Finding Nature

Emotions matter. They help change mindsets, are at the heart of relationships and are expertly targeted to fuel consumption – yet the rational mind can dismiss emotions as inferior to facts and figures. The pathways to nature connectedness and our interventions include emotions to help form a close bond with nature. Our latest research paper in Urban Ecosystems uses a simple twist to turn a more rationale nature experience into a more emotional experience. The research compared the benefits of counting birds to rating the joy they bring. Afterall, perhaps birds are what emotions look and sound like.

Alongside trees, birds are the envoys of the natural world, bringing nature into our everyday lives – an opportunity to rekindle forgotten connections. For many, watching and feeding birds is already a source of pleasure. Wouldn’t it be great to enhance that experience further? Especially if that was as simple noting the joy they bring. Previous research has already shown that consciously being aware of the wonders of nature on a walk brings greater benefits.

The joy of birds

The ‘joy watching’ twist builds on an idea I had of focussing on the emotions birds bring. Thanks to promotion by the Self Isolating Bird Club and assistance from the Alpkit Foundation, 156 people took part in the study and they were randomly allocated to one of two groups. The first group (the ‘Count’ group) were asked to watch the birds in their garden for thirty minutes, identifying each species and counting how many individual birds of each species visited (similar to the RSPBs Big Garden Birdwatch). The other group (the ‘Joy’ group) also watched and identified birds in their garden, but instead of counting them they were asked to rate their feelings of joy on seeing each species. All participants filled out a survey before and after the activity, which measured their feelings of wellbeing, anxiety and connection to nature.

Participants in both groups had improved wellbeing, decreased anxiety, and stronger connection to nature, but the decrease in anxiety was greatest for those in the ‘joy’ group whose anxiety levels dropped by over 20%. This suggests that paying attention to feelings of joy can enhance the psychological benefits gained from watching birds. These results show the positive impact of watching birds and suggest that activating a sense of joy heightens the benefits further. Promoting feelings of calm that reduce state anxiety – we know that nature helps manage our emotions. The findings also support our previous research that has found improved wellbeing from noticing nature and cultivating positive emotions.

Given the involvement of members of the Self-Isolating Bird Club, our sample was not representative of the general population, and we found they had levels of nature connectedness 28% higher than more typical populations. So, to detect and improvement suggests there’s even greater potential as we’ve found in other interventions that impacts are greater amongst those with lower levels of nature connectedness. As such, we could expect much greater increases if people who weren’t already connected to their local birds took part in the activity. And, that’s the majority of the population, as we know most people don’t notice the joy of birds.

Our most joyful bird?

We also took the opportunity to explore which species brought the most joy. Long-tailed Tits came out on top, followed by Robins and Goldfinches. The lowest joy ratings were given to Woodpigeons, followed by Magpies and Carrion Crows. We expected woodpigeons and corvids to get the lowest ratings as they are disliked by many and there’s more on these cultural aspects in the full paper. There was a significant correlation between size and joy, with smaller birds bringing 50% more joy than the larger birds. There was a weaker, but still significant correlation between colourfulness and joy. Perhaps surprisingly there was no relationship between commonality and joy – although, as you’d expect, there was less data for uncommon visitors.

The Joy of Birds

Interestingly, while some birds brought more joy than others, that didn’t appear to impact on the benefits – it seems it is the act of noticing emotional responses itself which leads to the improvements in anxiety.

To sum up, the research offers evidence for the psychological benefits of watching birds, and suggests that taking part in citizen science projects like the Big Garden Birdwatch can bring about enhanced wellbeing and connection to nature. However, greater improvements in anxiety are gained by paying attention to the positive emotions experienced while watching birds.

In the context of Green Social Prescribing and Nature Prescriptions, ‘Joy Watching’ is a simple activity that anyone can do at home, or any outside space where birds are present. It could be adopted by school and community groups, or used alongside ‘bird therapy’ stations in workplaces. However, as recent research has suggested bird feeding could have a negative impact on some bird species, care would be needed in designing such schemes. However, as bird feeding increases the nature connection that brings pro-nature behaviours, there’s a need to consider the wider picture.

Our research has shown consistently that noticing nature is a critical first step towards connecting to nature for improved wellbeing. Noticing our emotional responses to nature takes us further towards building a new relationship with it. We know that those who feel close to nature are more likely to take action to help it, so appreciating the joy of birds could lead to more planting for birds and insects, better feeder hygiene, and more eco-aware behaviour.  So, next time you fill up your feeders, pause, watch, and – most importantly – enjoy the birds who come to feed.

White, M., Hamlin, I., Butler, C.W.  & Richardson, M. (2023). The Joy of Birds: The effect of rating for joy or counting garden bird species on wellbeing, anxiety, and nature connection. Urban Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01334-y

Based on an earlier blog with Dr Carly Butler

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.

The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at COP15 could be a first step towards fixing the broken relationship with (the rest of) nature. The framework is built around a theory of change and vision which recognises the underlying causes of biodiversity loss – the exploitation of nature fuelled by social values and behaviours. Fundamentally the framework speaks of relationships through recognising the need to live in harmony with nature.  The language is significant, it recognises that biodiversity is fundamental to human well-being, recreation and cultural inspiration, and that it supports all systems of life on earth. It refers to ‘Mother Earth‘ and recognises that nature is vital for a good quality of life. The text recognises our place in nature, the fundamental need for nature and a harmonious relationship with it.

A step towards a new relationship with 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’ by Governments, local governments, and communities across society – a whole of Government and whole of society approach. To do this the framework outlines a vision with specific goals and 23 action-oriented global targets for urgent action by 2030, with the aim of achieving the outcome-oriented goals for 2050.

The first 8 targets aim to reduce threats to biodiversity – from a human-nature relationship perspective broadly reducing the use and control of nature. These include the headline making targets to protect 30% of the globe for nature. Five targets are related to meeting people’s needs through sustainable use of nature. This includes access to nature, but goes beyond that to ‘mainstreaming’ urban biodiversity and improving human connection to nature and wellbeing. The start of a much deeper relationship than that delivered by access alone. Together with the wider values and language of harmony, and the need to be informed by science, evidence and indigenous worldviews this is a significant moment for nature connectedness research and related work.

The final 10 targets focus on tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming. Targets such as full integration of biodiversity across sectors and reducing over consumption – a country-level factor we found was a key factor in individual connection to nature.

Overall, the framework recognises that the human-nature relationship is fundamental, a causal issue and readers of my blog with know that nature connectedness captures that relationship. So the framework sits well with the moderation of negative human-nature relationships and promotion of positive relationships that build connection with nature – the pathways approach laid out in our Ecosystems & People paper. 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.

The biodiversity stripes have been so popular they now have their own home at biodiversitystripes.info which aims to raise awareness of the loss of wildlife. The new site also provides some new stripes based on UK data for priority species, moths and farmland birds. Measuring and indicating biodiversity is very complex, which can make telling a simple story about the loss of wildlife difficult, but there is an urgent need to make the problem visible. People need to be aware for change to happen.

biodiversitystripes.info – a dedicated home for the biodiversity stripes

In other recent news, the stripes have been adopted by the Nature Positive campaign led by Nature4Climate. A global effort to raise the profile of action to protect, manage and restore natural ecosystems for the benefit of the world’s peoples, the climate and biodiversity. They also appeared at the COP27 Nature Zone, part of the backdrop to many events. Alongside the climate warming stripes, the biodiversity stripes decorated a baton to be taken to COP15 to unite the climate and nature agenda.

Some might wonder why biodiversity matters and about the link to nature connectedness. Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth. It supports life and is fundamental in providing the air we breathe and food we eat. Humans evolved within a vibrant, biodiverse, natural world. It is inherently good and vital for our wellbeing. Yet through a disconnected relationship dominated by use and control of nature we have done great damage to the natural world. A spiralling breakdown as when biodiversity decreases so does our relationship with nature. A failing relationship that the UN recognise as the root cause of the environmental crises. Which is why our wider research explores ways to fix the failing relationship with nature.

Please note, the biodiversity stripes have been updated and now have a dedicated site at https://biodiversitystripes.info/  

The biodiversity stripes I shared in the summer have been very popular. This follow-up post shares some more news on their use and a revised set of stripes – updated data in the latest Living Planet Report means two more grey stripes had to be added, as our green natural world turns increasingly grey.

First the updated stripes. The biodiversity stripes are based on the Living Planet Index which tells us that the population of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles has now seen an average drop of 69% globally since 1970. George Simons has suppored the bio-stripes by creating hi-res versions of the global stgripes suitable for print – if you are interested get in touch).

Global Bio Stripes 1970 to 2018 – Data: Living Planet Index http://stats.livingplanetindex.org/

Once again I’ve also simply overlaid a declining flock of birds onto the global bio stripes – please get in touch if you’d like to create some compelling overlays.

Global Bio Stripes 1970 to 2018 with birds – Data: Living Planet Index http://stats.livingplanetindex.org/

And now the news. Last week the stripes were used to open an official seminar by Scientist Philippe Grandcolas from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) on climate change and biodiversity loss with French MPs in the French National Assembly.

This follows a makeover of my biodiversity stripes toucan, which is available on a variety of Greenpeace tops – an excellent and worthwhile Christmas gift i’m sure!

(Greenpeace/Teemill)

————————————

George Simons recently founded Ruleo with the mission of using technology as a gateway to nature, to make it accessible, engaging and fun for all children to grow, play and learn with the natural environment. The desired outcomes are to improve children’s health, wellbeing and inspire environmentally friendly behaviours. Their current focus is developing an immersive app that connects children with nature through play and learning. They are collaborating with experts, organisations and charities that support learning in nature, outdoor play and nature connectedness for children and families, and are growing new relationships to establish content development partnerships. Ruleo’s priority is to unearth new investment opportunities to enable the next phase of app development. Please email George to find out more or discuss partnership opportunities – george@ruleo.uk

————————————

LPI 2022. Living Planet Index http://stats.livingplanetindex.org/. Downloaded 8 August 2022

Use of the biodiversity or nature stripes work must include appropriate acknowledgement of Miles Richardson and, when based on their data, LPI (LPI’s preferred format: LPI 2022. Living Planet Index database. 2022 www.livingplanetindex.org). Note that products derived from LPI data for financial gain are prohibited without written permission of ZSL and WWF.