Differences in engagement with the natural environment

Engagement with the natural environment can occur as indirect or direct exposure. This could be indirectly through a window, mural or directly through walking or gardening. As with direct engagement, the benefits gained by an individual’s indirect engagement with nature are reliant on the individual's preference, perceptions of and experiences within natural environments (Hartig et al., 2014). Evidence demonstrates the difference in response towards natural environments experienced by different demographic groups. Cultural and socio-economic background, gender and age affect an individual’s response to the natural environment (Dallimer et al., 2014; Boyd et al., 2018; Hughes et al., 2019).

Connection to Nature

An individual’s connection to nature can be understood through different measures (Jorgensen and Gobster, 2010; Van den Berg et al., 2010; Capaldi et al., 2015; Barbaro and Pickett, 2016; Pritchard et al., 2019; Jarvis et al., 2020). Within the literature, connection to nature can be associated with various terminology such as ‘nature exposure’ and ‘nature connectedness’. Nature exposure often relates to the proximity, quantity and quality of green space in relation to an individual or neighbourhood (Van den Berg et al., 2010; Jarvis et al., 2020). Nature connectedness is an individual’s subjective sense of their relationship with nature (Pritchard et al., 2019). Individuals who are more connected to nature have been shown to report greater eudemonic wellbeing and personal growth (Pritchard et al., 2019). One study identified contact, emotion, meaning, and compassion, with the latter mediated by engagement with natural beauty, to be pathways to improving short-term nature connectedness (Lumber, Richardson and Sheffield, 2017). It also found knowledge based activities were not associated with increase nature connectedness (Lumber, Richardson and Sheffield, 2017). Additional studies support the effect

appreciation of the beauty of nature has as a factor in increasing nature connectedness (Zhang, Howell and Iyer, 2014; Richardson and Sheffield, 2017).

An individual’s previous experience with the natural environment can influence their future interactions and the benefits they receive from this engagement (Milligan and Bingley, 2007; Wilson, 2012). The study by Southon et al. (2018) on perception of biodiversity in urban green space found a relationship between accurate perception of species richness and connection to nature. Participants with greater connection to nature were able to more accurately predict species richness, which in turn affected their reported satisfaction with an urban green intervention. The meadow site provided additional benefits to those who had higher levels of pre-existing connection to nature (Southon et al., 2018). Both childhood nature experience and duration of current nature experience were independently found to predict an individual’s present connection to nature (Cleary et al., 2018).

28

Gender and Age

Gender affects some of the health and wellbeing benefits people gain when visiting the natural

environment. A nationwide study in the UK found the effect for associated health benefits of green space on long term health conditions differed between genders (Richardson and Mitchell, 2010). Male

cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease mortality rates decreased with increased green space cover, yet no significant associations were found for women (Richardson and Mitchell, 2010). Evidence also shows a gendered difference in participants’ self-reported response to nature (Lottrup, Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2013; White et al., 2013).

There are also differences in the effect nature has throughout the life course. Astell-Burt, Mitchell and Hartig (2014) found variations in the age at which green space affected mental health, with men benefitting in early to mid-adulthood compared to women who appeared to be affected later in life. Hughes et al. (2019) and Richardson, Hunt, et al., (2019) demonstrate gender and age associated variation in nature connection across the life course, which may be associated with generational experiences.

Infrequent Visitors to the Natural Environment

There is evidence that some parts of the population do not regularly engage with the natural

environment and thus do not experience the potential benefits of nature (Dallimer et al., 2014; Kabisch, Qureshi and Haase, 2015; Natural England, 2015; Roe, Aspinall and Ward Thompson, 2016).

The Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (MENE) is a large nationwide study conducted since 2009 which includes questions on self-reported reasons for not engaging with the natural environment in England. The MENE consolidated annual surveys between 2009 to 2015 found that specific demographic groups were more likely to given certain responses to why they had not recently visited (King et al., 2015). The most common factor was time restraints across the working population. Within Natural England’s survey, 20% of the 8852 respondents aged 16-34 years reported visiting the natural environment less than monthly in the past 12 months (Boyd et al., 2018). The youngest age group (16-34 year olds) were 10% more likely than any other age group to provide the response ‘no particular reason’ for their lack of visitation (24.5%) (Boyd et al., 2018). Older adults were significantly more likely to report poor health as a preventative factor. As is mentioned in the preamble to this research, there is further opportunity to understand the constraints that apply to different demographics of the English population which limit their benefit from engaging with the natural

environment, through development on the findings from the MENE. Research from Holt et al. (2019) into the use of green space amongst university students found the most common response category for infrequent use were ‘not enough time’ and ‘not aware of opportunities’.

29

Young Adults and the Natural Environment

The nuances of a young person’s relationship with the natural environment can be difficult to capture through a single methodological approach. This relationship changes throughout a lifetime, and present positive experience in the natural environment can be associated with high levels of nature connection even for those lacking in childhood nature experiences (Cleary et al., 2018). Whilst nature connection may support positive emotional wellbeing, contradicting evidence exists suggesting that the immediate environment may have limited influence over the wellbeing of a young person. A study of 11-16 year olds in Canada found the environment where a young person lived did not act as a leading determinant of their emotional wellbeing (Huynh et al., 2013). Instead, Huynh et al. (2013) found individual context such as demographic characteristics, social-economic status of their family, and perceptions of

neighbourhood surroundings were stronger potential determinants for emotional wellbeing. Whilst this research may not be conclusive, it does reflect the challenges in accounting for the multifaceted effects of the surrounding contextual, built and natural environment.

Cross-sectional data from MENE conducted by Natural England and analysed by Richardson, Hunt, et al. (2019) demonstrated changes in nature connection across the age groups. Supporting the earlier cited work by Bird (2007), connection to nature dips between age 10 to 15, and does not return to the national mean until the age of 30 (see appendix A Figure 1). This apparent adolescent disconnect is discussed in relation to the transition young people go through during this age, from children into adulthood combined with the experience of a change in environment. Initial transitions from primary school to secondary, and then again into higher education or work, results in a loss of time for visiting natural environments (National Research Council (U.S), 2011; Richardson, Hunt, et al., 2019). During this time there is the additional pressure of changes in socialising, societal expectations in behaviour, and the development of the young person’s identity (National Research Council (U.S), 2011). Richardson, Hunt, et

al. (2019) interpret for some of the changes that occur during the transition from child to adult to be

related to the development and formation of identity. During adolescence, the emerging traits and series of stages such as physical growth, group acceptance and careers choice may result in identity crisis, and therefore coping mechanisms that do not prioritise nature. This is to say that engaging with nature may lose its relevance and importance, and hence results in a temporary decrease in nature connection until a stable identify is formed (Richardson, Hunt, et al., 2019).

30

The bond which occurs between an individual and their meaningful environment is known as place attachment (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). This bond is associated with pro-environmental behaviour in natural environments and positive psychological benefits such as a sense of belonging or relaxation (Halpenny, 2010; Scannell and Gifford, 2017). The individual connection with place is a dynamic and complex relationship, influenced by social interactions, personal identity and the experience of the physical place (Raymond, Brown and Weber, 2010). The place attachment framework by Scannell and Gifford (2010) defines three dimensions to the person dimension of place attachment; person-process- place. It encompasses the influence socially constructed narratives have on behaviour and emotional response to an environment or location (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). The role of process and person can be evidenced in the experience of young adults and natural environments (Bell, Thompson and Travlou, 2003; Milligan and Bingley, 2007). Some young adults reported the influence their parents’ warnings had on preventing further exploration of uncharted territories such as woodlands (Milligan and Bingley, 2007). In contrast, the natural environment can be a place to escape to, with teenagers reporting the more unkempt spaces providing a place of peace without judgement (Bell, Thompson and Travlou, 2003). The understanding of a natural environment can be developed through understanding the

person–process–place dimensions (Scannell and Gifford, 2010). These elements may present themselves differently for a young adult compared to an employee or visitor to a space. Beyond the physical

elements, a space is constructed by individual, social and behavioural dimensions, and these unseen dimensions contribute to the way a space is experienced and used (Raymond, Brown and Weber, 2010; Scannell and Gifford, 2017).

31