CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 731Environmental Education and SustainabilityUrban Green Space and HealthEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics

The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness

Open access
Nisbet, Elizabeth K., Zelenski, John M.·2013·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813PMC PMC3814587
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The construct of (dis)connection with nature or "nature relatedness" has become increasingly useful in the study of environmental behavior as well as psychological health and well-being. Strong nature relatedness is associated with greater happiness and ecologically sustainable behavior. A number of scales reliably assess individual differences in nature relatedness, but some circumstances may necessitate a brief measure. We developed a short-form version of the nature relatedness scale (NR-6), comprised of 6 items from the "self" and "experience" dimensions, and tested the new scale's predictive ability across multiple samples and with longitudinal data in students, community members, and business people. The new NR-6 scale demonstrated good internal consistency, temporal stability, and predicted happiness, environmental concern, and nature contact. This new brief measure of connectedness may have advantages where time and space are limited and the research context requires an assessment of connectedness elements rather than environmental attitudes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nature connectedness has been correlated with emotional and psychological well-being.

    “Most relevant to this article, nature connectedness has also been correlated with emotional and psychological well-being (e.g., Nisbet and Zelenski, 2013).”

    From The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Nisbet and Zelenski, 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Brown K. W. Kasser T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res. 74, 349– 368 10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8 · DOI
  2. Clayton S. (2003). Environmental identity: a conceptual and operational definition, in Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, eds Clayton S. Opotow S. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 45– 65
  3. Conn S. (1998). Living in the earth: ecopsychology, health and psychotherapy. Humanist. Psychol. 26, 179– 198 10.1080/08873267.1998.9976972 · DOI
  4. Dutcher D. D. Finley J. C. Luloff A. E. Buttolph Johnson J. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ. Behav. 39, 474– 493 10.1177/0013916506298794 · DOI
  5. Ellis R. J. Thompson F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91, 885– 987 10.2307/2952171 · DOI
  6. Fredrickson B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and well-being. Prevent. Treat. 3, 1– 25 10.1037/1522-3736.3.1.31a · DOI
  7. Frumkin H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20, 234– 240 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00317-2 11275453 · DOI
  8. Heerwagen J. H. Orians G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, eds Kellert S. Wilson E. O. (Washington, DC: Island Press), 138– 172
  9. Howard G. S. (1997). Ecological Psychology: Creating a More Earth-friendly Human Nature. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press
  10. Howell A. J. Dopko R. L. Passmore H. Buro K. (2011). Nature connectedness: associations with well-being and mindfulness. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51, 166– 171 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.03722889066 · DOI
  11. John O. P. Srivastava S. (1999). The big five inventory, in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, eds Pervin L. A. John O. P. (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 132
  12. Kahn P. H. Jr. (1999). The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  13. Kaplan R. Kaplan S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
  14. Kaplan S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169– 182 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kellert S. R. (1997). Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development. Washington, DC: Island Press
  16. Kellert S. R. Wilson E. O. (eds.). (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press
  17. Lawrence E. A. (1993). The sacred bee, the filthy pig, and the bat out of hell: animal symbolism as cognitive biophilia, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, eds Kellert S. R. Wilson E. O. (Washington, DC: Island Press), 301– 341
  18. MacKerron G. Mourato S. (in press). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob. Environ. Change. 1– 14 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.01011316838 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Maller C. Townsend M. Pryor A. Brown P. St. Leger L. (2005). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot. Int. 21, 45– 54 10.1093/heapro/dai032 16373379 · DOI
  20. Maloney M. P. Ward M. P. Braucht G. N. (1975). A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 30, 787– 790 10.1037/h0084394 · DOI
  21. Mayer F. S. Frantz C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 503– 515 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 · DOI · Paper page
  22. McKechnie G. E. (1977). The environmental response inventory in application. Environ. Behav. 9, 255– 276 10.1177/001391657792006 · DOI
  23. Mitchell R. Popham F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655– 1660 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X 18994663 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Nisbet E. K. Zelenski J. M. Murphy S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J. Happiness Stud. 12, 303– 322 10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7 · DOI
  25. Nisbet E. K. L. (2011). A Nature Relatedness Intervention to Promote Happiness and Environmental Concern. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
  26. Nisbet E. K. L. Zelenski J. M. Murphy S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715– 740 10.1177/0013916508318748 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ryan R. M. Frederick C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529– 565 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x 9327588 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ryan R. M. Weinstein N. Bernstein J. Brown K. W. Mistretta L. Gagné M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 159– 168 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009 · DOI
  29. Schultz P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Issues 56, 391– 406 10.1111/0022-4537.00174 · DOI
  30. Schultz P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 327– 339 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227 · DOI
  31. Schultz P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations, in Psychology of Sustainable Development, eds Schmuck P. Schultz W. P. (Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic), 62– 78 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Selhub E. M. Logan A. C. (2012). Your Brain on Nature. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.
  33. Tam K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and differences. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 64– 78 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004 · DOI
  34. Thomashow M. (1998). The ecopsychology of global environmental change. Humanist. Psychol. 26, 275– 300 10.1080/08873267.1998.997697621616553 · DOI
  35. Ulrich R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, eds Kellert S. Wilson E. O. (Washington, DC: Island Press), 73– 137
  36. Weinstein N. Przybylski A. K. Ryan R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35, 1315– 1329 10.1177/0146167209341649 19657048 · DOI
  37. Wilson E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  38. Zelenski J. M. Nisbet E. K. (in press). Happiness and feeling connected: the distinct role of nature relatedness. Environ. Behav. 1– 21 10.1177/003916512451901 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Trent University (CA)
  • Carleton University (CA)
Corresponding author
Zelenski, John M.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
813-813
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813
PMC
PMC3814587
OpenAlex
W2085039988
Cited by
731
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6
FWCI
28.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
Keywords
nature relatedness, short-form scale development, nature connection, happiness, environmental concern, nature contact, environmental behavior, psychometric validation, temporal stability, internal consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review