a
1
-a
6
). Results suggested speci-
fic indirect effects of three mediators (in the presence
of other mediators): TIN wilderness (a
1
b
1
= 0.013, t =
2.167, 95% CI [0.001, 0.026]; TIN water (a
3
b
3
= 0.013, t
= 2.600, 95% CI [0.003, 0.024]; and TIN urban park (a
5
b
5
= 0.021, t = 4.200, 95% CI [0.011, 0.031] (unstandar-
dized coefficients) (Figure 4).
4. Discussion
For CN to be useful in conservation policy and man-
agement, understanding how a stable sense of CN
may be nurtured is essential. This research sought
to determine the extent to which time spent in
nature, and in different types of nature, contributed
to an increase in CN over a 12-month period.
As CN is relatively stable over time (Nisbet et al.
2011; Hatty et al. 2020), it is important to note that
small changes in CN at Time 2 were expected.
Overall, the findings suggest that more time spent
in nature was associated with slightly higher CN
scores at Time 2. Among those who spent time in
nature at least monthly over the 12-month period,
CN scores tended to increase over the same time
period, while among those who spent little or no
time in nature (i.e. less than monthly), CN scores
did not change over the year. Results further sug-
gested that participants who spent more time in wild-
erness/protected areas, along rivers/lakes or other
waterways, and in urban parks tended to have slightly
higher CN at Time 2, regardless of CN at Time 1.
Previous research has suggested that areas with
higher natural values (e.g. those with greater biodiver-
sity) may be more useful for nurturing CN than areas
with lower natural values (Scopelliti et al. 2016; Wyles
et al. 2019; Mena-García et al. 2020). The present find-
ings suggest that while spending time in wilder-type
areas (i.e. wilderness/protected areas and waterways)
does predict an increase in CN over time, so too does
spending time in urban parks. These results are consis-
tent with those of Lumber et al. (2017) and Restall et al.
(2021) who also reported positive relationships between
CN and time spent in both urban and protected areas.
These findings also provide support for the notion that
repeated experiences in nature over time are needed to
foster an enduring sense of CN (e.g. Richardson et al.
2020; Clayton et al. 2021).
Also consistent with previous research (Lin et al.
2014; Colléony et al. 2017, 2020; Cox et al. 2018),
results of the two mediation analyses suggest that
those higher in CN tended to spend more time in
nature – generally, in protected areas, along water-
ways, and in urban parks – than those lower in CN.
While not explicitly tested, it is possible that
a bidirectional relationship between TIN and CN
may also be present, as has been suggested previously
(Rosa and Collado 2019; Martin et al. 2020) (see also
Limitations and future research below).
4.1. Characteristics of nature experiences
These findings highlight the role that time spent in
nature may play in fostering CN, and suggest that
policies and programs intended to encourage people
to spend more time in nature, including different
types of nature, could help to foster CN. Yet, the effect
sizes were small, and the positive and significant direct
(c) and indirect (ab) effects indicate complementary
mediation (Zhao et al. 2010), together suggesting that
other factors also likely influence change in CN over
time. Such factors may include what people do while
X
(CN at Time 1)
Y
(CN at Time 2)
M
(TIN past year)
C
1
(age)
C
2
(gender)
a = 0.391
***
b = 0.121
***
c = 0.722
***
C
3
(urbanicity)
Figure 3. Simple mediation analysis predicting connection
with nature at Time 2 (Y) from connection with nature at
Time 1 (×) with time spent in nature generally (M) as med-
iator. Age (C
1
), gender (C
2
), and urbanicity (C
3
) are entered as
covariates (***p < 0.001).
636 M. A. HATTY ET AL.

they’re in nature, or how they experience nature
(Colléony et al. 2020, 2020; Richardson et al. 2020).
Recent evidence suggests that intentional awareness
while in nature (Schutte and Malouff 2018) and active
engagement with nature through smell or touch
(Lumber et al. 2017; Colléony et al. 2020; Carr and
Hughes 2021) are associated with higher CN scores.
Further, emotions such as wonder and excitement
appear to play a role in fostering CN (Giusti et al.
2018; Richardson et al. 2020; Carr and Hughes 2021),
perhaps by facilitating learning and openness to
experience (Yang et al. 2018). Inducing positive emo-
tions such as awe or feeling moved have been asso-
ciated with higher CN (Moreton et al. 2019; Petersen
and Martin 2020; Ambrose et al. 2021), while feeling
emotions such as love while experiencing nature has
been described as central to the lived experience of CN
(Furness 2021). Learning something new and a sense
of compassion for the natural environment while
experiencing nature may also be important for nurtur-
ing CN (Lumber et al. 2017; Carr and Hughes 2021).
Given that CN comprises multiple dimensions
(Ives et al. 2018), activities that target several dimen-
sions may be most effective in fostering an enduring
sense of CN (Zylstra et al. 2014). Indeed, Riechers
et al. (2020) recently noted that emotional and
experiential dimensions of CN appear to have multi-
ple links to other dimensions, thus nurturing emo-
tional and experiential connections could be
important mechanisms for enhancing an overall
sense of CN. Similarly, activities that involve simulta-
neous activation of different pathways to CN may be
also be valuable (Richardson et al. 2020; Carr and
Hughes 2021). Such activities may include those
that encourage emotional reflection about nature
while actually experiencing nature (e.g. Pennisi et al.
2017), arts-based activities (Muhr 2020; Raatikainen
et al. 2020), or technology-based interventions
(Mattijssen et al. 2020). These could be particularly
useful if they encourage noticing ‘good things’ in
nature (McEwan et al. 2020) or engagement with
natural beauty (Richardson and McEwan 2018).
One group of activities that can activate multiple
dimensions of, and pathways to, CN are conservation
behaviours, and particularly those that occur in and
with the natural environment. Research suggests that
engaging with nature via meaningful, compassionate,
and multisensory activities, such as environmental
volunteering (Cosquer et al. 2012; Schuttler et al.
2018) or litter clean-ups (Wyles et al. 2017) could
play an important role in nurturing CN. Indeed, CN
can also be an important motivator for engaging in
these activities (Admiraal et al. 2017; Ganzevoort and
van den Born 2020), highlighting that the relation-
ship between CN and nature-protective behaviours is
likely reciprocal (Hamlin and Richardson 2022).
In addition to CN, other drivers of nature-
protective behaviours include feelings of care or nur-
turing, beliefs of inherent value in the activity, and
a desire for a meaningful life (Admiraal et al. 2017;
X
(CN at Time 1)
Y
(CN at Time 2)
c= 0.712***
C1
(age)
C2
(gender)
C3
(urbanicity)
Mediators (M)
TIN wilderness (M1)
a1 = 0.205***; b1 = 0.065**
TIN beach (M2)
a2= 0.161***; b2 = 0.017 ns
TIN waterway (M3)
a3 = 0.227***; b3 = 0.057**
TIN zoo (M4)
a4 = 0.109***; b4 = -0.011 ns
TIN urban park (M5)
a5 = 0.218***; b5 = 0.095***
TIN garden (M6)
a6 = 0.265***; b6 = 0.035 ns
a1-a6b1-b6
Figure 4. Parallel multiple mediation analysis predicting connection with nature at Time 2 (Y) from connection with nature at
Time 1 (×) with time spent in six types of nature (protected or wilderness area (M
1
); beach or coastal area (M
2
); lake, river or
other waterway (M
3
); zoo, wildlife park, or botanical garden (M
4
); urban park (M
5
); own garden at home (M
6
) as mediators). Age
(C
1
), gender (C
2
), and urbanicity (C
3
) are entered as covariates (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001;
ns
p > 0.05).
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 637

Ganzevoort and van den Born 2020). Such motiva-
tions reflect relational values, or the ‘preferences,
principles and virtues about human-nature relation-
ships’ (Chan et al. 2018, p. A1) that can influence
how people think about and interact with nature
(Chan et al. 2016; Kleespies and Dierkes 2020;
Mattijssen et al. 2020). Relational values reflect the
many different types and qualities of relationships
that people have with nature (e.g. responsibility,
moral obligation, identity, a ‘good life’: Chan et al.
2016), and may provide a useful leverage point for
conservation policy (Mattijssen et al. 2020).
4.2. Implications for conservation policy
While policymakers have begun to consider human-
nature relationships in conservation planning and
management, policies and land management prac-
tices that specifically nurture CN are needed
(Richardson et al. 2021). This research suggests that
policies and practices that facilitate spending time in
nature, including urban parks, could be useful.
Researchers have investigated a range of different
ways to encourage people to spend more time in
nature, such as through biophilic urban design.
Urban spaces that include different types of natural
elements provide opportunities for incidental and
intentional interactions with nature (Church 2018;
Lin et al. 2018) which may enhance CN (Cox et al.
2017; Shanahan et al. 2017). Designing public natural
spaces to include food plants and opportunities for
urban agriculture (Palliwoda et al. 2017; Kingsley
et al. 2021) and to facilitate interactive and sensory
immersion with nature (Souter-Brown 2015; Pennisi
et al. 2017; Pan et al. 2020) can also encourage citi-
zens to spend more time in, actively engage with, and
connect to nature in such spaces.
Involving citizens in the design, installation, and
management of natural spaces may be another
mechanism for encouraging time spent in nature
and thus nurturing CN (Light 2006; Church 2018;
Mattijssen et al. 2020). Citizen engagement in the
design and management of natural spaces can
increase psychological ownership of, and connection
to, those spaces, as well as stewardship behaviours
such as picking up litter (de Bell et al. 2018;
Mullenbach et al. 2019; Preston and Gelman 2020;
Peck et al. 2021). Psychological ownership has also
been associated with enjoyment of, and connection
to, natural areas as well as to PEB and PBB such as
environmental volunteering (Ganzevoort and van
den Born 2020; Kuo et al. 2021).
4.3. Limitations and future research
A number of limitations are evident in the current
research. Firstly, the measures of time spent in nature
were imprecise – memory limitations, for example, may
impede accurate recollection of the frequency of time
spent in nature over the previous 12-months. Further,
time spent in specific types of nature, such as urban
parks, does not capture differences in quality (e.g.
amount of tree cover, level of biodiversity) of different,
albeit similarly classified, types of nature. Future research
would benefit from more refined measures of TIN.
Regarding connection with nature, CN scores were
relatively high (Time 1: m = 5.263, SD = 0.969; Time
2: m = 5.314, SD = 0.946) thus the small change may
be due to a ceiling effect. Further, interventions
designed to foster CN typically show the greatest
increases among participants with lower CN scores
pre-intervention than participants with higher CN
scores (Braun and Dierkes 2017; Barrable and Booth
2020; Chawla 2020). While not explicitly tested here,
it’s possible that participants with low CN scores at
Time 1 who spent more time in nature over the year
would show greater increases in CN than participants
with higher CN scores at Time 1. Additional investiga-
tion is needed to tease out possible differences between
people with low versus high CN at Time 1. In addi-
tion, evidence suggests that CN scores (e.g. Duffy and
Verges 2010) and spending time in nature (e.g. Tester-
Jones et al. 2020) can vary by seasons and weather
patterns, thus further research is needed to determine
whether CN scores increase or decrease in response to
seasons and/or weather. Another area for future
research relates to the frequency, total number, or
type of nature experiences needed to facilitate
a stable sense of CN. While it has been proposed
that repeated experiences of nature are needed to
develop an enduring trait-like CN (e.g. Richardson
et al. 2020; Salazar et al. 2020; Clayton et al. 2021),
such experiences may differ across groups. People with
lower initial CN scores may, for example, require
fewer or less intense experiences of nature to increase
CN, while those with higher initial CN scores may
require more or greater intensity experiences of nat-
ure, such as a multi-day wilderness expedition, to
effect an increase in CN (Salazar et al. 2020).
Finally, future research should consider the broader
socio-cultural and contextual factors that influence peo-
ples’ experiences of natural environments. Cultural and
social factors influence landscape preferences and atti-
tudes to natural spaces (Buijs et al. 2009; Özgüner 2011;
Clayton et al. 2017) which may impact the ways in which
different people experience nature. Investigation of the
role of socio-cultural and contextual factors (e.g. ethni-
city, socio-economic status) in the TIN-CN relationship
warrants further investigation.
5. Conclusion
Connection with nature is increasingly being recog-
nised as a potentially useful policy tool to address
638 M. A. HATTY ET AL.

conservation issues. Understanding the mechanisms
by which connection with nature may be nurtured
can usefully inform conservation policies and pro-
grams for which nurturing connection with nature
is an outcome. Policies that encourage people to
spend more time in nature – generally, and in
protected areas, waterways, and urban parks –
could be useful for increasing a stable sense of
connection among the general population which
may, in turn, increase engagement in conservation.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Kim Lowe, Fern Hames, and the Victorians
Value Nature team for their input into this research. Thank
you also to the editor and two anonymous reviewers whose
input improved the clarity and flow of this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was commissioned and funded by the Victorian
Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP), and was also funded by an Australian
Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
ORCID
Melissa Anne Hatty http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5232-
2317
Felix Tinoziva Mavondo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
9622-1331
Denise Goodwin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9260-8184
Liam David Graham Smith http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
7433-364X
Data availability statement
The data and syntax for this research are available at Open
Science Framework (https://osf.io/3ca7f/?view_only=
82164315080249d49d0eec6e5a34e21f)
References
Admiraal JF, Van Den Born RJG, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F,
Cicero L, Hiedanpää J, Knights P, Knippenberg LWJ,
Molinario E, Musters CJM, et al. 2017. Motivations for
committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ
Conserv. 44(2):148–157. doi:10.1017/S037689291700008X.
Ambrose LE, Wiezel A, Pages EB, Shiota MN. 2021.
Images of nature, nature-self representation, and envir-
onmental attitudes. Sustainability. 13(14):8025. doi:10.
3390/su13148025.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2020. Australian historical
population statistics, 2016. Cat. No 3105 0.65.001. https://
www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3105.0.65.001
Australian Government. 2019. Australia’s Strategy for
Nature 2019-2030. https://www.australiasnaturehub.gov.
au/national-strategy
Barrable A, Booth D. 2020. Increasing nature connection in
children: a mini review of interventions. Front Psychol.
11(March). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00492.
Barragan-Jason G, de Mazancourt C, Parmesan C, Singer MC,
Loreau M. 2021. Human–nature connectedness as
a pathway to sustainability: a global meta-analysis. Conserv
Lett. 15(1):1–7. doi:10.1111/conl.12852.
Braun T, Dierkes P. 2017. Connecting students to nature -
how intensity of nature experience and student age influ-
ence the success of outdoor education programs. Environ
Educ Res. 23(7):937–949. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.
1214866.
Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F. 2009. No wilderness for
immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and
landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan. 91
(3):113–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
Carr V, Hughes J. 2021. Predicting the development of
adult nature connection through nature activities: devel-
oping the evaluating nature activities for connection
tool. Front Psychol. 12(March):1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2021.618283.
Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M,
Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N,
Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Why protect nature?
Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad
Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview:
relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about?
Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 35:A1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.
2018.11.003.
Chawla L. 2020. Childhood nature connection and con-
structive hope: a review of research on connecting with
nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat.
2(3):619–642. doi:10.1002/pan3.10128.
Church SP. 2018. From street trees to natural areas: retro-
fitting cities for human connectedness to nature.
J Environ Plann Manage. 61(5–6):878–903. doi:10.1080/
09640568.2018.1428182.
Clayton S. 2003. Environmental identity: a conceptual and
operational definition. In: Clayton SD, and Opotow S,
editors. Identity and the natural environment: the psy-
chological significance of nature. Cambridge (MA): The
MIT Press; p. 45–66.
Clayton S. 2017. Social issues and personal life: considering
the environment. J Soc Issues. 73(3):667–681. doi:10.
1111/josi.12237.
Clayton S, Colléony A, Conversy P, Maclouf E, Martin L, Torres
AC, Truong MX, Prévot AC. 2017. Transformation of experi-
ence: toward a new relationship with nature. Conservation
Letters. 10(5):645–651. doi:10.1111/conl.12337.
Clayton S, Czellar S, Nartova-Bochaver S, Skibins JC, Salazar G,
Tseng Y-C, Irkhin B, Monge-Rodriguez FS. 2021. Cross-
cultural validation of a revised Environmental Identity Scale.
Sustainability. 13(2387):1–12. doi:10.3390/su13042387.
Clayton S, Myers G. 2009. Conservation psychology:
understanding and promoting human care for nature.
Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cleary A, Fielding KS, Murray Z, Roiko A. 2018. Predictors of
nature connection among urban residents: assessing the
role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environ
Behav. 52(6):579–610. doi:10.1177/0013916518811431.
Colléony A, Cohen-Seffer R, Shwartz A. 2020. Unpacking the
causes and consequences of the extinction of experience.
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 639

Biol Conserv. 251(July):108788. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.
108788.
Colléony A, Levontin L, Shwartz A. 2020. Promoting mean-
ingful and positive nature interactions for visitors to green
spaces. Conserv Biol. 34(6):1373–1382. doi:10.1111/cobi.
13624.
Colléony A, Prévot AC, Saint Jalme M, Clayton S. 2017.
What kind of landscape management can counteract the
extinction of experience? Landsc Urban Plan. 159:23–31.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.010.
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]. 2018. Recommen-
dations for increased focus on connecting people with nature
to inspire enhanced action on biodiversity conservation.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/C
%26nn3.pdf
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat.
2011. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the
Aichi Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat. 2020.
Global Biodiversity Outlook. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat.
2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/
2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf
Cosquer A, Raymond R, Prevot-Julliard AC. 2012.
Observations of everyday biodiversity: a new perspective
for conservation? Ecology and Society. 17(4, 4). 10.5751/
ES-04955-170402
Cox DTC, Hudson HL, Shanahan DF, Fuller RA,
Gaston KJ. 2017. The rarity of direct experiences of
nature in an urban population. Landsc Urban Plan.
160:79–84. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.006.
Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ.
2018. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the
implications for human health. Landsc Urban Plan. 179
(July):72–80. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.013.
Davis N, Daams M, van Hinsberg A, Sijtsma F. 2016. How
deep is your love – of nature? A psychological and spatial
analysis of the depth of feelings towards Dutch nature areas.
Appl Geogr. 77:38–48. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.012.
de Bell S, Graham H, White PCL. 2018. The role of man-
aged natural spaces in connecting people with urban
nature: a comparison of local user, researcher, and pro-
vider views. Urban Ecosystems. 21(5):875–886. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0762-x.
Department of Conservation. 2020. Aotearoa New Zealand
biodiversity strategy. doi:10.4135/9781412952453.n56.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
[DELWP]. 2017. Protecting Victoria’s Environment –
Biodiversity 2037. https://www.environment.vic.gov.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/51259/Protecting-
Victorias-Environment-Biodiversity-2037.pdf
Dornhoff M, Sothmann JN, Fiebelkorn F, Menzel S. 2019.
Nature relatedness and environmental concern of young
people in Ecuador and Germany. Front Psychol. 10
(MAR):1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00453.
Duffy S, Verges M. 2010. Forces of nature affect implicit
connections with nature. Environ Behav. 42(6):723–739.
doi:10.1177/0013916509338552.
Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN. 2006. The
pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on
urban nature. Conservation Biology. 20(6):1814–1816.
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533.x.
Field A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statis-
tics. Carmichael Meditor. 4th. London (UK): SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Furness E. 2021. Understanding the lived experience of
connection to nature. Conservation Science and
Practice. 3(7):1–8. doi:10.1111/csp2.440.
Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG. 2020. Understanding citizens’
action for nature: the profile, motivations and experiences of
Dutch nature volunteers. Journal for Nature Conservation. 55
(December 2019):125824. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125824.
Gaston KJ, Soga M. 2020. Extinction of experience: the need to
be more specific. People and Nature. 1–7. doi:10.1002/pan3.
10118.
Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery TH. 2018. A frame-
work to assess where and how children connect to nature.
Front Psychol. 8(Jan):1–21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283.
Hamlin I, Richardson M. 2022. Visible garden biodiversity is
associated with noticing nature and nature connectedness.
Ecopsychology. 14(2):111–117. doi:10.1089/eco.2021.0064.
Hatty MA, Smith LDG, Goodwin D, Mavondo FT. 2020.
The CN-12: a brief, multidimensional connection with
nature instrument. Front Psychol. 11(1566):1–14. doi:10.
3389/fpsyg.2020.01566.
Hayes AF. (2022). The Process macro for SPSS, SAS, and R.
https://www.processmacro.org/version-history.html
Hughes J, Rogerson M, Barton J, Bragg R. 2019. Age and
connection to nature: when is engagement critical? Front
Ecol Environ. 17(5):265–269. doi:10.1002/fee.2035.
IBM Corp. 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (28.0).
Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C,
Klaniecki K, Fischer J. 2018. Reconnecting with nature
for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 13(5):1–9. doi:10.1007/
s11625-018-0542-9.
Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K,
Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy P,
Martín-López B, et al. 2017. Human-nature connection:
a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain.
26–27(May):106–113. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005.
Kals E, Schumacher D, Montada L. 1999. Emotional affinity
toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature.
Environ Behav. 31(2):178–202. doi:10.1177/001391699219
72056.
Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller RA. 2013. What are
the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 10(3):913–935. doi:10.3390/ijerph10030913.
Kingsley J, Egerer M, Nuttman S, Keniger L, Pettitt P,
Frantzeskaki N, Gray T, Ossola A, Lin B, Bailey A, et al.
2021. Urban agriculture as a nature-based solution to address
socio-ecological challenges in Australian cities. Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening. 60(November 2020):127059.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127059.
Kleespies MW, Dierkes PW. 2020. Exploring the construct
of relational values: an empirical approach. Front
Psychol. 11(March):1–14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00209.
Kuo H-M, Su J-Y, Wang C-H, Kiatsakared P, Chen K-Y. 2021.
Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior:
the mediating role of destination psychological ownership.
Sustainability. 13(12):6809. doi:10.3390/su13126809.
Light A. Ecoloigcal citizenship: the demogratic promise of
restoration. In: Pratt RH, editor. The human metropolis:
people and nature in the 21st-century city. University of
Massachusetts Press; 2006. p. 169–181. https://steven
reedjohnson.com/ stevenr1/stevenreedjohnson/
GCMore2_files/humaneMetropolis.pdf#page=183
Lin BB, Egerer MH, Ossola A. 2018. Urban gardens as a space
to engender biophilia: evidence and ways forward. Frontiers
in Built Environment. 4(December):1–10. doi:10.3389/fbuil.
2018.00079.
640 M. A. HATTY ET AL.

Lin BB, Fuller RA, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Shanahan DF. 2014.
Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and
why. PLoS ONE. 9(1):1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0087422.
Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D. 2017. Beyond know-
ing nature: contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and
beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE.
12(5):1–24. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177186.
Mackay CML, Schmitt MT. 2019. Do people who feel more
connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis.
J Environ Psychol. 65(101323):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.
2019.101323.
Martin L, White MP, Hunt A, Richardson M, Pahl S, Burt J.
2020. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations
with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours.
J Environ Psychol. 68(January):101389. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.
2020.101389.
Mattijssen TJM, Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG,
Arts BJM, Breman BC, Buijs AE, van Dam RI,
Elands BHM, de Groot WT, Knippenberg LWJ. 2020.
Relational values of nature: leverage points for nature
policy in Europe. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):402–410.
doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926.
McEwan K, Ferguson FJ, Richardson M, Cameron R. 2020.
The good things in urban nature: a thematic framework
for optimising urban planning for nature connectedness.
Landsc Urban Plan. 194(October 2019):103687. doi:10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103687.
Meis-Harris J, Saeri A, Boulet M, Borg K, Faulkner N,
Jorgensen B. (2019). Victorians Value Nature: Survey
Results. https://www.ari.vic.gov.au/research/people-and-
nature/victorians-value-nature
Mena-García A, Olivos P, Loureiro A, Navarro O. 2020.
Effects of contact with nature on connectedness, environ-
mental identity and evoked contents/Efectos del contacto
con la naturaleza en conectividad, identidad ambiental
y contenidos evocados. Psyecology. 11(1):21–36. doi:10.
1080/21711976.2019.1643663.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2016).
National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016-2025.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/my/my-nbsap-v2-en.pdf
Moreton SG, Arena A, Hornsey M, Crimston C, Tiliopoulos N.
2019. Elevating nature: moral elevation increases feelings of
connectedness to nature. J Environ Psychol. 65
(January):101332. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101332.
Muhr MM. 2020. Beyond words–the potential of arts-based
research on human-nature connectedness. Ecosystems and
People. 16(1):249–257. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1811379.
Mullenbach LE, Baker BL, Benfield J, Hickerson B,
Mowen AJ. 2019. Assessing the relationship between
community engagement and perceived ownership of an
urban park in Philadelphia. Journal of Leisure Research.
50(3):201–219. doi:10.1080/00222216.2019.1581719.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. 2009. The nature related-
ness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to
environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav. 41(5):
715–740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. 2011. Happiness is in
our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to
subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 12(2):303–322.
doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.
Otto S, Pensini P. 2017. Nature-based environmental educa-
tion of children: environmental knowledge and connected-
ness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour.
Global Environmental Change. 47(September):88–94.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009.
Özgüner H. 2011. Cultural differences in attitudes towards
urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research. 36
(5):599–620. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.560474.
Palliwoda J, Kowarik I, von der Lippe M. 2017. Human-
biodiversity interactions in urban parks: the species level
matters. Landsc Urban Plan. 157:394–406. doi:10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2016.09.003.
Pan YT, Yang KK, Wilson K, Hong ZR, Lin HS. 2020. The
impact of museum interpretation tour on visitors’ engage-
ment and post-visit conservation intentions and behaviours.
International Journal of Tourism Research. 22(5):593–603.
doi:10.1002/jtr.2358.
Pasca L, Aragonés JI, Fraijo-Sing B. 2020. Categorizing land-
scapes: approaching the concept of nature (Categorizando
paisajes: una aproximación al concepto de naturaleza).
Psyecology. 11(3):342–362. doi:10.1080/21711976.2019.165
9029.
Peck J, Kirk CP, Luangrath AW, Shu SB. 2021. Caring for the
commons: using psychological ownership to enhance stew-
ardship behavior for public goods. J Mark. 85(2):33–49.
doi:10.1177/0022242920952084.
Pennisi L, Lackey NQ, Holland SM. 2017. Can an immersion
exhibit inspire connection to nature and environmentally
responsible behavior? Journal of Interpretation Research.
22(2):35–49. doi:10.1177/109258721702200204.
Pérez-Ramírez I, García-Llorente M, Saban de la Portilla C,
Benito A, Castro AJ. 2021. Participatory collective farm-
ing as a leverage point for fostering human-nature
connectedness. Ecosystems and People. 17(1):222–234.
doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1912185.
Petersen E, Martin AJ. 2020. Kama muta (≈ being moved)
helps connect people in and to nature: a photo elicitation
approach. Ecopsychology. 13(1):37–47. doi:10.1089/eco.
2020.0032.
Preston SD, Gelman SA. 2020. This land is my land: psycho-
logical ownership increases willingness to protect the nat-
ural world more than legal ownership. J Environ Psychol.
70(June):101443. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101443.
Prévot AC, Cheval H, Raymond R, Cosquer A. 2018.
Routine experiences of nature in cities can increase
personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation.
Biol Conserv. 226(June):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.
07.008.
Prévot AC, Clayton S, Mathevet R. 2018. The relationship
of childhood upbringing and university degree program
to environmental identity: experience in nature matters.
Environmental Education Research. 24(2):263–279.
doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1249456.
Raatikainen KJ, Juhola K, Huhmarniemi M, Peña-Lagos H.
2020. “Face the cow”: reconnecting to nature and increasing
capacities for pro-environmental agency. Ecosystems and
People. 16(1):273–289. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1817151.
Restall B, Conrad E. 2015. A literature review of connect-
edness to nature and its potential for environmental
management. J Environ Manage. 159:264–278. doi:10.
1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.
Restall B, Conrad E, Cop C. 2021. Connectedness to nature:
mapping the role of protected areas. J Environ Manage.
293(April):112771. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112771.
Richards DR, Fung TK, Leong RAT, Sachidhanandam U,
Drillet Z, Edwards PJ. 2020. Demographic biases in
engagement with nature in a tropical Asian city. PLoS
ONE. 15(4):e0231576. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231576.
Richardson M, Dobson J, Abson DJ, Lumber R, Hunt A,
Young R, Moorhouse B. 2020. Applying the pathways to
nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 641

perspective. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):387–401.
doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296.
Richardson M, Hamlin I. 2021. Nature engagement for
human and nature’s wellbeing during the Corona pan-
demic. J Public Ment Health. 1–11. doi:10.1108/JPMH-
02-2021-0016.
Richardson M, Hamlin I, Butler CW, Thomas R, Hunt A. 2021.
Actively noticing nature (not just time in nature) helps
promote nature connectedness. Ecopsychology. 14(1):1–9.
doi:10.1089/eco.2021.0023.
Richardson M, McEwan K. 2018. 30 days wild and the
relationships between engagement with nature’s beauty,
nature connectedness and well-being. Front Psychol. 9
(SEP):1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500.
Richardson M, Passmore H, Barbett L, Lumber R,
Thomas R, Hunt A, Fish R. 2020. The green care code:
how nature connectedness and simple activities help
explain pro-nature conservation behaviours. People and
Nature. 2(3):1–19. doi:10.1002/pan3.10117.
Riechers M, Balázsi Á, Abson DJ, Fischer J. 2020. The influence
of landscape change on multiple dimensions of human–
nature connectedness. Ecology and Society. 25(3):1–12.
doi:10.5751/ES-11651-250303.
Riechers M, Balázsi Á, García-Llorente M, Loos J. 2021.
Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosys-
tems and People. 17(1):215–221. doi:10.1080/26395916.20
21.1912830.
Rosa CD, Collado S. 2019. Experiences in nature and environ-
mental attitudes and behaviors: setting the ground for future
research. Front Psychol. 10(763):1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.00763.
Salazar G, Kunkle K, Monroe M. (2020). Practitioner Guide to
Assessing Connection to Nature. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/
default/files/assessing_connection_to_nature.7.23.20.pdf
Schultz PW. 2002. Inclusion with nature: the psychology of
human-nature relations. In: Schmuck P Schultz WP, editors.
Psychology of sustainable development. Springer Science
and Business Media; pp. 61–78. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-
0995-0_4.
Schultz PW, Tabanico JJ. 2007. Self, identity, and the natural
environment: exploring implicit connections with nature.
J Appl Soc Psychol. 37(6):1219–1247. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00210.x.
Schutte NS, Malouff JM. 2018. Mindfulness and connect-
edness to nature: a meta-analytic investigation. Pers
Individ Dif. 127:10–14. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.034.
Schuttler SG, Sorensen AE, Jordan RC, Cooper C,
Shwartz A. 2018. Bridging the nature gap: can citizen
science reverse the extinction of experience? Front Ecol
Environ. 16(7):405–411. doi:10.1002/fee.1826.
Scopelliti M, Carrus G, Adinolfi C, Suarez G,
Colangelo G, Lafortezza R, Panno A, Sanesi G. 2016.
Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different
income groups: the experience of urban parks in
Bogotá. Landsc Urban Plan. 148:139–148. doi:10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2015.11.002.
Shanahan DF, Cox DTC, Fuller RA, Hancock S, Lin BB,
Anderson K, Bush R, Gaston KJ. 2017. Variation in
experiences of nature across gradients of tree cover in
compact and sprawling cities. Landsc Urban Plan.
157:231–238. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.004.
Souter-Brown G. 2015. Landscape and urban design for
health and well-being: using healing, sensory and ther-
apeutic gardens. London (UK): Routledge.
Tam KP. 2013. Concepts and measures related to connec-
tion to nature: similarities and differences. J Environ
Psychol. 34:64–78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004.
Tester-Jones M, White MP, Elliott LR, Weinstein N,
Grellier J, Economou T, Bratman GN, Cleary A,
Gascon M, Korpela KM, et al. 2020. Results from an 18
country cross-sectional study examining experiences of
nature for people with common mental health disorders.
Sci Rep. 10(1):1–11. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75825-9.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects. In The
2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). https://popula
tion.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.
pdf
Whitburn J, Linklater W, Abrahamse W. 2019. Meta-analysis of
human connection to nature and proenvironmental
behavior. Conservation Biology. 34(1):180–193. doi:10.1111/
cobi.13381.
Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Holland M, Thompson RC. 2017. Can
beach cleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing
beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ Behav.
49(5):509–535. doi:10.1177/0013916516649412.
Wyles KJ, White MP, Hattam C, Pahl S, King H, Austen M.
2019. Are some natural environments more psychologi-
cally beneficial than others? The importance of type and
quality on connectedness to nature and psychological
restoration. Environ Behav. 51(2):111–143. doi:10.1177/
0013916517738312.
Yang Y, Hu J, Jing F, Nguyen B. 2018. From awe to
ecological behavior: the mediating role of connectedness
to nature. Sustainability (Switzerland). 10(7):2477.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072477.
Zhao X, Lynch JG, Chen Q. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and
Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis.
J Consum Res. 37(2):197–206. doi:10.1086/651257.
Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. 2014.
Connectedness as a core conservation concern: an inter-
disciplinary review of theory and a call for practice.
Springer Science Reviews. 2(1–2):119–143. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3.
642 M. A. HATTY ET AL.