The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis examined the relationship between nature connectedness (a stable, trait-like personality characteristic — how much someone feels cognitively, emotionally, and experientially connected to the natural world) and happiness (measured as positive affect, life satisfaction, and vitality).

This is distinct from studies about nature exposure (e.g., walking in a park). The focus here is on an individual's dispositional orientation toward nature — a personality trait that varies between people and is relatively stable over time.

Comparators were implicit: people low in nature connectedness vs. people high in it. The question was not whether going outside helps (that's a separate literature), but whether feeling connected to nature as part of who you are predicts how happy you are.

---

• 30 non-overlapping samples drawn from 21 studies
• Total N = 8,523 participants
• Sample sizes ranged from 22 to 2,224 (median = 215)
• Average age across samples ranged from 19.5 to 63.4 years (mean = ~32 years)
• 65% female on average across samples
• Predominantly from Canada (47%) and the USA (20%); some European and Asian samples
• Mix of university/college students (33%) and community members (40%)
• Studies published between 2004 and 2014; 60% published, 40% unpublished

---

Nature connectedness scales used (multiple measures pooled):

• Nature Relatedness Scale (Nisbet et al., 2009) — multidimensional; covers affective, cognitive, and physical relationship with nature
• Connectedness to Nature Scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004) — focuses on emotional connection
• Inclusion of Nature in Self (Schultz, 2001) — a single pictorial item showing overlapping circles representing "self" and "nature"
• Also: Environmental Identity Scale, Emotional Affinity Toward Nature, Commitment to Nature, and others

Happiness measures used:

• Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) — for positive affect
• Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) — 5-item cognitive life evaluation
• Subjective Vitality Scale — feeling alive, energetic, and alert
• Subjective Happiness Scale, Steen Happiness Index, and several others

Effect sizes were correlation coefficients (r) between nature connectedness and happiness scores.

---

Design: Fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis of 30 correlational samples.

How they found studies: Searched PsycINFO and Dissertations & Theses databases using all known names for nature connectedness measures; followed citation trails; contacted authors directly for unpublished data; solicited findings via two psychology listservs. This broad net, including unpublished work, helps reduce publication bias.

Effect size coding: Two independent raters coded all studies using a standardised manual. Interrater reliability was excellent: intraclass correlation = 0.99 for effect sizes. Where a sample had multiple nature connectedness or happiness measures, a weighted average effect size was computed so that each sample contributed only one overall correlation.

Statistical approach:

• Effect sizes (r) were converted to Fisher's Z for analysis (this stabilises variance), then back-converted to r for reporting
• Both fixed-effect (assumes one true underlying effect) and random-effects (assumes a distribution of true effects) models were run; both gave similar results
• Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q and I²
• Moderators (publication status, year, age, gender, type of happiness, type of nature connectedness measure) were tested with between-level Q statistics and meta-regression

What this design can prove: A reliable association between nature connectedness and happiness exists across many samples, measurement tools, and populations. The effect is not an artefact of publication bias or a single outlier study.

What this design cannot prove: Causation. All included studies were correlational (cross-sectional surveys). It is impossible to know from this meta-analysis alone whether:

• High nature connectedness causes greater happiness
• Happy people are more drawn to nature
• A third variable (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness, time spent outdoors) drives both

Key methodological weaknesses:

• Almost all underlying studies are cross-sectional surveys — no controlled experiments on nature connectedness as a trait
• Heavy geographic skew: ~67% of samples from Canada and USA; generalisability to other cultures is uncertain
• One sample (Nisbet 2013a, n = 2,224) contributed >25% of all participants; its weight was artificially capped to prevent it from dominating results
• Moderate heterogeneity across samples (I² = 54.9%) means the effect size varies meaningfully between studies, and the average may not reflect any specific population well
• The "Inclusion of Nature in Self" sub-analysis had only 6 samples with high between-study variability (I² = 76.8%), making that specific finding less reliable

---

Overall effect:

• Fixed-effect: r = 0.19, 95% CI [0.16, 0.21], k = 30, n = 8,523
• Random-effects: r = 0.18, 95% CI [0.15, 0.22]
• Both confidence intervals exclude zero → statistically significant (p < 0.05)
• Heterogeneity: Q = 64.29, p < 0.001; I² = 54.9% (moderate)

By type of happiness (fixed-effect results):

• Vitality: r = 0.24, 95% CI [0.21, 0.27], k = 13, n = 4,824
• Positive affect: r = 0.22, 95% CI [0.19, 0.25], k = 19, n = 5,926
• Life satisfaction: r = 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.20], k = 16, n = 3,575

By type of nature connectedness measure (fixed-effect results):

• Inclusion of Nature in Self: r = 0.27, 95% CI [0.23, 0.32], k = 6, n = 1,671
• Connectedness to Nature Scale: r = 0.18, 95% CI [0.14, 0.22], k = 13, n = 2,615
• Nature Relatedness Scale: r = 0.18, 95% CI [0.16, 0.21], k = 17, n = 6,255

Moderators that did NOT matter:

• Publication status (published vs. unpublished: between-Q = 0.01, p = 0.92) — no publication bias detected
• Year of study (slope = −0.005, p = 0.25) — no decline effect
• Average age of sample (slope = 0.00064, p = 0.63)
• Percentage female in sample (slope = 0.0004, p = 0.73)

---

An r of 0.19 is classified as "small" by conventional standards (Cohen's benchmark: small = 0.10, medium = 0.30, large = 0.50). To put this in concrete terms:

• It is roughly the same size as the correlation between happiness and personal income within countries, religiosity, marital status, or volunteering — all things most people consider genuinely meaningful contributors to life satisfaction
• It is similar in magnitude to the average effect size found across social psychology (r ≈ 0.21)
• The vitality correlation (r = 0.24) is meaningfully larger than the life satisfaction correlation (r = 0.17) — suggesting that feeling energised and alive is where the nature connection signal is strongest

In practical terms: if you sorted 100 people by nature connectedness from lowest to highest, the person at the 84th percentile of nature connectedness would score roughly 0.19 standard deviations higher on happiness than the person at the 50th percentile. Real, but not dramatic.

---

• Causation is unknown. All underlying studies are correl