Connection to nature is positively related to conservation behaviorNumerous studies have focused on connection to nature and how to measure it, yet an understanding of how connection to nature instruments and scores relate to the concept of “connection” as used in conservation discourse is unclear. Numerous connection to nature instruments are available and generally yield a connection score for the individual completing the assessment. One difference between these instruments relates to what component of connection to nature they emphasize: affective, cognitive, or behavioral. There are also differences in how scores are calculated. Thus, questions remain: What do the scores mean? What scores are needed to motivate conservation behaviors? This study addressed these questions by (1) investigating the possibility of objectively determining conservation-relevant scores based on the structure of the instrument and (2) examining the relationship between level of connection to nature and self-reported conservation behaviors.
The first step in this research process was developing a “gradient of connection” and general thresholds for determining a “connected child,” as measured by the Connection to Nature Index (CNI). CNI is a 16-item index addressing four areas of connectedness to nature: enjoyment of nature, empathy for creatures, sense of oneness, and sense of responsibility. Each item on the index is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree". The mean (average) of the 16 scores is used as the CNI total score, with higher scores representing greater connection to nature. After examining the distribution of all possible CNI scores and the relationship between overall scores and frequency of positive responses, the researchers determined that scores below 4.06 were considered “low connection” to nature, scores between 4.06 and 4.56 “mild connection,” and over 4.56 “strong connection.” The researchers then examined data from a larger study in which children completed the CNI and responded to 13 questions addressing two types of their conservation-related behaviors: pro-environmental behaviors and pro-nature behaviors. Pro-environmental behaviors focused on resource use and energy saving; pro-nature behaviors focused on wildlife-oriented actions. The data used for this study were based on responses from 719 children, age 10-11, from 15 schools in the UK.
CNI scores indicated that 46% of the children had low connection to nature and only 18% had strong connection. These findings are consistent with current perceptions of young people being generally disconnected from nature. Results also showed a positive relationship between CNI scores and the probability of carrying out pro-conservation behaviors. This finding is also consistent with previous research showing a positive relationship between connection to nature and pro-environmental behaviors. There were some differences between genders and schools in self-reported pro-nature behaviors, with girls reporting more pro-nature behaviors than boys. For pro-environmental behaviors, there were school differences but no gender differences.
This research indicates that the CNI is “a justifiable discriminatory tool” for conservation-related behaviors and can thus be used to measure and evaluate connection to nature in programming efforts designed to enhance future conservation behaviors. The positive link between connection to nature and self-reported pro-conservation behavior identified in this study supports the understanding that activities connecting children to nature are “critical for future conservation success.” While this study doesn’t show that improving connection with nature would change individual behavior, it does show that the two variables are positively related.
The Bottom Line