Finding Nature

We often hear that spending time in nature is good for our mental health. But in our quest to quantify the natural world—counting trees and measuring canopy cover—we may be missing something vital. Our latest research paper published in People and Nature suggests that it’s not the number of trees that matters most, but how we feel about them. People who perceived their local treescapes as rich and varied reported better wellbeing and less psychological distress, regardless of how many trees were actually there. In our urge to measure and count, we often overlook the immeasurable—our feelings, perceptions, and connections with nature. We become so focused on the trees, we miss the wellbeing in the woodland.

This research goes beyond the usual “access to more green is better” message by showing that it’s not just the number of trees or hedgerows that matters, but how people experience and relate to them. It’s both opportunity to access and orientation to engage that matter. This has important implications for how we plan, protect, and talk about our local green spaces.

What Did the Study Do?

We surveyed over 1,300 adults living near three major treescape initiatives in the UK: The National Forest, The Mersey Forest, and Brecon Beacons National Park. Participants were asked about their mental wellbeing, life satisfaction, happiness, stress and anxiety. They were also asked how rich they thought their local treescapes were—whether there were many trees and hedgerows, a variety of species, and different sizes and ages of trees.

To complement these perceptions, the team used satellite data to measure actual tree cover and hedgerow length around each person’s home. A statistical model was then built to explore how these objective and subjective measures of treescapes related to mental health, while also considering other factors like nature connectedness, satisfaction with the local environment, and how often people visited nature.

Key Findings: Perception Is Powerful

The headline finding? People who felt their local treescapes were richer—more trees, more variety—had better wellbeing and lower psychological distress. And this wasn’t just a vague association. The perception of treescape richness had significant positive effects on all four measures of positive mental health (wellbeing, life satisfaction, happiness, and eudaimonia) and on measures of distress (depression/anxiety/stress and anxiety alone).

Interestingly, the actual number of trees or hedgerows nearby didn’t have the same consistent impact. Objective measures like tree cover density and hedgerow length were only weakly linked to mental health, and mostly through indirect pathways.

How Do Trees Help? Through Connection and Experience

The study found that perceptions of treescape richness influenced mental health through three key pathways:

1. Nature Satisfaction – People who saw their treescapes as rich were more satisfied with the natural environment near their homes.
2. Nature Visits – They were more likely to go out and spend time in nature.
3. Nature Connectedness – They felt more emotionally connected to nature.

Each of these experiences was linked to better mental health. For example, higher nature satisfaction was associated with greater happiness and lower anxiety. More frequent nature visits were linked to lower levels of depression and stress. And while nature connectedness was generally positive, the study did find a surprising twist: it was also associated with slightly higher levels of distress, possibly because people with anxiety or depression may well seek out nature more often as a coping strategy. Afterall, we know nature helps manage our emotions.

Childhood Nature Exposure Matters Too

We also looked at whether growing up around nature made a difference. It did. People who had more contact with trees and nature as children tended to have better mental health as adults. But again, this effect was mostly indirect—through their adult experiences of nature and how they perceived their local treescapes.

Implications: Planning for Perception

So, what does this mean for how we manage our neighbourhoods and treescapes? It means we need to think beyond planting more trees. Yes, tree cover matters—but how people perceive and relate to those trees matters more for mental health. A single, well-loved tree might do more for wellbeing than a dozen unnoticed ones. Variety, visibility, and emotional connection are key.

This has implications for urban planning, community engagement, and even how we talk about trees. Local authorities should consider not just the ecological value of trees, but their social and psychological value. That means involving communities in decisions about tree planting, protection, and removal. It means recognising that treescapes are not just green infrastructure—they’re part of our emotional landscape.

A Rich Treescape Is a Healthy One

Ultimately, this study adds weight to the idea that nature isn’t just something we visit—it’s something we live with, something we feel and ultimately something we’re part of. Our relationships with trees are personal, emotional, and deeply connected to our wellbeing. A rich treescape isn’t just about biodiversity—it’s about people flourishing as part of that ecology.

So next time you walk through your neighbourhood, take a moment to notice the trees. Their presence, variety, and beauty might be doing more for your mental health than you realise.

Back in 2012, I came up with the idea of Three Good Things in Nature (3GTiN)—a nature-based twist on the popular positive psychology intervention Three Good Things (3GT). Since then, several papers have explored its benefits, but our latest study, published in the International Journal of Wellbeing, offers the most comprehensive comparison yet – plus some unexpected benefits.

We ran a preregistered study with 330 participants, randomly assigning them to either the standard 3GT or the nature-focused 3GTiN intervention. For one week, participants noted three good things each day—either general good things (3GT) or good things noticed in everyday nature (3GTiN). We measured a range of wellbeing and nature-related outcomes before and after the intervention.

The headline result? 3GTiN was statistically equivalent to 3GT in boosting emotional balance and life satisfaction. That’s important—it means that simply noticing good things in nature is just as effective as the well-established 3GT intervention in improving these core aspects of wellbeing.

Plus, as expected, engagement in 3GTiN also increased nature connectedness, which emerged as a strong predictor of intention to engage in pro-environmental behaviour. This matters. While traditional wellbeing interventions focus on personal benefit, 3GTiN offers a pathway to planetary wellbeing too. It’s a regenerative approach—supporting both people and the planet.

But what’s even more compelling are the additional benefits of 3GTiN.

Participants in the 3GTiN condition only reported significantly greater ‘transcendent connectedness’—a sense of being connected to nature, but also other humans and to life itself. This is a powerful finding. In a world where disconnection is increasingly common, especially in urban and digital environments, a simple daily nature noticing practice can help people feel more part of something bigger.

Those in the 3GTiN group also experienced more elevation—a composite emotion that includes feeling deeply appreciative, profoundly touched, and morally uplifted. These kinds of self-transcendent emotions are linked to greater pro-social and pro-environmental motivations. In other words, noticing nature doesn’t just make us feel good—it can make us better people.

Interestingly, these benefits weren’t due to participants spending more time in nature. The gains came from simply paying attention to the nature already present in their daily lives. This aligns with our earlier work showing that moments, not minutes, in nature are what matter most for wellbeing.

When we looked at what participants actually noticed in nature during the 3GTiN intervention, the richness of everyday nature stood out. Across more than 5,000 entries, people highlighted flora—trees, flowers, and leaves—over 1,100 times, closely followed by wildlife, such as birds. Weather was another frequent source of joy, with mentions of rain, breezes, and snowfall appearing over 1,000 times. The sun and sky were celebrated too, from warm sunlight to cloud patterns and starry nights. These themes show that nature’s “good things” are everywhere, even in ordinary settings, and noticing them can spark appreciation and wonder. It’s a reminder that connection doesn’t require wilderness—just attention to the life around us.

In the 3GT group, most people mentioned nature at least once in their responses, but overall 88% of the good things were not nature related. The dominant themes—making up over 70% of responses—were work or study, food, socialising, entertainment, daily living, and physical activity. So, while socialising was a popular topic, it didn’t translate into feeling more connected to others. This contrast highlights a key finding: simply listing good things from our more human lives doesn’t foster the deeper sense of connection that noticing nature does.

In sum, 3GTiN is a simple, accessible intervention that boosts wellbeing, deepens connection, and nudges people toward caring for the natural world. It’s a small daily act with big potential. As one participant put it, “The more I was asked to think about the good things in nature, the more I had intentions to protect the environment.”

That’s the kind of shift we need.

Following our previous handbooks, which offer an introduction to connecting people with nature, and helping organisations and communities connect with nature, we are delighted to launch our newest guide – Nature Connection in Schools, a comprehensive and practical resource designed to help educators foster meaningful relationships between children and the natural world.

In a time of rising childhood mental health challenges and environmental crises, this guide offers a hopeful and evidence-based response. It draws on the latest research to show how nature connection can support emotional wellbeing, resilience, and pro-environmental behaviours in children. More than just outdoor play, nature connection is about cultivating a deep, emotional bond with the natural world—one that enhances both personal and planetary health.

The handbook is tailored for teachers, school leaders, governors, and early years practitioners. It provides:

• A clear explanation of what nature connection is and why it matters.
• Practical steps and activities for embedding nature connection into school life.
• Insights from the UK’s first biophilic school.
• Evidence-based principles for fostering nature connectedness across age groups.

Central to the guide is the concept that connection is about moments, not minutes, and feeling, not facts. It introduces the “Pathways to Nature Connectedness”—senses, emotion, beauty, meaning, and compassion—as a framework for designing impactful nature-based experiences. From sensory walks and nature art to student-led environmental campaigns, the guide offers adaptable activities for both primary and secondary settings.

Importantly, the handbook also explores how nature connection can be embedded into school policies, culture, and physical environments. It includes practical tips for creating nature-rich spaces, even in urban schools, and highlights how small changes—like seasonal celebrations or biophilic design elements—can make a big difference.

Whether you’re starting from scratch or building on existing initiatives, Nature Connection in Schools is a valuable tool for anyone looking to enrich children’s lives through nature. By helping young people build lasting relationships with the natural world, we can nurture happier, healthier students—and a more sustainable future.

Richardson, M., Barnes, C. & Owen, K. (2025). Nature Connection in Schools. University of Derby.

Over the past few years, I’ve often written about our failing relationship with nature. It’s now recognised that this issue lies at the heart of the environmental crises, but how do we solve it? What if we could simulate how that disconnection occurred? What if a computer model tuned by real world data could help us understand not just how we got here, but where we might be headed?

That’s exactly what my latest research published in Earth and featured in The Guardian set out to do. It uses a computer model to simulate the long-term decline in nature connection from 1800 to 2020 and tests it against real world data. Then it projects what might happen over the next century. It’s a story of urbanisation, intergenerational change, and the quiet erosion of everyday nature in our lives. But it’s also a story of hope, because it shows how transformative action could turn things around.

A Model of Human–Nature Disconnection

At the heart of the study is a simulation that models how people interact with their environment over time. It’s built on the idea of the extinction of experience—the cycle where loss of nature leads to lower connection, which can then get passed on to the next generation as shown in the conceptual framework below. This illustrates how nature connection is built from people’s engagement with nature, both within a lifetime through attention to nature and across generations through feedback loops. One feedback loop captures how engaging with our surroundings shapes our connection to nature during our lifetime, and another models how parents pass on their orientation to nature to their children.

The models conceptual framework

The model simulates this and tracks individuals and families across an initially nature-rich landscape (see green dots below), simulating births, deaths, and changes in nature connectedness as nature depleted urban areas (red dots) expand, matching historical urbanisation data. Families (blue dots) come and go within a natural environment becoming more urban.

Simulation of living with increasing urbanisation. Families (blue dots) come and go within a natural environment (green dots) becoming more urban (red dots).

The model runs from 1800 to 2125 to test future scenarios. It’s not just about individuals—it’s about systems, generations, and tipping points. It captures how cultural and environmental changes ripple through time.

Model versus Nature Words

To test the model, a way to track nature connectedness over time was needed. But of course, we don’t have surveys from the 1800s. So I turned to culture. Specifically, I used the frequency of nature-related words in books—words like river, blossom, moss, and bough—as a proxy for how connected people were to nature. These words reflect what people noticed, valued, and wrote about. And when their use is plotted over time, a clear decline of around 60% is revealed. Particularly from 1850, a time when industrialisation and urbanisation grew rapidly.

The decline of nature words since 1800

Here’s the remarkable part: the model (red line), built from the ground up to simulate human–nature interactions, closely mirrored, with less than 5% error, the actual decline in nature word use, see chart below. Despite the uncertainties of using language as a proxy, the fit was striking. It suggests that the model is capturing something real about how our relationship with nature has changed. The model’s accuracy validates its ability to predict future trends.

Time-series plot of modelled nature connectedness (red line) and the nature connectedness target (blue line).

The modelled nature connectedness decline of 61.5% was very close to the 60.6% maximum decline of nature words in 1990. For context, in a cross-sectional survey of 63 nations, nature connectedness in the USA was 57.5% below the nation with highest level, Nepal, relative to the full range. This suggests the modelled decline is plausible.

However, the model missed the 8% uptick to 2020. This suggests either an issue with the nature word data since 1990, such as recent publishing trends for ‘nature writing’, or that the model may be missing societal factors that have positively influenced nature connectedness in recent decades.

There are a number of societal factors that are associated with levels of nature connectedness. Only one with a positive association with nature connectedness has seen a recent uptick, spirituality. Perhaps a growing need for spiritual fulfilment has driven an increase in nature connectedness, or nature word use. However, such changes would need to overcome the rapid increases in factors with a negative relationship, such as the rapid penetration of smartphone technology.

Either way, large national surveys running since 2020 show that nature connectedness is in decline, so recovery doesn’t seem to be underway.

What the Model Reveals

The model simulation reveals a steep decline in nature connectedness from 1800 to 2020, primarily driven by urbanisation and environmental degradation. However, the most significant factor is intergenerational transmission: as parents lose connection to nature, their children begin life with lower connection, creating cultural inertia that persists even if environmental conditions improve.

Crucially, calibration revealed that intergenerational transmission overwhelmingly accounts for the long-term decline, while the lifetime extinction of experience mechanism added only marginal refinement. This insight underscores the importance of early-life and family-based interventions in reversing the trend and highlights the deep-rooted, systemic nature of human–nature disconnection.

Into the Future

To explore how nature connectedness might evolve, the model tested a range of future scenarios involving three types of interventions:

• Urban greening: Increasing nature in cities by 50%, 100%, or 1000%, in the context of a tenfold rise in urbanisation since 1800.
• Nature engagement campaigns: Boosting attention to nature by 50%, 200%, or 300%, against a backdrop of a threefold decline in nature connectedness.
• Parenting and early-life interventions: Enhancing intergenerational transmission by 30%—a stretch target based on current interventions that typically yield 10% gains. This was phased in over 10 years and then held constant.

Changes to nature access and attention were scaled linearly from 2020 to 2050, then maintained through 2125.

The simulation revealed three distinct clusters of outcomes (see chart below):

• Continued decline: Scenarios with modest increases in nature access (50% or 100%) or attention alone failed to reverse the downward trend. These interventions, even in combination, were insufficient to counteract the system’s inertia.
• Holding steady: Some scenarios halted the decline but didn’t reverse it. This included the child-focused intervention alone, or combined with low-level greening and attention boosts. Even a 1000% increase in nature access alone only stabilised the trend.
• Recovery and growth: Only the most ambitious combined interventions—such as a 1000% increase in nature access paired with the child-focused strategy—led to a delayed but accelerating recovery post-2050. This illustrates how intergenerational transmission can shift from a vicious to a virtuous cycle.

These findings highlight the system’s deep inertia: even transformative interventions take decades to show results. This delay underscores the urgency of early, sustained action.

Importantly, these targets might be more achievable than they appear, a 1000% increase in nature to counteract a similar change in urbanisation is daunting. However, in the UK, people spend around 7% of their time outdoors—half of that in urban settings—and a median of only 4.5 minutes per day in green spaces. A tenfold increase would mean 35% of the day outdoors or just 45 minutes in nature rich places—ambitious, but within reach.

Future scenarios of nature connectedness to 2125

Why It Matters

This isn’t just an academic exercise. Nature connectedness is increasingly recognised as a causal factor in the environmental crises we face today. When people feel disconnected from nature, they’re less likely to care for it. Conversely, promoting stronger nature connectedness can be a powerful strategy for transformative change (IPBES, 2024).

The findings presented here support the report’s conclusion that deep, systemic change is urgent, necessary, and challenging. The model reinforces this, showing that transformative changes in intergenerational transmission are required. The model highlights the scale of transformation required—not just in environmental conditions, but in cultural and familial dynamics—to reverse the long-term erosion of our relationship with nature.

Targeting nature connectedness is becoming a focus for policy proposals, but if we don’t understand how nature connectedness diminished in the first place, how can we know which direction to head in?

This research helps answer that. It shows that disconnection didn’t happen overnight—it was shaped by urbanisation, cultural shifts, and intergenerational change. And it won’t be reversed overnight either. The model shows that recovery takes time, and that early-life experiences, education, and urban design are key.

It also highlights the importance of feedback loops. Once disconnection sets in, it becomes self-reinforcing. But the same is true in reverse: once enough people begin to reconnect, the system can tip toward restoration. That’s the power of cultural change—it can cascade.

Recommendations

So what does this mean for policy, education, and everyday life? The model points to several key recommendations:

Strengthen Intergenerational Transmission

Support parent and child engagement with nature through nature-based programs, school curricula, and family policies. Encourage nature-focused parenting resources, public campaigns, and peer networks to enhance cultural transmission.

Transform Urban Greening and Access

Prioritise biodiverse, accessible greenspaces in urban planning. Integrate nature access across public services—education, health, housing, and transport—to increase everyday engagement with nature. Back community-led initiatives to foster local stewardship.

Monitor and Evaluate Nature Connectedness

Expand national and local tracking systems. Embed nature connectedness indicators into wellbeing and environmental reporting. Use real-time data to inform adaptive, evidence-based policy.

Key Conclusions

This study reveals that reversing the decline in nature connectedness requires more than environmental improvements—it demands systemic, long-term cultural change. The model highlights intergenerational transmission as the dominant force sustaining disconnection, making early-life and family-based interventions critical. Despite ambitious interventions, recovery is delayed by deep system inertia, with meaningful change not emerging until after 2050. This underscores the urgency of acting now to avoid further entrenchment of disconnection. The model’s close alignment with historical cultural trends also validates its relevance, showing that environmental exposure, attention, and familial influence can explain centuries of change. Together, these findings call for urgent, sustained, and multi-level action—combining urban design, education, and governance—to restore our relationship with nature.

Richardson M. Modelling Nature Connectedness Within Environmental Systems: Human-Nature Relationships from 1800 to 2020 and Beyond. Earth. 2025; 6(3):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030082

Back in 2021 we asked whether the lockdown spring brought about a lasting connection to nature? Many of us found a friend in nature during the first lockdown in Spring 2020, but by 2021 data suggested this was just a short-term relationship. There is now 5 years’ worth of data from over 100,000 respondents to Natural England’s People and Nature Survey (PANS) and this blog takes an informal look at a few of the trends across time and regions.

Let’s start with nature connection (data from over 22,000 people) and noticing nature (data from over 80,000 people). The 2020-2021 fall is even more apparent, with nature connection (orange line) falling by 10%. It did recover through 2021 and 2022, but there’s been further decline through 2023 and 2024. The quarterly variation looks quite dramatic in the zoomed in charts, but the fluctuations are around 2%. Interestingly, from 2023, noticing nature has seen a 4% rise, with the trends going their separate ways – a difference of around 5%. So not as dramatic as it looks, but certainly notable and sustained.

I mention quarterly variation above, but over the 5 years there’s actually very little difference between the seasons, so perhaps the variation in nature connection is linked to the actual weather, or other some other factor, like mood. See how happiness varies in a similar way in the chart below. There are 1200 responses at each time point for NCI and 6000 for happiness, so happiness is likely to be a little more stable.

I also looked at some broad regional differences. There’s around 7% difference between the lowest area, West Midlands, and the highest, the South West. It’s interesting to note this is quite small when compared to the differences between the UK and say Nepal. The lowest nation in one survey, Singapore is around 60% lower than Kenya. The UK is also low on a global scale, so in that context the regions are quite similar – the key point is that the whole nation is low. There’s a need to reconnect a nation, rather than create an equally disconnected nation.

The nature connection measure used since 2020, the NCI, has been joined in PANS by another measure over the last couple of years, the INS. While both measure nature connectedness, they have differences in focus. The NCI taps into emotions, while the INS is more cognitive. This shows up sometimes in the PANS data. For example, London is 8^th highest using NCI, but 2^nd using INS. While Yorkshire goes in the opposite direction, 2^nd to 7^th. But both measures place the South West top and West Midlands bottom. It’s useful to look at measures in the round. For example, consider pro-nature conservation behaviours and London is 7^th again. The NCI has a closer relationship with pro-nature behaviours than the INS. And engaging in pro-nature behaviours has a strong positive relationship with feeling that life is worthwhile.

While pulling out the data on trends some questions on people’s concerns and worries about visiting green and natural spaces caught my eye. Maintaining the post lockdown theme, I’ve written previously about the impact of over 3 million ‘pandemic pets’ so I took a look at ‘fear of dogs’ and ‘fear of crime’ for comparison. Sadly, both have risen since 2020. From around 15 to 19% for crime, that’s a rise of 27%. And from around 7 to 11% for dogs, a rise of over 50%. The trend below is interesting: in late 2023 it peaked at over 13%, suggesting that for over 7 million adults a fear of dogs (or poor dog owners) impacts their visits to green and natural spaces. Interestingly, that dropped dramatically when the XL Bully ban was introduced early 2024, although it appears to be returning to the overall upward trend.

Different people have different fears, and taken together the fear of crime and dogs means 1 in 4 adults are worried about visiting green and natural spaces for those two reasons. PANS includes 12 more areas of potential concern and worry, and overall 65% of people have worries of one form or another, from getting lost, to lack of facilities and on to fear of crime or dogs.

The trends show that while nature connection is falling, fear is increasing among a substantial proportion of people. People are less likely to find being in nature brings happiness if they fear visiting it. Green and natural spaces need to feel safer if the decline in nature connection is to be reversed. The more encouraging observation is that change can happen in response to measures taken. Fear can be reduced and nature connection can be higher when the environment facilitates it.