A deep connection to nature is linked to greater psychological well-being, a stronger sense of meaning in life, and higher levels of life satisfactionIn recent years, research has increasingly examined how connection with nature influences psychological health. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the existing empirical evidence to enhance current understanding of the interrelationships between nature connectedness and nature contact, and between nature connectedness and positive psychological outcomes (well-being, meaning in life, and life satisfaction). This study also examined how the relationships between nature connectedness, nature contact and psychological health may be influenced by sample-related factors (gender, age, and geographic location), study-related factors (data collection method and measurement instrument), and factors related to contact with nature (timing and type of nature contact). By considering these variables, this meta-analysis offers a detailed examination of the relationships studied and addresses a key gap in the literature.
A systematic search of 16 databases was conducted to identify relevant studies conducted with children or adults. Only studies that examined the relationships between nature connectedness and nature contact, as well as between nature connectedness and well-being, meaning in life, and life satisfaction, and included at least one assessment of these outcomes were considered for inclusion. The studies were required to employ cross-sectional research designs and to provide adequate data to determine the strength of the relationship between outcomes. Only studies written in English or Chinese were eligible for inclusion. The search yielded 70 studies published between 2013 and 2024, including 68 journal articles and 2 theses. The studies included 47 online investigations, 12 field surveys, and two studies used a combination of online investigations and field surveys. Nine studies did not report their methods. Most studies were from China (n = 22), with fewer from Australia (n = 8), Canada (n = 6), the U.K. (n = 6), the U.S. (n = 4), and other countries. Sample sizes of the studies ranged from 102 to 4960 participants. Mean age of participants was reported by 47 studies, which ranged from nine to 62 years. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies determined that they were mostly of high quality. Analysis of the studies involved examination of a number of variables that may influence the relationships between the examined outcomes, including: (1) participant gender, age, and geographic location (analyzed as either Asia or non-Asia); (2) data collection methods (field survey, online investigation, or a combination of both); (3) assessment tools used to measure nature contact (standardized scales or self-reported questions); (4) characteristics of nature contact (whether the studies examined retrospective childhood nature contact or recent nature experience); and (5) whether the form of nature contact was direct (incidental or intentional exposure to nature) or indirect (mediated interactions with nature such as through images or virtual reality). Data analysis employed statistical methods to examine the strength of the relationships between the studies’ main outcomes and to test for the influence of these variables.
Analysis detected significant relationships between the main outcomes assessed by the studies. Findings indicated that participants who had greater contact with nature had significantly higher levels of nature connectedness. Participants with higher levels of nature connectedness demonstrated significantly higher levels of well-being, sense of meaning in life, and life satisfaction. Analysis then considered the role of nature contact timing, type of nature contact, data collection method, measurement instrument, geographic area, age and gender in the relationship between nature contact and nature connectedness. Of these, only the type of measurement instrument used by the study was found to have a significant influence. Specifically, this finding revealed that studies that used standardized scales detected significantly stronger relationships between nature contact and nature connectedness than studies that relied on self-reported question assessments. Examination of the variables’ influence on the strength of the relationship between nature connectedness and positive psychological outcomes found significant differences based on participants’ geographic area. This finding revealed that studies conducted in Asia reported significantly stronger relationships between nature connectedness and well-being, and between nature connectedness and life satisfaction, than in studies conducted non-Asian countries.
The findings of 70 studies analyzed by this meta-analysis indicate that individuals who have greater contact with nature demonstrate a stronger connection with nature, and that “individuals with a deeper connection to nature tend to experience greater psychological well-being, a stronger sense of meaning in life, and higher levels of life satisfaction.” Interestingly, results revealed that the type of measurement instrument used by studies may influence findings regarding participants’ connection to nature. Additionally, studies conducted in Asia found stronger relationships between connection to nature, well-being, and meaning in life. The researchers explain that this finding may reflect the influence of Asian cultural traditions that prioritize a deep connection with nature. While this study focused solely on cross-sectional studies, future research may aim to examine longitudinal data to clarify how these relationships develop over time.
The Bottom Line