Journal of Happiness Studies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6

REVIEW ARTICLE

The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness

and Eudaimonic Well‑Being: A Meta‑analysis

Alison Pritchard1   · Miles Richardson1 · David Sheffield1 · Kirsten McEwan1

© The Author(s) 2019

Abstract
Nature connectedness relates to an individual’s subjective sense of their relationship with
the natural world. A recent meta-analysis has found that people who are more connected
to nature also tend to have higher levels of self-reported hedonic well-being; however, no
reviews have focussed on nature connection and eudaimonic well-being. This meta-analy-
sis was undertaken to explore the relationship of nature connection with eudaimonic well-
being and to test the hypothesis that this relationship is stronger than that of nature connec-
tion and hedonic well-being. From 20 samples (n = 4758), a small significant effect size
was found for the relationship of nature connection and eudaimonic well-being (r = 0.24);
there was no significant difference between this and the effect size (from 30 samples
n = 11,638) for hedonic well-being (r = 0.20). Of the eudaimonic well-being subscales,
personal growth had a moderate effect size which was significantly larger than the effect
sizes for autonomy, purpose in life/meaning, self-acceptance, positive relations with others
and environmental mastery, but not vitality. Thus, individuals who are more connected to
nature tend to have greater eudaimonic well-being, and in particular have higher levels of
self-reported personal growth.

Keywords  Nature connection/connectedness · Eudaimonic well-being · Hedonic well-

being · Psychological well-being · Personal growth · Meta-analysis

* Alison Pritchard
a.pritchard@derby.ac.uk
Miles Richardson
m.richardson@derby.ac.uk
David Sheffield
d.sheffield@derby.ac.uk
Kirsten McEwan
k.mcewan@derby.ac.uk
1
Human Sciences Research Centre, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB, UK

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. Pritchard et al.

1 Introduction

Many would argue that nature and the human psyche are inextricably linked, and that this
relationship is of fundamental importance to human and environmental health: the risks
of being disconnected from nature are the development of behaviours and attitudes that
ultimately damage our physical and mental health and cause irreparable harm to the planet
(Mayer and Frantz 2004). Understanding the causes and consequences of our relationship
with nature is therefore crucial. Individuals commonly report feeling emotionally close to,
and an integral part of nature, and this is reflected in the construct of nature connectedness
(NC) (Mayer and Frantz 2004). The importance of this sense of relatedness is evidenced
by numerous studies linking NC with a range of well-being measures including hedonic
(‘feeling good’) and eudaimonic (‘functioning well’) indicators (e.g. Capaldi et al. 2014;
Howell et al. 2011; Nisbet and Zelenski 2013; Pensini et al. 2016).
There have been some mixed results in the research on NC and well-being, and a num-
ber of authors have suggested that this may be because different aspects of well-being
relate to NC in different ways (e.g. Howell and Passmore 2013; Capaldi et  al. 2014).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that the link between NC and eudaimonic well-being
(EWB) may be stronger than the link between NC and hedonic well-being (HWB) (e.g.
Capaldi et al. 2014; Howell et al. 2011). For example, Howell et al. (2011) found that ‘feel-
ing good’ aspects of well-being were less reliably associated with NC than ‘functioning
well’ aspects of well-being. Other studies have also found that current mood and subjective
well-being had relatively low correlations with NC, compared with eudaimonic measures
of well-being (e.g. Cervinka et  al. 2012; Howell et  al. 2013). The possibility that EWB
and HWB may have different strengths of association with NC would be consistent with
evidence from other well-being research that, although EWB and HWB are related, they
tend to be associated with different motives, behaviours and experiences. For example,
EWB has been found to relate more strongly than HWB to experiences which enable per-
sonal growth and development, and with being challenged and striving to achieve some-
thing (Waterman 1993). Likewise, eudaimonic motives and behaviours are more likely
than hedonic motives and behaviours to predict EWB outcomes such as meaning, elevating
experiences and sense of connection with a greater whole (Henderson et  al. 2013; Huta
and Ryan 2010). There is also evidence that increases in EWB may sometimes be accom-
panied by reduced HWB (McMahan and Estes 2011; Ryan and Deci 2001). For example,
NC is known to predict pro-environmental behaviours (Mayer and Frantz 2004) and such
behaviours, because they can be costly, time-consuming or difficult, may be more likely
to lead to EWB but not HWB (Venhoeven et  al. 2013). Also worthy of note is the fact
that eudaimonia is more likely to be associated with long-term and enduring well-being,
whereas HWB is more likely to dissipate in the short-term (McMahan and Estes 2011). As
NC is known to increase over time if individuals visit nature frequently (Richardson et al.
2016a), it is thus plausible that NC is more strongly associated with EWB than HWB for
this additional reason.
This possibility deserves further consideration, particularly as there is a relative lack
of research into the relationship between nature and EWB (Cleary et al. 2017). A recent
meta-analysis has found that NC and hedonic well-being (HWB) (as measured by positive
affect, vitality and life satisfaction) are associated (Capaldi et al. 2014), but there have been
no systematic reviews focussing on NC and EWB which provide a qualitative synthesis
of research in this area. There is also a lack of understanding of the potential explanatory
mechanisms involved in the NC-EWB relationship (Cleary et al. 2017).

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

Many existing theories concerning the effects of nature on well-being were originally
developed a number of years ago and have not been the subject of recent major revi-
sion (McMahan and Estes 2015). For example the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson 1984)
suggests that people have an innate need to affiliate with nature, and that satisfaction of
this need results in well-being benefits such as improved positive affect; stress reduction
theory (SRT; Ulrich et  al. 1991) predicts that decreased physiological and psychological
stress responses result from exposure to nature and thus results in improved well-being,
and attention restoration theory (ART; Kaplan 1995) predicts that exposure to nature helps
reduce attentional fatigue thus leading to improved cognitive functioning and positive
affect. However, a number of authors have suggested that current theories may not provide
a complete explanation of the wellbeing benefits of nature (Cleary et al. 2017; Schweitzer
et al. 2018). Furthermore, current explanatory theories tend to be couched more in terms of
contact with nature than connection with nature. There is therefore a clear need for greater
understanding of the relationship between NC and EWB, as well as a need to develop com-
prehensive theoretical frameworks which encompass EWB (Cleary et al. 2017). Meta-anal-
ysis has been used here in order to consolidate results from a number of studies to create
a single more precise assessment of the magnitude of the relationship between NC and
EWB (the effect size), compare this with the relationship of NC and HWB, and examine
potential moderators of this relationship. Although causation cannot be inferred from meta-
analysis, if different strengths of association between NC and different types of well-being
were to be found, then that may signal the possibility that different causal mechanisms are
involved. This meta-analysis therefore also aims to test the hypothesis that the link between
NC and EWB may be stronger than the link between NC and HWB, in order to guide
theory development and inform future research into potential causal pathways between NC
and EWB.

1.1 Well‑Being

The philosophical origins of eudaimonia can be traced back to the works of Aristotle, who
described eudaimonia as a consequence of living in accordance with one’s ‘daimon’ or true
self, in accordance with one’s values, and fulfilling one’s best potential (self-realisation)
(Waterman 2008). By contrast, hedonia relates to maximising pleasure and is rooted in the
philosophy of Aristippus (Venhoeven et al. 2013). The contrast between these two philoso-
phies has provoked much debate as to the best ways to conceptualise and measure well-
being (e.g. Kashdan et al. 2008; Waterman 2008). In particular the validity of conceptualis-
ing well-being solely as ‘happiness’ has been questioned by a number of authors (e.g. Ryff
1989; Waterman 2008), who advocate the importance of defining well-being in terms of
optimal psychological functioning.
EWB is often measured with Ryff’s scale of psychological well-being (Ryff 1989),
which has six subscales: personal growth relates to being open to new ideas and expe-
riences, and realizing one’s full potential; purpose in life links to the presence of goals
in life, and feelings of meaningfulness; autonomy comprises self-determination and inde-
pendence; environmental mastery describes a sense of competence in managing the context
in which one lives; self-acceptance refers to having a positive attitude towards the self; and
positive relations with others relates to having warm and trusting relations. Another aspect
of well-being—vitality—is a part of what it means to be fully functioning and psychologi-
cally well (Ryan and Deci 2001). Vitality is defined as having physical and mental energy

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

and is associated with feeling more alive and more engaged with the world, and with being
outdoors, in the presence of natural elements (Ryan et al. 2010).
EWB is related to, but distinct from, HWB (Huta and Ryan 2010; Ryan and Deci 2001)
and it is likely that eudaimonia and hedonia each influence and nurture the development of
the other (Fredrickson 2004). Understanding the nature of this reciprocity may be found in
functional theories of positive affect and well-being such as Frederickson’s broaden and
build theory (Fredrickson 2004), which proposes that positive emotions, as well as being
an indicator of HWB, have an important role in the development of optimal functioning
over the long term. For example, joy ‘creates the urge to play, push the limits and be crea-
tive’, and contentment ‘creates the urge to sit back and savour life’s current circumstances
and integrate these circumstances into new views of self and the world’ (Fredrickson 2004,
p. 1369). Positive emotions widen the array of possible thoughts and actions available to an
individual, enabling them to build resources and grow psychologically.

1.2 Nature Connectedness

Given the range of well-being benefits associated with nature contact (e.g. Bowler et  al.
2010; McMahan and Estes 2015), there is growing concern that modern ways of living,
particularly in western cultures, undermine our sense of belonging to nature (Bragg 1996;
Roszak 1995), and that this may be contributing to increased rates of mental and emotional
ill-health (Windhorst and Williams 2015). Consequently, there is increasing emphasis on
the importance of feeling connected with nature (over and above simply spending time in
nature) as a potential means of developing and maintaining our well-being. NC has been
described as ‘an individual’s trait level of feeling emotionally connected to the natural
world’ (Cervinka et al. 2012, p. 380), and studies have shown that NC tends to be higher in
people who have previous (childhood) experience of nature (Hinds and Sparks 2008) and
in those who experience nature more frequently (Mayer and Frantz 2004). Correlational
studies have shown that NC is associated with a variety of eudaimonic well-being indica-
tors, such as autonomy, vitality, meaning, and personal growth (Cervinka et al. 2012; How-
ell et al. 2011; Nisbet and Zelenski 2013; Pensini et al. 2016), as well as with hedonic well-
being (Capaldi et al. 2014). There is some evidence that NC may mediate the relationship
between exposure to nature and well-being (Mayer et al. 2009; Webber et al. 2015; Pensini
et al. 2016), but the evidence is not consistent as other studies have found that NC does not
influence the relationship between nature exposure and wellbeing (Passmore and Howell
2014; Passmore and Holder 2017).
Three of the most commonly used NC measures are the Connectedness to Nature Scale
(CNS) (Mayer and Frantz 2004), the Nature Relatedness (NR) scale (Nisbet et al. 2009),
and the Inclusion of Nature with Self (INS) (Schultz 2002). The CNS includes fourteen
statements such as ‘I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me’ and
‘my personal welfare is independent of the welfare of the natural world’ (reverse scored).
The NR scale includes questions such as ‘I feel connected to all living things and the
earth’, and ‘I take notice of wildlife wherever I am’. There are two versions of the NR
scale: a 21-item version measuring three dimensions of connectedness (self-identity, expe-
rience and environmental behaviour), and a 6-item version comprising two dimensions
(self-identity and experience). The Inclusion of Nature with Self (INS) (Schultz 2002) is a
single item measure which assesses people’s perception of themselves as being part of, or
distinct from, the natural environment. It comprises a series of two circles depicting ‘self’

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

and ‘nature’ with varying degrees of overlap, and individuals are asked to choose which set
of circles best represents their relationship with nature.
Other measures include the Allo-Inclusive identity scale (AII) (Leary et al. 2008), the
Connectivity with Nature (CWN) scale (Dutcher et al. 2007), and the Environmental Iden-
tity scale (EID) (Clayton 2003), which examine the extent to which a connection with the
environment is part of an individual’s identity. The Connection to Nature Index (CNI)
(Cheng and Monroe 2012) comprises four dimensions: enjoyment of nature, empathy for
nature, sense of oneness and sense of responsibility, and the Commitment to Nature scale
(COM) (Davis et al. 2009) assesses the sense of responsibility felt toward the environment,
and attitudes about one’s own relationship with nature.
Although these measures vary in the extent to which they measure emotional, experien-
tial or cognitive connection to nature, a review by Tam (2013) found strong convergence
amongst them. Tam (2013) concluded that the various measures of NC can be considered
as ‘markers of the same underlying construct’. In this review, therefore, it was assumed that
all such measures can be treated the same for analytical purposes.

2 Methods

For the purposes of this study, the relationship of NC with two main well-being concepts
was assessed: HWB, which relates to aspects of ‘feeling well’, and EWB which relates
more to ‘functioning well’. Two main meta-analyses, one for each aspect of well-being,
were conducted, to test the hypothesis that EWB is more strongly associated with NC than
is HWB. Further meta-analyses were also undertaken on the subscales of the well-being
measures, to assess any differences between them.
In this review, EWB was defined as comprising one or more of the six dimensions as
measured by Ryff ‘s Psychological Well-being Scale—autonomy, personal growth, self-
acceptance, life purpose, environmental mastery, positive relatedness (Ryff 1989), or vital-
ity, or meaningfulness. Although Capaldi et al. (2014) included vitality as a hedonic con-
struct, in this review, vitality was classed as a eudaimonic aspect of well-being because
it is often conceptualised as such in the literature (e.g. Ryan and Deci 2001; Wolsko and
Lindberg 2013; Zelenski and Nisbet 2014). Meaning was also included in the review as an
aspect of EWB because it is conceptually similar to the Ryff purpose in life subscale. HWB
was defined as one or more validated measures of life satisfaction and positive affect.

2.1 Search Strategy

Several databases were searched from 1999 (the date of first published NC tool) until
June 2016, including PsychINFO, MEDLINE, PsychArticles, Science Direct (Elsevier),
CINAHL Plus, PubMed Central, EBSCO e-journals and Biomedcentral.
References of included studies were searched, as well as studies citing the included stud-
ies. Authors of included studies were contacted as necessary for any additional informa-
tion to afford meta-analysis. Well-being search terms included psychological well-being,
subjective well-being, hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-being, positive affect, life sat-
isfaction, autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, vitality, and happy/
happiness. NC terms included variations of the following phrases: nature connectedness,
nature relatedness, inclusion of nature in self, commitment to nature, emotional affinity
with nature and relationship with nature.

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Papers were included if they reported on the relationship between well-being and NC,
included at least one validated measure of EWB (autonomy, purpose in life, environmental
mastery, personal growth, self-acceptance, positive relatedness, meaningfulness or vital-
ity), or HWB (positive affect, life satisfaction), and included a self-reported measure of trait
NC. Studies had to include sufficient information (a correlation coefficient and sample size)
in order that effect sizes could be coded. All study designs were included, but experimen-
tal designs were included only if they reported a baseline measure (before any experimental
manipulation) of the relationship between well-being and NC. Studies not in the English lan-
guage were excluded. This meta-analysis used slightly different inclusion criteria to those used
by Capaldi et al. (2014), in that studies were excluded if they did not use validated measures,
or were Master’s theses, conference proceedings or unpublished data.

2.3 Coding Procedure

A coding form was developed for the review by the main author. Information collected
included year, publication type, country, target population, population characteristics (gender,
age), type of analysis, measure(s) of NC, measure(s) of well-being used, study design and set-
ting. Two researchers coded the studies independently, and then resolved any differences by
discussion. Levels of agreement between the two reviewers was high—Cohen’s Kappa for the
main categorical variables (year of study, type of publication, country, target population) was
0.87. For those samples with more than one measure of NC or well-being, weighted average
effect sizes were calculated. Twenty-five papers met the inclusion criteria (see Fig. 1 for the
meta-analysis flow chart), and a total of fifty effect sizes from 34 samples were included in the
meta-analysis (30 effect sizes were included in the HWB meta-analysis, and 20 included in the
EWB meta-analysis).

2.4 Statistical Methods/Analytic Approach

Two separate meta-analyses were undertaken, one each for HWB and EWB. Pearson’s prod-
uct-moment correlations (r) were used to determine effect size for the relationship of NC and
well-being. The correlation coefficients were converted in Fisher’s Z values before being
meta-analysed. Data were entered into Meta-Essentials (Van Rhee et al. 2015), and random-
effects models were used to calculate mean effect sizes. Effect sizes between 0.10 and 0.29 are
considered small, those between 0.30 and 0.49 are moderate, and those of 0.50 and above are
deemed to be high (Cohen 1992).
Cochran’s Q and I­ 2 were used to assess variability. A significant Q value (i.e. one with a p
value of less than 0.10) indicates significant heterogeneity among effect sizes. The ­I2 statistic
assesses the extent of variability in effect sizes; values between 1 and 49 indicate low hetero-
geneity, 50–74 moderate heterogeneity, and 75–100 high heterogeneity. In the case of signifi-
cant heterogeneity, moderator analyses were undertaken.

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

Records identified through Records identified through other

database searching n=359 sources n=5

Records after duplicates removed

n=176

Records screened n=176 Records excluded based on

abstract review: n=136

Full text articles excluded

Full text articles assessed for n=15. (5=baseline measures of
eligibility n=40 NC or WB not taken; 4=not
validated measure of
wellbeing; 2=duplicate;
1=WB/NC correlations not
Studies included in meta-analysis reported; 2=state NC measure
n=25 used; 1=wellbeing measure
combined EWB&HWB

Fig. 1  Meta-analysis flow chart

3 Results

3.1 Overview of Included Studies

Twenty-five studies were identified with a total of 34 samples (see Table 1 for descrip-
tive information) dating from 2004 to 2016. Eighteen studies were from peer reviewed
journals, five were PhD theses, one study was classed as ‘grey literature’ (i.e. not avail-
able through the usual bibliographic sources such as databases or indexes) and one
classed as a book chapter. Of the 34 samples, thirteen (38%) were from Canada, nine
(26%) from Europe, eight (24%) from the United States and one each from Australia,
India, Colombia and Hong Kong. The percentage of females ranged from 39.2 to 86.6%
and average age ranged from 11 to 63.42 years. Of the target population, 44% of sam-
ples were of adults/community, 34% college/University students, 15% mixed adults and
students, and one sample (3%) was of children. The target population was not stated for
one sample. Measures of NC and well-being included in the meta-analysis are given in
Tables 2 and 3.

13

Table 1  Summary of included studies
Study Sample number N Location Mean age (years) % Female Type of publication

13
Cervinka et al. (2012) 1.1 94 Austria 37.3 57.4 Peer reviewed journal
Cervinka et al. (2012) 1.2 119 Austria 36.0 52.1 Peer reviewed journal
Cervinka et al. (2012) 1.5 101 Austria 34.3 54.5 Peer reviewed journal
Creedon (2012) 2 187 USA 35 72 PhD thesis
Howell et al. (2011) 3.1 452 Canada 22.17 69.4 Peer reviewed journal
Howell et al. (2011) 3.2 275 Canada 20.39 68 Peer reviewed journal
Howell et al. (2013) 4.1 311 Canada 22.7 68 Peer reviewed journal
Howell et al. (2013) 4.2 227 Canada 23.29 63 Peer reviewed journal
Kumar et al. (2014) 5 80 India Age range 20–30 Not stated Peer reviewed journal
Leary et al. (2008) 6 148 USA Not stated Not stated Other
Loureiro and Veloso (2014) 7 268 Portugal 32 (gp 1) 33 (gp 2) 58.2 Peer reviewed journal
Marselle (2013) 8 1647 UK 87% aged 55 or older 66 PhD thesis
Mayer and Frantz (2004) 9 135 USA 36 74.2 Peer reviewed journal
Nisbet (2011) 10 207 Canada 27.81 77.8 PhD thesis
Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) 11.1 184 Canada 19.48 67.4 Peer reviewed journal
Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) 11.2 145 Canada 42.37 39.2 Peer reviewed journal
Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) 11.3 354 Canada 20.03 59.9 Peer reviewed journal
Okvat (2011) 12 50 USA 63.42 84 PhD thesis
Pensini et al. (2016) 13 141 Germany 22.43 65 Peer reviewed journal
Reist (2004) 14 357 Canada 36.42 66 PhD thesis
Richardson et al. (2015) 15 775 UK 11 47.5 Grey literature
Richardson et al. (2016) 16 2203 UK 41.03 86.6 Peer reviewed journal
Schultz and Tabanico (2007) 17 39 USA Not stated 67.5 Peer reviewed journal
Scopelliti et al. (2016) 18 300 Colombia 43.47 50.3 Peer reviewed journal
Tam (2013) 19 322 Hong Kong 20.36 45.8 Peer reviewed journal
A. Pritchard et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample number N Location Mean age (years) % Female Type of publication
Trigwell et al. (2014) 20 216 Australia 35.32 71.1 Peer reviewed journal
Webber et al. (2015) 21 171 UK 50 67 Peer reviewed journal
Windhorst and Williams (2015) 22 308 Canada 98% aged between 18 and 24 79 Peer reviewed journal
Wolsko and Lindberg (2013) 23.1 256 USA 30.11 62.9 Peer reviewed journal
Wolsko and Lindberg (2013) 23.2 223 USA 33.30 61.4 Peer reviewed journal
Zelenski and Nisbet (2014) 24.1a 331 Canada 20.5 71.3 Peer reviewed journal
Zelenski and Nisbet (2014) 24.1b 415 Canada 32.3 79.7 Peer reviewed journal
Zelenski and Nisbet (2014) 24.2 204 Canada Mean in the 25–34 range 60 Peer reviewed journal
Zhang et al. (2014) 25 1108 USA 44.08 44.4 Peer reviewed journal
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

Table 2  Nature connectedness measures included in the meta-analysis

Measure Citation Sample ­numbera

Allo-inclusive identity scale Leary et al. (2008) 3.2, 4.1, 6

Connectedness to nature scale (CNS) Mayer and Frantz (2004) 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 7,
8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.1,
23.2, 25.1
Inclusion of nature in self (INS) Schultz (2002) 10, 13.2, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24.1a, 24.1b
Nature relatedness scale (21 items) Nisbet et al. (2009) 2, 3.2, 4.1, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 19
(NR-21)
NR-6 (short form) Nisbet and Zelenski (2013) 10, 13.2, 22, 24.1a, 24.1b, 24.2
Connection to nature index Cheng and Monroe (2012) 15
Commitment to nature (COM) Davis et al. (2009) 19
Connectivity with nature (CWN) Dutcher et al. (2007) 19
Emotional affinity toward nature Kals et al. (1999) 19
(EATN)
Environmental identity (EID) Clayton (2003) 19
a
 Sample number comprises the number of the included paper (prefix); if included papers reported more
than one study the study number used by that paper is given as the suffix. (In paper 24, study 1, the student
and community samples were reported separately; hence these have been numbered 24.1a and 24.1b respec-
tively)

3.2 Main Results

A total of 50 effect sizes were recorded, 20 effect sizes for the relationship between
EWB and NC, and 30 for the relationship between HWB and NC. The total sample size
for studies with EWB was 4758 (range 50 to 452) and HWB was 11,638 (range 39 to
2203).
Figure 2 shows the forest plot for the meta-analysis with EWB. There was a small
mean effect size of r = 0.24, 95% CI (0.20, 0.27). Variability across samples was sig-
nificant (Q = 41.55, p < 0.01) and moderate (­I2 = 54.28%). Figure  3 shows the forest
plot for the meta-analysis with HWB. There was a small mean effect size of r = 0.20,
95% CI (0.17, 0.23). This effect size is similar to the one reported in Capaldi et  al.
(2014) (r = 0.18 (0.15–0.22)). Variability across samples was significant (Q = 124.37,
p < 0.001) and high ­(I2 = 76.68%).

3.3 Moderator Analyses

Moderator analyses were undertaken to determine if gender or age accounted for the
variability. Average age was not a significant predictor of effect size for either HWB
(slope = 0.00, SE = 0.00, Z = 0.81, p = 0.42) or EWB (slope = 0.00, SE = 0.00, Z = 1.64,
p = 0.10). Percent female was not a significant predictor of effect size for either HWB
(slope = 0.00, SE = 0.00, Z = 0.24, p = 0.81) or EWB (slope = 0.00, SE = 0.00, Z = 0.51,
p = 0.61).

13
 Table 3  Well-being measures included in meta-analysis
Type of well-being Measure Citation Sample ­numbera

Hedonic well-being Affective mood state Ajzen and Driver (2001) 17

Emotional wellness scale Diener and Biswas-Diener (2008) 19
General happiness single item Abdel-Khalek (2006) 16
Positive and negative affect schedule Watson et al. (1988) 5, 7, 8, 10, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12, 18, 24.1a, 24.1b, 24.2
Steen happiness index Seligman et al. (2005) 4.1, 4.2
Mental health continuum short form (14 item)—emo- Keyes et al. (2008) 4.1, 4.2, 22
tional well-being
Multi-dimensional comfort scale (MDPF)—current Steyer et al. (1997) 1.1
mood
SF-36 health survey (mental well-being) Bullinger and Kirchberger (1989) 1.5
Satisfaction with life scale Diener et al. (1985) 1.2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 19, 25
Scale of positive and negative experience Diener et al. (2010) 23.1, 23.2
Subjective happiness scale (SHS) Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) 10, 19
Student life satisfaction scale Huebner (1991) 15
Quality of life, enjoyment and satisfaction question- Endicott et al. (1993) 12
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

naire (Q-LES-Q-SF)
Keyes 40-item measure of well-being—emotional Keyes (2005) 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2
well-being

13

Table 3  (continued)
Type of well-being Measure Citation Sample ­numbera

13
Eudaimonic well-being Vitality scale from the short-form (SF-36) health Bullinger and Kirchberger (1989) 1.5, 12
survey
Psychological well-being inventory Ryff (1989) 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 10, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 13, 20, 24.1a,
24.1b, 24.2
Questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being (QEWB) Waterman et al. (2010) 21
Subjective vitality scale Ryan and Frederick (1997) 10, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 23.1, 23.2, 24.1a, 24.1b, 24.2,
General life purpose scale Byron and Miller-Perrin (2009) 4.1
Meaning in life questionnaire (presence) Steger et al. (2006) 4.1, 13
Meaningful life measure Morgan and Farsides (2009) 4.1, 4.2
Flourishing scale Diener et al. (2010) 23.1, 23.2
Keyes 40-item measure of well-being—psychological Keyes (2005) 3.1, 3.2
well-being
Mental health continuum short form (14 item)—psy- Keyes et al. (2008) 22
chological well-being
a
 Sample number comprises the number of the included paper (prefix); if included papers reported more than one study the study number used by that paper is given as the suf-
fix. (In paper 24, study 1, the student and community samples were reported separately; hence these have been numbered 24.1a and 24.1b respectively)
A. Pritchard et al.
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

1.5 - Cervinka et al. (2001)

2.2 - Creedon (2012)
3.1 - Howell et al. (2011)
3.2 - Howell et al. (2011)
4.1 - Howell et al. (2013)
4.2 - Howell et al. (2013)
10 - Nisbet (2011)
11.1 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
11.2 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
11.3 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
12 - Okvat (2011)
13.2 - Pensini (2016)
20 - Trigwell (2014)
21 - Webber (2015)
22.1 - Windhorst and Williams (2015)
23.1 - Wolsko and Lindberg (2013)
23.2 - Wolsko and Lindberg (2013)
24.1a - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
24.1b - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
24.2 - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
Overall effect size

-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Effect size (Pearson's r)

Fig. 2  Effect size for the relationship between NC and EWB

3.4 Publication Bias Analyses

Publication bias was initially examined by a funnel plot of effect size against stand-
ard error; the funnel plot for the effect sizes for both HWB and EWB appeared to be
asymmetrical, an indication of possible bias. This was explored further using two more
tests for publication bias: the Begg test (Begg and Mazumdar 1994) and the Egger
test (Egger et al. 1997). For EWB, the Begg and Mazumdar adjusted rank correlation
(τ = − 0.07, p = 0.65) and Egger’s coefficient (intercept = − 2.29, t = − 1.42, p = 0.24)
were both non-significant, indicating no bias. Similarly, for HWB, both the Begg and
Mazumdar adjusted rank correlation (τ = − 0.09, p = 0.49) and Egger’s intercept (inter-
cept = − 1.37, t = -1.13, p = 0.27) were also non-significant, again indicating no bias.

3.5 Additional Meta‑analyses on Specific Well‑Being and Nature Connectedness

Measures

To further investigate the relationship between NC and well-being, separate meta-anal-

yses were also conducted on the three most common NC measures used (CNS, INS
and NR), and, where this information was available, on the subscales of the various
well-being measures. The results are summarised in Table 4.

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

1.1 - Cervinka et al. (2001)

1.2 - Cervinka et al. (2001)
1.5 - Cervinka et al. (2001)
3.1 - Howell et al. (2011)
3.2 - Howell et al. (2011)
4.1 - Howell et al. (2013)
4.2 - Howell et al. (2013)
5 - Kumar et al. (2014)
6 - Leary et al. (2008)
7 - Loureiro and Veloso (2014)
8 - Marselle (2013)
9.4 - Mayer and Frantz (2004)
10 - Nisbet (2011)
11.1 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
11.2 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
11.3 - Nisbet and Zelenski (2013)
12 - Okvat (2011)
14 - Reist (2004)
15 - Richardson et al. (2015)
16 - Richardson et al. (2016b)
17 - Schultz and Tabanico (2004)
18 - Scopelliti et al. (2016)
19 - Tam (2013)
22.1 - Windhorst and Williams (2015)
23.1 - Wolsko and Lindberg (2013)
23.2 - Wolsko and Lindberg (2013)
24.1a - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
24.1b - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
24.2 - Zelenski and Nisbet (2014)
25.1 - Zhang et al. (2014)
Overall effect size

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Effect size (Pearson's r)

Fig. 3  Effect size for the relationship between NC and HWB

3.5.1 Effect Sizes for the Well‑Being Measures

Nine samples were identified for the subscales of personal growth (n = 2197), autonomy
(n = 2197), and vitality (n = 2141); twelve samples were included for purpose in life and
meaning (n = 2922), and four samples with n = 686 for each of environmental mastery,
self-acceptance and positive relations with others. There was a small mean weighted
effect size for all the EWB subscales except for personal growth which had a moder-
ate mean effect size of r = 0.31 (0.27–0.35). The next largest effect size was for vitality
r = 0.25 (0.20–0.30), which compares to the vitality effect size of r = 0.24 (0.19–0.29)
reported in Capaldi’s meta-analysis (Capaldi et  al. 2014). The personal growth effect
size was significantly larger than the effect sizes for autonomy (r = 0.20), purpose in
life and meaning (r = 0.20), self-acceptance (r = 0.17), positive relations with others
(r = 0.16) and environmental mastery (r = 0.12) (Table 4).

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

Table 4  Meta-analysis results
Nature connectedness Well-being measure r (95% CI LL-UL) Q I2 No samples n
measure

All NC measures EWB 0.24 (0.20–0.27) 41.6 54.28 20 4758

HWB 0.20 (0.17–0.23) 124 76.68 30 11,638
NR only EWB 0.22 (0.18–0.26) 16.9 40.97 11 2921
HWB 0.19 (0.16–0.22) 11.2 10.59 11 3056
CNS only EWB 0.26 (0.21–0.32) 27.4 63.5 11 2423
HWB 0.20 (0.16–0.24) 43.7 65.65 16 5867
INS only EWB 0.27 (0.21–0.33) 4.34 30.81 4 1094
HWB 0.27 (0.19–0.35) 30.1 80.07 7 3874
All NC measures Positive affect 0.25 (0.21–0.29) 63.1 68.32 21 7961
(HWB subscales) Life satisfaction 0.17 (0.13–0.21) 27.2 52.24 14 4530
All NC measures (EWB Vitality 0.25 (0.20–0.30) 15.5 48.36 9 2141
subscales) Personal growth 0.31 (0.27–0.35) 12.5 35.97 9 2197
Autonomy 0.20 (0.16–0.25) 15.5 48.33 9 2197
Purpose in life/meaning 0.20 (0.17–0.23) 12.2 9.54 12 2922
Environmental mastery 0.12 (0.05–0.19) 3.69 18.65 4 686
Self-acceptance 0.17 (0.09–0.24) 4.46 32.67 4 686
Positive relations others 0.16 (0.08–0.23) 4.21 28.71 4 686

Of the HWB subscales, the mean weighted effect size for positive affect was r = 0.25
(0.21–0.29) and that for life satisfaction was r = 0.17 (0.13–0.22). These results compare to
the effect sizes reported in Capaldi et al. (2014) of r = 0.22 (0.19–0.25) for positive affect
and r = 0.16 (0.11–0.20) for life satisfaction.

3.5.2 Effect Sizes for the Nature Connectedness Measures

There was a small mean weighted effect size for all NC measures and EWB, and for all NC
measures and HWB (Table 4). The effect sizes for HWB were similar to those reported in
Capaldi et al. (2014) of CNS r = 0.18, NR r = 0.18 and INS r = 0.25.

4 Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this review was to explore the relationship between NC and EWB by means
of a meta-analysis and to compare this with the relationship between NC and HWB. The
data showed a small positive correlation between NC and EWB, indicating that individuals
who are connected to nature are more likely to be flourishing and functioning well psycho-
logically. However, the hypothesis that NC would be more strongly associated with EWB
than it is with HWB was not supported, and there may be a number of possible expla-
nations for this. Firstly, it is worth considering that the way EWB has been defined for
the purposes of this study (i.e. based on Ryff’s definition (1989)) may not be sufficiently
comprehensive. For example, Huta (2015) identified a number of aspects of eudaimonic
functioning—including self-regulation, ethics, contribution, and thoughtfulness—that are

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

not included in the definition used by Ryff (1989). It may be that future studies, exploring
the relationship between NC and these other aspects of EWB, can add to our understand-
ing. Secondly, Huta and Waterman (2014) highlight the distinction between well-being
measures based on cognitive-affective experiences and those based on ways of functioning.
They suggest that using measures from different categories may lead to difficulties in mak-
ing direct comparisons between eudaimonia and hedonia (Huta and Waterman 2014). The
fact that, in this review, the EWB measures tended to fall into the ’functioning’ category,
whereas the HWB measures tended to be based more on experiences, may have resulted in
any true differences being obscured. Perhaps future research addressing these conceptual
and definitional issues may help clarify the findings of this review.
Although the difference between the respective effect sizes for EWB and HWB was not
significant, there were effect size differences between the EWB subscales. All the well-
being subscales had small positive correlations with NC, with the exception of personal
growth which had a moderately positive relationship. In addition, the effect size for per-
sonal growth was significantly larger than all the other eudaimonic subscales, except for
vitality, and was also significantly larger than the effect size for life satisfaction. These find-
ings suggest that, in order to further explore the relationship between NC and EWB, it may
be fruitful to focus on specific aspects of EWB rather than on composite measures.
There is evidence that NC mediates the relationship between exposure to nature and
EWB (Mayer et al. 2009; Pensini et al. 2016; Webber et al. 2015), which would be consist-
ent with a causal mechanism whereby nature exposure leads to increased NC, which in
turn leads to improved EWB. However, another study has found that NC does not moder-
ate the effect of nature exposure on EWB (as measured by elevating experience) (Pass-
more and Howell 2014), which implies that NC may not play a part in promoting EWB.
It is also possible that, if a causal association does exist, it is in the other direction, with
EWB leading to increased NC; or it may be that the relationship between NC and EWB is
bi-directional.
A number of authors have suggested that NC may benefit EWB because it provides a
route through which basic psychological needs can be met (e.g. Cleary et al. 2017; Howell
and Passmore 2013; Nisbet et al. 2009). As described in Ryan and Deci’s self-determina-
tion theory, three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence and relatedness—are
considered essential for psychological growth, integrity and well-being (Ryan and Deci
2000). It is plausible that NC provides a route through which these basic needs are met
and so leads to increased EWB. For example, the basic psychological need for relatedness
could be met by being exposed to nature which in turn is known to increase feelings of
connectedness to nature (e.g. Weinstein et  al. 2009). Howell and Passmore (2013) sug-
gested that the relationship between nature affiliation and well-being could be mediated by
a greater sense of social connectedness, and nature connection has been found to promote
pro-social behaviour such as altruism and generosity (Weinstein et al. 2009). It also seems
likely that nature connection promotes a form of relatedness distinct from social (human)
connectedness and important in its own right (Cleary et  al. 2017). This is supported by
research from Zelenski and Nisbet (2014), who found that the concept of nature related-
ness was distinct from other forms of relatedness—including connectedness with family
and friends—and was a significant and distinct predictor of happiness.
In relation to increasing autonomy, nature could be a route through which individuals
are enabled to express their personal distinctiveness, and not feel constrained by exter-
nal influences such as the values imposed by society (Howell and Passmore 2013; Ridder
2005). Ridder’s (2005) concept of a ‘nature-inspired autonomy’ describes the importance
of recognising the value of naturalness as a means of gaining a personal sense of freedom

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

and escaping from the dissatisfaction caused by extrinsic influences of society. The free-
dom and autonomy felt in wild nature enables individuals to reinforce their own intrinsic
beliefs and values, to gain perspective on the things that really matter, and to feel inspired
(Ridder 2005). There is some empirical support for this idea: Weinstein et al. (2009) found
that, when asked to view scenes from nature or from ‘non-nature’ (such as cityscapes), par-
ticipants who were more immersed in the nature scenes felt a greater sense of autonomy; by
contrast, participants who were immersed in the non-nature scenes felt reduced autonomy.
Competence needs could be met through learning about natural environments and eco-
systems, as well as through enhanced self-knowledge and self-development gained from
being connected to nature. Outdoor learning, outdoor play and wilderness expeditions have
all been linked with improved well-being, cognition, personal, social and emotional devel-
opment, as well as higher achievement and increased motivation to learn (Lovell 2016a).
The association of vitality with NC can also be linked with the fulfilment of psychologi-
cal needs. Ryan and Frederick (1997) considered that vitality is a part of the ‘fully-func-
tioning’ person and should therefore be linked with agency and growth, and with the need
for autonomy, competence and relatedness. They found supporting evidence that vitality is
associated with self-actualisation and self-determination, as well as mental health and self-
esteem (Ryan and Frederick 1997).
In this review, NC had a significantly stronger association with personal growth than
most of the other aspects of EWB, which raises the possibility that our relationship with
nature may have a particularly important role in furthering psychological growth and
development. Ryff described personal growth as perhaps the nearest of all her six subscales
to EWB because it is specifically concerned with self-realisation and is akin to Maslow’s
concepts of self-actualisation and self-transcendence (Koltko-Rivera 2006; Ryff and Singer
2008). Huta and Ryan (2010) expected that, since eudaimonia is oriented towards excel-
lence and growth, it would be related to uplifting experiences (such as contact with the
natural world) which stretched people beyond their usual boundaries. Such ‘elevating
experiences’ are ‘where a person feels awe, elevation to a higher level of awareness and
a connection with some greater whole’ (Huta and Ryan 2010, p. 740). NC has been found
to correlate strongly with the value of self-transcendence (Tam 2013) and also to predict
transcendent and awe-inspiring experiences, particularly in wild nature (Davis and Gater-
sleben 2013). The ‘higher order’ emotions such as awe and wonder, which are often associ-
ated with transcendent experiences, could be a key mediating influence in the relationship
between NC and personal growth. Awe has been defined as ‘an emotional response to per-
ceptually vast stimuli that overwhelm current mental structures, yet facilitate attempts as
accommodation’ (Shiota et al. 2007, p. 944). Thus, the sense of awe felt in nature could
lead to an expansion in individuals’ mental structures and frames of reference, as well as an
expanded sense of self, and so foster personal growth. This would be consistent with Fred-
erickson’s broaden and build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson 2004). Likewise, the
association that NC has with meaning and purpose in life is also in accord with the idea
that self-change is brought about when people accommodate new experiences after having
contact with nature: people often describe awe-inspiring experiences in nature as giving
them a sense of perspective on their life, goals, and purpose (Silvia et al. 2015).

4.1 Future Research

In general, more well-controlled studies are needed which explore the direction of the rela-
tionship between NC and well-being. Furthermore, much NC research has used composite

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

measures of well-being which may mask potential differences among the well-being sub-
scales. More nuanced studies exploring the links between NC and specific aspects of EWB,
such as personal growth, would help tease any differences apart.
There is a general lack of research on children’s well-being and nature connection—in this
review all but one of the included studies was of adults. Childhood experience may be an
important route by which individuals become connected to nature in the first place (e.g. Lovell
2016b), and experiences in nature may enhance optimal child development (Kellert 2002).
The association found in this review of NC and personal growth in adults would suggest
that nature’s effect on childhood development may be equally—if not more—important. Orr
(1993) speculated that there could be a window of opportunity in childhood for connecting
to nature, similar to the window of opportunity for language development. If this is the case,
the consequences for nature disconnection in childhood could be long-term, and not easily
repaired by experiences in adulthood. Conducting longitudinal studies which follow individu-
als over their life-course would help address this gap.
Additional research is needed to explore which particular qualities of nature may affect
HWB and EWB. It is possible that different types of nature elicit different emotions and, by
implication, could affect different types of psychological functioning. For example, familiar
nature may be more likely to lead to feelings of calm and contentment and thus be more restor-
ative (Richardson et  al. 2016b), whereas unfamiliar objects in nature—those that transcend
previous knowledge—may be more likely to produce awe and wonder than familiar objects
(Keltner and Haidt 2003) and thus stimulate new ideas and experiences. Nature-induced awe
may be triggered by large natural objects, such as mountains or vistas, by natural events such
as storms, or by objects with infinite repetition such as fractals, waves and patterns in nature
(Keltner and Haidt 2003). Factors such as the degree of naturalness of an environment (the
extent to which it is free of human intervention) may also be important in the relationship with
EWB (Ridder 2007). Furthermore, there is evidence that levels of actual or perceived biodi-
versity (Dallimer et al. 2010; Fuller et al. 2007; Luck et al. 2011), or the degree of landscape
heterogeneity (Fuller et al. 2007; Jorgensen and Gobster 2010), are linked with well-being and
these aspects are therefore worthy of further investigation.
It is also worth exploring how different patterns of nature exposure may affect the relation-
ship between NC and well-being. For example, there is evidence of a dose-response effect
between frequency of visits to nature and EWB, but not HWB (White et al. 2017). By con-
trast, the same study found that self-reported HWB (as felt on the previous day) was signifi-
cantly related to a visit to nature that day, but that EWB was not. Thus, two possible nature
exposure mechanisms may be at work—a short-term restorative effect linked to HWB, and
a longer-term (additive) effect of increased visit frequency linked to EWB, possibly due to
greater NC developing over that time. Dose-response and short and long-term effects of nature
exposure are important variables to be explored in further research.
Finally, most of the research on NC and its association with well-being has been under-
taken in westernised societies. Although there is some evidence that the association of NC and
well-being persists across non-westernised cultures (e.g. Capaldi et al. 2017; Tam 2013), there
are cultural differences in the way in which humans perceive and value nature (Olivos and
Clayton 2016), and so our understanding remains limited.

4.2 Limitations

A common aspect of correlational studies is that the direction of effect and causality
remains unclear. Furthermore, a lack of representativeness of the study population could

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

have resulted in bias—most studies comprised non-random and/or self-selected adult sub-
jects. Males were generally under-represented, and a high proportion of the studies were
of students. However, the moderator analyses indicated that neither age nor percent female
were significant predictors of effect size indicating that the results were not affected by
these factors. In addition, a number of the included studies involved participants who were
either park visitors, exercised in natural settings, or were gardeners, and it is conceivable
that these participants may have had higher than average NC. This may have resulted in
range restriction and thus attenuation of reported effect sizes.

4.3 Conclusion

This review has shown that NC is associated with EWB, and one aspect of EWB—per-
sonal growth—appears to have a significantly stronger relationship with NC than most
other EWB subscales. These results signal the important role NC may play in contribut-
ing to positive psychological functioning and highlight the possibility that different aspects
of EWB may relate to NC to varying extents. Multiple pathways—perhaps mediated by a
range of emotions and elicited by different aspects of nature—may be involved in the rela-
tionship between NC and EWB.

Open Access  This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Interna-
tional License (http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References
Starred references are those included in the meta-analysis
Abdel-Khalek, A. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 34, 139–150.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (2001). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of
Leisure Research, 24, 207–224.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication
bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101.
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence
for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456.
Bragg, E. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist self-theory. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 18, 93–108.
Bullinger, M., & Kirchberger, I. (1989). SF-36 Fragebogen zum gesundheitszustand [SF-36 health-survey].
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Byron, K., & Miller-Perrin, C. (2009). The value of life purpose: Purpose as a mediator of faith and well-
being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 41, 64–70.
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.
Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Ishii, R., Chistopolskaya, K. A., Vowinckel, J., Nikolaev, E. L., et  al.
(2017). Engaging with natural beauty may be related to well-being because it connects people to
nature: Evidence from three cultures. Ecopsychology, 9(4), 199–211.
*Cervinka, R., Röderer, K., & Hefler, E. (2012). Are nature lovers happy? On various indicators of well-
being and connectedness with nature. Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 379–388.
Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature.
Environment and Behavior, 44, 31–49.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition. In S. Clayton & S.
Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 45–65). Cambridge: MIT Press.

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

Cleary, A., Fielding, K. S., Bell, S. L., Murray, Z., & Roiko, A. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms
involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 158, 119–128.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
*Creedon, M. A. (2012). Connectedness to nature and its relationship to meaning in life. Unpublished doc-
toral thesis, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, MA, USA.
Dallimer, M., Irvine, K., Skinner, A., Davies, Z., Rouquette, J., Maltby, L., et al. (2010). Biodiversity and
the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species
richness. BioScience, 62, 47–55.
Davis, N., & Gatersleben, B. (2013). Transcendent experiences in wild and manicured settings: The influ-
ence of the trait connectedness to nature. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 92–102.
Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, inter-
connectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180.
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Rethinking happiness: The science of psychological wealth. Mal-
den: Blackwell Publishing.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being meas-
ures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research,
97, 143–156.
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure
of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple,
graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
Endicott, J., Nee, J., Harrison, W., & Blumenthal, R. (1993). Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction ques-
tionnaire: A new measure. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 29, 321–326.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359, 1367–1377.
Fuller, R., Irvine, K., Devine-Wright, P., & Gaston, K. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase
with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394.
Henderson, L. W., Knight, T., & Richardson, B. (2013). An exploration of the well-being benefits of hedonic
and eudaimonic behaviour. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 322–336.
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and
identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109–120.
*Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with
well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166–171.
Howell, A. J., & Passmore, H. (2013). The nature of happiness: Nature affiliation and mental well-being. In
C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: International contributions to the study of positive mental
health (pp. 231–257). New York: Springer.
*Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2013). Meaning in nature: Meaning in life as a mediator
of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14,
1681–1696.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student’s life satisfaction scale. School Psychology Inter-
national, 12, 231–240.
Huta, V. (2015). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oli-
ver (Eds.), Handbook of media use and well-being (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being
benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classifica-
tion and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 15, 1425–1456.
Jorgensen, A., & Gobster, P. (2010). Shades of green: Measuring the ecology of urban green space in the
context of human health and well-being. Nature and Culture, 5(3), 338–363.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to
protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distin-
guishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219–233.

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive and evaluative development in children. In P.
H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary
investigations (pp. 117–151). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe: A moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and
Emotion, 17, 297–314.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating the axioms of the complete state
model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
Keyes, C. L. M., Wissing, M., Potgieter, J. P., Temane, M., Kruger, A., & van Rooy, S. (2008). Evalua-
tion of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking South Africans.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 181–192.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-tran-
scendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General Psychology,
10, 302–317.
*Kumar, R., Lal, R., Bansal, Y., & Sethi, K. V. K. (2014). Relationship between connectedness to nature
and subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Psychological Science, 4, 59–63.
*Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the social
and natural worlds into one’s sense of self. In H. Wayment & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-
interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 137–147). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
*Loureiro, A., & Veloso, S. (2014). Outdoor exercise, well-being and connectedness to nature. Psico,
45, 299–304.
Lovell, R. (2016a). EIN017 Links between natural environments and learning: Evidence briefing. http://
publi​catio​ns.natur​aleng​land.org.uk/publi​catio​n/52537​09953​49913​6. Accessed July 2017.
Lovell, R. (2016b). EIN015 Connection to nature: Evidence briefing. http://publi​catio​ns.natur​aleng​land.
org.uk/publi​catio​n/47927​91243​16160​0. Accessed July 2017.
Luck, G., Davidson, P., Boxall, D., & Smallbone, L. (2011). Relations between urban bird and plant
communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conservation Biology, 25(4),
816–826.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and
construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
*Marselle, M. (2013). Growing resilience through interaction with nature (GRIN). Unpublished doctoral
thesis, De Montfort University, UK.
*Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’
feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, L. (2009). Why is nature beneficial?
The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of well-being: Evidence of
differential associations with self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108.
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and
negative affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507–519.
Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10,
197–214.
*Nisbet, E. K. (2011). A nature relatedness intervention to promote happiness and environmental con-
cern. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
*Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers
in Psychology, 4, 813.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individu-
als’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior,
41, 715–740.
Okvat, H. A. (2011). A pilot study of the benefits of traditional and mindful community gardening for
urban older adults’ subjective well-being. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ.
Olivos, P., & Clayton, S. (2016). Self, nature and well-being: Sense of connectedness and environmental
identity for quality of life. In G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, & O. Navarro (Eds.), Handbook of environ-
mental psychology and quality of life research (pp. 107–126). New York: Springer.
Orr, D. W. (1993). Love it or lose it: The coming biophilia revolution. In S. Kellert & E. O. Wilson
(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 415–440). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D. (2017). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week
intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 537–546.

13
 A. Pritchard et al.

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.
*Pensini, P., Horn, E., & Caltabiano, N. (2016). An exploration of the relationships between adults’
childhood and current nature exposure and their mental well-being. Children, Youth and Environ-
ments, 26, 125–147.
*Reist, D. M. (2004). Materialism vs. an ecological identity: Towards an integrative framework for a psy-
chology of sustainable living. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
*Richardson, M., Cormack, A., McRobert, L., & Underhill, R. (2016a). 30 days wild: Development and
evaluation of a large-scale nature engagement campaign to improve well-being. PLoS One, 11(2),
e0149777.
Richardson, M., McEwan, K., Maratos, F., & Sheffield, D. (2016b). Joy and calm: How an evolutionary
functional model of affect regulation informs positive emotions in nature. Evolutionary Psychological
Science, 2, 308–320.
*Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., Harvey, C., & Petronzi, D. (2015). The impact of children’s connection
to nature: A report for the royal society for the protection of birds. Derby: University of Derby for
RSPB.
Ridder, B. (2005). Reorienting environmentalism to nature-inspired-autonomy. Griffith Journal of the Envi-
ronment, 1, 1–26.
Ridder, B. (2007). An exploration of the value of naturalness and wild nature. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 20, 195–213.
Roszak, T. (1995). Where psyche meets Gaia. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsy-
chology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 1–20). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 66–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic
reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Warren Brown, K., Mistretta, L., & Gagne, M. (2010). Vitalizing
effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159–168.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to
psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 13–39.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck &
W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 62–78). Norwell: Kluwer.
*Schultz, P., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connec-
tions with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
Schweitzer, R. D., Glab, H., & Brymer, E. (2018). The human-nature experience: A phenomenological-
psychoanalytic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 969.
*Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G., Adinolfi, C., Suarez, G., Colangelo, G., Lafortezza, R., et  al. (2016). Staying
in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: The experience of urban parks in
Bogota. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 139–148.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on
self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 944–963.
Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe in response
to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Crea-
tivity, and the Arts, 9, 376–384.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the
presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., & Eid, M. (1997). Der mehrdimensionale befindlichkeitsfragebo-
gen (MDBF) [The multidimensional comfort questionnaire (MDBF)]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
*Tam, K. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection with nature: Similarities and differences.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
*Trigwell, J. L., Francis, A. J. P., & Bagot, K. L. (2014). Nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being:
Spirituality as a potential mediator. Ecopsychology, 6, 1–11.

13
The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic…

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recov-
ery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,
201–230.
Van Rhee, H. J., Suurmond, R., & Hak, T. (2015). User manual for meta-essentials: Workbooks for meta-
analysis (version 1.0). Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management. http://www.erim.eur.
nl/resea​rch-suppo​rt/meta-essen​tials​. Accessed April 2016.
Venhoeven, L. A., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2013). Explaining the paradox: how pro-environmental
behaviour can both thwart and foster well-being. Sustainability, 5, 1372–1386.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia)
and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691.
Waterman, A. S. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. Journal of Positive Psy-
chology, 3(4), 234–252.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., et al.
(2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic com-
parisons, and evidence of validity. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of posi-
tive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
*Webber, J., Hinds, J., & Camic, P. M. (2015). The well-being of allotment gardeners: A mixed methodo-
logical study. Ecopsychology, 7, 20–28.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A., & Ryan, R. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion
in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,
1315–1329.
White, M., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B., Depledge, M., & Fleming, L. (2017). Natural environment and subjective
wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of wellbeing. Health &
Place, 45, 77–84.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
*Windhorst, E., & Williams, A. (2015). Growing up, naturally: The mental health legacy of early nature
affiliation. Ecopsychology, 7, 115–125.
*Wolsko, C., & Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological
well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5, 80–91.
*Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relat-
edness. Environment and Behaviour, 46, 3–23.
*Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2014). Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive
relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 38, 55–63.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13