ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCHES AND STUDIES
No: 15, 2025

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE NATURE RELATEDNESS SCALE (NRS) IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT

Daniela PAOLETTI (1), Simona DE STASIO (2), Benedetta RAGNI (3), Antonino CALLEA (4), Nicoletta ROSATI (5), Carmen BERENGUER (6), Maria CINQUE (7), Elizabeth NISBET(8)
Keywords: Nature Relatedness Scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Italian validation, Pro-Environmental Orientation, Mindfulness.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/15.1.2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) LUMSA University, Department of Human Sciences, Communications, Education and Psychology, Rome, Italy; e-mail: (2) s.destasio@lumsa.it (3) b.ragni1@lumsa.it (4) a.callea@lumsa.it (5) rosatinicoletta@lumsa.it (7) m.cinque@lumsa.it

(6) Universitat de València, Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Speech Therapy, Valencia, Spain; e-mail: carmen.berenguer@uv.es

(8) Trent University, Psychology Department, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; e-mail:  elizabethnisbet@trentu.ca

Address correspondence to: Daniela PAOLETTI, PhD Student at LUMSA University, Department of Human Sciences, Communications, Education and Psychology, P.zza delle Vaschette 101, 00193, Rome, Italy. E-mail: d.paoletti.dottorati@lumsa.it

Abstract

Objectives. Nature Relatedness encompasses affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of individuals’ connection with nature and refers to the appreciation and understanding of our interconnectedness with all other living things on Earth. This study aims to validate the Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS) in its Italian version, adapting and testing its reliability and validity in the Italian cultural context. A secondary objective is to analyze associations between NRS, pro-environmental orientation, and mindfulness.

Material and methods. The study sample consisted of 388 Italian adults aged between 18 and 84 years (72.7% women; M age 32.7 years). Participants completed the following questionnaires: Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS); New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP); Mindfulness Awareness Attention Scale (MAAS). To test the scale’s adherence to the Italian context a confirmatory factor of analysis (CFA) was performed, and the correlation analysis were conducted to test the association between variables.

Results. Italian NRS has shown good internal consistency (α = 0.85; ω = 0.86). The CFA highlighted acceptable of fit to our data supporting the use of NRS to measure Nature Relatedness in Italian adults. Moreover, the correlation between the NRS and NEP was significantly positive (r = 0.459 p = < .001), also the associations between NRS and MAAS showed similar results (r = 0.180 p = < .001).

Conclusions. Taking into account the good psychometric properties of the NRS Italian version it could be useful in psychological research to explore all the factors that might play key roles in the human-nature link. These results could also be helpful in promoting programs and interventions to increase people’s well-being and environmental protection.

Keywords: Nature Relatedness Scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Italian validation, Pro-Environmental Orientation, Mindfulness.

Suggested citation (APA)

Paoletti, D., De Stasio, S., Ragni, B., Callea, A., Rosati, N., Berenguer, C., Cinque, M., & Nisbet, E. (2025). Psychometric properties of the Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS) in the Italian context. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 15, 28-42. https://doi.org/10.26758/15.1.2

Introduction

Environmental challenges are a pressing issue for humanity (Barrera-Hernández, Sotelo-Castillo, Echeverría-Castro, & Tapia-Fonllem, 2020). A growing awareness of environmental problems, such as pollution and the climate crisis (Clayton & Sauders, 2012), has sparked researchers’ interest in understanding the motivation behind adopting some sustainable behaviors (Chawla & Derr, 2012; Molinario et al., 2020). Although several studies have shown that there is a widespread concern related to the environmental problems globally (Panu, 2020; Ray, 2020; Makhtar, Amirah, Wahab, Hassan, & Hamid, 2021), this awareness is not always reflected in the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Kaplan, 2000; Makhtar et al., 2021). Therefore, several authors have explored the factors that function as possible mediators in the relationship between awareness of environmental problems and undertaking pro-environmental behaviors (Liu, Teng & Han, 2020; Tamar, Wirawan, Arfah, & Putri, 2021). Since the end of the 80s, Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera (1986-1987), through a meta-analysis study which included 128 empirical studies concerning the determinants of the environmental behavior, then they identified the key role of personality-related aspects and attitudes in predicting pro-environmental behavior. Next, several scholars explored the inclinations, values, and beliefs underlying the promotion of ecologically responsible behavior (ERC) (Allen & Ferrand, 1999; Dunlap & Mertig, 1995; Kaiser, Wölfing, & Fuhrer, 1999; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Pelletier, Dion, Tuson, & Green-Demers, 1999; Scopelliti et al., 2018).

Several psychology and environmental psychology studies have identified and recognized those factors that motivate people to develop environmental awareness and subsequently modify their behavior to protect the environment (Berman, Jonides & Kaplan, 2008; Davis, Green & Reed, 2009; Scopelliti, Barni, & Rinallo, 2022; Stern, 2000). The literature available until nowadays highlights how our relationships with the natural world can provide us valuable insights into how people treat it. For example, the feeling of connectedness with the nature is an important predictor of involvement in pro-environmental behaviors (Beery & Wolf-Watz, 2014; Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, & Johnson, 2007; Tam, 2022; Whitburn, Linklater & Abrahamse, 2020), promoting the assumption of ecological attitudes (Kesenheimer & Greitemeyer, 2021) while reducing the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that are potentially harmful to the environment (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Within this framework, the environmental psychology provides theories and research that help examine the impacts of the key challenges that have been associated with climate change at inter- and intra-individual levels while offering opportunities to identify the most efficient strategies in order to modify the dysfunctional behaviors and encouraging the adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors (Lovati et al., 2023).

One theory that continues to inspire researchers investigating the link between humans and nature is the biophilia hypothesis, proposed by Wilson (1984). Wilson (1984) suggests that humans have an innate predisposition to connect with nature and other life forms, rooted in our evolutionary history when survival depended in a fundamental way directly on nature. The basic idea is that humans have developed a “biological affinity” or “innate love” for the natural world, link which may have important implications for mental and physical well-being. Therefore, the innate propensity of humans to enter symbiosis with nature fosters our empathic relationship with the Planet Earth and with all types of living things, facilitating the development of emotional bonds with nature (Stern, 2000). Kellert and Wilson (1993) believe that the learning about and the appreciating of biodiversity could be the intrinsic components of our biology, emphasizing how connecting with nature plays a key role in fostering our health and development.

Environmental psychology research has shown that the exposure to nature produces beneficial effects in terms of mood (Neill, Gerard, & Arbuthnott, 2019; MacKerron & Mourato, 2013), cognitive processes, emotional and social resources (Berman et al., 2008; Moll, Collado, Staats & Corraliza, 2022), and health and well-being (Carrus et al., 2015; Frumkin, 2001; Martin, 2020; Scopelliti et al., 2016).

Based on the theoretical background described above, and intending to investigate individual levels of connectedness with the natural world, Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009) formulated the construct of Nature Relatedness (NR). NR encompasses affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of individuals’ connection with nature and specifically refers to the appreciation and understanding of our interconnectedness with all other living things on Earth. It differs from environmentalism because it involves a broader perspective beyond simple activism (Nisbet et al., 2009). Nisbet et al. (2009) define NR as a “trait-like” attribute because it remains stable over time and in different situations while not being completely fixed. The specialist literature in the field of environmental psychology identifies certain dimensions related to the connection with nature, dimensions which may guide us toward a better understanding of the relationship between humans and the environment, such as mindfulness (Nisbet, Zelenski, & Grandpierre, 2019). By focusing attention on the present moment, the mindfulness may promote physical and psychological well-being (Kabat-Zinn et al., 1992). Benefits associated with mindfulness practice include attention’s regulation and improved information processing, facilitating, – in that way, – the formation of complex cognitive processes and self-reflection (Bishop et al., 2004; Breslin, Zack, & McMain 2002; Wells, 2002). Being aware that the nature enhances our connection, maximizing the subjective appreciation and benefits of outdoor exposure (Nisbet et al., 2019). Studying the relationship between humans and nature is, therefore, an essential way to promoting the well-being of individuals and preventing continued degradation and suffering (Oskamp, 2004). Many people may have lost this connection with the natural world (Conn, 1998), and such damaged relationships between humans and nature may contribute to an environmentally destructive behavior and also unhappiness. Based on this premise, the specialist literature suggests that reconnecting humans to natural environments could be an important strategy to address the environmental crisis (Stern, 2000; Arendt & Matthes, 2016).

The present study aims to validate the NR Scale (NRS) in its Italian version, adapting and testing its reliability and validity in the Italian cultural context.

Until nowadays, there are only a limited number of validated instruments in the Italian cultural context that explore the connection between humans and nature, one of which is the Connection to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer & Franz, 2004) validated by Lovati and colleagues (2023). The CNS aims to investigate aspects related to the sense of inclusion and closeness with nature on an emotional and cognitive level, without, however, considering the physical-experiential dimension that is considered a key element of the sense of connection with nature (Chawla, 2003; Kahn & Kellert, 2002). In light of the considerations expressed thus far, we believe it is important to explore the validity in the Italian context of the NRS (Nisbet et al., 2009) as a tool capable of capturing the cognitive, emotional and experiential aspects of the bond between humans and nature. The use of this tool will allow us in the Italian context to study the bond between humans and nature through a multidimensional vision that also includes the experiential aspects.

Understanding the relationship of individuals with nature is of a fundamental importance for environmental psychology and for designing the interventions to promote sustainable behaviors and positive lifestyles directed toward environmental conservation and human wellness. The validation of the NRS in its Italian version will allow a more accurate and contextualized assessment of individual’s connection with nature in Italy. The results will inform future psychological, educational, and environmental interventions to promote greater environmental awareness and sustainable behaviors in the Italian population.

The current study

Considering the growing interest in understanding the link between humans and nature and the need to explore this relationship, this study aims to:

  1. Assess the internal reliability of the NRS in a sample of Italian adults;
  2. Verify the factorial structure of the Italian version of the NRS and its fit indexes, considering the three-factor structure proposed by Nisbet and collaborators (2009);
  3. Evaluate the construct validity of the NRS by examining its associations with pro-environmental orientation (convergent validity), assessed through the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000);
  4. Analyze associations between NRS, pro-environmental orientation, and mindfulness.

Material and methods

Participants and procedures

The study sample consisted of 388 Italian adults; 72.7% were female. The mean age of the participants was 32.7 (SD = 13.6), ranging from 18 to 84 years. Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. Data were collected through an online questionnaire administered from June 2023 to December 2023.

Italians aged between 18 and 99 were invited to fill in a digitalized version of three different questionnaires (the NRS, the NEP Scale, and the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale), accessible from a link provided by the authors of this study. The questionnaires also included sociodemographic information (age, gender, residence, marital status, employment status, and level of education). All the subjects participated voluntarily and provided informed consent before answering the questions; anonymity and confidentiality of data were preserved.

Table 1

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Sample (to see Table 1, please click here)

Measures

Participants completed the following questionnaires:

The Nature Relatedness Scale

The Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009) is an instrument consisting of 21 items divided into 3 subscales aimed at investigating nature relatedness levels through a 5-point Likert scale response format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale has been translated into Italian, and a back translation process has been performed with the collaboration of the author of the original instrument.

Participants were given the following prompts: “Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements, using a scale of 1-5 where 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree.” The three dimensions of the NRS are: 1) NR-Self, consisting of 8 items, refers to an internalized identification with nature, reflecting feelings and thoughts about one’s personal connection with nature and includes items such as, “My connection with nature and the environment is part of my spirituality” or “I am not separate from nature, but part of nature”; 2) NR-Perspective, consisting of 7 items and reflecting an external, nature-related worldview, a sense of agency regarding individual human actions and their impact on all living things, some items of the scale are: “Humans have the right to use natural resources as they wish” or “I think a lot about animal suffering”; 3) NR-Experience composed of 6 items refers to the sense of physical familiarity with the natural world. In fact, it consists of items aimed at investigating the level of comfort and desire to be in nature such as: “I like being outdoors, even when the weather is not the best” or “My ideal holiday location would be a remote and wild area”.

New Ecological Paradigm Scale

The New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP; Dunlap et al., 2000) was included in the protocol in the Italian adaptation by Prati, Zani and Pietrantoni (2011) (for the current study: α= 0.74; ω=0.75). The NEP is a uni-dimensional instrument consisting of 15 items and uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and aims to assess individuals’ ecological worldview and pro-environmental orientation. This measure represents the individual’s ecological view and beliefs about limits to growth, human “exceptionality” and their central importance, fragility of nature’s balance, and eco-crises such as climate change. The scale was included with the purpose of investigating the convergent validity of the NRS, as the NR construct shares some basic concepts with the pro-environmental orientation (Nisbet et al., 2009).

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale

With the aim of investigating levels of trait mindfulness, the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) was also included in the version validated in Italian by Veneziani and Voci (2015). The scale consists of 15 items that assess dispositional awareness (trait mindfulness) and attention to present moment, independent of previous meditative practice. Items include statements such as:”I find it difficult to stay focused on what is happening in the present” and “I find myself doing things without paying attention”. Participants responded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost always) to 7 (almost never). Scores were calculated by averaging the items so that a higher overall score indicates greater awareness (for the current study: α = 0.85; ω = 0.86).

Data analysis

First of all, an item analysis was performed using Jamovi v.2.5 (The Jamovi project, 2022), investigating the items’ mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Mahalanobis distance (p < 0.001) was calculated for all scores to identify and exclude any multivariate outliers.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Mplus v.8.3 software (Mutheén & Mutheén, 2019), with the aim of assessing the three-factor structure of the original version of NRS. Fit indices were used to assess the goodness of fit to the data, including: the Chi-square test of exact fit (χ2), comparative fit index (CFI; ≥ 0.90; Tucker and Lewis, 1973; Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; ≤ 0.10; Tucker & Lewis, 1973; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA; ≤ 0.08] with its 90% confidence interval (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh et al., 2005).

To assess the internal reliability of the NRS, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were used, and the following intervals were taken into account for result interpretation: excellent (α/w ≥ 0.9), good (0.8 ≤ α/w < 0.9), acceptable (0.7 ≤ α/w < 0.8), questionable (0.6 ≤ α/w < 0.7), poor (0.5 ≤ α/w < 0.6), and unacceptable (α/w < 0.5; Cronbach, 1951; McDonald, 1999).

Finally, bivariate correlations (Pearson’s r) among NRS, NEP, and MAAS were performed to evaluate the construct validity of the NRS through convergent validity.

Results

Preliminary analysis

The items show acceptable skewness and kurtosis values according to the most rigorous cutoff of | 1 | (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2013; West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), | 2 | (Cronbach, 1951) and | 3 | (Brown, 2015). Therefore, it was found to have a general normal distribution of the data. Results are shown in table 2.

Table 2
Skewness and kurtosis values (to see Table 2, please click here)

Factor validity

The confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor final model showed acceptable indices of fit to the data (MLM χ2(186) = 1014.265, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.107, 90% CI [0.101, 0.114], CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.916 and SRMR = 0.064). Factor loadings are reported in Figure 1. All items of the 3 subscales showed factor loadings’ values ranging from 0.340 (item 19) to 0.850 (item 17) except for item 2 that loaded at 0.239 in the subscale of NR-Perspective. In line with the original version of the NRS, item 2 will be maintained if the reliability of NR-Perspective is acceptable.

All three factors showed significant covariances: NR-Perspective and NR-Self (r=0.732, p=0.000), NR-Experience and NR-Self (r=0.869, p=0.000), and NR-Experience and NR-Perspective (r=0.472, p=0.000).

Figure 1

Factor Loadings (to see Figure 1, please click here)

Reliability

The internal consistency of the NRS was good, both for the total scale (α = 0.85; ω = 0.86) and for the subscales NR-Self (α=0.83; ω=0.84) and NR-Experience (α = 0.71, ω = 0.71). NR-Perspective (α = 0.60, ω = 0.60) reached acceptable reliability.

Construct validity and relationships among studied variables

Concerning NRS construct validity, evaluated through convergent validity (see Table 3), the correlation between the NRS total scale and NEP was significantly positive (r = 0.459 p = <.001). In addition to this, the correlations between the three subscales of NRS and the level of pro-environmental orientation measured with NEP were also statistically positive. These results are consistent with what was hypothesized since, as also reported by the original author of the NRS (Nisbet et al., 2009), NR shares some conceptual bases with NEP.

Results from correlations also show small, albeit significant, associations between NRS total scale and subscales and levels of dispositional mindfulness (see Table 3).

Table 3

Correlation between Nature Relatedness Scale, Mindfulness Awareness Attention Scale (MAAS) and New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP) ( to see Table 3, please click here)

Discussion

The present study has examined the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the NRS-Italian Version, evaluated its convergent validity, and investigated its correlations with mindfulness. The findings are in line with the objectives and hypotheses stated.

There are some context-specific factors that may have influenced the validation of the NRS. In particular, the presence in more recent years of a stronger sensitivity to the environmental issues in the Italian population as reported by the ISTAT data report (2023). Moreover, Italy’s natural and cultural heritage is often associated not only with the landscape’s value but also with its identity value (Fornara, Troffa, Valera, & Vidal, 2019). A study conducted on Italian adults (Fornara, Dentale, Troffa, & Piras, 2016) highlighted the existence of a greater implicit identification with the European and Mediterranean landscapes than with the non-European and non-Mediterranean ones. In the light of the above, in a biodiversity-rich context such as Italy (ISPRA, 2020), the link with nature is an important construct in order to investigate and the results of this study are a first step towards the availability of validated tools in the Italian cultural context, capable of capturing the different nuances of the link between humans and nature.

The results show a good adaptation of the NRS to the Italian cultural context the results obtained from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) align with the expectations, as shown by the factor loading scores and the goodness of fit indices indicating that the three-factor structure of the original scale (Nisbet et al., 2009) is well supported. Furthermore, all correlations between the subscales were in the expected direction, underlining that the Italian version of the scale also has a good fit. These results demonstrate that the scale is well constructed and maintains its purpose of assessing affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of the relationship between humans and nature, even after being translated into Italian. The scale aligns with the original conceptualization of Nisbet and colleagues (2009), who identified it as a measure to describe individual levels of connectedness with the natural world, including the appreciation and the understanding of our interconnectedness with all other living beings on Earth.

Moreover, consistent with the hypotheses, a positive correlation between the NRS and NEP levels confirms the existence of a convergent validity between the two scales: those who reported higher levels of NR also showed a greater pro-environmental orientation. This result is consistent with the previous specialist literature since, as highlighted in the validation study of the original scale, NR shares some basic concepts with pro-environmental orientation (Nisbet et al., 2009). The pro-environmental attitude assessed through the NEP allows us to capture several aspects helping us to describe the relationship between humans and nature, including the ecological views and beliefs about limits to growth, human “exceptionality” and their central importance, the fragility of nature’s balance, and eco-crises such as climate change. However, although the NRS is correlated with environmental measures, this association is sufficiently strong to make it impossible to distinguish them. The original validation study indicated that the NR shares between 4 and 42% of the variance with the other environmental measures (Nisbet et al., 2009). The NRS is an alternative to all those measurement instruments that investigate beliefs about the environment while dismissing the emotional component of the environmental behavior.

This study also shows a positive, albeit weak significant, correlation between NR and different mindfulness levels, which aligns with the expectations and with what was stated previously (Nisbet et al., 2019; Sadowski, Böke, Mettler, Heath & Khoury, 2020). Awareness and the non-judgmental presence of mindfulness may play a crucial role in fostering the development of a sense of connection with nature, as an individual with higher levels of mindfulness will tend to engage more fully in outdoor experiences (Schutte & Malouff, 2018). Meanwhile, the contact with natural environments can also restore the ability to practice mindfulness (Passmore & Holder, 2016) and allow a sense of presence in the outdoors. This reciprocal influence underlies the association between mindfulness and connection with nature.

These results contribute to enriching the availability of tools to investigate the relationship between humans and nature in the Italian cultural context by offering a larger multidimensional perspective than the ones available till nowadays (CNS; Lovati et al., 2023). This study, in fact, is the first Italian validation study of an instrument able to investigate the interconnection between humans and nature by considering the emotional, cognitive, and experiential aspects. NR encompasses all these aspects in its definition: “the affective, cognitive, and experiential relationship individuals have with the natural world or a subjective sense of connectedness with nature” (Nisbet et al., 2011, p. 304) and, following the criteria formulated by Baumeister and Leary (1995), it is considered a basic psychological need (Hurly & Walker, 2019). In defining NR as a basic psychological need, Hurly and Walker (2019) emphasize how this connection to nature impacts many behaviors across different population groups and contexts. The quantity, quality, and proximity of green spaces are fundamental to the health and well-being of all people.

Considering the results, this validation study of the Italian version of the NRS proposes a starting point to promote further investigations into the link between humans and nature in the Italian cultural context.

Moreover, the NR could be considered as a variable capable of influencing the variables linked to an environmentally responsible behavior and the different dimensions with which the NR is associated in the specialist international literature, and which may have a positive impact on people’s lives, such as well-being (Nisbet et al., 2011; Nisbet & Zelenski, 2023), prosocial behavior, and connection with others (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014; Li, Liu, & Ito, 2021). Finally, besides offering the Italian validation of NRS, this study highlights a positive association between mindfulness and NR. This suggests that, despite the modest strength of the relationship, mindfulness may still be considered when structuring future interventions and educational programs aimed at environmental protection.

This study has some limitations. The first limitation was the recruitment of participants based on an online survey. Although this method is commonly used in research, it may inadvertently exclude individuals with limited internet access or technological difficulties. In addition, the sample consisted of individuals mainly from Italy’s central regions. Another limitation might be related to the fact that most of the participants were female. Finally, it should be considered that the relationship between NR and dispositional mindfulness, although significant, was rather weak, so future studies could explore the underlying factors that might influence this connection and determine their potential for stronger associations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the main innovative contribution of this study is the adaptation to the Italian context of a valid and reliable instrument to measure individual levels of NR in its dimensions of affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of personal connection with the natural world, considered by the literature as a basic psychological need (Hurly & Walker, 2019). The psychometric properties are excellent, and the three dimensions of the scale explain much of the variance of the latent construct. Consequently, it could be useful in psychological research in order to explore all the factors that might play key roles in the human-nature link (Lovati et al.,2023). The results of this study could also be helpful in promoting programs and interventions to increase people’s well-being and environmental protection.

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the doctoral research projects, PhD Student Daniela Paoletti, coordinated by Professor Simona De Stasio, at Libera Università Maria Ss. Assunta (LUMSA University) of Rome Department of Human Studies, Developmental Psychology and Education.

Consent to participate

Informed written consent was obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment. The subjects were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage, and they were assured of confidentiality.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental behavior: A test of Geller’s actively caring hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 31, 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972137
  2. Arendt, F., & Matthes, J. (2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Commun., 10, 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415
  3. Barrera-Hernández, L. F., Sotelo-Castillo, M. A., Echeverría-Castro, S. B., and Tapia-Fonllem, C. O. (2020). Connectedness to nature: its impact on sustainable behaviors and happiness in children.  Psychol, 11, 276. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2020.00276
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  5. Beery, T. H., & Wolf-Watz, D. (2014). Nature to place: rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. Environ. Psychol., 40, 198–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.006
  6. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Bull., 88, 588–606. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.88.3.588
  8. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Sci, 19, 1207–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
  9. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077
  10. Breslin, F. C., Zack, M., & McMain, S. (2002). An information-processing analysis of mindfulness: Implications for relapse prevention in the treatment of substance abuse. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.9.3.275
  11. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.
  12. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
  13. Carrus, G, Scopelliti, M, Lafortezza, R, Colangelo, G, Ferrini, F, Salbitano, F, … Sanesi, G (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221-228. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
  14. Chawla, L. (2003). Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 199-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  15. Chawla, L. & Derr, L. (2012). The Development of Conservation Behaviors in Childhood and Youth. In S. D. Clayton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (pp. 527-555). Oxford Library of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0028
  16. Clayton, S. D., & Sauders, C. (2012). Introduction: Environmental and conservation psychology. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (pp. 23-29). Oxford, England: Oxford Library of Psychology. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0001
  17. Conn, S. (1998). Living in the earth: ecopsychology, health and psychotherapy. Psychol., 26, 179–198. doi: 10.1080/08873267.1998. 9976972
  18. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
  19. Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Environ. Psychol, 29, 173–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
  20. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a pre-requisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51, 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01351.x
  21. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  22. Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Behav., 39, 474–493. doi: 10.1177/0013916506298794
  23. Fornara, F., Dentale, F., Troffa, R., & Piras, S. (2016). Measuring implicit European and Mediterranean landscape identity: A tool proposal. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1259), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01259
  24. Fornara, F., Troffa, R., Valera, S., & Vidal, T. (2019). European and natural landscapes as carriers of place identity: A correlational study in Italian and Spanish regions. Landscape Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1513130
  25. Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. J. Prev. Med., 20, 234–240. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00) 00317-2
  26. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
  27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
  28. Hurly, J., & Walker, G. J. (2019). Nature in our lives: Examining the human need for nature relatedness as a basic psychological need. Journal of Leisure Research, 50(4), 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1578939
  29. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (2023). Preoccupazioni ambientali e comportamenti ecocompatibili. Statistiche Today. Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/TODAYCOMPORTAMENTIAMBIENTALI2022.pdf
  30. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA) (2020). Foreste e biodiversità, troppo preziose per perderle: Le risposte alle domande più frequenti. Quaderni Natura e Biodiversità (13). ISPRA. ISBN 978-88-448-1001-6. Retrived from https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2020/pubblicazioni/quaderni/quaderno_13_2020.pdf
  31. Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L., Fletcher, K., Pbert, L., & Santorelli, S. F. (1992). Effectiveness of a mediation-based stress reduction program on the treatment of anxiety disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 936–943.doi: 10.1176/ajp.149.7.936
  32. Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0107
  33. Kahn, P. H. Jr., & Kellert, S. R. (Eds.). (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  34. Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00180
  35. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (eds.). (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00180
  36. Kesenheimer, J. S., & Greitemeyer, T. (2021). Going Green (and not being just more pro-social): do attitude and personality specifically influence pro-environmental behavior? Sustainability, 13, 3560. doi: 10.3390/su13063560
  37. Li, L. M. W., Liu, M., & Ito, K. (2021). The relationship between the need to belong and nature relatedness: The moderating role of independent self-construal. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 638320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.638320
  38. Liu, P., Teng, M., & Han, C. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the total environment, 728, 138126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126
  39. Lovati, C., Manzi, F., Di Dio, C., Massaro, D., Gilli, G., & Marchetti, A. (2023). Feeling connected to nature: validation of the connectedness to nature scale in the Italian context. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1242699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1242699
  40. MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global environmental change, 23(5), 992-1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010
  41. Makhtar, S. Z., Amirah, A. S. N., Ab Wahab, M., Hassan, Z., & Hamid, S. (2021). Study of environmental awareness, practices and behaviours among UniMAP students. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 646(1), 012061. IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/646/1/012061
  42. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation. Contemporary psychometrics.
  43. Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of environmental psychology, 68, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
  44. Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Environ. Psychol., 24, 503–515. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
  45. McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087
  46. Molinario, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Bonaiuto, F., Bonnes, M., Cicero, L., Fornara, F., … Bonaiuto, M. (2020). Motivations to act for the protection of nature and biodiversity: A matter of “significance”. Environment and Behavior, 52(10), 1133-1166 , doi: 10.1177/0013916518824376
  47. Moll, A., Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2022). Restorative effects of exposure to nature on children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101884
  48. Mutheén, L. K., & Mutheén, B. O. (2019). Mplus 8.3; Computer Software. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.
  49. Neill, C., Gerard, J., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2019). Nature contact and mood benefits: Contact duration and mood type. The journal of positive psychology, 14(6), 756 767. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1557242
  50. Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2023). Nature relatedness and subjective well-being. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research(pp. 1-9). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_3909-2
  51. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Grandpierre, Z. (2019). Mindfulness in nature enhances connectedness and mood. Ecopsychology, 11(2), 81-91.https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2018.0061
  52. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7
  53. 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(5), 715-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
  54. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237244
  55. Oskamp, S. (2004). Summarizing sustainability issues and research approaches. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 301-324). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. doi: 1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_15
  56. Panu, P. (2020). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12, 7836. doi: 10.3390/su12197836
  57. Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K., & Green-Demers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2481-2504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00122.x
  58. Prati, G., Zani, B., & Pietrantoni, L. (2011). Quanto siamo intenzionati a comprare un prodotto OGM? Indagine su un campione di italiani [How inclined are we to buy a OGM product? A survey on a sample of Italians]. In P. Villano & B. Zani (Eds.), Parlare di OGM in Italia (pp. 79-99). Bologna, Italy: Clue.
  59. Passmore, H. A., & Howell, A. J. (2014). Nature involvement increases hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: A two-week experimental study. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco. 2014.0023
  60. Ray, S. J. (2020). A field guide to climate anxiety: How to keep your cool on a warming planet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  61. Sadowski, I., Böke, N., Mettler, J., Heath, N., & Khoury, B. (2020). Naturally mindful? The role of mindfulness facets in the relationship between nature relatedness and subjective well-being. Current Psychology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01056-w
  62. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2018). Mindfulness and connectedness to nature: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01. 034
  63. Scopelliti, M., Barni, D., & Rinallo, E. (2022). My parents taught… green was my growth! the role of intergenerational transmission of ecological values in young adults’ pro-environmental behaviors and their psychosocial mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031670
  64. Scopelliti, M, Carrus, G, Adinolfi, C, Suarez, G, Colangelo, G, Lafortezza, R, … Panno, A (2016). Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different socio-economic income groups: The experience of Bogotá. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 139-148. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.022
  65. Scopelliti, M., Molinario, E., Bonaiuto F., Bonnes, M., Cicero, L., Fornara, F., … Bonaiuto, M. (2018). What makes you a “hero” for nature? Socio-psychological profiling of leaders committed for nature and biodiversity protection across seven EU countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(5-6), 970-993, doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1421526
  66. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Soc. Issues, 56, 407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  67. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics(Vol. 6, pp. 497-516). Boston, MA: pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/4/0134790545.pdf
  68. Tam, K.-P. (2022). Gratitude to nature: presenting a theory of its conceptualization, measurement, and effects on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Psychol., 79, 101754. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101754
  69. Tamar, M., Wirawan, H., Arfah, T., & Putri, R. P. S. (2021). Predicting pro-environmental behaviours: the role of environmental values, attitudes and knowledge. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(2), 328-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0264
  70. The Jamovi project (2022). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
  71. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10 doi: 10.1007/BF02291170
  72. Veneziani, C. A., & Voci, A. (2015). The Italian adaptation of the Mindful Awareness Attention Scale and its relation with individual differences and quality of life indexes. Mindfulness, 6, 373 381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0270-2
  73. Wells, A. (2002). GAD, metacognition, and mindfulness: an informational processing analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.9.1.95
  74. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., & Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Biol., 34, 180–193. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13381
  75. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://prfdec.natur.cuni.cz/~ksgrrsek/klaudyan/dwnl/200901/01_Krcmarova_pdf.pdf
  76. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. Retrieved from https://curran.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6785/2015/03/WestFinchCurran1995.pdf
  77. Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and behavior, 46(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512451901
PDF
HTML
Scroll to Top