Keywords

1 Introduction

This chapter presents an abridged version of the article in People and Nature that is referenced in footnote 1. Given the original article’s length, this introduction summarizes its opening sections. The original article includes an overview of the topic of nature connection, details about how the paper’s literature reviews were conducted, tables that describe different measures of nature connection for children aged 2–17, and fuller versions of the sections covered by this introduction. For a detailed development of these topics, see the original article. Following this summary, this chapter dives into the second half of the paper, which integrates evaluations of programs designed to connect children to nature with studies to understand and address young people’s worries and alarm when they recognize the threats that the natural world currently faces from climate chaos and biodiversity loss.

The article in People and Nature synthesizes two research literatures. It is the first review of the topic of nature connection in children and adolescents, and it also reviews approaches to help young people cope with difficult emotions as the global environment changes. These have been independent streams of research, each developing without reference to the other. Yet as I delved into both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of young people’s connection to nature, I noticed that many indicators used to define nature connection echo what young people express when they are asked about their environmental concerns and they express fears about the planet’s future: feeling part of nature, empathy for other living things, understanding human reliance on nature and our capacity to harm it, and a sense of responsibility to protect the natural world. (See Fig. 1 for indicators of children’s connection with nature, children’s awareness and feelings associated with environmental concern, and overlapping experiences.)

Fig. 1
figure 1

Indicators of children’s connection with nature (blue and green lists), children’s awareness and emotions associated with environmental concern (green and yellow lists), and where these experiences overlap (green)

Full size image

I found that people studying nature connection in children and adolescents treat the understanding of human reliance on nature and feelings of belonging to nature, responsibility, and empathy for nature as if they are always positive experiences. Like enjoyment, comfort and solace in nature, surveys to assess children’s levels of nature connection assume that the more children have these experiences, the better. Yet research on young people’s environmental concerns and fears about the future shows that these perspectives may arouse difficult emotions. Therefore this paper explores how people who seek to connect children and teens with nature—teachers, parents, and staff at nature centers and environmental promote connection and constructive coping with environmental organizations—may simultaneously risks and losses.

1.1 Understanding Nature Connection in Childhood

When Ives et al. (2017) surveyed peer-reviewed articles on the human connection with nature published from 1984 through 2015, they found a steep increase from the year 2010 onward. This pattern characterizes research with children and teens as well as adults. Ives and his colleagues attributed this rise to surging evidence of health and well-being benefits when humans engage with nature, as well as concern that humans need to feel connected with nature in order to commit to its protection. This concern is related to recognition that connection commonly forms during time in nature, but an “extinction of experience” is currently underway (Pyle, 1978).

Around the world, more and more people are living in urban areas, which are becoming more densely developed, eroding opportunities for people to experience nature and feel kinship with the larger community of life. According to Soga and Gaston (2016), this sets up feedback loops that are troubling for the future of conservation. They note that as people’s experience of nature declines, their interest in nature is likely to diminish. This reduces motivation to seek out natural areas. As parents, people are likely to pass their disengagement from nature to their children, and over time this can become a generational shift, with the public understanding and valuing the natural world less and feeling less investment in its protection.

Concerns about declining access to nature and children’s loss of freedom outdoors have spurred efforts to define and measure nature connection in childhood, identify key experiences that contribute to its development, evaluate interventions designed to increase connection, and determine how nature connection relates to other aspects of young people’s lives, such as wellbeing and care for the environment. This introduction briefly summarizes this work. It looks at nature connection through the lens of both quantitative and qualitative methods and considers evidence that connection with nature matters for children’s wellbeing as well as the future of conservation. Consistent with the United Nations definition of childhood as the period from birth through age 17 (UNICEF, 1989), this chapter refers to this span of years as “childhood,” populated by “children” and “young people.”

1.2 Evaluating Childhood Nature Connection

The longer review for People and Nature discussed 10 quantitative measures of nature connection for children and adolescents that were tested for reliability and validity and published in peer-reviewed journals. Together, they cover ages 2 through 19. In developing assessment tools, researchers commonly began by reviewing and adapting measures designed for adults, with the result that characteristics of adult measures have been carried over into assessments with children. Just as there is no single consensus definition of nature connection in research with adults, a variety of definitions and terms have been used in studies with children and adolescents, including connection with nature, nature connectedness, biophilia, and emotional affinity with nature. (See original article, pp. 622–625.)

Like measures of nature connection in adults (Restall & Conrad, 2015; Tam, 2013; Zylstra et al., 2014), assessments of childhood nature connection are multidimensional. They include emotional attraction and affiliation with nature, cognitive understanding of human-nature interdependence and curiosity about natural phenomena, positive experiences in nature such as enjoyment and comfort, and motivation to protect nature. (See Fig. 1.) Enjoyment in being in nature runs across most of the childhood measures (Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Elliot, Ten Eycke, Chan & Müller, 2014; Ernst & Theimer, 2011; Giusti et al., 2014; Müller et al., 2009; Rice & Torquati, 2013; Richardson et al., 2019; Sobko et al., 2018). Some studies treat awareness of human reliance on nature and nature’s vulnerability to harm as a dimension of nature connection (Ernst & Theimer, 2011; Giusti et al., 2014; Larson et al., 2011); but general knowledge about nature and environmental issues, as well as proenvironmental behavior, are treated as separate but related variables. Three studies treat empathy for nature as a dimension of connection (Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Giusti et al., 2014; Sobko et al., 2018).

1.3 Variables Associated with Nature Connection

A number of quantitative studies explore how levels of nature connection relate to access to green space, time in nature, age, gender, and family relations. A frequent finding is that young people with more access and experience in nature express higher levels of connection. Low levels of connection, in contrast, relate to more time spent inside and more hours watching television, playing digital games and following social media. The legacy of childhood time in nature reaches into adulthood. Among adults, greater connection with nature is associated with more access and interaction with nature during childhood. (See original article, pp. 624–625.)

In their assessment of biophilia, Rice and Torquati (2013) found that scores for their preschool sample of 2- to 5-year-olds increased with age. Aside from these increasing scores in very young children, a reverse pattern appears: scores for nature connection fall as young people move from early and middle childhood into adolescence. When study samples cover children, adolescents and adults, levels of nature connection are highest among 7- to 12-year-olds, falling to their lowest level in the teen years, and then gradually rising in adulthood (Hughes et al., 2019; Richardson et al., 2019).

Research related to gender differences in childhood nature connection has produced inconsistent results. The majority of studies that consider gender find that females report significantly higher levels of connection than males (see references in original article, p. 625.) Children’s levels of connection are higher when parents believe it is important for their children to experience nature outdoors (Ahmetoglu, 2019) and report greater nature connection themselves (Barrable & Booth, 2020a), when children report more pro-environmental values in their family (Cheng & Monroe, 2012), and when they talk with their parents about nature on a regular basis (Larson et al., 2011).

1.4 Qualitative Descriptions of Children’s Developing Connections with Nature

The term “nature connection” rarely appears in observations of children in nature, interviews, and analyses of children’s drawings and narratives about their engagement with the natural world. Nevertheless, this interdisciplinary literature that includes the fields of geography, anthropology, psychology and environmental design brings to life what dimensions of connection like enjoyment, care, curiosity, awareness of interdependence, and a sense of oneness mean in actual places. It illuminates the opportunities for action and experience that different types of natural settings afford, and it reveals omissions in quantitative assessments. (See original article, pp. 625–628.)

Descriptions of toddlers and children in nature preschools and kindergartens show their fascination with sensory details of plants, animals, and other elements of nature, as well as their empathy for other living things. These studies also show the social context of children’s experience and the importance of a sense of safety: subjects on which quantitative assessments are largely silent. In her book Children’s Environmental Identity Development, Green (2018) used the term “natural world socialization” for these dimensions of connection, when adults and peers encourage a positive connection with nature by keeping a child safe, while allowing independent exploration and appropriate risk taking, appreciating the child’s accomplishments and discoveries, and promoting care for the environment (see also Chawla, 2007, 2021).

Qualitative studies show how other people serve as companions in connecting with nature, from the earliest years of childhood through adolescence. Twentieth century studies of children’s use of local territories, based on observations and children’s mapping and interviews, show that the middle years from about 6 through 11 were a period when parks, woods, overgrown lots and ditches, and other natural features were favorite places. Children sought out wild and semi-wild places for quiet reverie and for play with friends, constructing fort cultures, and acting out adventure stories across the landscape (Chawla, 1992; Goodenough, 2003; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986; Sobel, 2002). As noted above, the study of children’s connection with nature has been impelled partly by concern that these opportunities for adventure in nature have eroded.

In the teen years, young people value nature as a place for good times with family and friends in parks and other green gathering places, physical challenges, and quiet retreats where they can find calm and relax (Hatala, Njeze, Morton, Pear, & Bird-Naytowhow, 2020; Owens & McKinnon, 2009; Schwab et al., 2020; Ward Thompson, Travlou & Roe, 2006). Kaplan and Kaplan (2002) noted, however, that for many young people the teen years become a “time out” from nature, when they are more strongly drawn to shops and built recreational attractions like athletic fields and sports events. Social relationships and social media take center stage for many (Eames et al., 2018). These findings are consistent with quantitative studies that show a drop in nature connection in adolescence.

Also missing from quantitative assessments, but evident in qualitative research, is the value of mastering challenges in nature and the potential to bond with nature through work as well as recreation. Whether it is a toddler wading into a creek’s edge, preschoolers clambering over a log, older children constructing a fort in the woods, or teenagers surfing or rock climbing, opportunities to build a sense of agency and self-confidence are an important part of natural areas’ attraction (Chawla, 2021). In rural regions, children and teens often learn to know the land intimately through a combination of work and free exploration, and value it deeply as home (Gold & Gujar, 2007; MacDonald et al., 2015; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994).

1.5 Why Does Connecting with Nature Matter for Children and Nature Conservation?

Large and steadily growing bodies of research show that connecting with nature is associated with multiple benefits for young people’s health and development, and that young people who express higher levels of nature connection are more likely to say that they are taking action to protect the natural world. When parents of preschoolers rated their young children’s social and emotional health as well as their connection with nature, children who showed awareness and enjoyment of nature, empathy for plants and animals, and responsibility to take care of nature were also more likely to show prosocial behavior and less likely to display hyperactivity/inattention, peer problems, and emotional problems (Sobko et al., 2018). Among 11- to 14-year-olds, higher measures of nature connection were positively associated with higher self-reported levels of competence, connection with other people, confidence, caring behaviors, and character in the sense of living by positive principles and values (Bowers, Larson & Parry, 2021). These youth were also more likely to believe in a hopeful future when they expressed greater connection with nature. A number of studies show that young people in the age range from 7 to 17 are more likely to report good health and wellbeing when their nature connection scores are high. (See original article, pp. 628–629 for references.) Among teenagers, greater connection with nature is associated with more holistic and creative thinking (Leong, Fischer & McClure, 2014).

When young people connect with nature, it is beneficial for the natural world as well as their own development. Children and adolescents with higher levels of nature connection report more pro-environmental behaviors like putting food out for birds and joining a nature club, more conservation behaviors like energy saving and recycling, and more environmental citizenship behaviors like environmental volunteering and talking with others about the importance of environmental protection. They also show greater environmental knowledge and they are more likely to say that they are willing to commit to conserving nature. (See original article, p. 629 for references.)

Figure 2 provides a synthesis of the material in this introduction. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative research, it summarizes experiences that increase or diminish nature connection, and shows that childhood experiences can influence adulthood. It itemizes benefits of connecting with nature for young people’s development, as well as benefits for conservation, as young people with greater connection demonstrate greater environmental knowledge and commitment to protect the natural world.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Contributions to nature connection in childhood and associated benefits and behaviors

Full size image

2 Connecting to Nature in an Age of Global Environmental Change

2.1 Coping with Environmental Fears

Up to this point, this review has associated nature connection with positive experiences like free play and exploration and positive emotions like enjoyment, interest, comfort, calm, and kinship with all living things. Yet as processes of global environmental change accelerate, there is a dark side to feeling kin to creatures that are disappearing. To loving wild places that are lost. To feeling connected to a world whose life systems are unraveling. Since the 1990s, surveys and interviews that ask young people about their hopes and fears for the future reveal high levels of alarm about environmental changes (Barraza, 1999; Hicks & Holden, 2007; Hutchinson, 1997; Ojala, 2016; Strife, 2012). Some young people deny that climate change is happening or de-emphasize the seriousness of environmental problems; but many voice concern (Lawson et al., 2019; Ojala, 2012a). More often than worry about consequences for themselves, children express concern about impacts on animals (Jonsson et al., 2012; Ojala, 2016; Wilson & Snell, 2010). Although this research primarily involves young people in elementary school through high school, even children as young as 5 worry about “the Earth getting too hot” (Davis, 2010). In research with adults, painful feelings like these have been termed “ecological grief” (Cunsolo & Ellis, 2018), and when distress is due to degradation of one’s own home landscape, “solastagia” (Galway, Beery, Jones-Casey & Tasala, 2019).

Research on environmental fears has not been assimilated into research on nature connection. Yet worry and fear are arguably expressions of connection. Children who voice these emotions acknowledge their interdependence with the natural world, recognize the shared vulnerability of people and nature, and feel empathy for other living things: all experiences included in assessments of nature connection (Fig. 1). This paper argues that a comprehensive view of connectedness with nature needs to encompass this full range of emotions. Environmental educators recommend that activities with young children should emphasize learning to love nature and feel comfort, interest and enjoyment in nature, leaving disturbing information about environmental problems for later years (Sobel, 1996; Wilson, 2018). Yet in media-soaked societies, as environments rapidly change, it is impossible to control everything that children see and hear. Therefore it is important to understand how young people cope with disturbing environmental information, and how to help them integrate positive and negative experiences.

Worry, sadness, frustration and anger about the environment are difficult emotions to carry. Working with middle school and high school students in Sweden, Ojala (2016) investigated how young people cope with feelings about climate change, biodiversity loss and other complex environmental issues—problems that cannot be solved by individual action alone. She explored how different forms of coping affect young people’s willingness to acknowledge threatening information and take action to protect the environment, how their responses affect their emotional wellbeing, and how other people can help them cope in ways that are healthy for themselves and proactive for the environment. She builds on the work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Folkman (2008) in health psychology, who identified three ways of coping with difficult emotions: emotion-focused, which seeks to escape painful feelings; problem-focused, which addresses problems that cause these feelings; and meaning-focused, which finds positive value in confronting problems.

Ojala (2012a) found emotion-focused coping common among young people who say they are highly worried about climate change. Most often, they tried to manage this emotion through distraction—deliberately thinking about something else, doing something else, or avoiding disturbing information. An alternative was to seek support from others like family members or friends; but Ojala (2012a, 2016) found that this was uncommon, perhaps because young people in Sweden consider it “uncool” to reveal their worries. A small group focused on feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, which she saw as a form of avoidance, because in this case they could conclude that action was pointless. Some young people deny that climate change and its consequences exist or believe that it will only affect future generations or distant places (Lawson et al., 2019; Ojala, 2012a, 2012b). All of these strategies are negatively associated with environmental action (Ojala, 2012b, 2012c, 2013; Stevenson & Peterson, 2016; Stevenson et al., 2019).

Young people who report problem-focused strategies express a sense of environmental efficacy and take action for the environment, but many also express low subjective wellbeing (Ojala, 2012b, 2013). Studies in Sweden (Ojala, 2016) and the United States (Stevenson & Peterson, 2016) found that young people almost always report individualized actions in the private sphere, such as household energy conservation, rather than collective engagement. Ojala (2016) noted that an association between individual environmental action and low subjective wellbeing among young people who worry about environmental change is consistent with general research on coping in childhood and adolescence, which shows that when a problem is more than a young person can solve alone, individual strategies can lead to feelings of futility and reduce wellbeing (Clarke, 2006).

A third form of coping is meaning-focused, and it is especially important when a problem cannot be solved quickly but requires active engagement over a long period of time (Folkman, 2008). It involves positive reappraisal, or reframing a problem to find positive meaning in the struggle to address it. For example, Ojala (2012a, 2013) found that some young people reasoned that climate change is an urgent problem, but societies know more about it now and people with influence are taking it seriously, like scientists, politicians and environmental activists. When young people use a high degree of meaning-focused coping, they are more likely to express positive feelings and life satisfaction (Ojala, 2012b, 2012c, 2013). Ojala (2016, 14) calls this ability to face environmental risks and uncertainty, believe one’s own actions and the actions of others can make a difference, and find positive meaning in action, “constructive hope.”

These three forms of coping can be observed in Inuit youth aged 15–25 who are already witnessing environmental changes that are disrupting their communities’ traditional way of life (MacDonald et al., 2015). In interviews, they said that staying busy took their mind off these troubles (emotion-focused coping); but unlike young Swedes, they often found solace in getting out on the land, connecting with their culture and community, and seeking support from family and friends. They learned to adapt when and how they did land-based activities (problem-focused coping), and they prided themselves that adaptability to change is part of Inuit culture (meaning-focused coping).

2.2 Cultivating Hope

The study of environmental coping strategies has inspired other researchers to explore the role of hope in young people. Li and Monroe (2017) created a measure of climate change hope for adolescents, based on the psychology of hope developed by Snyder (2000), who defines a positive sense of hope as a force for action. According to Snyder, hope requires a vision of a possible future, along with awareness of pathways to reach the goal and belief in agency to achieve it. Monroe and Oxarart (2015) integrated this theory into a curriculum for high school students in the United States who studied how regional forests respond to climate change. The curriculum included activities for students to learn “things I can do” and “things we can do,” as well as activities that demonstrated that “others care” and “others are doing things”—in this case scientists and landowners sharing practices to sequester carbon and promote forest resilience. Students also studied ecosystem connections that support forest resilience, and learned how decisions that people make today have the potential for positive impacts tomorrow. With this curriculum that featured possibilities for a positive future, pathways and agency, as students’ knowledge increased, their hope increased (Li & Monroe, 2019; Li, Monroe & Ritchie, 2018).

Li and Monroe (2019) found that when young people feel concern about environmental problems and believe that they and others can address problems effectively, they are more likely to feel hope. Both hope and concern motivate action, whereas despair and feelings of helplessness are negatively related to action (Ojala, 2012b, 2013; Stevenson & Peterson, 2016; Stevenson et al., 2019). In reflecting on her own work and the work of others, Ojala (2017) observed that young people’s responses to global environmental problems are socially embedded and social trust is vital. Young people notice how others react to these problems, and how others respond to their emotions. Ojala (2017) noted that even though the young people in her samples were much more likely to report individual rather than collective actions to address problems, they felt encouraged when they believed that others could do similar small things and together they could make a difference. In this sense, social trust gave meaning to individual actions.

Collective projects often include direct experiences of social support. Trott followed 10- to 12-year-olds in a 15-week program to study climate change and plan and implement actions at a family and community level. In focus groups, young people repeatedly expressed the value of this social dimension. As a girl noted, after her team gave a speech about local impacts of climate change to their city council and got permission to move ahead with a tree planting campaign, they felt that “you can actually do something instead of ignore the stuff around us” (2019, 53).

Reflections by researchers, environmental activists and educators produce converging lists of practices to help young people cope with difficult environmental emotions and conceive hope (Brown, 2016; Chawla, 2020; Hicks, 2014; Monroe et al., 2017; Ojala, 2017; Sobel, 2008; Trott, 2020; Winograd, 2016). A first step is discussions that allow young people to share their feelings without judgment. Adolescents are more likely to express constructive hope regarding climate change when they expect their teachers to respect their emotions and offer support, rather than being dismissive and making fun of their feelings (Ojala, 2015). They are more likely to show both problem-focused and meaning-focused coping when parents and friends respond in solution-oriented and supportive ways, rather than being dismissive or voices of doom-and-gloom (Ojala & Bengtsson, 2018). Other key steps are making information personally relevant by relating it to local issues, connecting young people with scientists and activists who can share their work and stories, supporting them in projects to care for nature in their schools and communities, and engaging them through experiential, inquiry-based, and arts-based methods (see review by Chawla, 2020). For a summary of recommended practices, see Table 1.

Table 1 Strategies to help young people cope with environmental change
Full size table

3 Integrating Research on Nature Connection and Coping with Environmental Change

This paper argues that distress as the natural world degrades is a dimension of connection. Working with adults in Australia, Dean et al. (2018) also suggested that future research needs to explore this complexity. They found that when relatedness with nature was measured through enjoyment and comfort in nature, it was associated with good health; but when it was measured through self-identification with nature and interest in conserving nature, it was associated with depression, anxiety and stress. They speculated that people were reacting to environmental degradation, including recent local floods. If some experiences that define connection with nature make people vulnerable to distress, then the idea of nature connection becomes more accurately developed, theoretically, by recognizing that it includes both positive and painful facets. With a focus on young people, this section suggests that there are also practical reasons to integrate research on nature connection and coping with environmental loss.

Studies of children’s connection with nature and environmental coping have the shared aims of supporting young people’s wellbeing and their agency to protect the natural world. As the opening of this paper noted, interest in children’s connection with nature has been spurred by concern that children are losing opportunities for free-ranging encounters with nature, with negative consequences for their health as well as their motivation to protect the environment. On the side of research into how children cope with difficult environmental information, some children respond with levels of worry that diminish their wellbeing; and when young people fall into despair and helplessness, it cripples their capacity to act. Bringing together research and practice related to both positive connection with nature and concern may create a stronger framework for fostering children’s wellbeing and environmental agency.

The preceding section showed that researchers and practitioners in education and environmental protection have been exploring ways to support young people socially and emotionally as they face environmental change, by building their sense of agency, enabling them to see that they are not alone in taking action to address challenges, and encouraging hope (Table 1). The following section looks at evaluations of programs designed to increase children’s connection with nature. Together, these sections open the way to ask the questions: How do strategies to support constructive coping with environmental change compare with strategies to promote nature connection? What can these two bodies of research contribute to each other? Together, what are their implications for research and practice?

3.1 Increasing Connectedness with Nature

When Britto dos Santos and Gould (2018) and Barrable and Booth (2020b) reviewed evaluations of environmental education interventions to increase young people’s connection with nature, they found encouraging evidence that this is a practical goal. Based on evaluation research published since 2008 in peer-reviewed journals and environmental organizations’ reports, this section covers 16 papers included in these previous reviews along with 11 additional papers, which reinforce this conclusion. Most evaluations of program outcomes use quantitative pre- and post-assessments, but some gather qualitative reflection through interviews, focus groups, journaling and open-ended narratives. Programs that successfully increase feelings of connection with nature tend to share common features.

Four quantitative studies that looked at the effect of age found better program outcomes with younger participants. Comparing younger children in the age range from 7–10 versus 11–18, Braun and Dierkes (2017), Ernst and Theimer (2011) and Liefländer et al. (2013) found larger gains in nature connection in the younger groups. When Crawford et al. (2017) evaluated the effect of nature tours on 9-to 14-year-olds, younger children had higher nature connection scores both entering and leaving activities. In the study by Liefländer et al. (2013), only 9-to 10-year-olds maintained significant gains in a four-week follow-up assessment, compared to 11-to 13-year-olds. This chapter previously cited studies that found a greater sense of nature connection in school-age children compared to adolescents (Hughes et al., 2019; Richardson et al., 2019). These evaluations of program interventions suggest that younger children may also be more receptive to initiatives designed to cultivate connection.

Most programs that produce significant quantitative gains in nature connection last several days. In different studies, extended time meant 3–5 days of immersion in residential field sites (Braun & Dierkes, 2017; Hinds & O’Malley, 2019; Liefländer et al., 2013; Mullenbach, Andrejewski & Mowen, 2019; Stern et al., 2008; Talebpour et al., 2020), 4 days to two weeks in nature-based camps or on wilderness expeditions (Barton et al., 2016; Collado et al., 2013; Ernst & Theimer, 2011; San Jose & Nelson, 2017), 4 weeks of nature play and learning in a preschool (Yilmaz, Çig & Yilmaz-Bolat, 2020), repeated field trips to natural areas (Ernst & Theimer, 2011), and school curricula that lasted several weeks and included hands-on nature experiences (Cho & Lee, 2018; Harvey et al., 2020; Sheldrake et al., 2019). But even programs that involved only a day of classroom lessons about forests combined with activities in a forest (Kossack & Bogner, 2012), a few hours of forest exploration (Dopko et al., 2019; Schneider & Schaal, 2018), or trips to natural areas or a natural history museum (Bruni et al., 2018; Crawford et al., 2017; Sheldrake et al., 2019) resulted in immediate significant gains in nature connection scores.

After a 2-h tour of local heathlands in Flanders, only students with low pre-scores expressed a greater sense of inclusion with nature (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019). This result is consistent with assessments by Braun and Dierkes (2017), Schneider and Schaal (2018), Bruni et al. (2018) and Harvey et al. (2020), who found that students with low initial scores made the greatest gains in nature connection. Programs to teach about climate change (Sellmann & Bogner, 2013) or surfing skills (Hignett et al., 2018) failed to increase teens’ sense of inclusion with nature.

Nine of these 24 quantitative and mixed-methods studies include a follow-up assessment to determine whether young people retain their immediate gains in nature connectedness after a program ends. Retention tests show that significant gains last 3–8 weeks; but when Stern et al. (2008) conducted a three-month follow-up after residential programs in a national park, students’ original gains in nature connection were lost. This result indicates the importance of long-term follow-up, and suggests that children may need repeated nature-based experiences to maintain connection.

Bruni et al. (2017) concluded that children are most likely to express connection with nature when they are encouraged to focus on nature in their own way, at their own pace. They compared three activities that, together, involved 6-to 16-year- olds. One involved an online hike through a national forest. A second sent children on an adult-led mountain hike to find metal plaques of plant and animal species and collect rubbings. A third invited children to spend time in a place of their choice outdoors in nature or in a zoo or aquarium and express their experiences through any artistic medium. Only the free choice activity resulted in significant gains in nature connection, compared to activities that directed participants to focus on metal plaques or a digital screen.

Three studies used qualitative measures to understand experiences associated with nature connection, including observation, interviews and focus groups. In an evaluation of three U.S. Fish and Wildlife programs, Theimer and Ernst (2012) found that students in a field-based middle school adjacent to prairie wetlands expressed relatedness with nature most consistently. In this program, they participated in daily natural history activities, outdoor pursuits like hiking and snowshoeing, long distance expeditions through the natural areas of the site, quiet contemplation and observation in nature, and service learning like water sampling, duck banding and prairie restoration.

Barthel et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal evaluation of a school program that involved 10-year-olds in Stockholm in protecting salamanders during their spring migration from a local woodland to a pond near school where they laid their eggs. Students studied salamanders, searched for salamanders who needed assistance to reach the pond, and recorded numbers and species for a national monitoring program. Some described pivotal moments when they overcame fear and discomfort at touching salamanders, and most said that their understanding and empathy for these creatures increased, along with feeling more friendly to nature. Two years after participation, students still expressed these emotions, along with a sense of importance, pride and responsibility at participating in an adult conservation program.

Participants in three nature-based programs in Colorado evaluated by Colvin Williams and Chawla (2016) echoed these findings. They vividly recalled hands-on experiences outdoors, overcame fears of snakes and insects, and developed growing respect for nature. They felt empowered as they learned responsible roles like bird banding, water quality monitoring, and caring for wolves at a wolf refuge. They talked about the inspiring commitment to nature demonstrated by program staff, as well as pride and excitement at being part of a network of people who worked together across distances to study and protect the natural world.

Two mixed methods studies highlighted two factors that can affect program outcomes: group identity and weather. In another facet of the salamander program evaluation, Giusti (2019) compared results from the qualitative interviews with quantitative measures of nature connection, and found no significant change in scores before and after participation. In pretests, students in the program school expressed significantly greater empathy for salamanders than students at two control schools, even before beginning the program. The salamander program was a proud part of the school’s identity, and just belonging to this school appeared to increase students’ identification with salamanders. When Talebpour et al. (2020) evaluated three residential field trips in a wilderness area of California using both pre/post nature connection surveys and student journals, they found that journal entries about the weather helped explain score results. Nature connection scores fell for classes that visited the area during cold torrential rain, rose moderately during a period of mixed rain, sun and wind, and rose highest during warm sunny weather.

Successful practices described in the quantitative and qualitative evaluations are summarized in Table 2. As a whole, these studies indicate that it is possible to design experiences that increase a sense of connection with nature. The importance of time in nature, hands-on experiences, natural history, and service learning emerge in most studies. Qualitative evaluations also reveal feelings of pride and solidarity from working with others to protect natural habitats and wildlife: a social dimension that is missing from the quantitative measures.

Table 2 Program practices associated with gains in young people’s connection with nature
Full size table

3.2 Building Connection and Hope

When Table 1 on helping young people cope with environmental change and build hope is compared with Table 2 on increasing young people’s connection with nature, where do effective practices overlap? Are there practices only listed for one purpose that might be useful for the other? This section compares these tables to suggest how programs for young people might simultaneously support connection with nature, action for nature, hope and wellbeing. In the process, it identifies questions for further research.

Several practices appear in both tables: providing young people with time outdoors in natural areas, enabling them to feel comfortable and competent in nature, the study of ecology and natural science, activities that enable young people to see that they can make a positive difference for the environment, and examples of other people who are making a difference. Up to this point, these practices have been recommended for one purpose or the other: to increase connection with nature, or to support hope and healthy coping with environmental change. The fact that they form a common core, recommended for both purposes, invites research to determine whether these practices can simultaneously help young people connect with nature and develop constructive responses to environmental threats. For success, are all of these program elements needed, in combination or cumulatively over time? Or are some most formative? (See Fig. 3 for a summary of experiences associated with both connecting with nature and coping with environmental change, as well as experiences primarily aligned with one outcome or the other.)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Practices that help young people connect with nature and cope constructively with environmental change

Full size image

Table 1 on healthy coping includes a number of recommendations that are missing from Table 2 on promoting connection. It notes that the study of ecology and natural history needs to be combined with learning how to protect the natural world. It highlights the importance of social trust, of believing that one is not alone in taking action for nature because individual actions are amplified by the contributions of other people. It also emphasizes providing time for young people to share their emotions about environmental change and helping them find positive meaning in facing challenges. It points to the importance of developing concrete, achievable visions of a desirable future, and finding value in voluntary simplicity. Some young people in programs to increase connection with nature may struggle with fears about environmental changes, and as change accelerates, their numbers are likely to grow. Without taking time to listen, people who implement these programs will never know if young people carry these burdens. As Brown (2016) notes, silence about environmental issues communicates implicit messages. It can convey fatalism about a problem, or indifference. By including these practices, programs to connect young people with nature may support constructive coping.

Providing young people with time in nature appears in both tables, but only Table 2 identifies specific experiences associated with feelings of connection: comfort, confidence, enjoyment, exploration, challenge, achievement, freedom to follow interests at one’s own pace, overcoming fears outdoors, and empathy and care for other living things. When programs want to build young people’s bond with nature, they need to provide conditions for these experiences. Table 2 also includes collective activities to study nature, care for wildlife, and restore and protect natural habitats, and the importance of seeing role models who look like oneself.

Research on environmental coping and behavior shows that most young people report individual actions to address environmental problems, such as conserving energy and resources (Ojala, 2012a; Stevenson & Peterson, 2016). More research is needed to understand what happens when young people have opportunities to engage in collective action. As one of the 10-to 12-year-olds who developed climate action projects for their community said, “I don’t know, there’s something about it …. Getting together, creating projects, knowing each other, working together” (Trott, 2019, 53). What opportunities enable young people to feel empowered rather than discouraged by the challenges they face? How does virtual organizing compare with coming together in person? Does working in alliance with nature’s own powers of growth and resilience during gardening, tree planting and ecological restoration add distinctive dimensions of meaning? Table 2 also notes the importance of programs for very young children. Environmental educators emphasize positive experiences in nature for young children (Sobel, 1996; Wilson, 2018); but when young children notice upsetting environmental changes, are they better prepared to express hope if they participate with others in protecting and regenerating the natural world?

This paper’s title can be revisited as a question. Can connecting with nature in childhood form a foundation for constructive hope, in the sense that it prepares children for lives of action to care for the natural world even in the face of environmental threats? As this paper has noted, adults and children who express higher levels of connection with nature are more likely to report taking action for the environment. But research has not yet tested whether this relationship between connection and action holds even when young people feel acutely threatened by environmental losses. When young people fear climate change and biodiversity loss, research shows, what matters is social trust—feeling others’ support and knowing that other people are also acting to protect the natural world—and the capacity to find meaning in addressing challenges. Can connection with nature, commitment to action, and hope develop together? What experiences are necessary for this to happen? This section has proposed practices that may achieve this purpose; but there may be other approaches, waiting to be discovered through careful listening to young people and those who work beside them to engage with the challenges and possibilities of a changing planet. These are open questions that invite both qualitative and quantitative investigation.

4 Concluding Observations on Research and Practice

4.1 Developing Theory-Based Explanatory Models

In addition to the questions above, this review has raised other questions. When children are out in nature, what are the formative experiences that contribute to their sense of connection with the natural world? What are formative experiences in families? Why do levels of connection decrease in adolescence? Why does gender often make a difference? What are the developmental pathways that link child health and wellbeing to connecting with nature? What experiences simultaneously build connection and care for nature? By looking at qualitative as well as quantitative research, along with programs and practices that are intended to build connection and help young people cope constructively with a world at risk, this paper has suggested where some answers may be found. Future research needs to link children’s relations with the natural world to theory grounded in basic processes of child development, and weave back and forth between qualitative and quantitative methods.

There are promising steps in this direction. For example, after creating the Connection to Nature Index, Cheng and Monroe (2012) conducted two path analyses to explain initial survey results: one showing factors that predict children’s interest in participating in nature-based activities, which have been associated with health and wellbeing; and one showing factors that predict children’s interest in environmentally friendly practices. Roczen et al. (2014) also built a model to explain young people’s pro-environmental behavior, which is similar in key respects. In both models, connection to nature makes a strong contribution to pro-environmental practices, along with knowledge about the environment. In addition, Cheng and Monroe’s model includes access to nature, experiences in nature, a sense of self-efficacy, and family values toward nature. All of these factors are evident in descriptions of developmental processes when children engage with nature (Chawla, 2021).

The research covered in this paper suggests that connecting with nature and acting to protect nature can be mutually reinforcing. Children with higher measures of nature connection report more pro-environmental behaviors of many kinds... while programs that successfully increase connection with nature often involve nature conservation activities. Future research needs to look more closely at pathways between connection and action, as well as relations between knowledge about nature and empathy for other living things. Ethnographic accounts show that when children are outdoors in nature, they are simultaneously connecting with nature and learning about the natural world; and when people around them encourage empathy and care for plants, animals and their habitats, children exhibit these emotions and behaviors (Elliot et al., 2014; Green, 2018). In the unity of children’s lived experience in nature, connection, knowledge, empathy and responsible action may co-develop. More qualitative studies are needed to examine how this happens, as well as quantitative studies that measure these constructs and how they are related.

4.2 Contexts of Connection

Here and in the original article published in People and Nature, “nature” meant everything from a city bird or pet, to fragments of nature in dense urban districts, to wilder areas in forest schools, nature centers and large parks. In all of the studies covered, it meant nature in or near inhabited areas. Kahn and Weiss (2017) recommend experiences of “big nature” in the sense of untamed landscapes that people can trek through for weeks, but studies of nature connection have been located in neighborhoods, schools and nature programs, where most children are found. How deep wilderness experiences affect young people’s connection with nature deserves a review of its own, which will need to find accounts of children who have this rare experience. Kahn and Weiss note, however, that “big nature” can be relative, and for a child in a city, it can mean a squirrel or a jump in a fountain.

What the quantitative and qualitative research covered here makes clear is the importance of direct experience as a foundation for connection, wherever children find nature. This conclusion suggests that every practice to increase children’s access to nature is important, from naturalizing private yards and multifamily housing sites, to mosaics of parks and gardens, to greening the grounds of schools and child care centers, to making nature centers, camping and field trips to natural areas available for all children. Finding ways to bring nature to children, even in densely populated and low resourced parts of the world, appears essential to foster connection. Doing this can simultaneously create networks of green spaces for biodiversity and offer many opportunities for children to become involved in nature protection and restoration.

As it moves forward, research on nature connection needs to extend beyond populations in Western cultures. Only a few studies in the research covered here and in the People and Nature article originated in Asia, Africa, Latin America and indigenous communities. Most population growth is happening in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and these continents are where most of the world’s children live (United Nations, 2018). They also contain hotspots for biodiversity protection (Myers et al., 2000). Research on young people’s connection with nature, action for nature, and constructive hope needs to include diverse countries and cultures. The protection of the natural world requires committed work by people of all cultures, in agricultural and remote regions as well as cities and suburbs. Therefore it is critical to understand cultures of connection in all contexts, beginning with their development in childhood.

Recommended Further Reading

  1. 1.

    Chawla, Louise (2020). Helping students cope with environmental change and take constructive civic action. Green Schools Catalyst Quarterly, 7(1), 44–57.

  2. 2.

    Hicks, David (2014). Educating for Hope in Troubled Times: Climate change and the transition to a post-carbon future. London: Institute of Education Press.

  3. 3.

    Winograd, Ken (ed.). (2016). Education in times of environmental crises: Teaching children to be agents of change. London: Routledge.