Children’s nature connectedness is most strongly associated with parents’ connection to natureNature connectedness can be understood as “the emotional tie and psychological attachment that indicates a sustained awareness of the interrelatedness between one’s self and the rest of nature.” Nature connectedness is important to children’s well-being and is an indicator of pro-nature behaviors. This study addresses the need to develop a greater understanding of the factors influencing children’s nature connectedness. The research sought to investigate associations between children’s nature connectedness and (1) child characteristics (frequency of nature visits, gender, and age); (2) parent characteristics (nature connectedness, nature visits, and sociodemographics); and (3) area-level characteristics (neighborhood green space, urbanicity, and deprivation).
The study utilized data from a national survey conducted in the United Kingdom that included measures of nature connectedness. Researchers analyzed a subsample of the data focused on 209 children who were between the ages of seven and 15 and their parent or guardian living in the same household. Both child and adult nature connectedness was assessed through self-reports using the Nature Connection Index. Adults reported the frequency of visits to nature for each child in the home. Adults also indicated whether they watch or listen to nature programs on the TV or radio. Demographic information collected on parents included gender, marital status, and socioeconomic status based on occupation. Researchers accessed data on neighborhood-level characteristics including greenspace and rural or urban status from a land use database. Census data provided an indication of neighborhood deprivation and included factors such as income, employment, education, health, crime, and quality of the environment. Data analysis considered the relationship between child, parent, and neighborhood characteristics and nature connectedness.
Analysis revealed several key findings. Children’s gender and age were significant predictors of child nature connectedness among the child characteristics assessed in the study. Girls demonstrated greater nature connectedness than boys. Younger children demonstrated greater nature connectedness, while children over the age of nine had progressively lower levels of nature connectedness. The frequency of children’s nature visits did not influence nature connectedness. When considering adult characteristics, adult nature connectedness was the only significant predictor of children’s nature connectedness. Adults’ gender, age, marital status, socioeconomic group, frequency of nature visits, or watching/listening to nature programs did not influence nature connectedness. Among area-level characteristics, neighborhood green space emerged as significant predictor of nature connectedness. However, unexpectedly, higher levels of neighborhood green space were related to lower levels of children’s nature connectedness. On the other hand, and again unexpectedly, there was a trend toward higher levels of neighborhood deprivation being associated with higher levels of nature connectedness among children.
Of all the variables considered, having an adult with high nature connectedness in the same household was the strongest predictor of children’s nature connectedness. While previous research has identified the frequency of nature contact in supporting children’s nature connectedness, this analysis did not detect such a relationship. Decreasing nature connectedness among older children is consistent with the ‘‘teenage dip’’ documented in other studies, but also points to the need for policies and programs targeting children over the age of ten.
Overall, the research highlights the vital role parents and guardians play in children’s nature connectedness. The researchers conclude that “from a policy and program perspective, nature-connectedness intervention programs for parents and other adults influential in children’s lives may be important for their downstream effect on translating valuing of nature to younger generations.” Additionally, efforts to support the well-being of children, as well as adults, must make a distinction between nature contact and emotional and psychological connection with nature.
The Bottom Line