Nurturing connection with nature: the role of spending time in different types of nature

References

• Admiraal JF, Van Den Born RJG, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F, Cicero L, Hiedanpää J, Knights P, Knippenberg LWJ, Molinario E, Musters CJM, et al. 2017. Motivations for committed nature conservation action in Europe. Environ Conserv. 44(2):148–157. doi:10.1017/S037689291700008X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrose LE, Wiezel A, Pages EB, Shiota MN. 2021. Images of nature, nature-self representation, and environmental attitudes. Sustainability. 13(14):8025. doi:10.3390/su13148025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2020. Australian historical population statistics, 2016. Cat. No 3105 0.65.001. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mf/3105.0.65.001
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. 2019. Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2019-2030. https://www.australiasnaturehub.gov.au/national-strategy
   Google Scholar
• Barrable A, Booth D. 2020. Increasing nature connection in children: a mini review of interventions. Front Psychol. 11(March). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00492.
   Google Scholar
• Barragan-Jason G, de Mazancourt C, Parmesan C, Singer MC, Loreau M. 2021. Human–nature connectedness as a pathway to sustainability: a global meta-analysis. Conserv Lett. 15(1):1–7. doi:10.1111/conl.12852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun T, Dierkes P. 2017. Connecting students to nature - how intensity of nature experience and student age influence the success of outdoor education programs. Environ Educ Res. 23(7):937–949. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F. 2009. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan. 91(3):113–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr V, Hughes J. 2021. Predicting the development of adult nature connection through nature activities: developing the evaluating nature activities for connection tool. Front Psychol. 12(March):1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618283.
   Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 35:A1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chawla L. 2020. Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: a review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2(3):619–642. doi:10.1002/pan3.10128.
   Google Scholar
• Church SP. 2018. From street trees to natural areas: retrofitting cities for human connectedness to nature. J Environ Plann Manage. 61(5–6):878–903. doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton S. 2003. Environmental identity: a conceptual and operational definition. In: Clayton SD, and Opotow S, editors. Identity and the natural environment: the psychological significance of nature. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press; p. 45–66.
   Google Scholar
• Clayton S. 2017. Social issues and personal life: considering the environment. J Soc Issues. 73(3):667–681. doi:10.1111/josi.12237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton S, Colléony A, Conversy P, Maclouf E, Martin L, Torres AC, Truong MX, Prévot AC. 2017. Transformation of experience: toward a new relationship with nature. Conservation Letters. 10(5):645–651. doi:10.1111/conl.12337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton S, Czellar S, Nartova-Bochaver S, Skibins JC, Salazar G, Tseng Y-C, Irkhin B, Monge-Rodriguez FS. 2021. Cross-cultural validation of a revised Environmental Identity Scale. Sustainability. 13(2387):1–12. doi:10.3390/su13042387.
   Google Scholar
• Clayton S, Myers G. 2009. Conservation psychology: understanding and promoting human care for nature. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cleary A, Fielding KS, Murray Z, Roiko A. 2018. Predictors of nature connection among urban residents: assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environ Behav. 52(6):579–610. doi:10.1177/0013916518811431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colléony A, Cohen-Seffer R, Shwartz A. 2020. Unpacking the causes and consequences of the extinction of experience. Biol Conserv. 251(July):108788. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108788.
   Google Scholar
• Colléony A, Levontin L, Shwartz A. 2020. Promoting meaningful and positive nature interactions for visitors to green spaces. Conserv Biol. 34(6):1373–1382. doi:10.1111/cobi.13624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colléony A, Prévot AC, Saint Jalme M, Clayton S. 2017. What kind of landscape management can counteract the extinction of experience? Landsc Urban Plan. 159:23–31. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]. 2018. Recommen-dations for increased focus on connecting people with nature to inspire enhanced action on biodiversity conservation. https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/Post2020/postsbi/C%26nn3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat. 2011. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/
   Google Scholar
• Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat. 2020. Global Biodiversity Outlook. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/
   Google Scholar
• Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] Secretariat. 2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cosquer A, Raymond R, Prevot-Julliard AC. 2012. Observations of everyday biodiversity: a new perspective for conservation? Ecology and Society. 17(4, 4). 10.5751/ES-04955-170402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox DTC, Hudson HL, Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. 2017. The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landsc Urban Plan. 160:79–84. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. 2018. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landsc Urban Plan. 179(July):72–80. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.013.
   Google Scholar
• Davis N, Daams M, van Hinsberg A, Sijtsma F. 2016. How deep is your love – of nature? A psychological and spatial analysis of the depth of feelings towards Dutch nature areas. Appl Geogr. 77:38–48. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bell S, Graham H, White PCL. 2018. The role of managed natural spaces in connecting people with urban nature: a comparison of local user, researcher, and provider views. Urban Ecosystems. 21(5):875–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0762-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Conservation. 2020. Aotearoa New Zealand biodiversity strategy. doi:10.4135/9781412952453.n56.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning [DELWP]. 2017. Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/51259/Protecting-Victorias-Environment-Biodiversity-2037.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dornhoff M, Sothmann JN, Fiebelkorn F, Menzel S. 2019. Nature relatedness and environmental concern of young people in Ecuador and Germany. Front Psychol. 10(MAR):1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00453.
   Google Scholar
• Duffy S, Verges M. 2010. Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature. Environ Behav. 42(6):723–739. doi:10.1177/0013916509338552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN. 2006. The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology. 20(6):1814–1816. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Carmichael Meditor. 4th. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Furness E. 2021. Understanding the lived experience of connection to nature. Conservation Science and Practice. 3(7):1–8. doi:10.1111/csp2.440.
   Google Scholar
• Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG. 2020. Understanding citizens’ action for nature: the profile, motivations and experiences of Dutch nature volunteers. Journal for Nature Conservation. 55(December 2019):125824. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125824.
   Google Scholar
• Gaston KJ, Soga M. 2020. Extinction of experience: the need to be more specific. People and Nature. 1–7. doi:10.1002/pan3.10118.
   Google Scholar
• Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery TH. 2018. A frame-work to assess where and how children connect to nature. Front Psychol. 8(Jan):1–21. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283.
   Google Scholar
• Hamlin I, Richardson M. 2022. Visible garden biodiversity is associated with noticing nature and nature connectedness. Ecopsychology. 14(2):111–117. doi:10.1089/eco.2021.0064.
   Google Scholar
• Hatty MA, Smith LDG, Goodwin D, Mavondo FT. 2020. The CN-12: a brief, multidimensional connection with nature instrument. Front Psychol. 11(1566):1–14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01566.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes AF. (2022). The Process macro for SPSS, SAS, and R. https://www.processmacro.org/version-history.html
   Google Scholar
• Hughes J, Rogerson M, Barton J, Bragg R. 2019. Age and connection to nature: when is engagement critical? Front Ecol Environ. 17(5):265–269. doi:10.1002/fee.2035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (28.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
   Google Scholar
• Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J. 2018. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 13(5):1–9. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy P, Martín-López B, et al. 2017. Human-nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 26–27(May):106–113. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005.
   Google Scholar
• Kals E, Schumacher D, Montada L. 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ Behav. 31(2):178–202. doi:10.1177/00139169921972056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller RA. 2013. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 10(3):913–935. doi:10.3390/ijerph10030913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingsley J, Egerer M, Nuttman S, Keniger L, Pettitt P, Frantzeskaki N, Gray T, Ossola A, Lin B, Bailey A, et al. 2021. Urban agriculture as a nature-based solution to address socio-ecological challenges in Australian cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 60(November 2020):127059. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127059.
   Google Scholar
• Kleespies MW, Dierkes PW. 2020. Exploring the construct of relational values: an empirical approach. Front Psychol. 11(March):1–14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00209.
   Google Scholar
• Kuo H-M, Su J-Y, Wang C-H, Kiatsakared P, Chen K-Y. 2021. Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior: the mediating role of destination psychological ownership. Sustainability. 13(12):6809. doi:10.3390/su13126809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light A. Ecoloigcal citizenship: the demogratic promise of restoration. In: Pratt RH, editor. The human metropolis: people and nature in the 21st-century city. University of Massachusetts Press; 2006. p. 169–181. https://stevenreedjohnson.com/ stevenr1/stevenreedjohnson/GCMore2_files/humaneMetropolis.pdf#page=183
   Google Scholar
• Lin BB, Egerer MH, Ossola A. 2018. Urban gardens as a space to engender biophilia: evidence and ways forward. Frontiers in Built Environment. 4(December):1–10. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2018.00079.
   Google Scholar
• Lin BB, Fuller RA, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Shanahan DF. 2014. Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS ONE. 9(1):1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D. 2017. Beyond knowing nature: contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE. 12(5):1–24. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay CML, Schmitt MT. 2019. Do people who feel more connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol. 65(101323):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323.
   Google Scholar
• Martin L, White MP, Hunt A, Richardson M, Pahl S, Burt J. 2020. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol. 68(January):101389. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389.
   Google Scholar
• Mattijssen TJM, Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG, Arts BJM, Breman BC, Buijs AE, van Dam RI, Elands BHM, de Groot WT, Knippenberg LWJ. 2020. Relational values of nature: leverage points for nature policy in Europe. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):402–410. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEwan K, Ferguson FJ, Richardson M, Cameron R. 2020. The good things in urban nature: a thematic framework for optimising urban planning for nature connectedness. Landsc Urban Plan. 194(October 2019):103687. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103687.
   Google Scholar
• Meis-Harris J, Saeri A, Boulet M, Borg K, Faulkner N, Jorgensen B. (2019). Victorians Value Nature: Survey Results. https://www.ari.vic.gov.au/research/people-and-nature/victorians-value-nature
   Google Scholar
• Mena-García A, Olivos P, Loureiro A, Navarro O. 2020. Effects of contact with nature on connectedness, environmental identity and evoked contents/Efectos del contacto con la naturaleza en conectividad, identidad ambiental y contenidos evocados. Psyecology. 11(1):21–36. doi:10.1080/21711976.2019.1643663.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2016). National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016-2025. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/my/my-nbsap-v2-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Moreton SG, Arena A, Hornsey M, Crimston C, Tiliopoulos N. 2019. Elevating nature: moral elevation increases feelings of connectedness to nature. J Environ Psychol. 65(January):101332. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101332.
   Google Scholar
• Muhr MM. 2020. Beyond words–the potential of arts-based research on human-nature connectedness. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):249–257. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1811379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullenbach LE, Baker BL, Benfield J, Hickerson B, Mowen AJ. 2019. Assessing the relationship between community engagement and perceived ownership of an urban park in Philadelphia. Journal of Leisure Research. 50(3):201–219. doi:10.1080/00222216.2019.1581719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav. 41(5):715–740. doi:10.1177/0013916508318748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. 2011. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 12(2):303–322. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto S, Pensini P. 2017. Nature-based environmental education of children: environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change. 47(September):88–94. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009.
   Google Scholar
• Özgüner H. 2011. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research. 36(5):599–620. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.560474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palliwoda J, Kowarik I, von der Lippe M. 2017. Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: the species level matters. Landsc Urban Plan. 157:394–406. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan YT, Yang KK, Wilson K, Hong ZR, Lin HS. 2020. The impact of museum interpretation tour on visitors’ engagement and post-visit conservation intentions and behaviours. International Journal of Tourism Research. 22(5):593–603. doi:10.1002/jtr.2358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasca L, Aragonés JI, Fraijo-Sing B. 2020. Categorizing landscapes: approaching the concept of nature (Categorizando paisajes: una aproximación al concepto de naturaleza). Psyecology. 11(3):342–362. doi:10.1080/21711976.2019.1659029.
   Google Scholar
• Peck J, Kirk CP, Luangrath AW, Shu SB. 2021. Caring for the commons: using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. J Mark. 85(2):33–49. doi:10.1177/0022242920952084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennisi L, Lackey NQ, Holland SM. 2017. Can an immersion exhibit inspire connection to nature and environmentally responsible behavior? Journal of Interpretation Research. 22(2):35–49. doi:10.1177/109258721702200204.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez-Ramírez I, García-Llorente M, Saban de la Portilla C, Benito A, Castro AJ. 2021. Participatory collective farming as a leverage point for fostering human-nature connectedness. Ecosystems and People. 17(1):222–234. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1912185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen E, Martin AJ. 2020. Kama muta (≈ being moved) helps connect people in and to nature: a photo elicitation approach. Ecopsychology. 13(1):37–47. doi:10.1089/eco.2020.0032.
   Google Scholar
• Preston SD, Gelman SA. 2020. This land is my land: psychological ownership increases willingness to protect the natural world more than legal ownership. J Environ Psychol. 70(June):101443. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101443.
   Google Scholar
• Prévot AC, Cheval H, Raymond R, Cosquer A. 2018. Routine experiences of nature in cities can increase personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 226(June):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.008.
   Google Scholar
• Prévot AC, Clayton S, Mathevet R. 2018. The relationship of childhood upbringing and university degree program to environmental identity: experience in nature matters. Environmental Education Research. 24(2):263–279. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1249456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raatikainen KJ, Juhola K, Huhmarniemi M, Peña-Lagos H. 2020. “Face the cow”: reconnecting to nature and increasing capacities for pro-environmental agency. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):273–289. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1817151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Restall B, Conrad E. 2015. A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 159:264–278. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Restall B, Conrad E, Cop C. 2021. Connectedness to nature: mapping the role of protected areas. J Environ Manage. 293(April):112771. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112771.
   Google Scholar
• Richards DR, Fung TK, Leong RAT, Sachidhanandam U, Drillet Z, Edwards PJ. 2020. Demographic biases in engagement with nature in a tropical Asian city. PLoS ONE. 15(4):e0231576. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson M, Dobson J, Abson DJ, Lumber R, Hunt A, Young R, Moorhouse B. 2020. Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and People. 16(1):387–401. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson M, Hamlin I. 2021. Nature engagement for human and nature’s wellbeing during the Corona pandemic. J Public Ment Health. 1–11. doi:10.1108/JPMH-02-2021-0016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson M, Hamlin I, Butler CW, Thomas R, Hunt A. 2021. Actively noticing nature (not just time in nature) helps promote nature connectedness. Ecopsychology. 14(1):1–9. doi:10.1089/eco.2021.0023.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson M, McEwan K. 2018. 30 days wild and the relationships between engagement with nature’s beauty, nature connectedness and well-being. Front Psychol. 9(SEP):1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson M, Passmore H, Barbett L, Lumber R, Thomas R, Hunt A, Fish R. 2020. The green care code: how nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro-nature conservation behaviours. People and Nature. 2(3):1–19. doi:10.1002/pan3.10117.
   Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Balázsi Á, Abson DJ, Fischer J. 2020. The influence of landscape change on multiple dimensions of human–nature connectedness. Ecology and Society. 25(3):1–12. doi:10.5751/ES-11651-250303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riechers M, Balázsi Á, García-Llorente M, Loos J. 2021. Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosys-tems and People. 17(1):215–221. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1912830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa CD, Collado S. 2019. Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: setting the ground for future research. Front Psychol. 10(763):1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salazar G, Kunkle K, Monroe M. (2020). Practitioner Guide to Assessing Connection to Nature. https://cdn.naaee.org/sites/default/files/assessing_connection_to_nature.7.23.20.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW. 2002. Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In: Schmuck P Schultz WP, editors. Psychology of sustainable development. Springer Science and Business Media; pp. 61–78. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW, Tabanico JJ. 2007. Self, identity, and the natural environment: exploring implicit connections with nature. J Appl Soc Psychol. 37(6):1219–1247. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schutte NS, Malouff JM. 2018. Mindfulness and connectedness to nature: a meta-analytic investigation. Pers Individ Dif. 127:10–14. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuttler SG, Sorensen AE, Jordan RC, Cooper C, Shwartz A. 2018. Bridging the nature gap: can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience? Front Ecol Environ. 16(7):405–411. doi:10.1002/fee.1826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scopelliti M, Carrus G, Adinolfi C, Suarez G, Colangelo G, Lafortezza R, Panno A, Sanesi G. 2016. Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: the experience of urban parks in Bogotá. Landsc Urban Plan. 148:139–148. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan DF, Cox DTC, Fuller RA, Hancock S, Lin BB, Anderson K, Bush R, Gaston KJ. 2017. Variation in experiences of nature across gradients of tree cover in compact and sprawling cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 157:231–238. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souter-Brown G. 2015. Landscape and urban design for health and well-being: using healing, sensory and therapeutic gardens. London (UK): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tam KP. 2013. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and differences. J Environ Psychol. 34:64–78. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tester-Jones M, White MP, Elliott LR, Weinstein N, Grellier J, Economou T, Bratman GN, Cleary A, Gascon M, Korpela KM, et al. 2020. Results from an 18 country cross-sectional study examining experiences of nature for people with common mental health disorders. Sci Rep. 10(1):1–11. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75825-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2019. World Urbanization Prospects. In The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Whitburn J, Linklater W, Abrahamse W. 2019. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology. 34(1):180–193. doi:10.1111/cobi.13381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Holland M, Thompson RC. 2017. Can beach cleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ Behav. 49(5):509–535. doi:10.1177/0013916516649412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyles KJ, White MP, Hattam C, Pahl S, King H, Austen M. 2019. Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environ Behav. 51(2):111–143. doi:10.1177/0013916517738312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Hu J, Jing F, Nguyen B. 2018. From awe to ecological behavior: the mediating role of connectedness to nature. Sustainability (Switzerland). 10(7):2477. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Lynch JG, Chen Q. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res. 37(2):197–206. doi:10.1086/651257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. 2014. Connectedness as a core conservation concern: an interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews. 2(1–2):119–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3.
   Google Scholar