Hintergrund: In den letzten Jahren ist insbesondere die Natur als Ressource in das Interesse der gesundheitspsychologischen Forschung gerückt. In Ergänzung zum etablierten Konzept der Naturzuwendung als Haltung wurde ein For­schungsinstrument zum Naturerleben entwickelt, welches das subjektive, teilweise intentionale Erleben von Natur unter unterschiedlichen Aspekten beleuchtet. Dazu gehören insbesondere Natur als Erlebensraum, um sich von der Alltagsbelastung distanzieren zu können, um Auszeiten durch Ruhe und Stille finden zu können, um emotionale Ausgeglichenheit zu erlangen, Natur als Ort der Faszination und des Staunens, Naturerleben als Basis für einen verantwortlichen Umgang mit der Natur. Das Manuskript zeigt die Ergebnisse der Validierung des neu entwickelten Fragebogeninstrumentes zum Naturerleben. Methoden: Eine anonyme Online-Querschnittsstudie unter 441 Teilnehmenden wurde mit standardisierten Fragebogeninstrumenten zur Validie­rung der Experience of Nature Scale (ENS) mittels explorativer Faktoren- (Hauptkomponentenanalyse mit Varimax-Rotation) und Reliabilitätsanalysen (Cronbachs α) durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Die explorative Faktorenanalyse der Naturerlebens-Skala mit 11 Items ergab drei Hauptfaktoren mit guter interner Kongruenz, die 71% der Varianz erklären: (1) Alltagsdistanzierung/Entspannung (Cronbachs α = 0,87), (2) Faszination Natur/Staunen (Cronbachs α = 0,82) und (3) Verantwortungsempfinden für Natur (Cronbachs α = 0,85). Diese Faktoren korrelierten stark mit der Naturverbundenheit (NR-6) und moderat bis stark mit Ehrfurcht/Dankbarkeit (GrAw-7) im Sinne der Konvergenzvalidität, aber nur marginal bis schwach mit psychologischem Wohlbefinden (WHO-5). Schlussfolgerungen: Die ENS zur Erfassung des affektiven Erlebens von Natur hat gute psychometrische Qua­litätsindizes und kann in künftigen Studien zur Bedeutung dieses Erlebens von Natur zum Beispiel als Prädiktor- oder Prozessvariable eingesetzt werden.

Journal Section:
Research Article / Originalarbeit
Keywords:
Naturerleben, Naturverbundenheit, Gesundheit, Fragebogen, Validierung
1.
Bratman GN, Anderson CB, Berman MG, Cochran B, de Vries S, Flanders J, et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem service perspective. Sci Adv. 2019;5(7):eaax0903. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903.
2.
Ingleharn R. Modernisierung und Postmo­dernisierung. Kultureller, wirtschaftlicher und politischer Wandel in 43 Gesellschaften. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag; 1998.
3.
Benedikter R (ed.). Postmaterialismus. Band 4: Die Natur. Wien: Passagen Verlag; 2004.
4.
Nawrotzki RJ, Pampel FC. Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: a cross-national analysis. Popul Environ. 2013;35(1):1–25. doi: 10.1007/s11111-012-0182-4.
5.
Capaldi CA, Dopko RL, Zelenski JM. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2014;575:101639. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
6.
Martin L, White MP, Hunt A, Richardson M, Pahl S, Burt J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol. 2020;68:101389. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389.
7.
Rüdig W. Western European studies: environment. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, editors. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Pergamon; 2001. p. 16463–7. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03255-1.
8.
Roszak T. The voice of the earth: an exploration of ecopsychology. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press; 1992.
9.
Si W, Jiang C, Meng L. The Relationship between environmental awareness, habitat quality, and community residents’ pro-environmental behavior – mediated effects model analysis based on social capital. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;9(20):13253. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013253.
10.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environ Behav. 2009;41:715–40. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748.
11.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:303–22. doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.
12.
Schultz PW. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol. 2001;21:327–39. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227.
13.
Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Buttolph Johnson J. Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ Behav. 2007;39:474–93. doi: 10.1177/0013916506298794.
14.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM. Nature relatedness and subjective well-being. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3909.
15.
Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett. 2007;3:390–94. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.
16.
Van Den Berg AE, Custers MH. Gardening promotes neuroendocrine and affective restoration from stress. J Health Psychol. 2011;16:3–11. doi: 10.1177/1359105310365577.
17.
Roe JJ, Thompson CW, Aspinall PA, Brewer MJ, Duff EI, Miller D, et al. Green space and stress: evidence from cortisol measures in deprived urban communities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:4086–103. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10094086.
18.
Antonelli M, Barbieri G, Donelli D. Effects of forest bathing (shinrin-yoku) on levels of cortisol as a stress biomarker: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Biometeorol. 2019;63:1117–34. doi: 10.1007/s00484-019-01717-x.
19.
Berman MG, Jonides J, Kaplan S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol Sci. 2008;19:1207–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x.
20.
MacKerron G, Mourato S. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environ Chang. 2013;23:992–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010.
21.
Joye Y, Bolderdijk JW. An exploratory study into the effects of extraordinary nature on emotions, mood, and prosociality. Front Psychol. 2015;5:1577. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01577.
22.
Hansen MM, Jones R, Tocchini K. Shinrin-Yoku (forest bathing) and nature therapy: a state-of-the-art review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(8):851. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080851.
23.
de Keijzer C, Bauwelinck M, Dadvand P. Long-term exposure to residential greenspace and healthy aging: a systematic review. Curr Envir Health Rpt. 2020;7:65–88. doi: 10.1007/s40572-020-00264-7.
24.
Berman MG, Kross E, Krpan KM, Askren MK, Burson A, Deldin PJ, et al. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. J Affect Disord. 2012;140:300–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012.
25.
Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Hahn KS, Daily GC, Gross JJ. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:8567–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510459112.
26.
Pfeifer E, Fiedler H, Wittmann M. Increased relaxation and present orientation after a period of silence in a natural surrounding. Nordic J Music Ther. 2020;29:75–92. doi: 10.1080/08098131.2019.1642374.
27.
Büssing A, Recchia DR, Baumann K. Experience of nature and times of silence as a resource to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic is mediating the effects of awe and gratitude on psychological wellbeing – findings from a continuous cross-sectional survey in Germany. Frontiers Public Health. 2022;10:1020053. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1020053.
28.
Hurly J, Walker GJ. Nature in our lives: examining the human need for nature relatedness as a basic psychological need. J Leisure Res. 2019;50:290–310. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2019.1578939.
29.
Büssing A. Spiritual needs in research and practice. The Spiritual Needs Questionnaire as a global resource for health and social care. Cham: Pelgrave McMillan; 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-70139-0.
30.
Timko Olson ER, Olson AA, Driscoll M, Vermeesch AL. Nature-based interventions and exposure among cancer survivors: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2376. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20032376.
31.
Pouso S, Borja Á, Fleming LE, Gómez-Baggethun E, White MP, Uyarra MC. Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health. Sci Total Environ. 2021;756:143984. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143984.
32.
Büssing A, Recchia DR, Hein R, Dienberg T. Perceived changes of specific attitudes, perceptions and behaviors during the Corona pandemic and their relation to wellbeing. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:374. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01623-6.
33.
Labib SM, Browning MHEM, Rigolon A, Helbich M, James P. Nature’s contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: a narrative review of evidence during COVID-19. Sci Total Env. 2022;833:55095. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155095.
34.
Jerzynski L, Rotter G, Binting S, Teut M, Tissen-Diabaté T, Jeitler M, et al. Health-related self-care strategies and coping resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: an online-based cross-sectional study. J Integr Complement Med. 2022;28(10):799–810. doi: 10.1089/jicm.2022.0475.
35.
Büssing A. Wondering Awe as a perceptive aspect of spirituality and its relation to indicators of wellbeing: frequency of perception and underlying triggers. Front Psychol. 2021;12:738770. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.738770.
36.
Dean JH, Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Lin BB, Barber E, et al. Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1371. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071371.
37.
Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM. The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front Psychol. 2013;4:813. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813.
38.
Mayer FS, Frantz CM. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24:503–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
39.
Perrin JL, Benassi VA. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: a measure of emotional connection to nature? J Environ Psychol. 2009;29(4):434–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.003.
40.
Büssing A, Janko A, Baumann K, Hvidt NC, Kopf A. Spiritual needs among patients with chronic pain diseases and cancer living in a secular society. Pain Med. 2013;14:1362–73. doi: 10.1111/pme.12198.
41.
Büssing A, Warode M, Gerundt M, Dienberg T. Validation of a novel instrument to measure elements of Franciscan-inspired Spirituality in a general population and in religious persons. Religions. 2017;8:197. doi: 10.3390/rel8090197.
42.
Büssing A, Recchia DR, Baumann K. Validation of the Gratitude/Awe Questionnaire and its association with disposition of gratefulness. Religions. 2018;9:117. doi: 10.3390/rel9040117.
43.
Dornhoff M, Sothmann JN, Fiebelkorn F, Menzel S. Nature relatedness and environmental concern of young people in Ecuador and Germany. Front Psychol. 2019;10:453. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00453.
44.
Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 mental health subscale and the WHO-Five well-being scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2013;12:85–91. doi: 10.1002/mpr.145.
45.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.
46.
Lavaan RY. An R package for structural equation modeling. J Statist Software. 2012;48(2):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
47.
Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y. semTools: useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5–6. 2022. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools.
48.
Epskamp S. semPlot: path diagrams and visual analysis of various SEM packages’ output. R package version 1.1.6. 2022. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot.
49.
Büssing A. Ehrfurcht/Dankbarkeit als säkulare Form der Spiritualität bei jungen Erwachsenen und Ordens-Christen. Spiritual Care. 2020;9:3–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/spircare-2019-0057.
50.
Zhang JW, Howell RT, Iyer R. Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. J Environ Psychol. 2014;38:55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.013.
© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2024
You do not currently have access to this content.