The Relationship between Connectedness to Nature and WellBeing: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Ecotherapy and nature-based interventions have been shown to be evidence-based treatment for physical and mental health. The rekindling of relationships between humans and nature helps cultivate a bi-directional, reciprocal circle of healing. The resulting benefit is the increased well-being of individuals, society, and the Earth. This study is a metaanalytic review of 13 articles (22 studies) examining the relationship between connection to nature and various domains of well-being, including emotional, psychological, social, and overall well-being. The eligibility criteria for this study were the inclusion of at least one measure of connectedness to nature, one measure of well-being or life satisfaction, and a quantitative measure of their relationship. This meta-analysis combined quantitative results from multiple studies to summarize the empirical knowledge on the relationship between connection to nature and well-being/life satisfaction. A random-effects model was used to find one common effect size, showing the overall magnitude of the relationship among these variables. The results yielded moderate to large effect sizes, revealing a positive relationship between connectedness to nature and the various domains of well-being. The findings have valuable implications, highlighting the imperative necessity to reconnect and heal our relationship with the earth in order to embrace embodiment, to advocate for social justice for a more inclusive and equitable world, and to cultivate holistic health and healing.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Psychological and Adventure-based Multicomponent Therapeutic Program for Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: A Pilot Study

“…Indeed, cortisol level is higher among IPV victims (Pico-Alfonso et al, 2004). This is a biological marker associated with severe psychological problems in women exposed to IPV (Cerda-Molina et al, 2022) that can improve their connection to nature (Wu & Jones, 2022). Regarding the procedure, there was not a process evaluation, which hinder us to know what components of the intervention most contributed to the success of the program or how the contextual factors affect the intervention (Steckler & Linnan, 2002).…”