Interpreting the Human Relationship to Their Ecosystems: A Socioeconomic Lens

Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) has long been established in the literature as a determinant of one's access to financial, educational, and residential resources, which influences overall well-being. In a rapidly changing climate, access to these resources becomes crucial because of their utility in evading adverse climate effects. More specifically, an individual's perception of their environment throughout their development, their connectedness to nature, and access to green spaces are important considerations when examining the relationship between SES and climate change impacts. While several studies have explored the relationship between SES and the impacts of extreme climate events on greenspace accessibility and health, very few studies to date have evaluated a more direct relationship between SES, ecological connection, and greenspace access. With this in mind, this study assesses how SES can improve or diminish greenspace access and overall connectedness to nature among several environments. Results indicate that childhood access to greenspace predicts childhood, adolescent, and early adult connectedness to nature. Childhood access to greenspace is also associated with other childhood socioeconomic variables. While qualitative results show that a connectedness to nature exists between all SES groups, they also show that lower- and middle-class SES groups have a stronger relationship to nature and that higher socioeconomic status acts as a buffer against weaker connectedness to nature. While these findings provide valuable insights regarding the impact of SES on various aspects of ecological connection, more research is needed to better understand this relationship. Future research should investigate the link between these variables by considering disaster-based resilience and personality traits.

Introduction

A growing body of research has begun to explore the intricate relationship between socioeconomic status and responses to climate change. Socioeconomic status (SES), or the composite metric of one's wealth, education, and access to resources in relationship to others (Winkleby et al., 1992), is a determinant of one's social standing and has been found to closely shape an individual's experience of climate events and of their environment at large. Previous literature has indicated that impoverished communities and low-income individuals are disproportionately impacted by damages, health issues, and expenses associated with extreme climate events (e.g., natural disasters) and pollution as a direct result of low SES (Voelkel et al., 2018). In other words, low socioeconomic status leaves individuals more at-risk to negative consequences associated with climate change, as economic inequity exposes these individuals to more dangerous and polluted areas.

Moreover, diminished access to resources makes it difficult to manage or evade the long-term health problems, damages, and extreme weather patterns that are generated by global warming. For example, Tauzer et al. (2019) conducted research regarding the environmental impact of flooding on rural coastal communities in southern Ecuador. Findings reveal that those who lacked political capital and built-in sewer structures, those who could not collect and store rainwater, or who could not afford two-story homes were more likely to suffer the impacts of coastal flooding and were therefore more likely to be exposed to illness and disease.

Similarly, research by Kabir et al. (2016) on communities in Bangladesh following two consecutive cyclones found that low SES individuals (largely farmers and fishers) experience greater economic and food security repercussions attributable to the cyclones. In urban areas, where extreme urban heat is a growing threat, individuals of lower socioeconomic status have less access to refuge and are thus more vulnerable to heat-related health consequences (Voelkel et al., 2018). In other regions, like the Pacific Islands, extreme climate events, climate-related migration, and changing ecosystems have compromised food and nutrition security for low-income individuals, leading to a significant increase in diet-related noncommunicable disease (Savage et al., 2021).

While the link between socioeconomic status and climate-related impacts has been documented, recent research has also suggested that socioeconomic status can influence critical facets of an individual's engagement with and access to their environment, including access to green spaces (i.e., parks, forests), opportunities for social interaction and recreation, and clean and comfortable living and working conditions. For instance, individuals from lower SES communities are less likely to have access to green spaces and more likely to be exposed to “hazardous residential and work environments”; thus they must endure greater “pollutants, noise, and heat” (John et al., 2022, p. 142). On the other hand, individuals from high SES neighborhoods are afforded the opportunity to develop valuable connections with the natural environment, which in turn is associated with a greater sense of well-being and physical health (Zhang et al., 2020).

Access to green spaces and environmental engagement is paramount to an individual's development and overall health. Green spaces actively counteract harmful impacts of climate change by neutralizing urban heat (Twohig-Bennett & Jones, 2018), minimizing air pollutants (Maas et al., 2009), and managing extreme flooding (Wolch et al., 2014), all of which disproportionately impact individuals of lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, greater greenspace accessibility has a significant positive influence on several physical conditions most commonly associated with low SES (Mobley et al., 2006; Rigolon, et al., 2021), including obesity (Jia et al., 2020; Lachowycz & Jones, 2011), cardiovascular disease (Akpinar et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2022) and even stroke outcomes (Wilker et al., 2014). Green space exposure has also been shown to improve various aspects of mental health and well-being, including significant reductions in stress and anxiety (Cohen-Cline et al., 2015), better pregnancy and post-partum outcomes (McEachan et al., 2015), greater social cohesion (Jennings & Bamkole, 2019), and improved quality of life (Pouso et al., 2021).

In addition to the influence of SES on climate change-related mental and physical health outcomes, it is critical to assess how these findings can be effectively explained by extant, interdisciplinary frameworks, such as the Fundamental Cause Theory. This theory posits that individuals with greater access to resources are better able to avoid places where there is increased exposure to disease and other significant dangers, and they may be shielded from intervening mechanisms that might perpetuate health inequalities (Phelan et al., 2010). In a seminal article detailing the social conditions underlying environments for disease, Link and Phelan (1995) argue that social factors such as SES can operate as persistent and “fundamental causes of disease” because they are associated with a wide variety of resources that can be marshaled to improve health in a diverse and changing environment. Fundamental Cause Theory (Phelan et al., 2010) highlights an association between SES and mortality, which has persisted despite medical and technological advancements. More specifically, while mortality has decreased dramatically and risk factors for death and disease have shifted in response to technological advancements, SES remains an enduring cause of mortality.

Hence, in line with the need to understand the impact of socioeconomic disposition upon the interpersonal connection that one develops with their surroundings, the purpose of the current research is to examine how socioeconomic status influences and interacts with an individual's engagement with their environment. More specifically, this study seeks to evaluate these relationships in the context of access to green spaces, feelings of safety and security, and perceptions of ecological surroundings. These relationships can provide valuable insights into the stratification of critical resource access across SES in the context of a changing climate and serve to provide a better understanding of how individuals relate to nature throughout their development. Thus, the research question for this study encompasses the following inquiry: Does socioeconomic status influence the psychological relationship that one has with their environment, the psychological impacts they encounter from climate change, and their connectedness to nature?

The hypothesis examined in this study is that one's socioeconomic status influences their perception and relationship with their environment, including connectedness to nature, social impacts faced as a consequence of climate change, and access to green spaces. In particular, it is posited that higher socioeconomic status acts as a protective factor against experiencing a negative relationship with the environment; it is a buffer against decreased connectedness to nature via increased access to green spaces, greater financial stability and support, and safer, more secure living conditions compared to individuals of lower socioeconomic status. Conversely, low socioeconomic status exposes individuals to limited access to green spaces, low-quality or no financial support and stability, fewer educational opportunities, and a more dangerous living environment.

Methods

This study aims to assess the impact of one's socioeconomic background as they form a relationship with their environment. More specifically, the data utilized for this article came from a larger, comprehensive study conducted to understand the psychological importance of the physical environment as well as the psychological impacts of climate change. Many different identities and demographic factors were measured as part of the data collection process, such as race and religion. In addition, questions about how often people engage in climate-saving actions and the degree to which they have been impacted by climate events were also included. For this article, data regarding the socioeconomic status of participants was examined.

As a means to address these questions, the study utilized a mixed methodological framework, namely two components: a survey (N=538) and an optional interview (N=20). Participants described their current environment and an environment from their past and had the opportunity to write freely for some time about one of those places and answer additional questions. Participants were asked to give consent at the start of the survey and were able to revoke it at any time. Survey data was kept confidential and stored within the Teachers College, Columbia University Development, Ecopsychology, and Wellness (DEW) Lab online Google Drive and was only accessible to lab members who had completed appropriate CITI Certificate training, which educates researchers on how to follow proper research protocols and engage in ethical research practices (Teachers College, Columbia University, n.d.). Participants interested in partaking in an interview after the survey could indicate their interest by providing their name and e-mail at the end of the survey; this identifying information was securely stored. Participants who had additional questions were directed to reach out to the study coordinator. If they wanted to learn more about what people experience when thinking about the environment, they were given a link to the Climate Psychology Alliance North America, which addresses the psychological effects resulting from the climate crisis and encourages cultural shifts toward human resilience, regeneration, and equity (Climate Psychology Alliance North America, n.d.).

After receiving survey results, the lab principal investigator connected each participant to a lab team member who then scheduled via e-mail an individual interview via Zoom. Lab members who facilitated the interviews with participants began each of their interviews by reviewing the consent process and confirming that the interview would be recorded and transcribed later. The facilitator also specified that the recording would be destroyed once the interview was transcribed. Throughout the interview process, lab team members provided an opportunity for interviewees to elaborate further on their survey responses and answer questions related to actions they had participated in regarding their environment, how their various social identities had influenced their ecological connections, and unique experiences, such as natural disasters, they had undergone.

To obtain participants, the study was promoted using flyers, both electronically and through print. The survey could be accessed online using Qualtrics, and the link was made available via a QR code on the flyer. Flyers with survey links were also posted on TikTok, Instagram, Reddit, and other platforms. They were also distributed through e-mail listservs and group text messages, along with additional public means such as community boards.

Survey questions were created through extensive deliberation and discussion among research assistants in the DEW Lab at Teachers College, Columbia University, during the fall 2022 term. All lab members were divided into various, separate working groups corresponding to the topics in the survey, specifically the following: race/culture, experience of climate events, gender, age, religion, participation in climate-saving actions, family trauma, socioeconomic status, and family status. Lab members worked with the leaders in their group to draft questions, and these questions were revised through the input of lab members outside of their working groups. Afterward, some questions were placed in the interview component of the study, while others were kept in the survey.

Within the group that created questions on socioeconomic status (SES), several questions were formulated among members before several statements were chosen as a part of the survey, while other questions were selected to be included in the interview protocol. Questions were initially drafted based upon multiple SES subthemes, specifically the following: financial stability, household status, quality of schools, access to green spaces, perceptions about the safety of one's environment, and the presence of crime and law enforcement interaction faced. Survey questions asked about the participant's current and past experiences, with a focus on the SES of their upbringing, while the interview questions provided a space to ask about current SES experiences. Ultimately, inquiries were chosen based upon ensuring that each of the subthemes was adequately represented; six statements were included in the survey component, while the remainder of the chosen questions were put in the interview.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To participate in the study, individuals were required to be at least 18 years old and fluent in English. To safeguard against any possible respondent concerns about experiencing significant distress or anxiety when thinking about climate change, prior to beginning the survey participants were informed that their experience engaging in the study would be similar to thoughts and reactions they might experience in their daily lives. In other words, the study was of minimal risk. These same criteria were utilized during the interview process. Researchers were also permitted to withdraw participants from the research at their professional discretion if they felt that a participant's involvement was harmful to themselves or others.

Two of the participants took the survey twice on different dates. Their first responses were included and their second responses were removed prior to analysis. If the same participant began the survey more than once, only the first completed response was included; instances in which participants clicked on the survey and filled out demographic information but did not submit other survey responses were removed. Lab members' test responses were also removed.

Survey Item s

SES

Table 1 shows the questionnaire used in the study. Participants reported aspects of their perceived childhood socioeconomic status by answering six questions on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The items were:

Table 1.

Socioeconomic Status Questionnaire

	N	%
(Q1) I grew up in a financially stable household. (M=3.69; SD=1.32)	475
1. Strongly disagree	42	8.8
2. Somewhat disagree	70	14.7
3. Neutral	49	10.3
4. Somewhat agree	147	30.9
5. Strongly agree	167	35.2
(Q2) The community I grew up in had enough opportunities for financial support. (M=3.47; SD=1.27)	475
1. Strongly disagree	41	8.6
2. Somewhat disagree	74	15.6
3. Neutral	100	21.1
4. Somewhat agree	137	28.8
5. Strongly agree	123	25.9
(Q3) I was raised in a safe neighborhood. (M=4.41; SD=.98)	475
1. Strongly disagree	14	2.9
2. Somewhat disagree	22	4.6
3. Neutral	22	4.6
4. Somewhat agree	113	23.8
5. Strongly agree	304	64.0
(Q4) I had easy access to natural or green spaces in the neighborhood where I grew up. (M=4.23; SD=1.09)	475
1. Strongly disagree	18	3.8
2. Somewhat disagree	34	7.2
3. Neutral	29	6.1
4. Somewhat agree	134	28.2
5. Strongly agree	260	54.7
(Q5) I received a good quality education in the schools I attended growing up. (M=4.29; SD=0.99)	475
1. Strongly disagree	9	1.9
2. Somewhat disagree	33	6.9
3. Neutral	32	6.7
4. Somewhat agree	140	29.5
5. Strongly agree	261	54.9
(Q6) I grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place.(M=1.55; SD=0.99)	476
1. Strongly disagree	327	68.7
2. Somewhat disagree	86	18.1
3. Neutral	27	5.7
4. Somewhat agree	23	4.8
5. Strongly agree	13	2.7

Q1: I grew up in a financially stable household.

Q2: The community I grew up in had enough opportunities for financial support.

Q3: I was raised in a safe neighborhood.

Q4: I had easy access to natural or green spaces in the neighborhood where I grew up.

Q5: I received a good quality education in the schools I attended growing up.

Q6: I grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place.

Connectedness to Nature

Participants answered questions about their connectedness to nature at given time points on a 5-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Questions included: I felt connected to nature when I was a child. Participants were given the option of answering this question at the following timepoints: childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood, and old age. However, because much of the sample consisted of young people, only the first three timepoints were used in this analysis.

Natural Disaster Impacts

Participants were asked whether they themselves or their community had been affected by natural disasters. These questions included: Have any natural disasters impacted your community directly (i.e., has your community experienced significant destruction to infrastructure/environment, high amounts of displacement, or significant economic loss?). These questions were answered either Yes or No.

Data Analysis and Results

Across the sample, participants were between 18 and 90 years of age (M=50.7, SD=196.) An overwhelming number of the respondents indicated that they currently reside within suburban or urban environments. Within the SES Likert scale statements, some of the inquiries within the scale were categorized into subscales, notably Financial Status (which includes the statements Q1: I grew up in a financially stable household and Q2: The community I grew up in had enough opportunities for financial support); and Crime/Safety (which includes the statements Q3: I was raised in a safe neighborhood and Q6: I grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place).

Descriptive statistics were completed for all scale questions, with five of the six questions having a plurality of their responses concentrated in the “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” categories. For Q1, 66.1 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, while 54.7 percent of the respondents agreed with Q2 and 87.8 percent of respondents agreed with Q3. However, 82.9 percent of respondents agreed with Q4. For Q5, 84.4 percent of respondents agreed, while only 7.5 percent agreed with Q6. Thus, 86.8 percent of respondents disagreed with the characterization that they grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place.

Regression analyses were conducted on individual survey questions and the subscales of the Financial Status and crime/safety questions (see Table 3). A linear regression test was used to predict a relationship between Q1 and Q2 as well between Q3 and Q6. Linear modeling was used to determine a relationship between both sets of variables, and a linear regression was used to determine whether or not a predictive relationship exists between Financial Status and access to greenspace. Linear regression was also used to examine the relationship between financial status and quality of education. While most of the test results are statistically significant, only the relationship between the Crime/Safety questions, Q3 and Q6, was shown to be strong (r=-0.709), Ease of access to natural or green spaces in childhood neighborhood was positively associated with reported childhood household financial stability (r=.22, p<.01), childhood community opportunities for financial support (r=.25, p<.01), childhood neighborhood safety (r=.43, p<.01), and education quality (r=.28, p<.01), and was negatively associated with reported childhood neighborhood crime (r=-.35, p<.01).

Beyond the survey questions within the SES domain, when examining the impact of easy access to green space on connectedness to nature as a child, the study findings show (see Table 2) that only 6 percent of the variance in childhood connectedness to nature can be explained by greenspace accessibility (r = .24); hence, this is a moderately weak relationship. Furthermore, the correlation between greenspace and connectedness to nature during adolescence was moderately weak (r = .201), but even weaker (r = .13) during the period of early adulthood, thus showing a decaying relationship between greenspace and nature connectedness across age over time. Furthermore, regardless of the type of environment that one grew up in—urban, suburban, or rural—the perception of growing up in a neighborhood with higher crime impacted perceptions of neighborhood safety.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable	N	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Childhood household financial stability	475	3.69	1.32	—
2. Childhood community opportunities for financial support	475	3.48	1.27	.66^a	—
3. Childhood neighborhood safety	475	4.41	0.98	.42^a	.45^a	—
4. Childhood access to natural or green spaces	475	4.23	1.09	.22^a	.25^a	.44^a	—
5. Education quality	475	4.29	1.00	.34^a	.42^a	.47^a	.28^a	—
6. Childhood neighborhood crime	476	1.55	0.99	−.30^a	−.30^a	-.71^a	-.35^a	-.34^a	—
7. Childhood connectedness to nature	469	3.91	1.16	-.03	-.04	.06	.24^a	-.01	-.03	—
8. Adolescent connectedness to nature	467	3.72	1.14	.05	.05	.02	.20^a	.05	-.05	.58^a	—
9. Early adulthood connectedness to nature	463	3.73	1.10	.05	.06	.04	.13^a	.08	-.06	.22^a	.38^a	—

p<.01

Table 3.

Regression Estimates for Childhood Neighborhood Crime

Variables	Neighborhood Crime
I grew up in a financially stable household.	-0.12(0.043)
The community I grew up in had enough opportunities for financial support.	-0.16^a(0.045)
Intercept	2.52^a(0.14)
R²Adjusted R²F(2,471)N	.105.10227.763^a473

p<.001 standard errors in parenthesis

Note: standard errors in parenthesis

Ultimately, the data indicate that childhood connectedness to nature is predicted most strongly by neighborhood green space compared to other socioeconomic variables (see Table 4). Some of the variance in childhood connectedness to nature can be explained by childhood socioeconomic disposition when entering all socioeconomic factors into a linear regression (F(6,456=5.643, R²=.069, adjusted R²=.058, p<.01) (see Table 4). Furthermore, experiencing natural disasters is negatively correlated with claiming that one grew up in a safe neighborhood (r = -.12, p<.01) and that one received a good quality education growing up (r = -.12, p=< .01). Experiencing natural disasters is positively correlated (r = .11, p=.015) with feeling that one grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place.

Table 4.

Regression Estimates for Childhood Connection to Nature

Variables	Childhood Connection to Nature
Household financial stability	0.01(0.05)
Community opportunities for financial support	-0.07(0.06)
Neighborhood safety	0.01(0.09)
Access to natural or green spaces	0.297^a(0.05)
Education quality	-0.06(0.06)
Neighborhood crime	0.02(0.08)
Intercept	3.05^a(0.47)
R²	.069
Adjusted R²F(6,456)N	.0575.643^a462

p<.001

Note: standard errors in parenthesis

An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework was utilized to examine interview data on both the prior and current relationships that participants have experienced with their surroundings. The themes used to analyze the interview data were coded utilizing NVivo and included the following: positive experiences with environment among low, middle, and high SES individuals growing up and now; negative experiences with environment among low, middle, and high SES individuals growing up and now; and financial status and safety. Although the qualitative data show a connectedness to nature between all SES groups, relatedness to nature differed for lower- and middle-class SES groups as these groups indicated that they had a more intimate relationship to nature.

More importantly, while the findings suggest that climate change events negatively impact all groups, high SES groups seem to be affected on a broader, less personal level while low- and middle-class groups were more affected at an intimate level. For example, responding to questions regarding exposure to recent climate events, one high-SES participant shared: “having the AC go out on the first 80-degree day of the summer, but no, I haven't been climate affected at all significantly.” On the other hand, a middle-SES participant shared their personal reaction to extreme wind conditions, saying: “it affects me also, like the howling, it was 70-mile-an-hour gusts yesterday, it just makes me grit my teeth and then I played loud music, so I don't have to hear it.” Similarly, a lower-SES interviewee shared how climate change events affected them on a personal level by saying: “my area was spared but my friend lost her business; she had a business right on the shore, she lost her whole business, everything was wiped out. My friends lost homes, my daughter and son-in-law, they lost everything.”

Several participants also regarded the role of higher socioeconomic status as a protective factor against poor environmental connection and nature connectedness in the interviews, as one higher-SES participant shared: “The green spaces that I described growing up in were so private. It was nature. It's the country, it's very peaceful.” Another high-SES participant shared: “My socioeconomic status allowed me to experience the environment better than some people would be able to, like being able to go take a 3-hour drive upstate or being able to go to a private beach and enjoying it.” Moreover, a third high-SES individual also shared their experience with increased safety, saying: “It wasn't like a dangerous neighborhood, so I never felt it was dangerous, or it wasn't an area that had high crime. My parents did a really good job trying to put us in like family friendly neighborhoods and making sure that we were away from that so that we weren't exposed to it, thank God.”

On a separate note, multiple participants discussed their experiences accessing greenspace through a wide range of experiences. A lower-SES respondent shared: “My dad was good about getting us out on the Sunday drive. There is this big park in south of Phoenix and then we'd go out into the desert in other parts which wasn't too far away and have a picnic.” Another lower-SES participant stated: “My parents were really frugal and really didn't have a lot of money, but they made it go a long way because we used to travel a lot, everything was packed into the station wagon, and everything was eaten out of the station wagon, or we slept out of the station wagon. And also, likewise didn't stay in motels or hotels if we were traveling. We always stayed in campgrounds, set up the tent and get up and good-ole Coleman's stove and made your food and that was their lifestyle.”

In addition, a middle-SES participant claimed: “I got to go to summer camp for a week with the church camp; it was up in the pines and sort of just being away from the regular routine. My siblings and my family and being in the environment where we were kind of prompted to spend quiet time by ourselves, open air, the fragrance of the pines and stuff. I did feel the connection.” Another middle-SES individual asserted: “I feel like I'm happier because I'm finding more joy and solitude in little things. The other day one of those little things is just like me going outside and going on walks, and the weather being nice. Not a lot of money than how it was when I had a lot of money and I lived in the city, and everything was gray and there wasn't natural parks or green anywhere. Truthfully, because money can't buy happiness, I'm proof of that. It just can't.”

In order to provide respondent validation for the analysis, the research team followed up with three (15%) interview participants. Two of the participants responded to communications and confirmed that the results of the qualitative findings aligned and resonated with their experiences. One of the participants added: “I recall truly appreciating any green space that I found/interacted with. The contrast between my typical environs and, for instance, a city park, was very great.”

Discussion

While the present study set out to gain a better understanding of the nuanced relationship between one's socioeconomic status and their interaction with various facets of their environment, including access to green spaces and connectedness to nature, the researchers also sought to build upon previous research that has evaluated the role of socioeconomic status on an individual's access to green spaces, opportunities for socialization and recreation, and contact with clean, safe living conditions. More specifically, they sought to replicate previous findings that indicate a positive relationship between high SES and green space access, as well as to establish a deeper insight into the implications of the relationship between SES and an individual's sense of connectedness with nature and perception of climate change. The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that higher socioeconomic status persists as a buffer against lower nature connectedness because of greater greenspace access.

The quantitative data suggest broadly that one's socioeconomic status influences their ability to cope with climate-related impacts. For instance, because neighborhood perception about safety and education equality were both negatively linked with undergoing natural disasters, while perception of neighborhood crime was positively linked, these findings could suggest that indicators of higher SES have an association with increased proclivity to avoiding the effects of natural disasters. In turn, these revelations partially support Fundamental Cause Theory, which asserts that socioeconomic status has a strong relationship with health outcomes and confers “a broad range of flexible and multi-purpose resources” which individuals can utilize to tackle any health-related hazards they may face (Willson, 2009). Moreover, despite the fact that these findings did not deliver extremely strong evidence in favor of the Fundamental Cause Theory, they uniquely illuminate, across a sizable group of individuals, how various socioeconomic dimensions are intertwined with the probability of evading severe climate impacts.

In addition, the qualitative results support the hypothesis that across all groups, socioeconomic status influences one's psychological relationship to their environment, negatively impacts each group when faced with climate change events, and sustains people's connectedness to nature. The qualitative results also partially support the supposition that higher socioeconomic status acts as a protective factor against experiencing a poor relationship with the environment and acts as a buffer against decreased connectedness to nature by providing individuals with increased access to green spaces, greater financial support and stability, a safer neighborhood, and better educational opportunities. However, contrary to the latter part of the hypotheses, even when the survey results show low and middle socioeconomic status to have less access to green spaces, negative experience with their environment, less financial support and stability, a more dangerous neighborhood growing up, and fewer educational opportunities, the data show that these groups worked harder to find access to green space. This response suggests that these factors did not have a negative impact on their connectedness to nature but rather it enhanced it.

Notably, multiple survey questions yielded a high construct validity, with a correlation of -.71 between Q3 and Q6 (see Table 2), relating to perceptions about crime and safety within one's neighborhood. This finding is in line with empirical evidence demonstrating “strong associations between landscape attributes and perceived safety” and the impact of “the built environment” on safety perception (Zeng et al., 2022, p. 3). In addition, there was a .66 correlation between Q1 and Q2 (see Table 2), thus underscoring the relationship between one's perceived financial stability and opportunities for financial support, potentially supporting current research that shows the negative relationship between “financial worries and anxiety” and overall mental health and its ability to “trigger …decreased financial well-being” (Ryu & Fan, 2022, p. 18).

While this study is innovative in its capacity to utilize this particular set of survey questions, it appears that the selection of questions provided an accurate and precise representation of what it sought to evaluate. This study is particularly unique because of its ability to look at SES in relation to ecological connection and environmental interaction, and the concise, accurate nature of the survey questions can indeed set the groundwork for future survey-based research evaluating similar constructs. Although the questions pertaining to socioeconomic status were relatively brief, the questions addressed several themes, including financial opportunities and stability, greenspace access, quality of primary education, and perceptions of safety and crime.

Future studies could choose to include more questions that encompass other themes across various sociocultural contexts within SES, including occupation, level of education, and more specific income metrics in order to develop a more holistic, comprehensive, and detailed assessment in relation to ecological connection. Subsequent surveys could include questions from the Socioeconomic Status Composite Scale (SES-C), a composite instrument widely considered to offer effective reliability and validity (Sacre et al., 2023). The SEC-C measures several socioeconomic characteristics such as perceived social class, not being in debt, not receiving financial help (Sacre et al., 2023). It is also imperative to seek out other inquiries regarding the instrument used in this study, which was unable to sufficiently encapsulate all the data due to the complexity of the constructs that it aimed to measure. For example, connectedness to nature can be further assessed through the Connectedness to Nature scale, which examines how emotionally connected individuals may feel in relation to nature characteristically rather than solely at distinct points in time (Mayer & Frantz, 2004).

Limitations

Even though the findings in this study underscore partial support for its hypotheses and take a novel approach to examining the link between socioeconomic status, nature connectedness, and climate change impacts, it is essential to recognize several potential limitations of the study. Firstly, it is relevant to note that while the sample size for the quantitative analysis was large enough to detect statistically significant relationships between many variables, the generalizability of the results is constricted by the limited SES diversity among respondents.

Of the sample within the quantitative part of the study (see Table 1), most responses were consistent with high SES: of those who answered the SES questions regarding their upbringing, 66.1 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that they grew up in a financially stable household, 54.7 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that their community provided enough opportunities for financial support, 87.8 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that they grew up in a safe neighborhood, 82.9 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that they had easy access to natural or green spaces, 84.4 percent somewhat or strongly agreed that they had been provided with a good quality education in the schools they attended, and 86.8 percent somewhat or strongly disagreed that they grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of crime took place.

Consequently, there were a limited number of respondents whose responses were consistent with low SES upbringing, which could limit identifying heterogeneity between low-SES respondents. Similarly, the qualitative component of the study comprised of about 30 percent of the participants who reported growing up with high SES, with only 10 percent of total participants reporting they were high SES now. In contrast, 50 percent of participants reported growing up middle class and 70 percent indicated they were middle class now, and 10 percent of participants indicated they identified with low SES growing up, with only 5 percent reporting having low SES now. With such a small subsample, it is difficult to generate definitive conclusions regarding low SES groups and their ecological relationships.

Another point to emphasize is that even though the study questions were conceptualized and designed within the New York City metropolitan area, which is a distinct physical environment given its abundance of rich biodiversity and complicated, interrelated social-ecological structure (McPhearson et al., 2013), many participants hinted they did not grow up in New York City. This is especially important because geographical and residential location plays a critical role in people's relationship with their surroundings. For example, one study found that people who currently live or used to live in rural areas during their childhood had higher scores of nature relatedness than their urban counterparts (Bashan et al., 2021). This is especially critical because a sizable number of participants in this study stated that they resided in a suburban or urban community.

Beyond this, the interviews were largely unstructured, leaving the pace, phrasing, and content of the interview questions at the discretion of the interviewer. While the nature of the interviews provided flexibility in generating valuable qualitative insights beyond survey responses, the generalizability and internal validity of the interviews were potentially compromised. Furthermore, due to the limited number of questions and size of the overall survey, there were dimensions of socioeconomic status that may not have been examined. Due to the cross-sectional, correlational design of the study, the findings do not demonstrate causation and thus do not provide conclusions regarding the directionality of the relationships between variables assessed.

Ultimately, despite the limitations, the current study contributes to a growing body of evidence that suggests one's SES has a fundamental and critical role in determining their access, interaction, and affinity with their environment. These findings serve as a foundational first step in examining how individuals come to develop their relationships with nature and their surrounding climate. Future research can provide insights into how these relationships shape us, our well-being, and the environment around us.

This study directs greater attention toward understanding how socioeconomic standing (e.g., financial disposition, safety) is specifically linked to a variety of environmental pathways that impact climate change effects, facilitating a broader dialogue about the implications of both objective and subjective socioeconomic status on well-being. There are numerous actions that can be taken within ecopsychological and social science research moving forward.

Future Directions

Successive studies should seek to examine SES relationships across diverse geographical locations with distinct differences in climate, landscape, and population density, as these factors may significantly and differentially influence the relationship between SES and ecological connection. Prospective research may also serve to build upon the current study by more closely evaluating the relationship between SES and other facets of ecological connection, like individual attitudes regarding climate change, sense of responsibility or helplessness regarding the climate crisis, and level of satisfaction with surrounding environments/ecological perceptions and quality of life.

In this respect, since this study design was formulated to assess socioeconomic dimensions and connectedness to nature across developmental periods , researchers and scholars can continue to examine these constructs from a trait-based view in order to better assess how nature-based attitudes and perceptions toward one's environment can remain persistent over time. Another possible topic of further investigation could include examining how socioeconomic disposition and connectedness to nature can be observed in relationship to different personality traits, subsequently helping researchers better understand how socioeconomic factors can influence one's relationship with their surrounding environment and how certain personality characteristics might play a more prominent role in developing stronger bonds with nature.

Lastly, it is imperative for social scientists and academics within the discipline to be more cognizant of the real-world implications faced by individuals of low socioeconomic status, as demonstrated by the hypotheses of some theorists that low SES persons may exhibit prolonged, high-effort coping behavior to deal with emotional stress, while individuals with higher SES have greater resilience, as they have greater social and economic resources available to them compared to individuals of lower SES (Qiu et al., 2021). However, despite these studies, additional research is necessary to examine how low SES individuals and marginalized communities as a whole can obtain the means to cope and develop resiliency in the face of climate disasters. Finally, subsequent studies also ought to examine how resilience is affected by both socioeconomic indicators and connectedness to nature, as well as how SES can act as a protective factor when examining disparities in resilience.

Conclusion

Even though extant literature has demonstrated that SES is intertwined with climate change impacts and one's developmental trajectory, this study specifically examined how one's connection with their surroundings, connectedness to nature, and greenspace accessibility is affected by several socioeconomic dimensions. Findings show that greenspace access strongly predicts nature connectedness in childhood and high SES groups appear to undergo less potent personal climate impacts. Also, this study suggests that all socioeconomic groups suffer negative climate impacts and experience a diverse array of relationships and connections with their environment. Moving forward, a greater number of socioeconomic dimensions can be captured as researchers draw from other constructs that measure the relationship between SES and connectedness to nature. More importantly, further study will ideally have broader implications for scholars as they examine how geographical demographics can contribute to the socioeconomic impacts on one's ecological relationship and examine socioeconomic variables that may explain gaps in disaster-based resilience.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the research assistants of the Development, Ecopsychology, and Wellness (DEW) Lab who contributed to the development, revision, and implementation of the study's survey and interview questions. Their feedback played a critical role in the success of this study and the ability to capture many different socioeconomic dimensions in the data. In addition, we would like to thank the Counseling & Clinical Psychology Department at Teachers College, Columbia University, for providing the authors with the opportunity to pursue research related to the impact of one's environment and climate change as a whole on one's mental health and well-being.

Authors' Contributions

Paritosh Joshi: conceptualization; investigation; methodology; project administration; supervision; writing original draft, review and editing. Erin Curtis: conceptualization; methodology; writing original draft, review and editing. Kevin Redifer: formal analysis; writing original draft, review and editing; visualization; data curation. Sarah Schmidt: formal analysis; writing original draft, review and editing; data curation. Rian Maxwell-Williams: writing original draft, review and editing. John Park: supervision; formal analysis. Susan Bodnar: investigation; supervision; review and editing.

Institutional Review Board Approval Statement

The study was exempt from committee review (Category 2) on 02/09/2022.

Funding Information

There are no sources of funding to report for this article.

Author Disclosure Statement

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose for this article.

References

Akpinar

, Barbosa-Leiker

, & Brooks

K. R.

(2016). Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.013

Bashan

, Colléony

, & Shwartz

(2021). Urban versus rural? The effects of residential status on species identification skills and connection to nature. People and Nature, 3(2), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10176

Climate Psychology Alliance North America. (n.d.). Who we are. https://www.climatepsychology.us/

Cohen-Cline

, Turkheimer

, & Duncan

G. E.

(2015). Access to green space, physical activity and mental health: A twin study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(6), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204667

Jennings

, & Bamkole

(2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452

Jia

, Cao

, Yang

, Dai

, He

, et al. (2020). Green space access in the neighbourhood and childhood obesity. Obesity Reviews, 22(S1):e13100. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13100

John

E. E.

, Astell-Burt

, Yu

, Brennan-Horley

, & Feng

(2022). Green space and inequities in healthy aging: Are grasses greener on the socioeconomically advantaged side?. Ecopsychology, 14(3), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2021.0042

Kabir

, Khan

H. T. A.

, Ball

, & Caldwell

(2016). Climate change impact: The experience of the coastal areas of Bangladesh affected by cyclones Sidr and Aila. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2016, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9654753

Lachowycz

, & Jones

(2011). Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, 12(5), e183–e189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789x.2010.00827.x

10.

Link

B. G.

, & Phelan

J. C.

(1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626958

11.

Liu

, Ma

, Huang

, Luo

, He

, et al. (2022). Green space and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 301, 118990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118990

12.

Maas

, Verheij

, De Vries

, Spreeuwenberg

, Schellevis

, & Groenewegen

(2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63(12), 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.079038

13.

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(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

14.

McEachan

, Prady

S. L.

, Smith

, Fairley

, Cabieses

, et al. (2015). The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: Moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205954

15.

McPhearson

, Maddox

, Gunther

, & Bradgon

(2013). Local assessment of New York City: Biodiversity, green space, and ecosystem services. In Elmqvist

T. E.

, Fragkias

, Goodness

, Güneralp

, Marcotullio

P. J.

, et al. (Eds.). Urbanization, biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 355–383). A part of the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Project. Springer.

16.

Mobley

, Root

E. D.

, Finkelstein

E. A.

, Khavjou

, Farris

R. P.

, & Will

J. C

. (2006). Environment, obesity, and cardiovascular disease risk in low-income women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(4), 327-332.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.001

17.

Phelan

J. C.

, Link

B. G.

, & Tehranifar

(2010). Social conditions as Fundamental Causes of health inequalities: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), S28–S40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383498

18.

Pouso

, Borja

, Fleming

L. E.

, Gómez-Baggethun

, White

M. P.

, & Uyarra

M. C.

(2021). Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health. Science of the Total Environment, 756, 143984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143984

19.

Qiu

, Huang

, Wang

, Ren

, Jiang

, et al. (2021). The role of socioeconomic status, family resilience, and social support in predicting psychological resilience among Chinese maintenance hemodialysis patients. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.723344

20.

Rigolon

, Browning

M. H.

, McAnirlin

, & Yoon

(2021). Green space and health equity: A systematic review on the potential of green space to reduce health disparities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2563. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052563

21.

Ryu

, & Fan

(2022). The relationship between financial worries and psychological distress among U.S. adults. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 44(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-022-09820-9

22.

Sacre

, Haddad

, Hajj

, Zeenny

R. M.

, Akel

, & Salameh

(2023). Development and validation of the Socioeconomic Status Composite Scale (SES-C). BMC Public Health, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16531-9

23.

Savage

, Bambrick

, McIver

, & Gallegos

(2021). Climate change and socioeconomic determinants are structural constraints to agency in diet-related non-communicable disease prevention in Vanuatu: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11245-2

24.

Tauzer

, Borbor-Cordova

M. J.

, Mendoza

, De La Cuadra

, Cunalata

, & Stewart-Ibarra

A. M

. (2019). A participatory community case study of periurban coastal flood vulnerability in southern Ecuador. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0224171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224171

25.

Teachers College, Columbia University. (n.d.). Training & Certification: Institutional Review Board, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/institutional-review-board/training--certification/

26.

Twohig-Bennett

, & Jones

(2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030

27.

Voelkel

, Hellman

, Sakuma

, & Shandas

(2018). Assessing vulnerability to urban heat: A study of disproportionate heat exposure and access to refuge by socio-demographic status in Portland, Oregon. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040640

28.

Wilker

E. H.

, Wu

, McNeely

, Mostofsky

, Spengler

J. D.

, et al. (2014). Green space and mortality following ischemic stroke. Environmental Research, 133, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.005

29.

Willson

A. E.

(2009). ‘Fundamental Causes' of health disparities. International Sociology, 24(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580908099155

30.

Winkleby

M. A.

, Jatulis

, Frank

, & Fortmann

S. P.

(1992). Socioeconomic status and health: How education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Public Health, 82(6), 816–820. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.82.6.816

31.

Wolch

, Byrne

, & Newell

J. P.

(2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

32.

Zeng

, Yu

, Yan

, & Lin

(2022). Perceived safety in the neighborhood: Exploring the role of built environment, social factors, physical activity and multiple pathways of influence. Buildings, 13(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13010002

33.

Zhang

, Mavoa

, Zhao

, Raphael

, & Smith

(2020). The association between green space and adolescents' mental well-being: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186640