Abstract
The variability of nature and the nature construct have complicated interpretations of empirical evidence from nature-based health studies. The challenge of defining nature exposure for purposes of methodological standardization may encompass constructs beyond vegetated landcover. This study offers a new construct for defining 'nature exposure' that considers cultural sets and nature familiarity. Focus group discussions across the United States (N = 126) explored the concept of what constitutes the relationship to nature. The participant diversity included regions, cultural demographics, cumulative nature experience, and everyday nature exposure. Mixed methods of semi-structured discussion and a photo exercise that prompted nature connectedness allowed for data triangulation and the detection of contradictions between approaches. Individuals conceptualized nature in ways reflecting highly personal and differentiated experiences, which defied consensus toward a single nature construct. The group scoring of photo imagery showed consistent high and low levels of nature connectedness with respect to wildness and outdoor urban venues, respectively, but diverged in the assessment of nature within the built environment. Everyday nature exposure significantly differentiated how groups conceptualized and related to nature imagery. This result may indicate an unmet biophilic need among groups with low backgrounds of nature exposure. The contrasts between the discussion content and the observed reactions to nature imagery showed the value of using mixed methods in qualitative research.
Highlights
IntroductionThe current understanding of associations between nature and health has relied on crude indicators of exposure to nature
The first part of the focus group—where a set of participants that was diverse in terms of age, gender, geographic location, socioeconomic status, and race freely discussed their nature relationships—exposed a range of views based on cultural sets and nature familiarity
We subsequently observed through the scoring consensus process that group-level nature exposure shaped enthusiasms and degrees of connectedness toward the various nature images, and that categorization by everyday nature exposure translated into distinguishable nature connectedness (NC) patterns by group type
Summary
The current understanding of associations between nature and health has relied on crude indicators of exposure to nature. The benefits derived from exposure to nature are likely to vary depending on one’s innate connectedness to nature, which is nurtured by acquired experiences and stimulated biophilic responses [1]. Many studies on nature and wellbeing have acknowledged the role of personal affinity to nature [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Fewer considered how limited contact with nature [8,9,10] or health advisories proscribing outdoor play in polluted environments [11,12,13] lead to fear of or aversion toward nature. Demographic features of urban landscape contexts influence wellbeing [14,15,16,17], evidence is growing for how race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, age, region, and
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
