Review provides a critical examination of the research instruments used to assess nature connection in well-being studiesThe therapeutic and restorative effects attributed to spending time in nature have contributed to the development of the concept of nature as medicine. Prescribing a 'dose of nature' has become a common topic in recent nature-health literature and green prescription initiatives. Over the last 30 years, researchers have developed tools to measure human-nature connection to improve understanding of an individual’s biophilic response—an innate reaction to nature which may include salutogenic (well-being) benefits. This critical review offers an exploration of tools that researchers commonly use to assess nature connection in the well-being literature. The ability of these tools to deepen understanding of human-nature interactions, particularly in regard to the well-being benefits of nature, is also evaluated by the review.
A search of the literature was conducted to identify psychometric tools (i.e., questionnaires) used to measure nature connection in peer-reviewed studies that examined nature’s role in well-being. Meta-analyses and literature reviews of nature connection instruments were included in the search. The search aimed to identify instruments that assessed emotional connection with nature, the relationship between nature and self, or psychological restoration in nature. A total of 27 tools that have been used to measure the human-nature connection in the existing literature were identified. Five of these tools, which were determined to have been used to examine the relationship between biophilic response and well-being, were the focus of this review. Examination of the tools was framed in the Bioavailability Model which “posits that the potential health benefit of nature is influenced by not just the amount of nature someone is exposed to (the dose), but also interaction type (the route of administration) and level of immersion (the concentration); culminating in an experience that is likely highly individual.”
The tools examined by the review included: (1) Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), (2) Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS), (3) Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), (4) Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS), and (5) Nature Connection Index (NCI). Two shortened versions of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale and Nature Relatedness Scale, the PRS-11 and NR-6, were also included. The review provides an overview of theoretical grounding that informed the tools development (such as Attention Restoration Theory), the specific constructs that each tool aims to assess, and examples that illustrate the types of well-being studies that have employed the tool. Each of the tools intend to measure a range of related and sometimes overlapping constructs, including: the restorative qualities of an experience in nature (PRS); the degree to which a person considers themselves as being part of nature (INS); affiliation/experience with nature and pro-environmental concern (CNS); identity as part of nature, experience with nature and pro-environmental concern (NRS); and affiliation and attachment to nature (NCI). Comparison of the measures revealed both differences and similarities in how they “capture the various aspects of what experiences with nature may mean to individuals, with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects measured in a variety of ways.” However, the tools are limited in their ability to assess the specific qualities of nature that support beneficial outcomes. Therefore, to gain a more complete picture of human-nature connection, studies should employ a combination of methods, “such as employing both the PRS and scales that more explicitly measure human-nature connection.”
The review provides an overview of the research instruments that are designed to characterize an individual's experience in nature, while acknowledging that nature experiences are complex and highly subjective. Overall, the review suggests that understanding an individual’s affiliation with nature is one component of defining nature experiences, but that consideration must also be given to the context of a human-nature connection that includes the values, cultural and societal influences, and lived experiences that an individual brings to their nature experience. The authors conclude that using a single instrument is insufficient to fully understand the complexities of nature-human connection. Therefore, they recommend using mixed method research designs or a combination of instruments to more deeply examine the nuances of nature connection and its capacity to support well-being benefits. They also call for the development of a tool that "adequately captures not only general values, perspectives, and behaviours, but also specific and momentary evaluations of how people and nature meet in their various interactions."
The Bottom Line