Disconnected
Why do some people feel less connected to nature and what influences that disconnect.
Hello and welcome to this week’s Compassionate Nature article which considers a disconnection with nature
“Personally, I see it as a realisation of our shared place in nature, which affects our being – how we experience the world here and now; our emotional response, beliefs and attitudes towards nature.”
Writing on his personal blog in 2014 Professor Miles Richardson reflected on what the term nature connection means to him. Over the weekend and at of the start of this week a couple of events have underlined the interest in protecting nature and the various facets relating to nature connectedness.
On Saturday there was a large demonstration attended by at least 60,000 people in London and supported by many nature conservation groups calling for the next UK government to do more to help protect and restore nature.
At the start of the week the latest Nature Connection conference was hosted by the Nature Connection Research Group from the University of Derby. It was a two day event with key note talks and discussions on day one followed by a series of workshops on day two. The Nature Connections Research Group is lead by Miles and has produced a lot research and guidance around nature connection and how to foster it, which has been used by many organisations and individuals. In addition to the conference an art event called Our Stories Are Wild also took place at Derby Cathedral with the aim of bringing together “ artists and researchers who focus on the human-nature relationship. Many of the artworks and films reveal an emotional and spiritual connection with our environment and explore themes of care, hope and responsibility.”
Nature connection research has increased over the last couple of decades, which has highlighted the multiple benefits it supports, from positive affect on psychological wellbeing to influencing our behaviours towards the natural environment. One aspect of the research relates to the concern around a decreasing connection with nature, associated with reduced access to and contact with nature, alongside increasing urbanisation and technology based life-styles.
Compassionate nature is a free publication, supported by a global readership. Please consider subscribing for free to support my writing and never miss a weekly post. You don’t need to use Substack to subscribe, just an email address which will only ever be used to send each published article.
It appears the majority of research often focuses on connection, but perhaps another way to explore this aspect of the relationship with nature is to consider the opposite - nature disconnection. Some recent papers have taken this approach.
Defining disconnection
Thomas Beery and colleagues 2023 perspective published in the People and Nature journal argues that one issue with nature connection research is its focus on the individual and their relationship with nature. This dominate perspective perhaps does not support fully exploring the concept of disconnection, which they argue is influenced by factors outside of the individual. The authors present the view that such a disconnect is more as a result of social constructs within industrialised cultures, highlighting that indigenous societies have much less of a distinction between humans and nature.
The authors offer a number of reasons and social factors that contribute to a disconnect, including spending more time inside, low biodiversity landscapes and sedentary lifestyles. They apply the five types of nature connection as developed by Christopher Ives and colleagues in 2018 which are material, experiential, cognitive, emotional, and philosophical.
Under material Beery and colleagues use the example of consumption and the growing disconnect between food production and consumption, including diets that are high in processed foods and the environmental cost of imported food. Under experiential they point towards reduced access to nature and less time being spent outdoors, which they relate to the term nature deficit disorder.
A short research geeky aside - nature deficit disorder is not an illness nor a formal medical disorder. It was termed by Richard Louv in 2005 where he meant disorder as a metaphorical representation of the disconnection with nature, resulting from less time and less access in nature within childhood principally due to parental concerns. It has not been directly assessed within research and is based on observations. Personally the term sits uneasily with me, principally due to the use of medicalised language and the emphasis on perhaps a slightly romanticised view of what childhoods were like previously.
For cognitive the authors suggest a reduced awareness of elements of nature, resulting from less outside activities and with less knowledge of opportunities to engage with nature. They see reduced emotional connection through increased levels of biophobia (a fear of nature covered in this previous Compassionate Nature article) and negative attitude towards nature. The last type, philosophical, includes societal worldviews and perspectives which see humans as separate to nature, which may be supported by facets of urban life.
The authors use these five types to illustrate that alongside the individual, the disconnect is supported by social-cultural norms, political decisions and institutional arrangements. For example, planning approval and creation of urban residential areas which are dependent upon owning a car, without providing alternative sustainable travel choices. It is a detailed perspective piece and I think it presents a good overview of the disconnect and the different influences that support the disconnect.
Measuring the disconnect
Terms like nature deficit disorder and concerns over reducing nature connection perhaps present a dramatic picture. Is this the case, when a lot of public polls and surveys show a large majority of people are interested and concerned about the natural environment, as reflected in the demonstration at the weekend ?
A 2024 paper by Alexia Barrable and David Booth from the University of Dundee helps to consider levels of disconnect and what individuals who report less connection may tell us about influencing factors. They used data from the Monitor for Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), a large, long-running UK government survey across England which captures peoples time in natural environments, how they engage with nature and their levels of pro-environmental behaviours. Data from 2009 to 2019 of 4735 participants (51% females, all participants aged 16 or over) was used to identify those with low nature connection levels, as measured by the Nature Connection Index and responses to questions like “I feel part of nature”. Using this criteria, the analysis found that only 6% (314 participants) were classed as disconnected. Using this smaller sample, further analysis was undertaken to consider their characteristics and links with wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours.
The results found that the younger age group (16-24 years old) were more likely to be disconnected. Males, single people and non-home owners were also more likely to be disconnected. Employment and social-economic status did not appear to be influential characteristics. Higher levels of nature disconnection correlated with lower life satisfaction, while lower levels of nature disconnection correlated with more pro-environmental behaviours.
The study results suggest that the percentage of people who are disconnected from nature is a low, albeit still significant, percentage of the English population. The authors note causes for the disconnection may arise from a combination of disruptions to experiencing nature, a negative or adverse experience of nature and social-cultural factors, echoing the perspective paper by Beery and colleagues. The analysis is limited by using a pre-defined dataset, which includes some overall measures which future research could consider at more granular level and may be subject to confounding factors which influence participants responses. The relationships suggested by the data are also correlational. These limitations aside the study results do help to shed more light on the level of disconnection and some of the potential characteristics of those most likely to feel disconnected to nature.
Disconnection and wellbeing
A key aspect of nature connection is the apparent relationship with physical and mental wellbeing. Chia-chen Chang and colleagues 2024 paper considers the relationship between low levels of nature connection and disconnection with mental wellbeing.
The study gathered data from residents of Brisbane and Sydney in Australia during 2021 to assess their psychological wellbeing and relationship with nature, frequency and duration of visits to private and public green-spaces, along with their intentions for doing so. Frequency of visits were measured over the past year, while duration of visits related to visits in the previous week. The study had data from 2084 participants across the two cities.
The analysis found that more frequent visits to public green-spaces correlated with reduced stress, depression and anxiety levels. This was moderated by levels of nature connection, such that those with lower levels of nature connection had reduced benefits from these visits. Similarly visits to private green-spaces, such as gardens and backyards, correlated with improved mental wellbeing scores.
The results of participants intention behind visiting the green-space also appeared linked to levels of nature connection. Lower levels of nature connection appeared to correlate more with those completing activities (eg running) in the green-spaces, which greater nature-based reasons for visiting appearing to correlate with higher nature connection. This is supportive of the suggestion that individuals who are disconnected from nature may have less awareness of it.
It is a cross sectional study and so causal relationship cannot be confirmed. For example those with improved mental wellbeing scores may feel more able to visit green-spaces. The data does not capture the granular details of activities participants carried out in the green-spaces which may also influence their mental well-being, The results do suggest though that those who feel disconnected from nature are more likely to not experience the benefits that being in a natural environment can provide.
It might seem pedantic to talk about connection and disconnection to nature as two separate things. Aren’t they same thing, just at different levels of connectedness ?
I think the papers support an argument that disconnection is a psychological construct that deserves more attention in its own right and that nature connection is not as simple as a sliding scale between low and high. By focusing on the individual aspects of nature connection there are risks of not considering or addressing the wider social and cultural influences on our relationship with nature. While it is encouraging to see that nature disconnection appears in a minority of people, there is significant risk of positive bias due to participant recruitment and measures used within nature connection studies, which means that the percentage of low connection is higher than reflected in the reviewed papers.
Perhaps by considering disconnection as a separate construct that bias can be addressed and we may be more informed of who feels less connected than others and why that is the case.
Given the positive links between nature connection to wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours, understanding and addressing the sense of disconnection with nature is an important area that needs more attention.
Thanks ever so much for reading this article. All the research reviewed are open access studies, so are free to read in detail via the article links or from the references below. If you think this article would be helpful to someone else please do share on, it is a freely available public piece.
I would also love to hear what you think. Please a comment, send me an email at TheCompassionateNatureHub@gmail.com or leave a reply if you see it via social media.
You can also support my work for free by subscribing to the publication. All you need is an email address. Your support means a great deal - thank you
References
Barrable, A., & Booth, D. (2022). Disconnected: what can we learn from individuals with very low nature connection?. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(13), 8021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138021
Beery, T., Stahl Olafsson, A., Gentin, S., Maurer, M., Stålhammar, S., Albert, C., ... & M. Raymond, C. (2023). Disconnection from nature: Expanding our understanding of human–nature relations. People and Nature, 5(2), 470-488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10451
Chang, C. C., Lin, B. B., Feng, X., Andersson, E., Gardner, J., & Astell-Burt, T. (2024). A lower connection to nature is related to lower mental health benefits from nature contact. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 6705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56968-5
Fascinating - especially the part about people still feeling disconnected from nature even if they’re in it, if the reason why they’re in it is not for the nature itself.
I can really see that! It’s hard, for instance, to enjoy the beauty of a river or spot a bird whilst running at pace.