Making the Natural Personal: Discussing the Scale Problem in Ecopsychology

Abstract

Positive interpersonal relationships between humans and positive relationships between humans and nature have been shown to share many overlapping benefits for mental, emotional, and physiological well-being in people, as well as similar evolutionary mechanisms. Human disconnection from interpersonal relationships and from natural environments is also associated with significant negative effects, including impacts on human well-being as well as the documented catastrophic effects of nonecological mindsets on global ecology. This has led to growing literature investigating human–human and human–nonhuman disconnection as interlinked phenomena. However, this leads to problems of incompatibility relating to the interpersonal scale at which human beings most readily form emotional connections, including questions of how an individual human being forms a relationship with a concept as broad as nature. This article aims to support and advance the relational view of human–nonhuman entanglement by contracting its emotional scope to the interpersonal level. It identifies and suggests ideas for overcoming existing limitations of the interpersonal lens of nature connectedness. Through this lens, the relational self-expansion model is applied to human–nonhuman relationships to demonstrate how the unique capabilities of humans and nonhumans mutually benefit one another both at the interpersonal and broader social scale.

Keywords

Connectedness to nature—Nature connectedness—Self-expansion model—Interpersonal relationships—Relational view of nature—Interpersonal view of nature

Introduction

Much of the recent literature on how humans interact with and understand their place on Earth emphasizes what is broadly referred to as the relational view, in which humans and nonhuman nature are not separate or hierarchically arranged but rather deeply integrated and intertwined (Ghijselinck, 2023). This relational framework asks and attempts to answer questions of how we are connected to the nonhuman world (Gould, Martinez, & Hoelting, 2023), and how emotional engagement with this connection can inform everything from ecocentric behaviors to our own mental health and well-being (Niigaaniin & MacNeill, 2022; Zelenski, Dopko, & Capaldi, 2015; Bratman, Daily, Levy, & Gross, 2015). There is now a significant body of research literature investigating the efficacy of this relational view of human and nonhuman entanglement, particularly relating to efforts at increasing pro-environmental behaviors during a time of catastrophic ecological damage caused by human action (Barragan-Jason, de Mazancourt, Parmesan, Singer, & Loreau, 2022). The relational view helps us understand who we are by helping us understand that we are an integrated part of a whole and encourages us to align our behaviors with this entangled reality (Price & Chao, 2023).

Growing research into pro-environmental behavior suggests that it is more likely to be motivated by individuals’ affective feelings of connectedness to and entanglement with nature than knowledge of climate science on an intellectual level (Barragan-Jason et al., 2022). This affective connection is also significant in that it is associated with greater time spent in natural environments, which in turn leads to improved well-being and mental/emotional health (Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014). With mental health trends steeply declining in many cultures worldwide, alongside devastating declines in ecological health, there is increased urgency in determining how both interconnected crises can be understood, investigated, and addressed (Lengieza, Aviste, & Richardson, 2023; Lund, 2019; Twenge, Spitzberg, & Campbell, 2019).

However, investigating these dual trends concurrently poses a challenge of psychological scale. Ecological health is a global issue, but human affective connection often occurs most readily at the identifiable, interpersonal scale (Small & Loewenstein, 2003). While humans are capable of pseudo-kinship, or the consideration of nongenetic relatives as related, this process is made more difficult at the large-scale or societal level (Cameron & Payne, 2011). As individual persons, our most psychologically meaningful human relationships are not national, cultural, societal, or global—they are interpersonal (Ross & Young, 2009; Västfjäll, Slovic, Mayorga, & Peters, 2014; Trope & Liberman, 2010).

This phenomenon is often described as scope insensitivity (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000). Human emotional connection is evolutionarily adapted for a small group scale, so we struggle to extend that connection to larger group settings (Dunbar, 1992). This carries implications for attempts to investigate and increase nature connectedness, or feelings of connection and at-one-ness with the natural world (Sheffield et al., 2022). Nature is a broad term of classification, rather than a small-scope relational descriptor such as friend or parent. A key challenge in addressing human emotional disconnection from the entangled web of life, as relates to both human and ecological well-being, is that this disconnection has global implications but may benefit from individual-scale solutions and ways of thinking. It is this challenge that the current piece seeks to discuss—not as a critique of the meaningful research already being conducted across the field of human–nonhuman relationships, but as an additional resource for those within this field.

This article’s aim is to offer support, clarification, and discussion surrounding the interpersonal view of nature connectedness, a means of understanding human–nonhuman relationships through the lens of interpersonal human relationships, which has been proposed in limited existing research (Martin & Thomas, 2000; Lengieza et al., 2023). I aim to discuss the scale problem inherent in comparisons of human–human and human–nature relationships to overcome barriers in understanding and improving human–nature connectedness. By reducing the relational view to the interpersonal scale, I generally seek to emphasize the close context of affective connection, which human psychology tends to form most readily.

If emotional connections to nature are strongly correlated with pro-environmental behavior and personal well-being, then there is value in considering and investigating our relationship with the nonhuman as a dyadic interpersonal relationship, rather than a globally entangled one.

The Interpersonal Lens of Nature Connectedness

Nature connectedness has grown as a field of research both in the context of human well-being and ecological health (Sheffield et al., 2022; Feraco, Carbone, Cramarossa, & Meneghetti, 2025). However, this expansion in research attention has led to differing viewpoints about how exactly we should discuss or delineate people and nature, as well as criticisms of the word “nature” itself (Ducarme & Couvet, 2020; Mimiko, 2017). These disputes arise from personal, ideological, theoretical, or cultural differences, and compelling arguments can be made for various placements of the demarcation line between nature and not nature. Even the term human–nonhuman relationship, used frequently within this present article, could be criticized for suggesting a dichotomy that separates humans from “everyone else.” Humans are, of course, part of nature (Kaebnick, 2011), but the limitations of research language are such that we must sometimes work with imperfect linguistic tools in the service of discussing and investigating particular paradigms and causal relationships (Rotundo, 2013). It is worth noting here that this article’s author speaks English as their first and primary language and acknowledges that other languages likely vary in their available tools for discussing human–nonhuman relationships.

The ongoing debate surrounding how to define nature and people’s place within it raises one of the central issues this article hopes to address: the language of research affects paradigms, ways of knowing, and ways of being (Canestrino et al., 2022; Hartel, Fischer, Shumi, & Apollinaire, 2023). What we call things changes how we act and behave in relation to them, in accordance with Burke’s conceptualization of language as symbolic action (Burke, 1965). In a review investigating the human–nature relationship as an extension of human interpersonal relationships, Lengieza et al. (2023) write that there is “still a need for the wider acceptance of the importance of the human–nature relationship and how to operationalize it” (p. 4). Emphasizing the interpersonal scale of that relationship and offering means of discussing it more effectively may help contribute to that operationalization. In the following section, I will expand on current perspectives for discussing human–nonhuman relationships and the problems inherent in those discussions.

The Scale Problem in Interpersonal Nature Connectedness

To illustrate the challenges and limitations of the nature connectedness concept, consider one common relationship dynamic that occupies a unique position on the spectrum of interpersonal/natural relations: pets and their owners.¹ Domestic pets have been shown to provide a range of positive benefits for people, from mediating feelings of loneliness and isolation to encouraging physical activity and reducing the risk of heart problems (Schulz, König, & Hajek, 2020; National Institutes of Health, 2018; Martins et al., 2023; Schreiner, 2016).

Most people are aware of at least some of these benefits of pet ownership, similar to the way that many people are aware of the positive benefits of exposure to natural spaces. However, consider how we talk about the benefits of pet ownership. When we discuss, for example, a grandparent who lives geographically far from family members and may experience loneliness, we do not recommend that they reconnect with pets. We suggest that they adopt a pet, a single individual with whom they can form a meaningful and psychologically fulfilling relationship. What is lacking in this individual’s case is not the general feeling of relational entanglement with the world of domestic animals. Rather, what is missing is interpersonal-scale connection. What the individual needs is not a love of pets, but a pet to love. Similarly, when seeking to improve an individual’s well-being through nature connectedness, what they may need most urgently is not a love of nature. It is a specific relationship within their unique, embodied social environment—they need a nature to love.

The concept of nearby nature is a growing body of research that demonstrates the importance of accessible, everyday natural settings for fostering people’s psychological well-being and nature connectedness (Nisbet, Shaw, & Lachance, 2020; Christens, McCormick, & Wolf, 2025). However, studies investigating these positive effects often measure general feelings of nature connectedness facilitated by this nearby nature—not feelings of connection to the specific nearby nature space (Garza-Terán, Tapia-Fonllem, Fraijo-Sing, Borbón-Mendívil, & Poggio, 2022).

We possess the language and research frameworks to discuss various types of interpersonal human relationships: friend, parent, partner, coworker, cousin, peer, etc. Each of these describes a category of dyadic interpersonal connection—a relationship between oneself and one other individual. An individual may have multiple friends, but when you speak about an interpersonal relationship with your friend and perhaps assess the mutually growth-fostering components of that relationship, you are not discussing your relational entanglement with a broader social circle (Miller, 1976). Instead, you are speaking specifically about you and your friend, the relationship that exists between you, and how it affects you both. In this way, it is entirely natural for sociologists and social psychologists to study either or both: the role of relationships at the societal scale and the role of relationships for the individuals within them.

However, when applied to the human–nature relationship, this comparative framework breaks down. Even the term nature connectedness as applied to an individual’s subjective feeling represents a mismatch of scope. What is your relationship to nature? is akin to asking an individual: What is your relationship to people? They may be able to offer a coherent answer, and there are likely to be components of that answer that are psychologically revealing. However, this is a very different question than, for example: What is your relationship with your sister?

In studies of nature connectedness, there should similarly be a clear distinction between these two questions:

How does your time spent in this forest affect your relationship with nature?

How does your time spent in this forest affect your relationship with this forest?

When we talk about human–nature relationships, what scale are we addressing? When we ask study participants how connected they feel to nature, what exactly do we mean? What do they mean when they reply? Can the owner of a timber farm feel deeply emotionally connected to the trees they grow without feeling a sense of broader entanglement with the nonhuman global ecology? What about an individual who passionately maintains a backyard garden but feels no sense of responsibility or passion for reducing global ecological collapse? Without the means to distinguish between these kinds of human–nature connections, we face a limitation in our ability to investigate and understand these connections.

I will now address one such framework currently used to investigate interpersonal relationships, which may be recontextualized to investigate human–nature interpersonal relationships at the individual scale: the relational self-expansion model.

Self-expansion in interpersonal relationships

The self-expansion model of love, developed by Aron and Aron (1986), argues that humans have an innate desire to expand their conception of self, and that it is this desire that motivates us to seek out and deepen our interpersonal relationships. By including another individual in your conception of self, you gain access to their unique capabilities and traits and add them to your own (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). This inclusion of other in self has been investigated empirically, with research showing that the deeper a relationship between two individuals, the more the other’s traits are seen as one’s own. For example, long-term partners have difficulty distinguishing quickly between skills that they themselves possess and those that are possessed by their partner (Aron & Aron, 1996). The concept of self-expansion is also frequently applied to humans’ interactions with nature, but in this case, self-expansion is usually described as nonrelational and unidirectional. Through experiences of awe facilitated by magnificent nature views, humans experience a chill-inducing moment of self-transcendence (Bethelmy & Corraliza, 2019). However, to my knowledge, there is little evidence to suggest that these occasional awe-inspiring encounters in isolation lead to lasting, meaningful transformations of the human–nonhuman relationship (Choe et al., 2025).

Considering that ongoing, repeated, and meaningful experiences in nearby nature have a comparatively large effect on nature connectedness (Nisbet et al., 2020; Christens et al., 2025), I argue for an emphasis on relational and bidirectional self-expansion in the human–nonhuman relationship. Any meaningful relationship between any two living agents can expand the capabilities of both parties through the continuous deepening and nurturing of that relationship. I argue this includes dyadic relationships between humans and nonhuman entities. However, this claim raises a key puzzle: in what way is nature expanding itself in this model of interpersonal relationships? Alongside the two questions posed in the previous section, we must add a third:

How does your time spent in this forest affect your relationship with nature?

How does your time spent in this forest affect your relationship with this forest?

How does your time spent in this forest affect the forest’s relationship with you?

To attempt to understand what a tree, for example, might want or seek from a human being, it is helpful to first invert the question from our human perspective. Consider the theorized evolutionary roots of human affinity for nature, commonly referred to as biophilia (Wilson, 1984). Human beings anciently found important resources and opportunities within rich natural environments, opportunities which at that time would have been essential for survival: directions for finding new areas to live and forage, shelter from weather, new sources of food, fuel for fires, protection from predators, raw materials with which to construct tools or clothing, etc. (Bender, Tobias, & Bender, 2012).

Through the process of natural selection, human beings who felt an affinity for and comfort exploring these natural settings would have benefited from access to those resources and opportunities, and, as a result, been more likely to survive to pass on their genes. Similarly, affinity for other people led us to form relationships, which enhanced our abilities to survive and reproduce, and so emotional affinity for other humans has been selected for genetically across the many generations of human history (Beckes & Coan, 2011).

Today, the once-essential resources found in natural environments are generally no longer essential on the individual scale for human gene transmission. When I develop a dyadic relationship with the forested parkland near the university where I am writing this article, it is not because I immediately require the shelter, edible fruits, wood for creating fires, or other raw materials that I might find there in order to support my day-to-day survival. The benefits that I receive at the individual level from this interpersonal relationship are largely emotional, affective, and psychological—not to mention the long-term physiological health benefits of nature exposure (Bratman et al., 2015; Berto, 2014; Atchley et al., 2012; Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003; Bikomeye, Balza, Kwarteng, Beyer, & Beyer, 2022; Jimenez et al., 2021; Kondo, Fluehr, McKeon, & Branas, 2018). In this interpersonal interaction between myself and this forest, an original evolutionary benefit has instigated a relationship that now persists despite the primary benefit having shifted. This is important to consider as we shift to the perspective of the nonhuman relationship partner in this interpersonal view.

Why did the various individuals in a forest biome evolve the fruits, seeds, greenery, scents, microbiota, and behaviors that they did—traits and behaviors that often invited animal attention? They did so simply to transmit their genes, often via seed dispersal through interactions with locomotive creatures such as humans (Howe & Smallwood, 1982). We ate their fruits, carried their seeds in our hair and clothing, and thus contributed to their dispersal and reproductive survival. The traits and behaviors these plants evolved to attract us still persist today, even in cases where they are no longer useful for gene transmission by the same mechanisms through which they evolved (Gould & Vrba, 1982).

However, humans who experience and interact with these natural environments and behaviors are more likely to develop feelings of relational affinity for them and are more likely to take actions to protect and defend them (Barragan-Jason et al., 2022). In both sides of the dyadic relationship described here, the benefits of interpersonal interaction have evolved over time such that the primary benefit for both has shifted. On a personal level, a human individual whose sense of self expands to include a nonhuman individual or environment benefits from increased well-being, affective tone, lower subjective stress markers, and increased feelings of flourishing and self-meaning (Bratman et al., 2015; Berto, 2014; Atchley et al., 2012; Berman et al., 2008; Hartig et al., 2003). The nonhuman individual or environment expands its capabilities as well, even if not consciously.

I have a tree in my front yard for which I feel a deep interpersonal affinity, inspired by the lovely blossoms it develops in spring, the aroma it sends drifting through my upstairs bedroom window, and the fact that it attracts rainbow lorikeets and other native birds. My affinity for the tree motivates me to discourage my two young children from ripping branches off its lower boughs or carving gouges into its bark, something the tree could not otherwise do for itself. The seemingly utilitarian adaptive roots of this relationship, as well as all relationships between living entities, do not cheapen those relationships.

Consider that a parent’s nurturing love for their child, and that child’s attachment to the parent, are both rooted in genetic adaptations for survival. Is this relationship any less meaningful given its evolutionary genetic roots? Are the subjective feelings of attachment it elicits any less real?

Conclusion

As empirical research has increasingly linked nature connectedness to pro-environmental behavior, its importance as a research and policy topic has led to a broad range of findings relating to its antecedents, mechanisms, and other factors. However, it is possible that the meaningful urgency with which nature connectedness has been investigated has resulted in a failure to fully investigate and define its terms. It is worth considering that in our justified haste to answer the question of how to increase nature connectedness, and in so doing help improve people’s lives and pull us back from planetary catastrophe, we may be missing opportunities to investigate whether there are other questions that should be asked.

What categories of nature connectedness exist? What is the psychological difference between broad nature connectedness and connectedness to a specific natural space or agent? How do the two interact in terms of correlation and causation? Where on the spectrum ranging from global entanglement to localized interpersonal connectedness is the ideal position for people if we are to foster the kind of mindset shift that research suggests we must if we are to unlearn our deeply exploitative view of nonhuman nature and replace it with affective emotional connection? My aim in this article has been to suggest that these questions are both meaningful and far from settled, and to contribute a few new ideas for discussing and investigating them.

The ideas outlined in this article do carry some significant limitations. Though the identification and categorization of distinct research disciplines can contribute to structures and communities of practice for advancing knowledge, it can also lead to the siloing of disciplines which would be better served by interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. The psychology of an individual interacting with their immediate social connections is influenced by the broader social context, and our understanding of that broader social context can be enhanced by what we know about individual and interpersonal psychology. My goal has been simply to contribute to this interdisciplinary collaboration with a discussion on language, limitations, and opportunities for growth in the field of nature connectedness and human–nonhuman relationships. Furthermore, the emphasis here on evolutionary adaptation is but one way of understanding the connection between all living things; it does not preclude spiritual, metaphysical, or other understandings of this connection that have informed some peoples, cultures, and ways of knowing for countless generations.

Final Thoughts

If our evolutionary ancestors engaged in self-expanding relationships before we became recognizably human, then we must understand our current relational interactions as having developed from and been influenced by these relationships. In this view, human–human relationships do not influence our human–nonhuman relationships; rather, our relationships with the nonhuman influence our relationships with other humans. This has significant implications for both the fields of social health and nature connection, in which the latter is historically often investigated through the lens of the former. If our human–human relationships are indeed informed by our much more ancient nonhuman affinities, then an inversion of this lens may be necessary to inform future research.

Finally, I argue that the global ecological stakes of increasing nature connectedness in society should not demand that all research into human–nature interactions be framed in terms of global environmental responsibility. Even if this is indeed our ultimate aim, it does not change the fact that humans’ most meaningful emotional relationships are with the other living beings we see, touch, and interact with every day. There is inherent value in understanding the role of those relationships for the sake of the individuals within them, human and nonhuman alike.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his gratitude for his academic mentors and fellow researchers—particularly those investigating how people engage with each other and the natural world—for their inspiration, guidance, and support.

Author Disclosure Statement

The author has no conflict of interest to declare.

Funding Information

The author received no external funding for this article.

Authors' Contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the conception of this article, analysis of included data, and preparation of the manuscript.

References

Aron

, & Aron

E. N

. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp./Harper & Row Publishers.

Aron

, Aron

E. N.

, & Smollan

. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Atchley

R. A.

, Strayer

D. L.

, Atchley

. (2012). Creativity in the wild: improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PloS One , 7, e51474; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051474

Aron

E. N.

, & Aron

. (1996). Love and the expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45–58; doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00103.x

Barragan-Jason

, de Mazancourt

, Parmesan

, Singer

M. C.

, & Loreau

. (2022). Human–nature connectedness as a pathway to sustainability: A global meta‐analysis. Conservation Letters, 15, e12852; doi: 10.1111/conl.12852

Beckes

, & Coan

J. A

. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 976–988; doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00400.x

Bender

, Tobias

P. V.

, & Bender

. (2012). The savannah hypotheses: Origin, reception and impact on paleoanthropology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 34, 147–184.

Berman

M. G.

, Jonides

, & Kaplan

. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212; doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.xPubMed: 19121124

Berto

. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: a literature review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland) , 4, 394–409; doi: 10.3390/bs4040394

10.

Bethelmy

L. C.

, & Corraliza

J. A

. (2019). Transcendence and sublime experience in nature: Awe and inspiring energy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 509; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00509

11.

Bikomeye

J. C.

, Balza

J. S.

, Kwarteng

J. L.

, Beyer

A. M.

, & Beyer

K. M. M

. (2022). The impact of greenspace or nature-based interventions on cardiovascular health or cancer-related outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies. PloS One, 17, e0276517; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276517

12.

Bratman

G. N.

, Daily

G. C.

, Levy

B. J.

, & Gross

J. J

. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50; doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005

13.

Burke

. (1965). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. University of California Press.

14.

Cameron

C. D.

, & Payne

B. K

. (2011). Escaping affect: How motivated emotion regulation creates insensitivity to mass suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1–15; doi: 10.1037/a0021643

15.

Canestrino

, Magliocca

, Li

. (2022). The impact of language diversity on knowledge sharing within international university research teams: Evidence from TED project. Frontiers in Psychology , 13, 879154; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.879154

16.

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; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976

17.

Choe

E. Y.

, Lee

J. Y.

, & Zhu

. (2025). Exploring the dose-response relationship between nature-based outdoor activities, nature connectedness and social health in adolescents: A quasi-experimental controlled study. Journal of Adolescence, 97, 1518–1529; doi: 10.1002/jad.12515

18.

Christens

B. D.

, McCormick

M. L.

, & Wolf

. (2025). Understanding and promoting nature connectedness: A human ecological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102046; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102046

19.

Ducarme

, & Couvet

. (2020). What does “nature” mean? Palgrave Communications, 6, 14; doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y

20.

Dunbar

R. I. M

. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution, 22, 469–493; doi: 10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J

21.

Feraco

, Carbone

, Cramarossa

, & Meneghetti

. (2025). The role of social, emotional, and behavioral skills for nature connectedness, action competence, and proenvironmental behaviors in adolescence. Environmental Education Research, 31, 1224–1239; doi: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2459323

22.

Garza-Terán

, Tapia-Fonllem

, Fraijo-Sing

, Borbón-Mendívil

, & Poggio

. (2022). Impact of contact with nature on the wellbeing and nature connectedness indicators after a desertic outdoor experience on Isla Del Tiburon. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 864836; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864836

23.

Ghijselinck

. (2023). Relational values of nature: Outgrowing anthropocentrism by enriching human-nature relationships? Journal for Nature Conservation, 73, 126386; doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126386

24.

Gould

R. K.

, Martinez

D. E.

, & Hoelting

K. R

. (2023). Exploring Indigenous relationality to inform the relational turn in sustainability science. Ecosystems and People, 19; doi: 10.1080/26395916.2023.2229452

25.

Gould

S. J.

, & Vrba

E. S

. (1982). Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15; doi: 10.1017/S0094837300004310

26.

Hartel

, Fischer

, Shumi

, & Apollinaire

. (2023). The traditional ecological knowledge conundrum. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 38, 211–214; doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.004

27.

Hartig

, Evans

G. W.

, Jamner

L. D.

, Davis

D. S.

, & Gärling

. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109–123; doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3

28.

Howe

H. F.

, & Smallwood

. (1982). Ecology of Seed Dispersal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 201–228. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2097067

29.

Jimenez

M. P.

, DeVille

N. V.

, Elliott

E. G.

, Schiff

J. E.

, Wilt

G. E.

, Hart

J. E.

, & James

. (2021). Associations between nature exposure and health: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 4790; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094790

30.

Kaebnick

G. E

. (Ed.). (2011). The ideal of nature: Debates about biotechnology and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.

31.

Kahneman

, & Tversky

. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Kondo

M. C.

, Fluehr

J. M.

, McKeon

, & Branas

C. C

. (2018). Urban green space and its impact on human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 445; doi: 10.3390/ijerph15030445

33.

Lengieza

M. L.

, Aviste

, & Richardson

. (2023). The human–nature relationship as a tangible target for pro-environmental behaviour: Guidance from interpersonal relationships. Sustainability, 15, 12175; doi: 10.3390/su151612175

34.

Lund

. (2019). Reflections on the next ten years of research, policy and implementation in global mental health. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 29, e77; doi: 10.1017/S204579601900074X

35.

Martin

, & Thomas

. (2000). Interpersonal relationships as A metaphor for human-nature relationships. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 5, 39–46; doi: 10.1007/BF03400639

36.

Martins

C. F.

, Soares

J. P.

, Cortinhas

, Silva

, Cardoso

, Pires

M. A.

, & Mota,

M. P

. (2023). Pet’s influence on humans’ daily physical activity and mental health: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1196199; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1196199

37.

Miller

J. B

. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press.

38.

Mimiko

. (2017). Defining Nature: Exploring the Human vs. nature Opposition. Engineering, 435: Making Nineteenth-Century Literary Environments. Retrieved spring 2017. Available from: https://course-journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/eng435/article/view/14

39.

National Institutes of Health. (2018). The power of pets: Health benefits of human-animal interactions. NIH News in Health Available from: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2018/02/power-pets

40.

Niigaaniin

, & MacNeill

. (2022). Indigenous culture and nature relatedness: Results from a collaborative study. Environmental Development, 44, 100753; doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100753

41.

Nisbet

E. K.

, Shaw

D. W.

, & Lachance

D. G

. (2020). Connectedness with nearby nature and wellbeing. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, 18; doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00018

42.

Price

, & Chao

. (2023). Multispecies, more‐than‐human, nonhuman, other‐than‐human: Reimagining idioms of animacy in an age of planetary unmaking. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10, 177–193; doi: 10.31273/eirj.v10i2.1166

43.

Ross

H. E.

, & Young

L. J

. (2009). Oxytocin and the neural mechanisms regulating social cognition and affiliative behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 30, 534–547; doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.05.004

44.

Rotundo

. (2013). Conception of nature as foundation of a nonfundamental ontology: Merleau-Ponty between the “Nature lectures” and the Visible and the Invisible. Metodo. International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy, 1, 185–196; doi: 10.19079/metodo.1.2.185

45.

Schreiner

P. J

. (2016). Emerging cardiovascular risk research: Impact of pets on cardiovascular risk prevention. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 10, 8; doi: 10.1007/s12170-016-0489-2

46.

Schulz

, König

H.-H.

, & Hajek

. (2020). Differences in self-esteem between cat owners, dog owners, and individuals without pets. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 552; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00552

47.

Sheffield

, Butler

C. W.

, Richardson

. (2022). Improving Nature Connectedness in Adults: A Meta-Analysis, Review and Agenda. Sustainability , 14, 12494; doi: 10.3390/su141912494

48.

Small

D. A.

, & Loewenstein

. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 5–16; doi: 10.1023/A:1022299422219

49.

Trope

, & Liberman

. (2010). Construal‐level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463; doi: 10.1037/a0018963

50.

Twenge

J. M.

, Spitzberg

B. H.

, & Campbell

W. K

. (2019). Less in-person social interaction with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1892–1913; doi: 10.1177/0265407519836170

51.

Västfjäll

, Slovic

, Mayorga

, & Peters

. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PloS One, 9, e100115; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100115

52.

Wilson

E. O

. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674045231

53.

Zelenski

J. M.

, Dopko

R. L.

, & Capaldi

C. A

. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 24–31; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.005