ArticlePDF Available

The Human–Nature Relationship as a Tangible Target for Pro-Environmental Behaviour—Guidance from Interpersonal Relationships

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Major environmental institutions around the globe are realising that the failing human–nature relationship is a root cause of environmental issues. Despite this shift in thinking, there is more work to be done to highlight the human–nature relationship as a tangible target for pro-environmental behaviour. This review argues for the importance of targeting human–nature relationships. It emphasises that nature connectedness, with its robust links to pro-environmental behaviour, is a useful operationalisation of such relationships. Following a review of recent references to the human–nature relationship in policy documents, this paper draws on theories of interpersonal relationships to illustrate how they can inform efforts to repair the human–nature relationship. Parallels between nature connectedness research and research on interpersonal relationships are highlighted. The potential for new routes to a closer human–nature relationship—including a more meaningful (e.g., intimate) engagement with nature, a cultural shift in support for human–nature relationships, fostering trust in nature and recognising reciprocity with nature—are noted. This review concludes that the human–nature relationship can be seen as an extension of interpersonal relationships, provides a tangible pathway to a sustainable future, and suggests that such explicit relationship-focused thinking can guide both policy and research.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Lengieza, M.L.; Aviste, R.;
Richardson, M. The Human–Nature
Relationship as a Tangible Target for
Pro-Environmental
Behaviour—Guidance from
Interpersonal Relationships.
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151612175
Academic Editor: Genovait ˙
e
Liobikien˙
e
Received: 30 June 2023
Revised: 4 August 2023
Accepted: 7 August 2023
Published: 9 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Review
The Human–Nature Relationship as a Tangible Target
for Pro-Environmental Behaviour—Guidance from
Interpersonal Relationships
Michael L. Lengieza 1, Rosemary Aviste 2and Miles Richardson 3,*
1Department of Psychology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK;
michael.l.lengieza@durham.ac.uk
2Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, Moore Building, University Park,
State College, PA 16802, USA; rxa5380@psu.edu
3Nature Connectedness Research Group, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB, UK
*Correspondence: m.richardson@derby.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-01332-622222
Abstract:
Major environmental institutions around the globe are realising that the failing
human–nature
relationship is a root cause of environmental issues. Despite this shift in thinking, there is more work
to be done to highlight the human–nature relationship as a tangible target for pro-environmental
behaviour. This review argues for the importance of targeting human–nature relationships. It
emphasises that nature connectedness, with its robust links to pro-environmental behaviour, is
a useful operationalisation of such relationships. Following a review of recent references to the
human–nature relationship in policy documents, this paper draws on theories of interpersonal
relationships to illustrate how they can inform efforts to repair the human–nature relationship.
Parallels between nature connectedness research and research on interpersonal relationships are
highlighted. The potential for new routes to a closer human–nature relationship—including a more
meaningful (e.g., intimate) engagement with nature, a cultural shift in support for human–nature
relationships, fostering trust in nature and recognising reciprocity with nature—are noted. This
review concludes that the human–nature relationship can be seen as an extension of interpersonal
relationships, provides a tangible pathway to a sustainable future, and suggests that such explicit
relationship-focused thinking can guide both policy and research.
Keywords:
human–nature relationships; interpersonal relationships; nature connectedness;
pro-environmental behaviour
1. Introduction
Major environmental institutions around the world are realising that a sustainable
future requires a new relationship with nature [
1
]; there is a growing recognition that the
human–nature relationship is a tangible target for driving that behaviour change. For
example, the 2022 UN commissioned the Stolkholm+50 evidence review, which has key
messages about the human–nature relationship [
2
]. Similarly, the 2022 Kunming–Montreal
Global Biodiversity Framework [
3
] includes a target to improve human–nature connection.
Further, Exiting the Anthropocene? Exploring fundamental change in our relationship with
nature’, a 2023 briefing from European Environment Agency [
4
], is the latest example of
this shift in environmental science policy thinking. These approaches go beyond technical
solutions that only address the symptoms of a deteriorating human–nature relationship
and, instead, focus on its root cause: disconnection from nature [
5
,
6
]. Reversing this
disconnection to instead foster a deep connection with nature is also fundamental to help
motivate and continue the technological fixes that treat the symptoms of that disconnection,
for example, reducing waste and moving to renewable energy [7].
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612175 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 2 of 28
Despite a shift in policy thinking, there is still more work to be done to promote the
acceptance and operationalisation of this approach. This paper provides an initial summary
of the human–nature relationship highlighting nature connectedness as an operational
approach that is linked to pro-environmental behaviour. This is followed by a review of
recent policy documents that include the human–nature relationship. The review then
draws on broader theories of interpersonal relationships to emphasise the significance
of relationships to people and their impact on behaviours. These are then discussed in
relation to nature connectedness in order to identify new routes to a closer human–nature
relationship and the pro-environmental behaviours needed for climate action. In sum,
the objective of this review is to demonstrate that the human–nature relationship is an
extension of these human relationships and a tangible pathway to climate action that can
augment and enhance the current efforts in this field.
2. The Human–Nature Relationship
The human–nature relationship is captured well by the psychological construct of nature
connectedness, which provides a theoretical foundation for enhancing pro-environmental
behaviour. This internationally accepted construct captures both the cognitive aspects of
recognising one’s place within the wider natural world and the emotional bond to nature.
It has been formally defined as including nature in one’s sense of self [
8
,
9
], resulting in a
feeling of oneness [
9
,
10
] or affinity to nature [
11
]. Thus, the construct of nature connected-
ness goes beyond mere contact and exposure to nature and instead emphasises a deep and
meaningful relationship with nature [
12
]; see also [
13
]. From a sustainable behaviour and
climate action perspective, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown a robust and
causal link between nature connectedness and broadly carbon-cutting, pro-environmental
behaviours [
14
17
]. More recently, this association has been extended to pro-nature con-
servation behaviours [
18
]. Turning to human mental wellbeing, further systematic review
evidence has shown that nature connectedness is closely linked with wellbeing [
19
] and psy-
chological flourishing [
20
]. To put it simply, nature connectedness thus unites both human
and planetary wellbeing, making it a prime candidate for leveraging behaviour change.
To target nature connectedness for behaviour change and climate action, there is a
need to (a) understand the predictors of nature connectedness and (b) develop and test
approaches to improving it. Much research has explored the antecedents to nature con-
nectedness and has suggested that there are several ways to increase nature connectedness
(see [
9
,
21
,
22
] for more extensive reviews). These avenues range from short-term increases in
exposure to nature [
23
] to anthropomorphising nature [
24
] to mindfulness [
25
]. Ultimately,
however, most of the research on the antecedents of nature connectedness tends to fall
into the category of increasing contact with nature (see [
9
]), focusing less on targeting
meaningful interaction with nature or considering sustained benefits. Yet, some direct
evidence (and much of the indirect evidence reviewed later in this paper) suggests that
meaningful interaction with nature is the more important target [26].
Research has also considered interventions designed to deliver sustained benefits.
This research has shown that simple interventions can bring about sustained increases
in nature connectedness through prompting people to notice nature [
27
]. A review of
interventions to improve nature connectedness has also indicated that sustained benefits
are possible through repeated engagement with nature [
22
]. This repeated engagement
can be informed by the pathways to the nature connectedness design framework, which
suggests several broad categories of activities that can facilitate nature connectedness. This
work was based on exploring which of Kellert’s [
28
] nine human–nature relationship types
predicted nature connectedness. The five predictive pathways (or relationship types) were
sensory contact, emotions, beauty, meaning and compassion. In contrast, four relationship
types did not explain nature connectedness (i.e., use, control, scientific and negativistic [
29
]).
The ‘pathways’ framework has subsequently been applied by many practitioners and has
been successfully explored on a societal scale [
30
], suggesting that nature connectedness
is a realistic target for large-scale change. The utility of applying the pathways at scale to
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 3 of 28
increase nature connectedness, and thereby the human–nature relationship, as a tangible
focus for a more sustainable future, is starting to be recognised in global policy [
2
], which
will be explored further in the next section.
3. The Human–Nature Relationship and Environmental Policy
3.1. Positive Trends in Environmental Policy
As indicated in the opening, major environmental institutions are calling for a new
relationship with nature, and there are some policies that indicate a shift toward more
meaningful efforts to improve the human–nature relationship. For example, the UN
Environmental Programme report Making Peace with Nature suggests that the climate
and biodiversity crises can be tackled by transforming the world’s relationship with nature
through bold policymaking [
1
]. Changing the values and mindsets that define the current
relationship with nature is an important part of this approach. In essence, this focus
indicates that the target is a deeper psychological human–nature relationship rather than a
simple connection through contact and visits. The report refers to a change in values from
a relationship based on material consumption to one that values nature’s role in a good life.
Thus, a key message is transforming social and economic systems to put that value at the
heart of our decision making.
The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [
3
] adopted at COP15 is
also built around a theory of change and vision that recognises the exploitation of nature
fuelled by social values and behaviours as underlying causes of biodiversity loss. The
framework uses the language of relationships and the need to live in harmony with nature.
The framework also refers to Mother Earth and recognises that nature is vital for cultural
inspiration and wellbeing, and explicitly recognises the human place within nature.
Although the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is a plan to address
the decline in biodiversity, it is also a plan to transform our relationship with nature by
2030. The framework aims to catalyse, enable and galvanize urgent and transformative action
across society in a vision with specific goals and 23 action-oriented global targets. One
target includes access to nature, but goes beyond that to improving human connection to
nature and wellbeing, and mainstreaming urban biodiversity. As such, it implies a much
deeper relationship than that delivered by access alone [
26
]. Yet, despite being included
within a target, human connection to nature is not defined in the Kunming–Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework. Therefore, many might interpret it to simply mean facilitating
access and visits.
Indicating a promising shift toward greater specificity, nature connectedness research
is increasingly referred to in policy documents, and the pathways to nature connectedness
as a tool for societal change were noted within the UN-commissioned evidence review
Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future [
2
]. Guided by an advisory panel of experts in policy
and sustainable development science, Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future [
2
] synthesised
the scientific evidence and prepared recommendations for action. Once more, the human–
nature relationship was highlighted: ‘Our relationship with nature needs redefining, from one of
extraction to one of care. Human–nature connectedness should be strengthened in our social norms
and value systems, and in how we live our everyday lives.’ (p. 9). The summary for policymakers
recognises that society’s disconnection from nature is a root cause of ecological decline and
is based on a detailed consideration of redefining the human–nature relationship.
Similarly, the EEA [
4
] briefing, Exiting the Anthropocene? Exploring fundamental change
in our relationship with nature’, is informed by nature connectedness research and also
wider work on the human–nature relationship, such as deep ecology [
31
]. The briefing
considers how to reframe the human–nature relationship based on a holistic understanding
of the deep interconnection between humans, other life forms and ecosystems for societal
transformation and a sustainable future, showing another example of the shift in policy
thinking towards the human–nature relationship.
These international and European reviews provide a wider context for a national
review, one that highlights the human–nature relationship but demonstrates how the
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 4 of 28
current paradigm struggles to incorporate such relational thinking. The 610-page Dasgupta
Review [
32
] commissioned by the UK Government set out to assess the economic benefits
of biodiversity and the costs and risks of biodiversity loss. Perhaps surprisingly, given
this focus, the review recognises the more spiritual and sacred aspects of the human–
nature relationship, and it runs as a theme through relevant chapters. The review includes
the psychological construct of nature connectedness notes and accepts the distinction
between contact with nature and connectedness with nature. Noting that improving
nature connectedness goes beyond the wellbeing benefits of access to motivate environmental
behaviour. The hope in the Dasgupta Review is grand: a future where citizens can live in
peace with nature. However, despite stating that Connecting with Nature needs to be woven
throughout our lives’ and the need to create an environment in which, from an early age, we
are able to connect with Nature’, the language of connectedness falls away in the five-page
Headline Messages document [
32
]. Subsequent policy around connecting people with nature
has reflected this, with outcomes simplified to access to the outdoors, showing that there is
still a need for wider acceptance of the importance of the human–nature relationship and
how to operationalise it.
3.2. Areas for Improvement in Environmental Policy
There has been an encouraging shift in policy thinking in recent years to consider
the human–nature relationship. However, there is much room for improvement toward
more meaningful change. In particular, there are two areas of weakness: specificity of
language and sufficiency of aims. In regard to specificity, policies are often not clear in
the language they are using, leaving their emphasis on the human–nature relationship
either implicit or too vague (e.g., Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework).
Such vagueness and fragmentation of nature connection terminology have been noted
alongside the lack of concrete guidance on improving the human–nature relationship [
13
].
Ives [
13
] specifically notes that the psychological construct of nature connectedness can
provide focus and direction and can help ensure that the most effective leverage points are
properly targeted.
Regarding the sufficiency of aims, while policies are beginning to use the language
of human–nature relationships, many of the same policies focus on outcomes that are not
sufficient to change our relationship with nature (e.g., simple access to nature); in other
words, the policies claim to target the human–nature relationship without implementing
changes that should reasonably influence a relationship. For instance, there are many
examples of policies that focus on access to nature [
33
36
]. Promoting access, however,
while undoubtedly necessary [
9
,
22
], is not sufficient to increase nature connectedness [
26
].
Additionally, recent evidence suggests that when considered simultaneously, a psychological
connection to nature, rather than access and visits, better explains pro-environmental
behaviour [
15
,
18
] and wellbeing benefits [
15
,
37
,
38
]. This research indicates that a focus on
the human–nature relationship (vs. access and contact) provides greater benefits and unites
both human and nature’s wellbeing and that nature connectedness should not be conflated
with access or contact. Thus, by placing a sole focus on promoting access or contact, many
policies are at risk of falling short of meaningful changes to our relationship with nature.
Accordingly, greater accuracy and careful definition in wording are needed, which—as we
will argue in this paper—can be aided by more explicit recognition that the human–nature
relationship is just as much a relationship as any interpersonal relationship.
The review above shows an encouraging shift in policy thinking toward nature con-
nectedness being recognised as beneficial for health and nature conservation. However,
it also acknowledges that this relationship is still largely neglected by current public
policies [39]
and has yet to become mainstream in practice [
40
]. To overcome this neglect,
there is a dual need to see the human–nature relationship as a tangible and explicit target
and to better recognise the conditions necessary to sufficiently alter this relationship with
nature. Both these aspects can be furthered by considering the wider theory on inter-
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 5 of 28
personal (i.e., human–human) relationships as it relates to nature connectedness as an
operationalisation of the human–nature relationship.
In sum, based upon the abundant evidence that nature connectedness is (a) strongly
associated with pro-environmental outcomes [
16
], (b) sensitive to intervention [
30
] and
(c) becoming
increasingly recognised as an outcome of interest in policy, we argue that na-
ture connectedness should be considered a priority target for environmental behaviour and
climate action. Accordingly, if human–nature relationships are important for a sustainable
future, then there is a need to consider how they can be promoted. Yet, while research has
focused on the antecedents of nature connectedness (see [
9
]) and ways to improve it [
22
,
30
],
there are still important theoretical lenses that have not been fully considered. One such
lens is how theories of human interpersonal relationships can be applied to human–nature
relationships to inform efforts to improve such relationships with the natural world (e.g., na-
ture connectedness). The remainder of this review considers the implications of adopting
such a lens, first providing an overview of research on interpersonal relationships followed
by applications of relationship principles to human–nature relationships.
4. Interpersonal Relationships
4.1. The Importance of Relationships
Relationships are a fundamental part of the human experience, so much so that
relationships are linked to several of our basic motives [
41
]. For example, relationships
between two people are theorised to fulfil our basic need to expand and improve ourselves;
by including close relationships in our sense of self, we increase the resources we feel
are available to our self (self-expansion; [
42
45
]). Similarly, our relationships with other
people help fulfil our basic need to belong and feel related to others [
46
,
47
]. Thus, it is no
surprise that relationships are an important determinant of many facets of human existence,
including psychological wellbeing (see [
48
]), mortality risk [
48
,
49
] and our sense of self
and identity [41,4345,50].
Wellbeing, mortality and our sense of self, however, are not the only important out-
comes influenced by relationships; relationships also influence how we treat others and can
make us more likely to engage in pro-social behaviours [
51
,
52
]. For example, the extent to
which we include others in our sense of self—a key metric of a close relationship [
42
45
]—is
sometimes a better predictor of helping someone in need than empathy or perspective
taking [53]
. Similarly, stronger interpersonal relationships tend to involve a greater willing-
ness to sacrifice for the relationship partner [
51
,
54
56
] and a greater tendency to promote
the interests of the relationship over self-interest [
57
]. Still further, more committed relation-
ships are associated with a stronger tendency toward accommodation rather than retaliation
in instances of relationship conflict [
58
]. In sum, there is little doubt that fostering stronger
interpersonal relationships can result in benefits for both the individual (e.g., increased
wellbeing; see [48]) and for others (e.g., pro-social behaviour; see [51,52,5456]).
4.2. Factors That Influence Interpersonal Relationships
Given their fundamental importance to the human experience, a great deal of re-
search has focused on the factors that influence interpersonal relationships in terms of their
closeness (i.e., the extent to which two relationship partners are heavily influenced by one
another; [
59
]) and commitment (i.e., feeling attached to a relationship and subsequently
maintaining it; [
60
]). It is rather obvious that in order to have a close and committed rela-
tionship, one must actually spend time interacting with another person [
48
,
59
]. However,
it is not just the amount of time spent interacting with a relationship partner that influences
the closeness of the relationship, but the quality of the time spent with them [61].
There are many things that determine interaction quality and how the interaction with
a relationship partner influences closeness. For example, self-disclosure (i.e., sharing infor-
mation about oneself), versus just having a casual conversation [
61
], is an important part
of developing intimacy and subsequent closeness [
45
,
48
,
62
]. Similarly, time spent engag-
ing in novel and exciting activities is necessary to increase relationship closeness
[44,45,61]
.
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 6 of 28
Likewise, interdependence (i.e., mutual influence) between oneself and a current or potential
relationship partner is an important factor that influences the formation of a durable, com-
mitted relationship [
57
,
59
,
63
,
64
]. Finally, commitment to relationships is characterised by the
experience of psychological attachment to the other person, long-term orientation toward
the relationship, and desire for the relationship to persist [
57
,
63
]. Such commitment is influ-
enced by the extent to which the relationship has (a) received a considerable investment of
time and resources (i.e., large investment) and (b) fulfils important needs of the individual
(i.e., high satisfaction) that cannot be easily fulfilled by other relationships (i.e., absence of
alternatives; see [
60
]). In other words, it is not enough to just spend time around someone
else for a relationship to form; intimacy, excitement and a sense of interdependence with
the other person are all necessary ingredients for a close and committed relationship to
form. This is likewise true of satisfaction with, investment in and lack of alternatives to
the relationship.
In sum, while time and interaction are an important part of relationship formation,
the ingredients of a sustained relationship that is close and committed go well beyond
simply spending time around a potential relationship partner. This particular
point—that
relationships go beyond mere contact—continues to be emphasised because, in the context
of human–nature relationships, mere contact with nature tends to dominate much of
the discussion. As will be reviewed in the next section, applications of interpersonal
relationship principles to facilitating human–nature relationships offer a range of insights
supporting the need to go beyond facilitating mere contact with nature. A summary of key
concepts and their parallels to human–nature relationships can be found in Table 1.
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 7 of 28
Table 1. A summary table of key ideas, parallels and insights.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
Willingness to Sacrifice
People are more likely to make
personal sacrifices that benefit
another person if they are in a
close relationship with that person
(see [55]).
People are more likely to make
sacrifices for nature if they have a close
relationship with nature (i.e., if they
are connected to nature; [65]).
Just like relationships with
people, relationships with
nature are important for our
willingness to make sacrifices
that benefit nature.
[14,15,21,65,66], etc. Sections 4,5and 5.1
Closeness
Close relationships are those
relationships that are most important
to us. One key metric of relationship
closeness is the extent to which we
include another person in our own
sense of self (see [45]).
Like people, we can include nature in
our sense of self. Within
environmental psychology, including
nature in one’s sense of self is one of
the more frequently cited definitions of
nature connectedness (see [8]).
The human–nature relationship
is a relationship.
Nature connectedness is a
tangible way to capture
human–nature relationships.
[8,9,6770], etc. Sections 4.1,4.2,5
and 5.1
Commitment
Commitment in interpersonal
relationships is the extent to which
an individual is attached to the
relationship (e.g., values the
relationship) enough to put in the
effort to deliberately maintain it
(see [60]).
As with other people, we can be
committed to our relationship with
nature [65,71]. People who are
committed to nature have a
psychological attachment to nature
and intend to maintain their
relationship with it.
The human–nature relationship
is a relationship.
Nature connectedness is a
tangible way to capture
human–nature relationships.
[65,71], etc. Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Psychological
Attachment
Part of feeling committed to a
relationship is having one’s own
emotional wellbeing be influenced by
the other member of the relationship
and the relationship itself (see [63]).
Feeling psychologically attached to
nature (i.e., nature influencing one’s
emotional wellbeing) is one
component of commitment to nature
[71]. Indeed, some conceptualisations
of nature connectedness emphasise an
affective affinity for nature (e.g., [11]).
The human–nature relationship
is a relationship.
Nature connectedness is a
tangible way to capture
human–nature relationships.
[11,65,71] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 8 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
Long-Term
Orientation
Part of feeling committed to a
relationship is anticipating that one
will continue to be part of the
relationship for the foreseeable
future and, therefore, considering
how present actions in the
relationship might impact future
outcomes for the relationship
(see [63]).
Part of feeling committed to one’s
relationship with nature is having the
expectation that one will have this
relationship for the foreseeable future
and should consider how their current
actions will affect the relationship in
the future [71].
The human–nature relationship
is a relationship. [65,71] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Intent to
Persist
Part of feeling committed to a
relationship is desiring for the
relationship to persist and, therefore,
experiencing motivation to maintain
the relationship (see [63]).
In theory, part of feeling committed to
a relationship with nature is desiring
for the relationship to persist and
experiencing a motivation to maintain
the relationship.
The human–nature relationship
is a relationship. [65,71] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Satisfaction
The more satisfied one is with the
benefits provided by a given
relationship, the more committed
one should be to that relationship
(see [60]).
Satisfaction with the benefits provided
by nature predicts commitment to
nature (see [65]).
It is important that the ways
people are able to engage with
nature are sufficient to meet
their needs.
[65] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Investment
The more time and energy
individuals have invested into a
given relationship, the more likely
they are to feel committed to that
relationship (see [60]).
Investment in nature’s wellbeing
predicts commitment to nature
(see [65]).
Personal investment in
promoting nature’s wellbeing is
likely important for
transforming our relationship
with nature.
[65] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Available
Alternatives
If an individual perceives there to be
a greater number of available and
attractive alternatives to the
relationship, then they are less likely
to remain committed to that
relationship (see [60]).
In theory, perceiving attractive,
available alternatives to a relationship
with nature should predict lower
commitment to nature (but see [65]).
Individuals will likely not have
a strong relationship with
nature if they believe they can
obtain the same benefits
another way (e.g., perhaps
through relying on technology).
[65] Sections 4.2 and 5.1
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 9 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
(Inter)dependence
(Inter)dependence is one of the key
determinants of relationship
closeness. The more two individuals
interact in a way that meaningfully
affects each of their lives—that is, the
more their lives depend upon each
other—the more likely they are to
have a close relationship (see [63]).
While people are inherently dependent
on nature, they may not always realise
it. At its most extreme, being truly
dependent on nature would be akin to
living off the land where one’s
wellbeing and day-to-day actions are
unmistakably influenced by nature.
A more widely applicable example,
however, is having hobbies
(e.g., birdwatching) that would not be
possible if nature were to change
(i.e., where nature is not just a passive
background feature in someone’s life).
A relationship with nature
requires engagement with
nature where nature is an
inherent feature of the activity
(i.e., the activity could not be
done without nature).
Individuals must explicitly
recognise that their health,
happiness and lifestyle directly
depend upon nature.
Needed Sections 4.2,5.2.1,5.2.4
and 5.2.6
Frequent
Individuals who do not interact
frequently are unlikely to be
(inter)dependent and are, therefore,
unlikely to develop a close
relationship (see [48]).
Individuals who do not interact with
nature are unlikely to have a close
relationship with nature (see [9]).
Easy access to green spaces is a
necessary (but not sufficient)
prerequisite. Additionally,
individuals must also have the
time and energy to frequently
engage with nature.
[9,22,26], etc. Section 5.2.4
Diverse
Individuals who only interact in a
singular capacity are unlikely to be
interdependent and are, therefore,
unlikely to develop a close
relationship (see [48]).
In theory, individuals who only
interact with nature in a singular
capacity are unlikely to have a close
relationship with nature.
Engagement with nature must
permeate many (ideally all)
parts of individuals’ lives for it
to impact their relationship
with nature.
Understudied
(see [22,29]) Section 5.2.4
Impactful
Individuals whose interactions have
little meaningful impact on each
other’s lives are unlikely to be
(inter)dependent and are, therefore,
unlikely to develop a close
relationship [48].
In theory, individuals whose
interactions with nature have little
meaningful impact (i.e., only
superficial engagement) on their lives
are unlikely to develop a close
relationship with nature (see
[26,29,72]).
Engagement with nature must
have a noticeable impact on
individuals’ lives for it to
impact their relationship
with nature.
Developing
(see [26,29,72]) Section 5.2.4
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 10 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
Sustained
If interactions between two
individuals are not sustained, then
interdependence will not be
sustained [48].
In theory, if interactions with nature
are not sustained, then a relationship
with nature cannot be sustained.
(Inter)dependence with nature
must be part of all life stages,
year-round. Additionally, it is
not enough to just take an
occasional holiday to a national
park, for example.
Needed
(but see [22]) Section 5.2.4
Quality
Interaction
Simply spending time with another
person is not enough for a
relationship to form. Rather, it is the
quality of the time with them that
makes a close relationship more or
less likely to form (e.g., meaningful
conversation; [61])
In theory, the quality of the interaction
with nature should heavily impact the
closeness of one’s relationship with
nature. A higher quality interaction
should lead to a closer relationship
with nature.
What individuals do while
engaging with nature is as
important, perhaps more
important, than if they engage
with nature.
[23,29,73], etc. Sections 4.2 and 5.2.1
Intimacy
Intimacy is, more or less, the depth
of personal knowledge one shares
with another [62] and is a key
ingredient in developing closeness in
a relationship (see [45]). This is
usually facilitated through mutual
self-disclosure [61].
In theory, developing intimacy with
nature is likely critical for developing a
relationship with nature. While mutual
self-disclosure with nature may not
mesh with Western ways of relating to
nature, there are still plenty of ways
that one can develop an intimate
knowledge of nature and the natural
environment. For example, through
extensive learning about nature
(e.g., through hobbies such as foraging
or fly-fishing) or perhaps through a
lifelong history of engaging with a
particular area.
To transform our relationship
with nature, we may need a
larger cultural shift in our
thinking (i.e., a return to or
re-embrace of animacy).
Needed
(but see [74])
Section 4.2, Section 5.2.1,
Section 6.3 and
Section Animacy
Novelty and
Excitement
Novelty and excitement are
particularly important for
self-expansion; thus, they are also
especially important for including
relationship partners in our sense of
self (see [45]).
In theory, novel and exciting ways of
engaging with nature are likely
especially important for developing a
close relationship with nature.
Nature engagement
programming must strive to be
creative and innovative. Needed Section 4.2
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 11 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
Reciprocity
Relationships are a two-way street,
so to speak, and many processes in
relationships require both partners to
participate in a similar manner
(see [75]).
In theory, having subjectively
reciprocal interactions with nature
should contribute to the closeness of
one’s relationship with nature.
To transform our relationship
with nature, we may need a
larger cultural shift in our
thinking (i.e., a return to or
re-embrace of animacy).
Needed Section 6.3 and Section
Animacy
Trust
Trust is an important part of
relationships. In particular, trust
seems to be foundational to
developing dependence (see [75]).
Trust is likely also an important part of
human–nature relationships (see
[76,77]).
One likely cannot have a close
relationship with nature if they
do not trust it.
Understudied
(see [7678]) Sections 5.2.6,6.2
and 6.3
Sociocultural Influence The social context surrounding
relationships influences their
formation (see [48]).
Likewise, sociocultural factors
influence our relationship with nature
(see [79]).
To transform our relationship
with nature, we may need a
larger cultural shift in our
thinking (i.e., toward socially
valuing relationships
with nature).
Understudied
(see [79,80])
Section 5.2.2,
Section 5.2.3,
Section 5.2.6 and
Section Animacy
Behavioural
Scripts
We learn from others how one
should behave in certain types of
relationships [81]. For example, we
may learn how one is supposed to
treat your life partner from how our
parents treated each other.
In theory, we learn, at least in part,
how one should go about cultivating a
relationship with nature from the other
important people in our lives.
Individuals, especially children,
likely need a healthy role
model to demonstrate how one
should cultivate a relationship
with nature.
Needed Section 5.2.2
Social
(Dis)approval
We learn from others which types of
relationships are valued and
expected by society, and we are also
influenced by how others feel about
our relationships (see [82]). For
example, we may deliberately avoid
some relationships because we know
people will not approve, and we may
seek out other relationships because
we know others approve of them.
In theory, individuals’ perceptions of
others’ (dis)approval of having a
relationship with nature will likely
influence whether or not they feel
interested in having a relationship
with nature.
If people do not feel that
relationships with nature are
valued by society, then they
will be unlikely to pursue them.
Needed Section 5.2.2
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 12 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Application in Interpersonal
Relationships
Application in Human–Nature
Relationships Key Insight Relevant NC
Research Sections
Types of Relationships
There are many different kinds of
relationships that involve different
kinds of behavioural outcomes. For
example, some relationships are
more selfish, and others are more
compassionate (e.g., [83]).
In theory, not all relationships with
nature are the same. There are likely
desirable relationships with nature
(e.g., more harmonious) and ones
that are less desirable
(e.g., more exploitative).
It is important that we are
mindful of promoting the type
of human–nature relationship
that is most beneficial to nature.
Understudied
(see [30]) Section 5.2.3
Relationship
Maintenance
Relationships take work and require
deliberate attempts to maintain them;
otherwise, they will dissolve [41].
In theory, relationships with nature
likely also require
deliberate maintenance.
Relationships with nature are
an ongoing process that needs
to be maintained. Needed Section 5.2.4
Cognitive
Mechanisms
One way individuals maintain
relationships is by using cognitive
mechanisms (i.e., changing how they
perceive things that are related to the
relationship). For example,
individuals may subjectively devalue
potential alternative partners
(making the current relationship
seem more attractive) (see [57]).
In theory, the maintenance of
human–nature relationships might rely
on cognitive mechanisms, such as
subjectively devaluing alternative
ways of spending one’s time
(e.g., placing more value on walking to
work than relying on motor vehicles).
Human–nature relationships
may be more of an active
process than the literature (e.g.,
nature connectedness literature)
currently treats them as.
Needed Section 5.2.4
Behavioural
Mechanisms
One way individuals maintain
relationships is by using behavioural
mechanisms (i.e., changing how they
respond to things that are related to
the relationship). For example,
responding to partner conflict with
accommodative (vs. punitive)
behaviour because they would like
the relationship to continue
(see [57]).
In theory, the maintenance of
human–nature relationships might rely
on behavioural mechanisms. For
example, responding to conflict with
wildlife in an accommodative manner
(e.g., finding a way to live in harmony
with wildlife) rather than a punitive
manner (e.g., exterminating the
wildlife).
Human–nature relationships
may be more of an active
process than the literature (e.g.,
nature connectedness literature)
currently treats them as.
Needed Section 5.2.4
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 13 of 28
5. Applying Interpersonal Relationship Principles to Human–Nature Relationships
One of the most prominent conceptualisations of relationship closeness is the extent to
which one includes another relationship partner in the self [
42
45
]. Psychological research
on nature connectedness, as it turns out, originated as an extension of this principle to the
context of the natural environment [
8
]. Thus, nature connectedness can, quite literally, be
thought of as a reflection of human–nature relationships [8].
Indeed, nature connectedness and interpersonal relationships share many parallel
associations with important outcomes. For example, nature connectedness can fulfil
our need for relatedness [
9
,
10
,
20
] and is inherently self-expansive (see [
8
]). Moreover,
nature connectedness’s robust associations with (a) wellbeing [
15
,
19
,
20
] and (b) pro-
environmental [
14
,
15
,
21
]—including willingness to sacrifice for nature—and pro-social
behaviour [
84
], as well as (c) its inextricable link to our sense of self [
8
,
9
], further demon-
strates that nature connectedness has similar outcomes as interpersonal relationships and
is consistent with our contention that the human–nature relationship can be treated as
just another form of relationship. Accordingly, if nature connectedness has many of the
same outcomes as interpersonal relationships, then it would stand to reason that nature
connectedness may likewise have similar determinants as interpersonal relationships. In
other words, deliberately treating nature connectedness, and thereby human–nature rela-
tionships, as just another form of interpersonal relationship is justified and likely has value
as an updated way of thinking about our growing disconnection with nature [85].
It is important to note that we are not the first to propose this frame (see [
8
,
71
,
85
]).
However, this frame has yet to be taken to its logical conclusion, adopted widely by the
field, or recognised in policy. Thus, with the recent policy interest and rapid growth in
nature connectedness research evidence since 2015, we feel it is a point worth revisiting
with renewed focus. In the next sections, we outline some of the ways in which these
principles can be applied to nature connectedness and human–nature relationships. In
doing so, we also highlight the ways in which these applications are supported by extant
research on nature connectedness, potential areas for future research, and implications for
policy and practice.
5.1. Extant Applications
There already exists a (very) small amount of research that has used theories from
interpersonal relationships to study human–nature relationships. Indeed, some research
has applied some principles of relationships to measuring the human–nature relationship
and understanding its effect on our treatment of nature [
71
]. In this research, it was shown
that two features of commitment in interpersonal relationships—psychological attachment
and long-term orientation—can be used to capture people’s relationships with nature; that
is, measures of these two dimensions as they relate to commitment to nature correlated
strongly (r = 0.53) with common measures of nature connectedness [
71
]. Importantly,
in this study, commitment to nature—as indicated by psychological attachment to and
long-term orientation toward nature—was associated with more positive treatment of the
environment [
71
]. Thus, this research supports the proposition that nature connectedness
can, in fact, be treated as a relationship and that it has similar outcomes as interpersonal
relationships (e.g., more positive treatment of the relationship partner). What is missing,
however, is an application of relationship formation principles to the human–nature rela-
tionship. In other words, the question of whether human–nature relationships form in the
same way interpersonal relationships do was not answered by this research.
A second article partially addressed this question [
65
]. Specifically, in this study, the
researchers applied the principles of Rusbult’s model of commitment in relationships [
60
]
to commitment to nature in order to understand the factors that influence individuals’
relationships with nature. Once again, commitment to the natural environment showed
strong correlations with commonly used measures of nature connectedness (r = 0.57).
More importantly, however, the researchers found that satisfaction with (i.e., satisfaction
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 14 of 28
with the benefits provided by the environment) and investments in the environment
(i.e., investment of time and resources into promoting the wellbeing of the environment)
predicted commitment to nature [
65
]. In turn, commitment to nature positively precited
both environmental behaviour and willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Thus, this
research was largely consistent with the research on interpersonal relationships [
60
]. Once
again, we find distinct parallels between interpersonal relationships and human–nature
relationships. Yet, as will be discussed in the next section, interpersonal relationship theory
provides opportunities to catalyse advancements in research on nature connectedness
and ultimately to restore the human–nature relationship as a route to pro-environmental
behaviour and climate action.
5.2. Possible Future Applications
While the above research shows clear parallels between interpersonal and human–
nature relationships vis-à-vis nature connectedness, there has yet to be widespread adoption
of this perspective or a careful and deliberate application of the principles of interpersonal
relationships to nature connectedness. Moreover, the extant research reviewed in the pre-
vious section was primarily focused on how human–nature relationships influence the
treatment of nature, both placing much less emphasis on understanding how the relation-
ship forms and applying only a limited subset of relationship formation principles. A
recent review of approaches to improving the human–nature relationship, as conceptu-
alised by nature connectedness, found that research has focused on a rather limited range
of nature contact and engagement activities [
22
]. So, although it is known that carefully
designed interventions can deliver sustained increases in nature connectedness and despite
the wide adoption of the pathways to the nature connectedness design framework, new
approaches are needed. Given the growing policy interest in improving the human–nature
relationship, it would be useful—for guiding both future research questions and practical
efforts to improve the human–nature relationship—to deliberately apply the principles of
interpersonal relationship formation (and maintenance) to the formation (and maintenance)
of human–nature relationships. Just a few of these possibilities are reviewed briefly in the
following sections.
5.2.1. Quality Contact and Intimacy
As has been emphasised numerous times in this paper, it is not just basic superficial
contact with another person that increases relationship closeness with them but contact
that promotes a sense of (emotional) intimacy [
45
,
61
,
62
,
64
,
86
]. Additionally, it is not just
recognising that you enjoy spending time with someone but also recognising that your inter-
dependence with them is an important ingredient for interpersonal relationships
[57,63,64]
.
Both of these elements—intimacy and interdependence—should likewise be important
for our relationship with nature. A great deal of research has confirmed the importance
of spending time in nature for our relationship with nature (see [
9
,
22
], or [
21
] for more
elaboration). However, based on the principles of close interpersonal relationships, there is
likely nuance to this association. That is, compared to mere contact with nature and having
a nice time outside, intimate contact with nature (e.g., perhaps through actions as simple as
walking barefoot; see [
74
,
87
]) and contact that promotes meaningful interdependence with
nature should most strongly lead to greater nature connectedness, at least in theory. While
the role of intimacy in the context of nature connectedness is as yet unstudied (representing
a new potential area of research), the importance of quality time in nature is consistent with
past research on the pathways to nature connectedness. Programmes that have successfully
applied the pathways framework provide examples of how theory can be operationalised,
with the pathways of sensory contact and emotion leading to nature connectedness, which
aligns with aspects of quality contact and intimacy (see [
30
] for examples) [
29
]. Addition-
ally, some research has suggested that the quality of contact with nature (e.g., intensity or
immersion) influences nature connectedness (see [9] for a review) [23,73].
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 15 of 28
This is important for both theory and practice and applies to a number of domains.
For example, it is particularly relevant for environmental education, which often places
promoting nature connectedness as one of its aims [
88
90
], but often fails to deliver that
outcome [
21
]. From the view of nature connectedness as a relationship, the literature
would suggest that the activities of environmental education must go beyond objec-
tive learning about nature [
29
]; instead, the learning should involve novel and exciting
activities [44,45,61]
that promote both a sense of intimacy [
45
,
61
,
62
,
64
,
86
] and perceptions
of interdependence [57,63,64] with nature.
This also suggests that policies aimed at promoting nature connectedness [
36
] need to
do more than just promote access to nature. They must also promote the key ingredients of
relationship formation by promoting novel and exciting engagement with nature, intimacy
with nature, and perceptions of interdependence with nature. Yet, unfortunately, much
of the conversation around efforts to improve the human–nature relationship and nature
connection stops at mere access to and contact with nature (which is often discussed as
increasing green space), despite evidence that suggests simply spending time in nature is
not enough [26].
5.2.2. Social and Cultural Expectations about Relationships
Research has also revealed that relationships are heavily influenced by cultural norms
concerning how one should behave in relationships [
48
] and norms about which relation-
ships elicit approval or disapproval from others (see [
41
]). For example, sociocultural
expectations about what is normal to do or expect in a relationship (i.e., the scripts or
schemas employed in relationships) can influence behaviour in relationships [
41
,
48
,
50
,
81
].
Similarly, there are shared cultural expectations about which relationships are or are not
desirable and worth pursuing [
41
], and the approval or disapproval of a relationship from
other individuals in one’s social network can influence the persistence of the relation-
ship [
82
,
91
93
]. For example, in some cultures, greater emphasis is placed on relationships
with elderly parents, and these expectations shape which type of relationships individuals
involve themselves in [
94
]. These are rather unsurprising findings as many intuitively
know that approval or disapproval from others influences relationships, and tales of for-
bidden love are not hard to find (e.g., Romeo and Juliette). Still, while it is rather obvious
that interpersonal relationships do not exist in a vacuum and are very much influenced
by social and cultural factors when it comes to nature connectedness and human–nature
relationships, this fact is often missed by Western science and policy.
It is, therefore, important to explicitly recognise that some relationships can be seri-
ously hindered by social and cultural factors and that individuals learn from others how
to behave in relationships. If we apply these ideas to human–nature relationships, then it
would suggest that we should also be considering how sociocultural expectations surround-
ing relationships with nature influence things such as nature connectedness (see [
9
,
79
]).
This possibility is supported by some, granted limited, indirect evidence; parental val-
ues surrounding engagement with nature (i.e., their support for building a relationship
with nature) influences children’s relationships with nature [
80
], and country-level values
(e.g., orientation toward consumption and commerce, land and technology use) influence
country-level nature connectedness [79].
It is also important to note the historical contexts that continue to shape human re-
lationships with nature, particularly in Western contexts. Throughout Western history,
being in a close relationship with nature was demeaned as primitive, unenlightened, and
uncivilised [
95
97
]. These characterisations have been (and still are) used to enact harm on
people of colour and Indigenous communities around the world [
95
,
98
100
]. For example,
the doctrine of manifest destiny provided justification for the mass displacement and geno-
cide of Indigenous peoples in North America under the guise of taming the wilderness
(of which Indigenous people were a part) and bringing civilisation to the West [
95
,
98
].
Further, Africans have been likened to apes as a way to place them evolutionarily behind
Europeans [101]
, a comparison still used in contemporary American politics to dehumanise
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 16 of 28
and discredit black Americans [
102
]. In other Western contexts, being ‘one with nature’ is
negatively viewed in popular culture, with those having close relationships being invali-
dated as ‘tree huggers’ and ‘hippies’ [103,104].
Thus, it seems more than likely that there are some sociocultural contexts where
human–nature relationships are less encouraged and valued (i.e., in terms of norms about
which relationships are worth pursuing) or less well-modelled (i.e., in terms of behavioural
scripts) than others. In such sociocultural contexts, then, we might expect lower levels of
nature connectedness as a direct result of the sociocultural expectations around human–
nature relationships. Accordingly, if we were interested in increasing nature connectedness
in these contexts, then it would be necessary to address the underlying sociocultural factors
that are failing to support—if not actively hindering—people’s relationships with nature.
More generally, these findings linking sociocultural factors and relationship formation
strongly suggest that the issue of our growing disconnection from nature requires a deep-
rooted cultural shift in the way we view and support relationships with nature [
85
]. They
also suggest that critical interrogations of our rhetorical practices when communicating
about nature are well warranted (see [
105
] for a review of such interrogations of our use
of ecosystem services rhetoric, for example) because they, too, might be reinforcing the
societal norms that hinder our relationships with nature. In sum, the implication here
is that, once again, the issue of dwindling nature connectedness may not just be a case
of increasing access to nature but may actually require a collective change in the way
we actively support these human–nature relationships. At present, the dominant cultural
context creates pervasive illusions of separation and supremacy over nature that became
a mainstream way of thinking during the scientific and industrial revolutions, where the
control and use of nature became a dominant narrative. A situation captured by Tim Ingold,
a single, underlying fault upon which the entire edifice of Western thought and science has been
built—namely that which separates the ‘two worlds’ of humanity and nature [
106
]. Overcoming
such a deep fracture lies at the heart of restoring the human–nature relationship.
5.2.3. Types of Relationships
Additionally, it may be valuable to recognise that there are distinct kinds of inter-
personal relationships (e.g., communal vs. exchange; [
107
]; see [
48
] for others, such as
toxic relationships), which have different implications for behaviour [
50
,
108
]. Accordingly,
there may be different kinds of human–nature relationships with different implications for
behaviour. It would, therefore, be useful to consider the possible differences between dif-
ferent types of human–nature relationships because they may have important implications
for downstream behaviours. At present, however, the implicit assumption found within
most research that relates to human–nature relationships reflects a monolithic view of
human–nature relationships (see [
29
] for an example of a more nuanced perspective). The
research on interpersonal relationships, however, has implied that there might be different
types of human–nature relationships, and they might not all be associated with equally
desirable outcomes.
For example, future research could consider the possible difference between self-centric
human–nature relationships (egosystems) and other-centric human–nature relationships
(ecosystems; [
83
]). Specifically, an egosystemic interpersonal relationship is defined as one
in which individuals experience a self-centred motivation to promote and care about the
relationship that has little to do with the other relationship partner beyond the partner’s in-
strumental potential to benefit oneself [
83
]. In such relationships, the individual prioritises
their own needs over the needs of the partner and tends not to take a long-term view of
their behaviour’s impact on the relationship [
83
]. Alternatively, an ecosystemic interpersonal
relationship is one in which individuals experience a wholly system-centric motivation
to promote the wellbeing of the relationship because they feel a genuine concern for the
other relationship partner’s wellbeing [
83
]. In such relationships, individuals construe
their needs as part of an interconnected system of needs that they share with their partner
and tend to take a longer-term view of the relationship and its maintenance [
83
]. Thus,
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 17 of 28
in the context of human–nature relationships, it may be important that the relationship
with nature that forms is one that aligns more with an ecosystemic relationship with nature
rather than an egosystemic one because the former would likely result in a more positive
treatment of the environment relative to the latter.
As it turns out, different types of relationships are associated with different determi-
nants. For example, in the early stages of relationship formation, egosystems are more
associated with self-image-based motivations [
83
]. In contrast, ecosystemic relationships
are theorised to be more supported by motivations toward compassion and shared ex-
perience with other individuals [
83
]. Thus, it may be important to ensure that policies
support the ‘right’ type of relationship with nature. Additionally, relevant to the preceding
section, it may also be worth considering whether the sociocultural discourse surrounding
the promotion of nature connectedness adequately promotes the most desirable type of
relationship with nature (i.e., considering whether we are promoting a selfish or other-
wise problematic relationship with nature; see [
85
]). For example, research has already
suggested that a dominating relationship with nature is unhealthy for the environment’s
wellbeing [109] (see also [79]).
5.2.4. Relationship Maintenance
Finally, thinking about interpersonal theory might spark new ways of thinking about
the issue of the declining human–nature relationship. For example, it is not uncommon
for interpersonal relationship research to focus on relationship maintenance [
41
,
57
]. Some
research, for instance, has suggested that individuals employ both cognitive (e.g., devalu-
ing alternative relationship partners) and behavioural (e.g., accommodation of partner
behaviour) maintenance mechanisms to ensure that their relationship persists [
57
]. The
research on nature connectedness, however, has not had much to say about the way indi-
viduals deliberately maintain their relationship with nature or which maintenance practices
are most effective. Yet, the small amount of research that has applied relationship principles
to the human–nature relationship has suggested that these may be important considera-
tions. Specifically, focusing on long-term orientations is likely an important part of the
human–nature relationship, just as it is to interpersonal relationships [71].
An interesting additional consideration is that an important element in creating the
type of interdependence that supports a long-term, committed relationship is, once again,
the type of interaction between two relationship partners. Specifically, the type of contact
must be frequent, diverse, impactful, and sustained over a long period of time [
48
,
59
]. This
implies that while increasing the access to and use of green spaces is undoubtedly necessary
to support human–nature relationships (i.e., addressing frequency), it is also important that
people interact with nature in a diverse range of ways.
In other words, for policies to be effective, they would likely need to ensure that
interacting with nature permeates all facets of individuals’ lives in a variety of ways
(i.e., diverse interaction). Additionally, the interaction cannot be superficial; it must be
meaningful and have a strong influence on people’s lives (i.e., impactful interaction).
Finally, it must be continued over long periods of time (i.e., sustained interaction). Thus, to
illustrate, it is not just planting more trees in and around workplaces; it is getting people
to actively participate in planting them (see [
110
]) and getting them to plant gardens at
home (see [
9
]) and keep a journal of the one beautiful part of nature they see each day
(see [
26
,
72
]), and to do that month after month until their relationship with nature begins
to be repaired. In other words, policy should encourage individuals to explore a variety of
different pathways to nature connectedness [29,30].
5.2.5. Relationship Barriers
Relatedly, it may also be important to consider the factors that prevent or undermine
interpersonal relationships to help identify potential barriers to positive human–nature rela-
tionships so that they may be addressed. For example, contempt—which is closely related
to disgust (see [
111
])—is an infamously detrimental emotion in relationships (see [
112
]).
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 18 of 28
Research on nature connectedness similarly suggests that such negative emotions (see [
9
]),
along with other negative factors, may serve as barriers to nature connectedness [
29
,
79
].
Yet, a thorough investigation into the negative effects of ‘bugs and mud’ on nature connect-
edness has been largely absent (see [
9
]). As another example of a potential barrier, research
has noted that high levels of stress from sources external to interpersonal relationships can
make it hard to maintain high-quality relationships (see [
41
]). In parallel, then, one might
expect high levels of stress in one’s personal life (e.g., stress induced by poor working
conditions or cost of living) might make it hard to have a high-quality relationship with
nature [
113
]. Thus, efforts to increase nature connectedness might be stymied by other
stressors plaguing modern life. Although, emphasising the role of nature in emotional
regulation and managing stress provides an opportunity in these circumstances that also
reinforces the notion of interdependence between people and the rest of nature.
Additionally, as noted above, there are several factors that can undermine commitment
to relationships, such as more attractive alternatives [
60
]. Importantly, some evidence
suggests that this also applies to nature connectedness; there was a significant, negative
zero-order correlation (r =
0.19) between attractive alternatives (to nature) and commit-
ment to nature [
65
]. In other words, the extent to which people can find replacements for
their relationship with nature may be an important obstacle to promoting strong human–
nature relationships. Thus, the future of human–nature relationships may be facing an
uphill battle in the modern age, where there are many alternative ways to achieve many
of the benefits one could derive from a relationship with nature. For example, a relation-
ship with nature often has benefits such as restoration [
114
,
115
] or fulfilling our need for
relatedness [9,10,20]
). Yet, modern life has countless (seemingly easy) ways to achieve
these benefits through alternative means (e.g., going to the spa or watching TV to relax and
using social media or video chatting with friends to stay connected to others). Thus, people
may be more likely to perceive alternatives to a relationship with nature than not, which
would further undermine our already-obscured interdependence with nature (i.e., we live
in a time ‘where meat comes from the grocery store’ [
116
] (p. 1)). This possibility is further
supported by negative associations between features of modern life, such as smartphone
use, and nature connectedness [117].
Together, these findings suggest that there are, indeed, barriers to human–nature
relationships and that they can potentially be identified by considering the literature on
interpersonal relationships. It is important to note, however, that some of the barriers to
positive human–nature relationships will be irreducible parts of modern life. Still, knowing
that these barriers exist, regardless of their mutability, will only ever help to inform efforts to
increase nature connectedness. At the very least, this section hopefully serves to exemplify
the importance of actively considering the possible barriers to forming a strong relationship
with nature from a relationship perspective.
5.2.6. Trust
Another important relationship factor is trust [
41
,
48
,
54
,
75
,
118
120
]. Trust, in relation-
ships, is the general perception that the relationship partner can be expected to behave
benevolently and responsively to oneself [
75
]. Importantly, this trust is comprised of per-
ceptions of the relationship partner as predictable, and reliably benevolent, and that this
benevolence is intrinsically motivated—as opposed to instrumentally motivated [
54
,
75
,
119
].
While trust is intuitively important to relationships, research suggests that it is a necessary
precursor of willingness to become dependent on a relationship [
54
,
75
]. In other words,
without trust, one will be reluctant to become dependent on a relationship [
54
,
75
] and,
without this (inter)dependence, a relationship will not form [
57
,
59
,
63
,
64
]. To put it bluntly,
trust is incredibly important for interpersonal relationships.
It should be no surprise, then, that trust is a potentially important—but woefully
understudied—part of human–nature relationships, especially in childhood [
76
,
77
]. Com-
fort being outside is also an important part of fostering human–nature relationships [
78
].
This is important because it implies that developing trust in nature is crucial and it also hints
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 19 of 28
that this trust needs to develop early (consistent with past research; [
121
,
122
]). Moreover,
linked with the influence of sociocultural factors, this suggests that we should consider
whether sociocultural factors promote trust or distrust in nature. For example, throughout
Western environmental history, nature has been depicted as an unpredictable and danger-
ous entity that needs to be subdued and conquered by humans [
95
]. While there are parts
of nature that can be unpredictable and dangerous, the risks of nature are greatly reduced
through proper education and gaining experience in outdoor settings [
123
]. Further, recent
work on improving nature connectedness has focused on the importance of simple inter-
actions and noticing nature [
26
]. This is especially important in the context of increasing
urbanisation, which is a macro-factor in the human–nature relationship [79].
6. Discussion
This review demonstrated how considering the principles of close interpersonal rela-
tionships can be extended to the human–nature relationship. In doing so, we make the case
that relationships, be they with other people or with nature, are a fundamental part of the
human experience and influence not only our wellbeing but also our behaviour toward
others and our willingness to sacrifice for them; close relationships are good for us, and
good for others. For this reason and based upon copious direct and indirect empirical
evidence, we argued that the human–nature relationship should be a key target towards
the end of promoting climate action and a sustainable future. The clear parallels between
interpersonal relationships and nature connectedness help highlight the latter as a tangible
operationalisation of the human–nature relationship that can serve as a point of focus
for policymakers.
6.1. Recommendations for Improving Policy
Consistent with this assertion, the review also outlined a growing policy focus on the
human–nature relationship and nature connectedness. However, we also noted that this
has yet to translate into widespread adoption and practice, and we further note that policies
would benefit from a greater acknowledgment of the ‘relationship’ in the human–nature
relationship that nature connectedness reflects. By more explicitly acknowledging that the
goal is to change human–nature relationships, policy and practice should inevitably be more
likely to enact changes that will actually alter our relationship with the natural world.
Specifically, the analysis of interpersonal relationships identified several key aspects to
be considered when attempting to address the human–nature relationship (see Table 2for a
full list of policy implications). First, the importance of quality contact and intimacy was
emphasised with clear parallels in nature connectedness theory but often overlooked in
policy. Second, the influence of social and cultural expectations on relationships was noted
as an additional factor that needs to be considered in both research and policy; changing
our relationship with nature will undoubtedly require a significant shift in the cultural
and societal encouragement of such relationships, especially because we should be sure
to promote the most desirable type of relationship with nature. Third, the importance of
maintenance was also highlighted as an important area to consider. The need for novel
and exciting activities and for realising the interdependence between people and the rest of
the natural world is seen as important but currently overlooked considerations in efforts
to repair the human–nature relationship. Importantly, these are aspects that could be
readily combined with existing frameworks, such as the pathways to nature connectedness
(see [
29
]). Finally, trust and barriers to the human–nature relationship were considered. The
discussion of these factors highlighted that there may be foundational conditions that need
to be met in order to support the formation of positive relationships with nature. Trust, in
particular, might be a necessary prerequisite to the development of a healthy relationship
with nature. This, however, raises some possible limitations of applying interpersonal
relationship principles to human–nature relationships.
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 20 of 28
Table 2. Specific policy recommendations stemming from key topics (parallels Table 1).
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Policy Recommendation
Willingness to Sacrifice Policy should continue to place the human–nature relationship as a key target.
Closeness Policy would benefit from deliberately consulting the nature connectedness literature and using
nature connectedness as a concrete way of targeting the human–nature relationship.
Commitment Policy would benefit from deliberately consulting the nature connectedness literature and using
nature connectedness as a concrete way of targeting the human–nature relationship.
Psychological
Attachment
Policy should consider ways of fostering psychological attachment to nature. For example, starting or
supporting initiatives that encourage individuals to explicitly recognise how nature impacts their
emotional wellbeing.
Long-Term
Orientation
Policy should consider whether/how it is promoting a long-term orientation toward our relationship
with nature, both in terms of explicit language but also in terms of implied priorities.
Intent to
Persist
Policy should consider whether/how it is promoting a desire to strengthen and maintain one’s
relationship with nature, specifically. This would likely be aided by making it explicit that the end
goal is for people to have a relationship with nature.
Satisfaction
Policy should make sure that the available means of engaging with nature allow individuals to
effectively satisfy their needs. Increasing public access to nature (e.g., public access to rivers) is an
important first step, but it is also important that there are opportunities to engage with nature in a
number of different ways so that individuals can meet their needs.
Investment
Policies should consider ways of encouraging personal investment in promoting nature’s wellbeing.
Available
Alternatives
Policies may need to consider ways of making a relationship with nature more attractive than
alternatives to such a relationship. There may also be a need to document and emphasise the
relational value of nature.
(Inter)dependence
Policies need to encourage active engagement with nature through activities that are entirely
dependent on nature. To illustrate, encouraging hiking in nature or bird watching specifically (nature
is necessary) rather than encouraging exercising outside (nature is technically not necessary). More
than just access to green spaces.
Frequent
In addition, policy should also focus on ways of actually increasing the frequency of active
engagement with nature, recognising that people can only engage with nature frequently if they have
the opportunity, inclination, time and energy to do so. Policies should continue to provide greater
access to green spaces.
Diverse
Policies likely need to put forth multiple distinct initiatives to promote engagement with nature in a
diverse set of ways.
Impactful
Policies need to go further and target specific types of activities (as informed by research). More than
just access to green spaces.
Sustained It may be especially important for policies to focus on how to keep people connected during
extended periods of inhospitable weather (e.g., the winter months).
Quality
Interaction More than just access to green spaces. Policies need to focus on promoting high-quality interaction
with nature.
Intimacy Policy may want to consider promoting innovative programs that promote deep engagement with
nature (e.g., innovative outdoor education programs). More than just access to green spaces.
Novelty and
Excitement
Policy may want to consider promoting innovative programs that promote exciting and novel
engagement with nature (e.g., innovative outdoor education programs). More than just access to
green spaces.
Reciprocity Policies may benefit from a critical interrogation of the institutions that reinforce our potentially
problematic ways of thinking about nature.
Trust
Policies should be aimed at promoting trust in nature (and general comfort with being outside). This
is likely best done at an early age, so this may be especially relevant for educational policies.
Sociocultural Influence Policy should specifically consider how it can target the sociocultural factors that influence
human–nature relationships.
Behavioural
Scripts
Policy may find it valuable to consider whether there is room for nature connectedness as a specific
learning outcome in primary education to ensure that children have the appropriate understanding
of how to have a close relationship with nature.
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 21 of 28
Table 2. Cont.
Interpersonal
Relationship
Construct
Policy Recommendation
Social
(Dis)approval
Policy would benefit from considering how it can explicitly communicate that strong human–nature
relationships are something that the government values and that the general public should value
as well.
Types of Relationships
Policy should be careful not to inadvertently promote a problematic relationship with nature. This is
particularly relevant for our use of ecosystem services.
Relationship Maintenance Policy should recognise that the goal is not just to get people to have a one-off experience in a
national park, for example. Instead, the goal should be to help foster a life-long relationship with
nature, which means that people need ample ways to maintain it.
Cognitive
Mechanisms
Policy must recognise that the human–nature relationship is competing with many other factors. It,
therefore, needs to ensure that strengthening one’s relationship with nature is valued by the general
public more highly than alternatives.
Behavioural
Mechanisms
Policy might want to consider how it can encourage healthy human–nature relationship maintenance
behaviour (e.g., taxing the use of pesticides or providing rebates for using environmentally
accommodative solutions).
6.2. The Trusting Relationship Challenge
While trust in nature is likely important for positive human–nature relationships
[76,77]
,
it is possible that it does not adhere to the same principles as trust in interpersonal rela-
tionships. Again, trust in interpersonal relationships is influenced by perceptions that
the other partner is predictable as well as reliably and intrinsically benevolent (see [
119
]).
These elements are more easily perceived in relationships between two people and less
so in relationships between humans and aspects of nature. That is, the behaviour of other
humans is likely easier to predict than the behaviour of animals, for most at least. Individ-
uals may also be less readily inclined to perceive nature as reliably benevolent and less
inclined to perceive any benevolence of nature to be intrinsically motivated. In fact, it
may be common enough for many individuals in modern urban life to perceive nature as
reliably hostile. For the inexperienced, nature can pose a great number of dangers and can
seem unpredictable or inhospitable (e.g., sudden changes in weather, some plants but not
others being poisonous, predators acting unpredictably). However, like in human–human
relationships, learning about nature may still be one way to reduce unpredictability and
increase trust.
6.3. The Reciprocal Relationship Challenge
Another notable disconnect between interpersonal relationships and human–nature
relationships is that the former involves two agentic parties capable of participating in
apsychologically reciprocal relationship. The latter, however, is somewhat lopsided in
comparison. Specifically, in interpersonal relationships, there is a reciprocal relationship
between the two members of the dyad, and research has shown that the perceived respon-
siveness of the partner to the individual, for example, is an important part of relationship
formation [
41
,
48
,
54
]. Similarly, both giving and receiving self-disclosing information is
an important part of the relationship formation process [
48
,
62
,
75
]. Still, further, trust also
requires a level of reciprocity to form [
75
]. Thus, reciprocity is clearly an important part
of interpersonal relationships (see [
75
]); that is, interpersonal relationships are a two-way
street, so to speak.
In the case of individuals and nature, however, this bidirectionality is less present and
likely less readily perceived, at least in the Western world. The important element here is
actually perceiving reciprocity. While it is undoubtable that nature influences humans as
much as humans influence nature, this reciprocity is both different from the reciprocity
found in interpersonal relationships (especially vis-à-vis intimacy) and is increasingly
obscured in modern life (e.g., ‘meat comes from the grocery store’, [
116
] (p. 1)). That is,
while individuals are perfectly capable of having a relationship with nature, it may not be
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 22 of 28
readily apparent to individuals—at least not in the intuitive way found in interpersonal
relationships—whether nature has a relationship with them. Thus, it is easy to intuit that
you are connecting with your partner and that they are connecting with you; it seems
much harder to intuit that you are connecting with nature and nature is, in turn, connecting
with you.
Animacy
Part of this difficulty stems from the Western worldview of seeing nature and beings
in nature as inanimate things rather than animate beings who are autonomous, commu-
nicative, and relational [
124
129
]. Although children naturally demonstrate animistic
thinking [
130
], within Western rationalistic schooling, it is typically framed as an ‘error
rather than something to be nurtured and listened to [
131
]. However, very little psycholog-
ical research addresses animacy beliefs. One study has shown that believing that animals,
plants, land, and water are animate beings is positively associated with experiencing recip-
rocal relationships with nature [
132
]. Additionally, animacy beliefs may be an especially
important component of reciprocal relationships since they begin to deconstruct the power
dynamic in human–nature relationships. An animistic philosophy rejects the idea of human
exceptionalism or, rather, the idea that humans are superior to other beings and alone are
capable of mental capacities such as intentionality, emotion, and cognition [125,133].
This ‘reciprocity’ disconnect between interpersonal versus human–nature relation-
ships may ultimately be an irreconcilable theoretical limitation of the perspective of human–
nature relationships furthered in this paper. However, it may instead turn out to be a
valuable theoretical implication—a possibility that serves to highlight that one of the major
strengths of the perspective furthered here is its generativity. We might find that the rare ac-
tivities that do allow for this reciprocity may be especially potent ways of promoting nature
connectedness. For example, activities such as gardening (see [
9
]), especially for produce,
might create a more reciprocal sense of intimacy with nature than more one-sided activities
such as hiking—or it might not, but that is an empirical question. Similarly, combinations
of activities that create a sense of intimacy with nature (e.g., foraging) and activities that
create a sense of giving back to nature (e.g., conservation volunteering) might be able to
create a sense of reciprocity that seems to influence interpersonal relationships. Indeed,
compassion and care for nature are some of the pathways to nature connectedness [29].
Beyond these more immediate ways of increasing perceived reciprocity in human–
nature relationships, the broken relationship with nature means that there is likely a need
for a larger cultural shift in how we know and relate to nature. That is, part of the potential
difficulty perceiving reciprocity with nature likely stems from the Western worldview of
seeing nature and beings in nature as inanimate things to be controlled and provide utility
rather than animate beings who are autonomous, communicative, and relational. A larger
cultural shift away from Western ideas of nature could be particularly relevant for policies
that influence environmental education. For example, increasing the coverage of a wide
array of worldviews (e.g., Indigenous, animist, Eastern, etc.) as they relate to nature and
increasing nature education outside of STEM fields (e.g., environmental humanities, arts,
and social sciences).
6.4. Funding Priorities
A final policy-related recommendation is to encourage nature connectedness to be
made an explicit funding priority by bodies that support basic research. There is ample
evidence of parallels between interpersonal and human–nature relationships (see the first
few rows of Table 1), strongly supporting the perspective that human–nature relation-
ships are relationships. However, there are many parallels and insights implied by the
interpersonal relationship literature that have yet to be directly investigated in the context
of human–nature relationships (e.g., the importance of intimacy and how to increase it
in the context of nature connectedness). Before such parallels can be applied in practice
as interventions, they must be investigated empirically first. Thus, to the extent that the
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 23 of 28
human–nature relationship—and nature connectedness as a concrete operationalisation
of such relationships—are a key policy target, funding opportunities to test the many
hypotheses generated by this perspective must be made a priority.
7. Conclusions
A cultural shift lies implicitly at the heart of global calls to fix the broken relationship
with nature. The close and more harmonious relationship with, and within, nature found
in many Indigenous peoples has been lost across the globe. A primary driver of this loss
was the scientific and industrial revolutions that saw humans break free from the bonds of
nature to a relationship based on the use and control of natural resources. The existence of
past dramatic cultural shifts is a reason for hope; however, they are difficult to engineer.
They may, perhaps, be realised through a recognition that the current paradigm has become
outdated and unsustainable, along with clear visions of a more sustainable future. A future
where human–nature relationships are actively valued and supported represents such
a vision.
This vision, however, must be accompanied by opportunities, actions, and meaningful
engagement. This reinforces the importance of policy, which should be informed by
research on both human–nature relationships and interpersonal relationships. It is not only
crucial that environmental policy comes to recognise that relationships are tangible and a
driver of action but that this shift extends beyond environmental policy to permeate all
areas of policy and decision making. Ultimately, there is an imperative to provide trusting,
quality, and emotionally intimate contact with nature every day. Adopting this aim can
guide and inform urban planning and housing policies that also provide communities
with the opportunity for the shared care for nature. These opportunities, however, require
a change in orientation. Social norms can and should be fostered, for example, through
cultural policy and treasury incentive schemes to foster novel and exciting engagement
with nature. Education and health policy can highlight the interdependence of humans
and the rest of nature and work to reverse the teaching-out of the animistic thinking that
may be fundamental to healthy relationships with nature. The law can also work toward
supporting a change in our relationship with nature. Just as women have gained greater
equality through legislation, laws and legal precedents can give rights to nature. Further,
legal frameworks can afford natural features legal personhood much the same as has been
granted to corporations, which would be an important step toward legitimising nature as a
valued member of the planetary community. Together, such relationship-focused thinking
would foster a cultural shift towards a reciprocal relationship with nature needed for a
sustainable future.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, M.R. and M.L.L.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.R. and M.L.L.; writing—review and editing, M.R., M.L.L. and R.A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
UNEP. Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies; UNEP: Nairobi,
Kenya, 2021; Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature (accessed on 29 June 2023).
2. SEI & CEEW. Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022. [CrossRef]
3.
Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; Convention on Biological Diversity: Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, 2022; Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf (accessed on 29
June 2023).
4.
EEA. Exiting the Anthropocene? Exploring Fundamental Change in Our Relationship with Nature; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2022.
5.
Dorninger, C.; Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; von Wehrden, H. Assessing sustainable biophysical human–nature connectedness at
regional scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017,12, 055001. [CrossRef]
6.
Folke, C.; Jansson, Å.; Rockström, J.; Olsson, P.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Crépin, A.-S.; Daily, G.; Danell, K.; Ebbesson, J.; et al.
Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO 2011,40, 719. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 24 of 28
7. Orr, D.W. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002.
8.
Schultz, P.W. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations. In Psychology of Sustainable Development;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 61–78. [CrossRef]
9.
Lengieza, M.L.; Swim, J.K. The Paths to Connectedness: A Review of the Antecedents of Connectedness to Nature. Front. Psychol.
2021,12, 763231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M.P. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2004,24, 503–515. [CrossRef]
11.
Kals, E.; Schumacher, D.; Montada, L. Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environ. Behav.
1999,31, 178–202. [CrossRef]
12.
Howell, A.J.; Dopko, R.L.; Passmore, H.A.; Buro, K. Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness.
Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011,51, 166–171. [CrossRef]
13.
Ives, C.D.; Abson, D.J.; Von Wehrden, H.; Dorninger, C.; Klaniecki, K.; Fischer, J. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability.
Sustain. Sci. 2018,13, 1389–1397. [CrossRef]
14.
Whitburn, J.; Linklater, W.; Abrahamse, W. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior.
Conserv. Biol. 2020,34, 180–193. [CrossRef]
15.
Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with
health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020,68, 101389. [CrossRef]
16.
Mackay, C.M.L.; Schmitt, M.T. Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol.
2019,65, 101323. [CrossRef]
17.
Barragan-Jason, G.; Loreau, M.; de Mazancourt, C.; Singer, M.C.; Parmesan, C. Psychological and physical connections with
nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biol. Conserv.
2023
,
277, 109842. [CrossRef]
18.
Richardson, M.; Passmore, H.; Barbett, L.; Lumber, R.; Thomas, R.; Hunt, A. The green care code: How nature connectedness and
simple activities help explain pro-nature conservation behaviours. People Nat. 2020,2, 821–839. [CrossRef]
19.
Capaldi, C.A.; Dopko, R.L.; Zelenski, J.M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis.
Front. Psychol. 2014,5, 976. [CrossRef]
20.
Pritchard, A.; Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D.; McEwan, K. The Relationship between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic
Well-Being: A Meta-analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 2020,21, 1145–1167. [CrossRef]
21.
Barragan-Jason, G.; de Mazancourt, C.; Parmesan, C.; Singer, M.C.; Loreau, M. Human–nature connectedness as a pathway to
sustainability: A global meta-analysis. Conserv. Lett. 2022,15, e12852. [CrossRef]
22.
Sheffield, D.; Butler, C.W.; Richardson, M. Improving Nature Connectedness in Adults: A Meta-Analysis, Review and Agenda.
Sustainability 2022,14, 12494. [CrossRef]
23.
Weinstein, N.; Przybylski, A.K.; Ryan, R.M. Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic
aspirations and generosity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2009,35, 1315–1329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Tam, K.-P.; Lee, S.-L.; Chao, M.M. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward
nature. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013,49, 514–521. [CrossRef]
25.
Aspy, D.J.; Proeve, M. Mindfulness and Loving-Kindness Meditation: Effects on Connectedness to Humanity and to the Natural
World. Psychol. Rep. 2017,120, 102–117. [CrossRef]
26.
Richardson, M.; Hamlin, I.; Butler, C.W.; Thomas, R.; Hunt, A. Actively Noticing Nature (Not Just Time in Nature) Helps Promote
Nature Connectedness. Ecopsychology 2022,14, 8–16. [CrossRef]
27.
Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D. Three good things in nature: Noticing nearby nature brings sustained increases in connection with
nature. Psyecology 2017,8, 1–32. [CrossRef]
28. Kellert, S.R. The biological basis for human values of nature. Biophilia Hypothesis 1993,42, 69.
29.
Lumber, R.; Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are
pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0177186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Richardson, M.; Dobson, J.; Abson, D.J.; Lumber, R.; Hunt, A.; Young, R.; Moorhouse, B. Applying the pathways to nature
connectedness at a societal scale: A leverage points perspective. Ecosyst. People 2020,16, 387–401. [CrossRef]
31. Naess, A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 1973,16, 95–100. [CrossRef]
32. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review; Hm Treasury: London, UK, 2021.
33. House of Commons. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill; House of Commons: London, UK, 2022.
34. Public Health England. Improving Access to Greenspace: A New Review for 2020; Public Health England: London, UK, 2020.
35.
White House. Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Roadmap for Nature-Based Solutions to Fight Climate Change,
Strengthen Communities, and Support Local Economies; White House: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
36.
Natural England. Building Partnerships for Nature’s Recovery. 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/natural-england-building-partnerships-for-natures-recovery/building-partnerships-for-natures-recovery (ac-
cessed on 30 May 2020).
37. Richardson, M.; Hamlin, I. Nature engagement for human and nature’s well-being during the Corona pandemic. J. Public Ment.
Health 2021,20, 83–93. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 12175 25 of 28
38.
Richardson, M.; Passmore, H.A.; Lumber, R.; Thomas, R.; Hunt, A. Moments, not minutes: The nature-wellbeing relationship.
Int. J. Wellbeing 2021,11, 8–33. [CrossRef]
39.
Selinske, M.J.; Harrison, L.; Simmons, B.A. Examining connection to nature at multiple scales provides insights for urban
conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2023,280, 109984. [CrossRef]
40. Soanes, K.; Taylor, L.; Ramalho, C.E.; Maller, C.; Parris, K.; Bush, J.; Mata, L.; Williams, N.S.G.; Threlfall, C.G. Conserving urban
biodiversity: Current practice, barriers, and enablers. Conserv. Lett. 2023,16, e12946. [CrossRef]
41.
Finkel, E.J.; Simpson, J.A.; Eastwick, P.W. The Psychology of Close Relationships: Fourteen Core Principles. In Annual Review of
Psychology; Annual Reviews Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
42.
Aron, A.; Aron, E.N. Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction; Hemisphere Publishing Corp: London,
UK; Harper & Row Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1986; Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-98255-000
(accessed on 29 June 2023).
43.
Aron, A.; Aron, E.N.; Tudor, M.; Nelson, G. Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
1991
,
60, 241. [CrossRef]
44.
Aron, A.; Lewandowski, G.; Branand, B.; Mashek, D.; Aron, E. Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of others in self:
An updated review. Artic. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2022,39, 3821–3852. [CrossRef]
45.
Aron, A.; Lewandowski Jr, G.W.; Mashek, D.; Aron, E.N. The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close
relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 90–115.
[CrossRef]
46.
Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
Am. Psychol. 2000,55, 68–78. [CrossRef]
47.
Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychol. Bull. 1995,117, 497–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48.
Berscheid, E.; Reis, H.T. Attraction and close relationships. In The Handbook of Social Psychology; Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey,
G., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 193–281. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07091-022
(accessed on 29 June 2023).
49.
Holt-Lunstad, J.; Smith, T.B.; Layton, J.B. Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. PLoS Med.
2010
,
7, e1000316. [CrossRef]
50. Berscheid, E. Interpersonal Relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol 1994,45, 79–129. [CrossRef]
51.
Fehr, B.; Harasymchuk, C.; Sprecher, S. Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some new findings. J. Soc.
Pers. Relatsh. 2014,31, 575–600. [CrossRef]
52.
Agnew, C.R.; Le, B. Prosocial Behavior in Close Relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior; Schroeder, D.A.,
Graziano, W.G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 362–375. [CrossRef]
53.
Cialdini, R.B.; Brown, S.L.; Lewis, B.P.; Luce, C.; Neuberg, S.L. Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One
Into One Equals Oneness. Interpers. Relat. Group Process. 1997,73, 481–494. [CrossRef]
54.
Wieselquist, J.; Rusbult, C.E.; Foster, C.A.; Agnew, C.R. Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships.
Interpers. Relat. Group Process. 1999,77, 942–966. [