Several of my research papers and blog posts (e.g. here, here and here) cover the crucial difference between nature contact and nature connectedness. A recent systematic review covering 832 independent studies provides an important summary and new evidence on why the difference matters and the necessity to focus on psychological nature connection for a sustainable future. Although the benefits of contact with nature are starting to breakthrough, psychological nature connection is neglected in public policies, but there are significant signs this may change – if there’s an understanding that contact with nature is different from connection with nature. If not, efforts will be mis-guided and wasted.

The Infinity of Connection figure provides a representation of research findings and is informed by a figure in the review and previous research. The infinity figure shows that nature contact benefits people, but connection benefits both people and nature. The infinity symbol suggests the endless reality that human’s are part of nature, which is essential for a sustainable future. Like infinity itself, this reality of human-nature connection feels like an elusive idea many humans now struggle to comprehend.

Exposure, visits and contact are often seen as nature connection, the systematic review uses the term ‘physical nature connection’ – a useful clarification perhaps, but sharing the term could add to the confusion. Many of these studies used a ‘nature for people’ framework where the value of nature for human health is central. At its worse, physical nature connection is seen as a ‘dose of nature’, a pill to pop – essentially framing nature as a resource for human wellbeing. At best a part-time relationship.

Psychological nature connection, or nature connectedness, is an emotional bond with nature or seeing oneself as being part of nature. It is a worldview. Yet, often this nature connection is seen as ‘fluffy’, hugging trees, being mindful or conflated with time outdoors, be it whittling sticks or walking the dog. Such activities may play a role in building a little more nature connection, and done well and repeatedly can bring sustained benefits. However, they won’t flip a deeply ingrained and disconnected worldview that has done such damage to the natural world.

Tim Ingold puts the issue well, referring to ‘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’.

Joining two worlds helps realise the enormity of the challenge. In the Western worldview we are schooled to see ourselves as separate from nature. Humans are central when life itself should be.

So, for the results of this latest research.

The systematic review of thirteen meta-analyses confirms that contact with nature is good for human physical and mental health. That this needs ‘proving’ is proof itself of the fracture – why wouldn’t the habitat of our evolution be good for us?

But the review confirms that contact doesn’t bring nature’s wellbeing through pro-environmental behaviours. Ultimately, although increasing contact and access to nature is a good thing, it won’t bring about a sustainable future. More access and contact is needed as a step to reconnection, but it won’t usher in a sustainable future. For that, our fractured thinking must also be healed.

The systematic review of six further meta-analyses finds that psychological nature connection benefits human health. With a further four further meta-analyses showing the link between psychological nature connection and pro-environmental behaviours. There has been less much work on the link to pro-nature conservation behaviours. The lack of interest in measuring them is another sign of the deep fracture between humans and nature. However, our initial studies (here and here) show psychological nature connection explains pro-nature behaviours.

A further issue is that the benefits of nature contact and connection are usually studied separately. When the two are measured together (e.g. here, here and here) it has been found that connection makes a bigger contribution to human wellbeing than contact. Time and visit frequency are both straightforward ways to measure nature contact, but they also provide a reasonable proxy for nature connectedness, so when nature connectedness is included contact matters less.

The systematic review also notes the positive role of biodiversity for both human health and pro-nature behaviours. As shown in the figure above and in our earlier research, positive feedback loops can be formed. More connection brings pro-nature behaviours, more nature and the opportunity for more active engagement with nature that builds connection.

That psychological nature connection brings both human and nature’s wellbeing makes it a key target for a sustainable future. After all, it captures the human-nature relationship that is the root cause of the climate and biodiversity crises. That is why it is crucial to understand the difference between physical contact and connection. And how nature connectedness is improved. Our recent meta-analysis showed that carefully designed interventions can deliver sustained increases in nature connectedness. With sustained benefits arriving from a variety of forms of repeated and active engagement with nature.

Such a nature positive lifestyle will be of great benefit, but the scale of the environmental crises is such that more transformational change is required, ultimately a shift in worldview to one where human’s see themselves as part of the rest of the natural world.

The systematic review of physical and psychological nature connection comes at a key time, alongside the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15. The framework provides a plan to transform our relationship with nature by 2030. The framework aims to ‘catalyse, enable and galvanize urgent and transformative action’ by Governments, local governments, and communities across society – and includes a target on improving human connection to nature. The framework provides a great basis for scaling-up nature connection work already underway and moving from viewing nature as a resource to an essential part of who we are. However, that work must understand that it is psychological connection with nature that unites both human and nature’s wellbeing – much current work is focussed on access alone.

Barragan-Jason, G., Loreau, M., de Mazancourt, C., Singer, M. C., & Parmesan, C. (2023). Psychological and physical connections with nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biological Conservation, 277, 109842.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.