The Brief Version of the “Connectedness to Nature Scale”: Factorial Structure and Invariance Study Across Seven European Cities

Abstract

The positive outcomes for human health from the development of a strong human–nature relationship are increasingly well established, and the role of a connection with nature in this process has been studied from different perspectives. The study intends to validate the brief version of the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) through psychometric validation criteria. The scale was completed by a total of 1343 individuals in seven countries, and data analysis was performed using R for confirmatory factor analyses and for measurement invariances. The short version of the CNS shows a good level of reliability and is, therefore, usable and suitable for cross-cultural research in the domain of human–nature relationship topics. The mixed invariance results suggest that it is sensitive to linguistic and cultural contexts.

Introduction

We are witnessing significant growth in studies on the human–nature relationship, involving a multiplicity of disciplines such as psychology, sport science, public health, environmental studies, biology, social science, forestry, education, occupational health, information technology, built environments, pharmaceutical and medical sciences, zoology, tourism, and philosophy (Brymer, Freeman, & Richardson, 2019). There are studies conducted with adults, but also studies conducted with children (e.g., Barrera-Hernández, Sotelo-Castillo, Echeverría-Castro, & Tapia-Fonllem, 2020; Bolzan-de-Campos, Fedrizzi, & Santos-Almeida, 2018; Collado, Rosa, & Corraliza, 2020; Duron-Ramos, Collado, García-Vázquez, & Bello-Echeverria, 2020; Olivos et al., 2020; Weeland et al., 2019).

Researchers from over 15 countries provide broad inclusive multidisciplinary insight into this research area. At the same time, they illustrate the variety of theoretical approaches and measurements in this domain. Nevertheless, all of these articles argue that the human–nature relationship is an important one, one to understand, enhance, and protect. In view of the growing interest in this psychological dimension of connection to nature, our objective is to validate a short version of one of the most commonly used scales for measuring it, the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), so that it can be used in different cultural contexts, and thus contribute to the creation of a simple and flexible tool for many research situations.

The benefits to human health and well-being of connection with nature are undeniable because interaction with nature protects against the onset of disease (Brymer et al., 2019). There is growing evidence that the human–nature relationship is associated with better mental health. This human–nature relationship can be studied in different ways, including through the contact, real or virtual, that individuals have with nature, but also through the emotional or cognitive connection that one establishes with it. A relationship between contact with nature and connection with it is also established.

For example, an Italian sample of rural residents showed significantly higher CNS scores compared with urban residents (Carrus et al., 2020). Connectedness with nature can be considered either as an independent variable (Navarro et al., 2020) or as an intermediate variable between contact with nature and well-being (Duron-Ramos et al., 2020; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009; Olivos & Clayton, 2017), for example.

Connectedness to nature has been defined as a self-perceived relationship between the self and the natural environment (Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004). A recent meta-analysis revealed a strong correlation between measures of connectedness with nature and environmental identity and environmental self-identity (Balundė, Jovarauskaitė, Poškus, 2019). These studies focus on the cognitive dimension of the connection with nature and in particular its role in the construction of self-identity. Other studies consider that in the construction of a self-concept, nature and the self are not independent but linked, as the self-concept comes from a cognitive connection between nature and the self, facilitated by memories of oneself in nature (Olivos & Clayton, 2017; Olivos, Aragonés, & Navarro, 2013; Schroeder, 2007; Thomashow, 1995).

Differing from this cognitivist approach, based on the construction of the identity of the self, Mayer and Frantz (2004) define connectedness to nature as reflecting a feeling of kinship and an affective individual experience of connection with nature. This concept is derived from studies on environmental concerns and has been proposed as being universal regarding the relationship between one's self-image and nature, based on a biophilic disposition (Mayer et al., 2009; Olivos et al., 2020). Similarly, Kals and Ittner (2003) and Kals, Schumacher, Montada, et al. (1999) describe an emotional affinity with nature. They suggest that it is based on biophilia, a concept proposed by Wilson (1984) to express the feeling of an emotional link with the natural world, which means an inborn tendency to focus on life processes.

In this study, we are particularly interested in the connection to nature, rather than contact with it. This interest is based on nature being related to health, well-being, and proenvironmental behaviors (Martin et al., 2020; Navarro et al., 2020). We now propose to discuss some elements of the literature on these issues before returning to the question of how to measure this psychological dimension.

Connection with nature, health, well-being, and proenvironmental behaviors

Connectedness to nature has been observed to mediate increased positive emotional states as a consequence of experiences in the natural environment (Mayer et al., 2009). Moreover, connectedness to nature moderated key relationships between nature contact, well-being, and proenvironmental behaviors (Martin et al., 2020). Thus, a meta-analysis (Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014) incorporating research that operationalized nature connectedness in a variety of ways shows a small but consistent relationship with happiness, life satisfaction, positive affect, and vitality.

For example, among the most frequently mentioned contents, participants of a hike in a natural site mentioned memories of experiences in natural sites in their childhood, feelings of peace and serenity, and feelings of well-being as well as wonder at nature (Olivos, Aragonés, & Navarro, 2013; Olivos-Jara et al., 2020). Connection to nature was higher among those who took part in the nature walks, related to the evocation of positive emotions, memories of social experiences in nature and proenvironmental reflections (Mena, Olivos, Loureiro, & Navarro, 2020).

Indeed, several studies concur in finding positive correlations between connection with nature and different scales of well-being (Cervinka, Röderer, & Hefler, 2012; Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011; Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013) and the psychological health dimension (Cervinka et al., 2012; Kamitsis & Francis, 2013), in different populations, an effect sometimes mediated by other variables such as higher engagement with natural beauty (Zhang, Howell, & Iyerc, 2014).

The link between connectedness to nature and well-being is thus clearly established. Yet, more specifically, nature connectedness was positively related to eudemonic well-being and both types of proenvironmental behavior, in household and nature protection (Martin et al., 2020). Indeed, it was observed that emotional connectedness to nature is a significant predictor of nature protection behavior (Hatty, Smith, Goodwin, & Mavondo, 2020; Marczak & Sorokowski, 2018). A meta-analysis (n = 13.237) demonstrates a positive and significant association between connection to nature and proenvironmental behaviors: people who are more connected to nature reported greater engagement in proenvironmental behaviors (Whitburn, Linklater, & Abrahamse, 2019).

This is confirmed by another meta-analysis, which established a strong and robust association between nature connection and proenvironmental behaviors, as well as evidence that nature connection causes proenvironmental behaviors (Mackay & Schmitt, 2019). Some studies have shown how the construction of social identities is closely related to connection with nature and ecological behavior (Arnocky, Stroink, & DeCicco, 2007; Hoot & Friedman, 2011; Olivos & Aragonés, 2014). One study reveals that children who perceive themselves as more connected to nature tend to engage in more sustainable behaviors (Barrera-Hernández et al., 2020).

Indeed, proenvironmental behaviors may be associated with a personal relationship with nature. Likewise, the level of neighborhood vegetation and involvement in the planting scheme account greatly for the variance in proenvironmental behaviors, with connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes mediating the relationships (Whitburn, Linklater, & Milfont, 2019).

CNS: the measure of connection with nature

The importance of this dimension of connection to nature, particularly its link with well-being and proenvironmental behaviors, is observed in the literature. The different results of the studies place the emphasis on this dimension. The question arises as to the measurement of the connection to nature, together with the validity and reliability of these measures, but also their invariance, especially in research questioning various cultural and linguistic contexts.

Connection with nature has often been conceptualized as a unidimensional construct, and although recent evidence suggests that it is multidimensional (e.g., attachment, identity, materialism, experiential, and spiritual, according to Meis-Harris et al., 2021), there is ongoing debate regarding the dimensions that make up connection with nature (Hatty et al., 2020). Schultz et al. (2004) have tackled research on the self-nature relationship by using different measures: the Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS) and the Implicit Association Test (IAT), or the Nature Relatedness scale by Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009). But the most commonly used scale is the CNS from Mayer and Frantz (2004).

This is a unifactorial scale that gives the user certain advantages. This scale has been translated and used in several cultural contexts, in several countries (e.g., Brügger, Kaiser, Roczen, et al., 2011; Carrus et al., 2020; Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, & Johnson, 2007; Frantz, Mayer, Norton, & Rock, 2005; Mayer et al., 2009; Navarro, Olivos, & Fleury-Bahi, 2017; Nisbet et al., 2009; Pasca, Aragonés, & Coello, 2017; Perrin & Benassi, 2009). The authors' analysis of the scale achieved an alpha score of 0.84 (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Their results also show, among other aspects, that the CNS correlates positively with biospheric concerns, the IAT-Nature, and the INS, as well as with ecological behavior.

Indeed, it has been determined that connectedness to nature has a positive relationship with altruism, biospheric (Stern, 2000) and egobiocentric concerns (Olivos, Aragonés, & Amérigo, et al., 2011), environmental behaviors, and, to a lesser degree, life satisfaction. This dimension correlates negatively with conservatism (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) and nonenvironmental behaviors (Frantz et al., 2005), particularly when people have a more focused concern on themselves or a narcissistic personality.

These results allow the CNS study to be extended in relation to environmental identity (Clayton, 2003) and environmental beliefs, such as anthropocentrism, “the dimension based on the instrumental value of the environment for human beings,” biospherism, “the dimension that values the environment for its own sake,” and egobiocentrism, “the dimension that values the human being within nature as a whole” (Amérigo, Aragonés, De Frutos, Sevillano, & Cortés, 2007).

Certain criticisms have been leveled at the CNS (Olivos & Clayton, 2017). Like attitude measures, the CNS is likely to be more responsive to situational manipulations than identity measures would be, and is thus useful as a measure of contextual variability in perceived nature relatedness (Frantz et al., 2005). In fact, more recent research has differentiated between “trait” and “state” CNS (Mayer et al., 2009). For this study, we are more interested in connectedness to nature as a relatively stable trait. There is some ambiguity about whether the CNS is primarily a measure of affective or cognitive response to nature (Perrin & Benassi, 2009).

According to recent results, a short version could improve the psychometric abilities of the CNS. A simplification has been proposed, in particular by Pasca et al. (2017), but also suggested by other studies (Navarro et al., 2017). Until a study by Pasca et al. (2017), an analysis by item had not been carried out to assess the explanatory capacity of each item on the total measure. Their study conducted such an analysis based on item response theory. The authors employed data from previous studies using the Spanish language version of the CNS, analyzing a sample of 1008 participants.

The results show that seven items present appropriate indices of discrimination and difficulty, in addition to a good fit. The remaining six have inadequate discrimination indices and do not present a good fit. A second study with 321 participants shows that the seven-item scale has adequate levels of reliability and validity (Pasca et al., 2017). The aim of this article is to provide the validation elements for the brief version proposed by Pasca et al. (2017). Moreover, our study sought to validate this brief version of the CNS through psychometric validation criteria such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and through an invariance analysis in several cultural contexts or countries and, therefore, different languages.

Methods

Sample and procedure

The study was carried out within the framework of a European project (Nature for Cities-N4C) that seeks to highlight the benefits of reintroducing nature into urban planning through what is known as nature-based solutions (NBS). The project seeks to develop and validate analytical frameworks and methodologies, tools, and indicators to characterize NBS and assess their benefits. Starting from the hypothesis mentioned in the introduction, which posits that contact with nature increases connection with it and that in its turn connection with nature increases well-being and proenvironmental behaviors, this study seeks to validate a tool that will allow us to examine these effects later on, in a cross-cultural and multilingual context.

For this study, data were obtained from a convenient sample of 1343 participants (56.4% women, 43.3% men) ranging in age from 17 to 73 years (M = 38.60; SD = 14.33). The participants live in seven European cities (Albacete in Spain, n = 190; Amsterdam in the Netherlands, n = 210; Ankara in Turkey, n = 156; Lisbon in Portugal, n = 225; Nantes in France, n = 188; Magdeburg in Germany, n = 122; and Szeged in Hungary, n = 252). To be included in the study, participants had to have been living in their city for at least 1 year.

Data collection was carried out between April 2018 and January 2019. The questionnaire was implemented online on the Limesurvey platform. All participants were asked for consent at the beginning and end of the questionnaire. All data, including personal data, were aggregated after collection to guarantee confidentiality. The average duration for filling in the whole questionnaire was between 15 and 20 min. For the CNS scale alone, the duration was about 5 min.

Compliance of Ethical Standard Statement: The authors complied with APA ethical standards, in accordance with the ethics guidelines of the partner universities and laboratories

Measures

This study is part of a larger research program with data gathered through a questionnaire including questions on sociodemographic characteristics and socioeconomic status, quality of life, nature in the city (perception and behaviors), and connection to nature. To measure connectedness with nature, we used the seven-item version of the CNS recently developed by Pasca, Aragonés, and Coello (2017), and based on item response theory.

As mentioned before, Pasca et al. (2017) demonstrate in their research that seven items were sufficiently discriminating and difficult, whereas six others had inadequate discrimination indices and did not present a good fit. They conclude that this shorter version has adequate levels of reliability and validity. However, their work does not account for the reliability and validity of this seven-item version of the CNS in languages other than Spanish.

For our study, the English version of the questionnaire (even though no data collection took place in an English-speaking country) was used (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) as a common version of the tool to be translated for the Turkish, Hungarian, and Dutch versions, because no translation is available in these languages. The scale was adapted to these three languages using a two-way translation procedure (or back translation). This procedure consists in a native-speaking translator translating the English-version scale into their native language, and a back translation into English is made by an independent English-speaking translator (Vallerand, 1989). Available translations of the seven items were used for the Spanish (Olivos et al., 2011), French (Navarro et al., 2017), Portuguese (Mena et al., 2020), and German (Brügger et al., 2011) versions.

In all languages, respondents were invited to answer the seven items of the CNS on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“completely disagree”) to 5 (“completely agree”).

Data analysis

The analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, 2020), using the package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) and semTools (Jorgensen, Pornprasertmanit, Schoemann, & Rosseel, 2020) for confirmatory factor analyses and for measurement invariances.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 displays the values of Cronbach's alpha. All values except Ankara's (0.78) are >0.8, providing evidence of good internal consistency of the brief version of the CNS.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Coefficients in Different Cities

CITY	M	SD	ALPHA	N
Albacete	3.89	0.77	0.91	185
Amsterdam	3.77	0.76	0.87	187
Ankara	4.11	0.53	0.78	142
Lisbon	3.80	0.65	0.83	214
Magdeburg	3.56	0.80	0.87	118
Nantes	3.78	0.82	0.90	172
Szeged	3.79	0.71	0.87	247

Testing the brief version of the CNS in individual cities

First, before testing invariance of the scale across the cities, CFA was performed to verify the univariate structure of the brief version of the CNS in each city. The standard fit indices provide the fit quality of the data: the chi-square test should not be significant, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value should be <0.08, the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) should exceed 0.95, and the standardized root mean square residual value should be <0.08 (Kline, 2016). According to Kline, multivariate skewness was detected in the item's distribution (Mardia's skew bd1 = 5.57 above the cutoff 5).

Thus, all the models were estimated using the Maximum Likelihood Robust Estimator developed by Satorra and Bentler (1994). Table 2 presents the usual fit statistics for each city on the CNS. All the indices of fit are good in Albacete, Magdeburg, and Szeged, but in other cities some indices are not satisfactory.

Table 2.

Fit Statistics for the Brief Version of the Connectedness to Nature Scale in Each City

CITY	χ²	DF	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Albacete	35.786	14	0.978	0.967	0.082	0.034
Amsterdam	82.246	14	0.892	0.838	0.154	0.065
Ankara	34.132	14	0.944	0.916	0.078	0.058
Lisbon	43.062	14	0.953	0.930	0.089	0.056
Magdeburg	22.922	14	0.981	0.971	0.062	0.041
Nantes	62.823	14	0.937	0.905	0.130	0.057
Szeged	37.058	14	0.979	0.969	0.066	0.040

All chi-square test scores are significant (p < 0.001).

CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index.

Table 3 provides the measurement errors that should be correlated to obtain acceptable indices in the other cities.

Table 3.

Improvement in Model Fit in Terms of the Chi-Square Test Statistic with the Addition of Correlated Measurement Errors

CITY	CORRELATED MEASUREMENT ERRORS	Δχ²
Amsterdam	Item 5 and Item 6	29.00
Amsterdam	Item 1 and Item 2	27.06
Ankara	Item 5 and Item 6	17.86
Lisbon	Item 1 and Item 2	16.99
Nantes	Item 1 and Item 2	21.31
	Item 2 and Item 5	11.08
	Item 1 and Item 5	9.50

This result shows that items 1 and 2 are very consistent with each other. They are less consistent with the others in three of these four cities (Amsterdam, Lisbon, and Nantes). Items 5 and 6 are also used in Ankara and Amsterdam. This raises the question of a cultural or linguistic particularity. Indeed, these items can seem very close to each other, but not in the same way in all the cities. Moreover, the case of Nantes is very revealing as items 1, 2, and 5 give the impression of forming a dimension, as they are so mutually consistent. This can be explained by the linguistic proximity of these items in the French version, in particular by the use of the terms “community” (CNS1), “be part of” (CNS2) and “union” (CNS5), which could be considered as synonymous.

Measurement invariance testing across cities

Second, the invariance of the previous measurement model was tested across the seven locations.

Measurement invariance consists of testing three nested models (Millsap, 2012): configural invariance (i.e., same factorial structure), weak invariance (i.e., loadings constrained to be equal), and strong invariance (i.e., loadings and intercepts constrained to be equal) across the cities. These models should be compared using the χ² test for nested models, but this test is somewhat unconventional, and following Cheung and Rensvold (2002), we used the ΔCFI >0.01 as a criterium of significant change. In view of the previous results, the measurement model included a correlated measurement error between CNS1 and CNS2; this correlation had been left free across the cities. Table 4 provides the results of the invariance tests across cities.

Table 4.

Fit Statistics to Test Invariance Across Cities

MODEL	χ²	DF	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	Δχ²	ΔDF	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Configural	234.236	91	0.973	0.957	0.078
Loadings	356.554	127	0.954	0.946	0.087	98.3^**	36	0.019	0.009
Intercepts	880.271	163	0.837	0.848	0.147	538.57^***	36	0.111	0.056

p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

The indices of the configural model indicated a good quality of fit. However, the weak invariance was not checked (ΔCFI = 0.019), unless the loadings of item 4 were set free (ΔCFI = 0.01, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.082). Indeed, this result suggests that item 4 is not linked in the same way to connectedness to nature from one city to another. It is possible that the word “Earth” (“I feel as though I belong to the Earth as equally as it belongs to me”) may have a different interpretation according to the country. Moreover, this item does not speak of “Nature”, but of “Earth”, which can vary the meaning of the item according to languages and cultures. The strong invariance across cities did not have a good fit at all (ΔCFI = 0.111).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the measurement invariance of the brief version of the CNS proposed by Pasca, Aragones, and Coello (2017), an instrument to measure connectedness to nature, across seven national samples. The CNS by Mayer and Frantz (2004) is one of the most widely used scales, as it has versions in different languages (Pasca et al., 2021). Our objective was to verify the invariance of a brief version of this scale allowing cross-cultural studies, which could allow applications in fields where the link with nature is examined.

We were able to determine that this invariance is relative and that although the results show a correspondence between the countries, an influence from the linguistic contexts is also identified. We can hypothesize that an effect of cultural contexts must nevertheless still be considered when using this scale and when interpreting the results in terms of connectedness to nature. A subsequent series of tests for measurement invariance using multigroup analyses showed that the components were invariant across all countries according to model 1, configural invariance (similar factor pattern matrix).

However, weak invariance (similar factor loadings) is possible, only if item 4 was set free, probably because it does not have the same meaning or it is not understood in the same way in different countries. In this case, an adaptation of the term “Earth” could be considered (see scale in Appendix Table A1). Strong invariance (similar loadings/intercepts) did not have a good fit across all the countries.

In conclusion, although this short version of the CNS has a good level of general invariance, it remains sensitive to the linguistic and cultural context of the language used for how it is understood. This topic has generated profound philosophical and historical reflections on the use of the concept of Earth by human beings (e.g., Blok, 2016; Rung, 2015). Compared with the longer version of the CNS, the results of our study showed that a brief version can improve the shortcomings of the longer version in terms of construct validity, as the fit of factor analyses is significantly affected by the quantity and quality of the items that make up the scales (e.g., Cook, Kallen, & Amtmann, 2009; Shrout & Yager, 1989).

Furthermore, the results indicate a more or less good fit in different countries, illustrating the relevance of international studies including different countries as well as the consideration of contextual and linguistic factors. Our results show that this short version of the CNS has acceptable construct validity characteristics for measuring connection to nature; however, more detailed and extensive invariance analyses show that adaptations may be necessary if we seek to compare different cultural or linguistic contexts.

The objective of this study is to propose a short and reliable version of the CNS to integrate it in studies seeking various applications, and examining the relationships of individuals with nature and the effects in terms of well-being, in particular. This is the case of studies seeking to evaluate the benefits of renaturing cities. As already mentioned, we can note a growing interest in the role of connectedness with nature and strategies for renaturalizing cities through the development of NBS to adapt cities to the effects of climate change, improve air quality, and regulate temperatures.

Thus, different types of NBS are being studied: green spaces, blue spaces, collective gardens, trees and lawns, roofs, and green surfaces. These NBS are associated with certain aspects of social, physical, or psychological quality of life in the cities (Lemée, Fleury-Bahi, & Navarro, 2019). In this sense, it is important to note that the level of “naturalness” does not have a distinct effect on connection to nature and well-being, as recent research shows that the presence of nature in the city can also promote a sense of connection to nature and well-being similar to exposure to wilder nature.

This is the case of the study of Pasca et al. (2021) carried out in five cities in different countries (Madrid, Hermosillo, Lisbon, Nantes, and Rome), where no differences in the variables of connectedness to nature and well-being are observed between participants viewing totally natural (wild) or quasi-natural (urban space) environments, that is, people feel as connected to totally natural environments as to quasi-natural environments. Similarly, Wyles et al. (2019) found that coastal environments led to very similar levels of connectivity as urban green environments. In addition, parks or gardens are often considered to represent nature, even in research conducted on nature (e.g., Bratman, Hamilton, & Daily, 2012).

These results are important for promoters of health interventions to understand the human–nature relationship, and how much it benefits human health and well-being (Brymer et al., 2019). Connectedness with nature has become a major variable to understand this link with nature and the effects on well-being and health, as well as the promotion of ecological behaviors (Navarro et al., 2020; Olivos and Clayton, 2017). Various applications will be possible in cross-cultural studies of connectedness with nature and health promotion through outdoor sport activities (Lawton, Brymer, Clough, & Denovan, 2017; Loureiro & Veloso, 2017), and more broadly the effects on mental health and stress reduction (Brymer et al., 2019).

Likewise, the role of connectedness with nature and environmental concerns, and even the promotion of ecological behaviors (Navarro et al., 2020, Navarro et al., 2017; Olivos et al., 2013, Olivos et al., 2011), is one of the possible applications.

Despite the biophilic hypothesis underlying the notion of connectedness, the construction of the concept of nature and Earth comes from daily experience and sociocultural induction. One of the main subjects in the curriculum of science lessons is the conceptualizing of the shape and size of the Earth, as well as the Moon, the Sun, and other elements of the universe (e.g., Azriani et al., 2019; Bryce & Blown, 2013; Jelinek, 2021; Lidar, Almqvist, & Östman, 2010; Varela, 2012).

The results of Bryce and Blown's research (2013) show that concepts of the Earth's shape and size are embedded in a “super-concept” or “Earth notion” embracing ideas of physics, inhabitation, and identity with Earth. Similarly, certain studies have observed that conceptual development about Earth is strongly related to mental models conditioned by a scientific worldview culture (Jelinek, 2021; Nobes & Panagiotaki, 2007).

Limitations of the study

This study has some limitations, particularly because the characteristics of the sample do not allow for generalizable results. Although our study made it possible to verify the reliability of this brief version of the CNS and its interest in cross-cultural research integrating this dimension, the results of invariance remain mixed and careful attention must be paid to the understanding of the items that are sensitive to cultural aspects. It is possible that the relatively small sample in each city may have played a role in these results. It would be better for future studies to increase the number of participants. Furthermore, it could be pertinent to consider the disposition to connect with nature scale (Brügger et al., 2011) that is much longer, but the analysis with the Rasch model offers an interesting possibility for dealing with contextual differences.

The results need to be strengthened by ongoing field research to test the effect of connection to nature on dimensions such as well-being, perceived health, and thermal comfort, among others, under exposure to NBS implemented in an urban context. The subsamples for each city are rather small. Thus, although one of the strengths of this study is the consideration of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, it is not possible to consider the role of cultural differences in more detail. Another limitation lies in our preference to focus on the psychometric attributes of the CNS in its short version, specifically its invariance and reliability, meaning that we did not test for links with other dimensions. This constitutes a methodological choice that could be considered a limitation.

Finally, it is possible that translations may be misinterpreted because the choice of terms is never completely free of arbitrariness. Although we have tried to control this with the methodological means available, the question remains. The invitation we can make at the end of this article is to be extremely vigilant in adapting measurement tools in psychology, when changing language and culture to measure dimensions considered as universal.

Informed Consent

Participation in the research was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research was part of the Nature4Cities European Project and has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 730468.

Appendix

Appendix Table A1.

Items Brief Version Connectedness to Nature Scale

1	(2) I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong.
2	(5) When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of living.
3	(6) I often feel a kinship with animals and plants.
4	(7) I feel as though I belong to the Earth as equally as it belongs to me.
5	(9) I often feel part of the web of life.
6	(10) I feel that all inhabitants of Earth, human and nonhuman, share a common “life force.”
7	(11) Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded within the broader natural world.

References

Amérigo

, Aragonés

J. I.

, De Frutos

, Sevillano

, & Cortés

(2007). Underlying dimensions of ecocentric and anthropocentric environmental belief. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 97–103.

Arnocky

, Stroink

, & DeCicco

(2007). Self-construal predicts environmental concern, cooperation, and conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 255–264.

Azriani

, Islami

, Hermita

, Nor

, Syaodih

, Handayani

, Zulirfan

, Suhandi

, Malik

, Mahbubah

, &, Samsudin

(2019). Implementing inquiry learning model to improve primary school students' critical thinking on earth and universe concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1227. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1227/1/012033

Balundė

, Jovarauskaitė

, & Poškus

M. S

. (2019). Exploring the relationship between connectedness with nature, environmental identity, and environmental self-identity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019841925

Barrera-Hernández

L. F.

, Sotelo-Castillo

M. A.

, Echeverría-Castro

S. B.

, & Tapia-Fonllem

C. O.

(2020). Connectedness to nature: Its impact on sustainable behaviors and happiness in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 276.

Blok

(2016). Thinking the earth: Critical reflections on Quentin Meillassoux's and Heidegger's concept of the earth. Environmental Ethics, 38, 441–462.

Bolzan-de-Campos

, Fedrizzi

, & Santos-Almeida

C. R.

(2018). How do children from different settings perceive and define nature? A qualitative study conducted with children from southern Brazil. Psyecology, 9, 1–27.

Bratman

G. N.

, Hamilton

J. P.

, & Daily

G. C.

(2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 118–136.

Brügger

, Kaiser

, & Roczen

. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. European Psychologist, environmental identity, 324–333.

10.

Bryce

T. G. K.

, & Blown

E. J.

(2013). Children's concepts of the shape and size of the Earth, Sun and Moon. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 388–446.

11.

Brymer

, Freeman

E. L.

, & Richardson

(2019). One health: The well-being impacts of human-nature relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1611.

12.

Capaldi

C. A.

, Dopko

R. L.

, & Zelenski

J. M.

(2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976.

13.

Carrus

, Panno

, Aragonés

J. I.

, Marchetti

, Motta

, Tonon

, & Sanesi

(2020). Public perceptions of forests across Italy: An exploratory national survey. iForest—Biogeosciences and Forestry, 13, 323–328.

14.

Cervinka

, Röderer

, & Hefler

(2012). Are nature lovers happy? On various indicators of well-being and connectedness with nature. Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 379–388.

15.

Cheung

G. W.

& Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.

16.

Clayton

(2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (eds.). Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature. (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

17.

Collado

, Rosa

, & Corraliza

J. A.

(2020). The effect of a nature-based environmental education program on children's environmental attitudes and behaviors: A randomized experiment with primary schools. Sustainability, 12, 6817.

18.

Cook

K. F.

, Kallen

M. A.

, & Amtmann

(2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18, 447–460.

19.

Duron-Ramos

M. F.

, Collado

, García-Vázquez

F. I.

, & Bello-Echeverria

(2020). The role of urban/rural environments on mexican children's connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 514.

20.

Dutcher

, Finley

J. C.

, Luloff

A. E.

, & Johnson

J. B.

(2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 30, 474–493.

21.

Frantz

, Mayer

F. S.

, Norton. C., & Rock

(2005). There is no “I” in nature: The influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 427–436.

22.

Hatty

M. A.

, Smith

L. D. G.

, Goodwin

. & Mavondo

F. T.

(2020). The CN-12: A Brief, Multidimensional Connection With Nature Instrument. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1566.

23.

Hoot

R. E.

, & Friedman

(2011). Connectedness and environmental behavior: Sense of interconnectedness and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30, 89–100.

24.

Howell

A. J.

, Dopko

R. L.

, Passmore

H. A.

, & Buro

(2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166–171.

25.

Jelinek

J. A.

(2021). Children's astronomy. Development of the shape of the earth concept in polish children between 5 and 10 years of age. Education Science, 11, 75.

26.

Jorgensen

T. D.

, Pornprasertmanit

, Schoemann

A. M.

, & Rosseel

(2020). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-3. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

27.

Kals

, & Ittner

(2003). Children's environmental identity: Indicators and behavioural impacts. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (ed.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 135–157). Cambridge: MIT Press.

28.

Kals

, Schumacher

, & Montada

(1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.

29.

Kamitsis

, & Francis

(2013). Spirituality mediates the relationship between engagement with nature and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 136–143.

30.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

31.

Lawton

, Brymer

, Clough

, & Denovan

(2017). The relationship between the physical activity environment, nature relatedness, anxiety, and the psychological well-being benefits of regular exercisers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1058.

32.

Lemée

, Fleury-Bahi

. & Navarro

(2019). Nature-based solutions and quality of life: A study with residents of Nantes. In S. Gaymard (ed.), Psychologie sociale appliquée aux grandes thématiques contemporaines (pp. 11–122). L'Harmattan.

33.

Lidar

, Almqvist

, & Östman

(2010). A pragmatist approach to meaning making in children's discussions about gravity and the shape of the earth. Science Education, 94, 689–709.

34.

Loureiro

. & Veloso

. (2017). Green exercise, health and well-being. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research (pp. 149–169). International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-31416-7.

35.

Mackay

C. M. L.

, Schmitt

M. T.

(2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323.

36.

Marczak

, & Sorokowski

(2018). Emotional connectedness to nature is meaningfully related to modernization. Evidence from the Meru of Kenya. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1789.

37.

Martin

, White

P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J., 2020. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and proenvironmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389.

38.

Mayer

F. S.

, & Frantz

C. M.

(2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.

39.

Mayer

F. S.

, Frantz

C. M.

, Bruehlman-Senecal

, & Dolliver

(2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.

40.

Meis-Harris

, Borg

, & Jorgensen

B. S.

(2021). The construct validity of the multidimensional AIMES connection to nature scale: Measuring human relationships with nature. Journal of Environmental Management, 280, 111695.

41.

Mena

, Olivos

, Loureiro

. & Navarro

(2020). Effects of contact with nature on connectedness, environmental identity and evoked contents. Psyecology, 11, 21–36.

42.

Millsap

R. E.

(2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. United Kingdom: Routledge.

43.

Navarro

, Olivos

. & Fleury-Bahi

(2017). Connectedness to nature scale: Validity and reliability in the French context. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2180.

44.

Navarro

, Tapia-Fonllem

, Fraijo-Sing

, Roussiau

, Ortiz-Valdez

, Guillard

, Wittenberg

. & Fleury-Bahi

(2020). Connectedness to nature and its relationship with spirituality, wellbeing and sustainable behavior. Psyecology, 11, 37–48.

45.

Nisbet

E. K.

, Zelenski

J. M.

, & Murphy

S. A.

(2009). The nature relatedness scale. Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.

46.

Nobes

, & Panagiotaki

(2007). Adults' representations of the Earth: Implications for children's acquisition of scientific concepts. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 645–665.

47.

Olivos

, & Aragonés

J. I.

(2014). Environment, self and connectivity with nature. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 3, 71–77.

48.

Olivos

, Aragonés

J. I.

, & Amérigo

(2011). The connectedness with nature scale and its relationship with environmental beliefs and identity. International Journal of Hispanic Psychology, 4, 5–20.

49.

Olivos

, Aragonés

J. I.

, & Navarro

(2013). Environmental education: Itinerary in nature and its relationship with connectivity, environmental concerns and behavior. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45, 501–511.

50.

Olivos

, & Clayton

(2017). Self, nature and wellbeing: Sense of connectedness and environmental identity for quality of life. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (eds). Handbook of environmental psychology and QOL research. (pp. 107–126). Switzerland: Springer.

51.

Olivos-Jara

, Segura-Fernández

, Rubio-Pérez

, & Felipe-García

(2020). Biophilia and biophobia as emotional attribution to nature in children of 5 years old. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 511.

52.

Pasca

, Carrus

, Loureiro

, Navarro

, Panno

, Tapia Follen

, & Aragonés

J. I

. (2021). Connectedness and well-being in simulated nature. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1. doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12309

53.

Pasca

, Aragonés

J. I.

, & Coello

M. T.

(2017). An analysis of the connectedness to nature scale based on item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1330.

54.

Perrin

J. L.

, & Benassi

V. A.

(2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 434–440.

55.

R Core Team. (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/

56.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.

57.

Rung

(2015). The language of the Achaemenid imperial diplomacy towards the Greeks: The meaning of earth and water. Klio, 97, 503–515.

58.

Satorra

, & Bentler

P. M

. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye, & C. C. Clogg (eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59.

Schroeder

H. W.

(2007). Place experience, gestalt and the human-nature relationship. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 293–309.

60.

Schultz

P. W.

, Shriver

, Tabanico

, & Khazian

(2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.

61.

Shrout

P. E.

, & Yager

T. J.

(1989). Reliability and validity of screening scales: Effect of reducing scale length. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 69–78.

62.

Stern

(2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

63.

Thomashow

(1995). Ecological identity. Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge: MIT Press.

64.

Vallerand

R. J.

(1989). Toward a methodology for cross-cultural validation of psychological questionnaires: Implications for French language research. Can Psychol, 30, 662–680.

65.

Varela

(2012). The reflective experimental construction of meanings about the shape of the Earth and the alternation of day and night. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5, 5–26.

66.

Weeland

, Moens

, Beute

, Assink

, Staaks

. & Overbeek

(2019) A dose of nature: Two three-level meta-analyses of the beneficial effects of exposure to nature on children's self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101326.

67.

Whitburn

, Linklater

, & Abrahamse

(2019). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology, 34, 180–193.

68.

Whitburn

, Linklater

, & Milfont

(2019). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 51, 787–810.

69.

Wilson

E. O.

(1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

70.

Wolsko

, & Lindberg

(2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5, 80–91.

71.

Wyles

K. J.

, White

M. P.

, Hattam

, Pahl

, King

, & Austen

(2019). Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior, 51, 111–143.

72.

Zhang

J. W.

, Howell

R. T.

, & Iyerc

(2014). Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 55–63.