Nature-based interventions, often abbreviated as NBIs, have proliferated in recent years as policymakers and communities grapple with the twin crises of mental ill-health and environmental degradation. These programmes range from structured green prescriptions issued by health services to participatory science initiatives and community gardening schemes. Despite their wildly different formats, most share two common ambitions: promoting psychological wellbeing and strengthening what researchers call nature connectedness, the subjective sense of closeness to the natural world. Yet the sector has been repeatedly criticised for lacking a consistent evidence base, because countless projects evaluate themselves with different methods shaped by individual funder requirements, producing scattered datasets that cannot be compared, combined, or analysed with any statistical power.

The new study, led by Michael L. Lengieza of Durham University together with Elizabeth Richardson of Natural England and Miles Richardson of the University of Derby, tackles this fragmentation head-on. The team presents a centralised evaluation tool, developed by Natural England, that allows individual projects to administer a standardised survey, enter key features of their programme, and feed participant data into a shared dashboard. Larger organisations gain the ability to combine data across many initiatives, while smaller organisations, which often lack the expertise to design their own evaluations, receive a ready-made solution that removes the burden of survey design, ethics applications, and basic analysis.

As a proof of concept, the researchers pooled data from 75 members of the public who participated in one of eight real-world nature projects and completed both baseline and follow-up surveys. Nature connectedness was measured using an adapted version of the inclusion of nature in self scale alongside the statement-based item measuring how much people feel part of nature, while wellbeing was captured with the Office for National Statistics personal wellbeing questions. Project coordinators also completed a survey describing their programme’s features, including whether they used a recognised delivery framework such as the pathways to nature connectedness.

The results were striking. Using multi-level statistical models with random intercepts for both participants and projects, the team found that nature connectedness increased significantly between the start and end of the programmes across all eight initiatives. But the more revealing discovery emerged when the researchers tested whether the size of that increase depended on programme characteristics. Projects that explicitly employed the pathways to nature connectedness framework, which identifies five routes to connection through sensory contact, emotion, beauty, meaning, and compassion, showed a robust and statistically significant rise in participants’ nature connectedness. Projects that did not use the framework showed only a small, non-significant change, suggesting they might not have been effective at all.

Crucially, the analysis showed that pathways-based and non-pathways-based projects attracted participants with similar baseline levels of nature connectedness, meaning the difference in outcomes could not be explained by one type of programme simply recruiting more devoted nature lovers. The type of engagement, not the type of audience, appeared to make the difference. This pattern aligns closely with the existing academic literature, which has repeatedly shown that actively noticing nature, attending to its beauty, and engaging the senses produce stronger gains than mere time spent outdoors. Analysing any single one of the eight projects in isolation would have been statistically impossible; only the pooled data made the comparison feasible.

The authors are careful to stress what the data cannot show. Because the study lacked experimental control, causality cannot be established. People who seek out nature-connection programmes might be making other lifestyle changes that drive the effect, and programmes using the pathways framework might simply be more enthusiastic or rigorous in ways that matter more than the framework itself. Nevertheless, the researchers note that pre-post time-series designs have a long and respected history in public health evaluation, and that the absence of a change would have more definitively ruled out a causal link. The observed increase, combined with the moderation by framework type, signals exactly where the sector should direct its next wave of controlled experiments and its resources.

The study also offers practical guidance for scaling the approach. Data must include at least one baseline and one follow-up measurement, ideally collected at similar intervals relative to each project’s start and end. Because crowdsourced data will inevitably be noisier than laboratory data, larger samples are essential, and null effects should be interpreted with caution since they may reflect insufficient statistical power rather than a true absence of effect. The tool’s live dashboard, built on Power BI, already gives project managers simple benchmarked summaries of their own performance against the sector, while allowing policymakers and funders to view aggregated results and export datasets for formal analysis.

Looking ahead, the authors envision a modular future for the tool, with optional modules capturing additional outcomes such as physical activity and loneliness, demographic variables, and psychological factors like mindfulness and emotion. They also argue that national and regional bodies, including environmental funders, should move beyond publishing evaluation frameworks and instead provide practical tools that support reporting and data combination. By reducing the evaluation burden on small organisations, the approach frees resources for delivery while building the scalable, policy-relevant evidence base that nature-based interventions need to influence decision-makers at national and international levels, from the Dasgupta Review to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework.

For a sector long dismissed as fragmented and under-evidenced, the message of this proof of concept is quietly transformative: the collective data of many small initiatives, pooled intelligently, can illuminate what works, guide investment, and ultimately amplify the social and ecological benefits of humanity’s reconnection with nature.

Subject of Research: Crowdsourced evaluation of nature-based interventions using pooled nature connectedness and wellbeing data

Article Title: Amplifying social benefits from multiple nature-based initiatives by crowdsourcing nature connectedness and wellbeing data: A proof of concept

Article References: Lengieza, M. L., Richardson, E., & Richardson, M. (2026). Amplifying social benefits from multiple nature-based initiatives by crowdsourcing nature connectedness and wellbeing data: A proof of concept. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02472-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s13280-026-02472-1

Keywords: nature connectedness, nature-based interventions, crowdsourcing, programme evaluation, wellbeing, pathways to nature connectedness, Natural England, green prescriptions, environmental psychology, evidence-based practice, biodiversity policy, public health

The urgency behind the paper stems from the escalating ecological crisis and the growing recognition that the way humanity values nature shapes how it is protected or destroyed. People value nature in profoundly different ways: instrumentally, for the material benefits it provides; intrinsically, for its existence independent of any human observer; and relationally, through the meanings, identities and social bonds that arise from human–nature interactions. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, emphasized in its 2022 Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature that most current valuation processes capture only a narrow slice of these values, typically monetary and quantitative ones, which can produce environmental injustices and conflicts while ignoring worldviews of indigenous peoples and local communities.

To translate plural valuation into practice, researchers have identified four values-centered leverage points for transformative change: recognizing the diverse values of nature in valuation methods; embedding those values into decision-making; reforming policies, rights and regulations to internalize nature’s values; and shifting the deeper societal norms, beliefs and goals that underpin how people relate to nature and to each other. Drawing on leverage point theory popularized by Donella Meadows, the authors note that these intervention points cascade in depth—shallower points are easier to act on but yield less change, while deeper points are harder to activate but hold far greater transformative potential when engaged.

The new perspective, the product of two expert workshops hosted by the Open Universiteit in 2022 and 2023, systematically maps how citizen science can strengthen interventions at each of these leverage points. At the first point, recognizing diverse values, citizen science initiatives such as Drinkable Rivers, Curieuze Neuzen in Belgium, and the Dutch Network Ecological Monitoring demonstrate that the questions citizens ask and the species or landscapes they monitor often reflect deeply held values and concerns. Because participants are drawn from varied localities, socio-economic backgrounds and identities, their involvement can widen the spectrum of values that enter formal valuation, though the authors caution that environmental citizen science remains biased toward quantitative data collection, overrepresenting instrumental and intrinsic values while leaving relational values largely implicit.

Measuring relational values—attachments to places, species and nature in general—requires methodological innovation. The researchers point to emerging approaches such as citizens’ written letters to trees, micronarratives and behavioral data on species preferences, which can be combined with ecological measurements to illuminate socio-ecological interactions. They also flag a fundamental trade-off: methods capable of capturing rich detail about people’s values tend to be more complex and time-consuming, reducing the volume of data collected, while high-volume approaches may flatten the very diversity of values that plural valuation seeks to reveal.

At the second leverage point, embedding valuation into inclusive decision-making, the evidence is striking. Citizen-collected air quality data from the Louisiana Bucket Brigade in the United States and the Samen Meten program run by the Dutch national public health institute have shaped governmental policy agendas. In Europe, citizen observatories deliberately link citizens, scientists and decision-makers in shared monitoring of local environments. The authors document cases where citizen science has even entered the courtroom: plastic pollution data gathered by volunteers contributed to a petrochemical company being found liable, and species observations by Swedish citizens have been used in environmental court cases. Participation also reshapes personal decisions, with studies showing that citizen scientists adopt more biodiversity-friendly gardening practices and strengthen their personal connection to nature—effects that ripple outward through the communities and social networks these initiatives create.

Yet the path is not without obstacles. Doubts about the quality of citizen-generated data among scientists and policymakers, persistent power dynamics in decision-making circles, and a lack of agency, skills or resources among decision-makers all constrain uptake. Studies further reveal a persistent demographic skew: citizen science participants tend to be white, highly educated, older and more affluent, which narrows the knowledge produced and limits environmental justice. At the third, deeper leverage point of institutional reform, the authors highlight structural embedding efforts such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s agreement to involve citizens in knowledge co-creation and the more4nature initiative, which seeks to institutionalize collaboration between citizen science projects and authorities responsible for policy implementation and monitoring. But they also warn that institutionalization carries risks: when data flow into analytical pipelines, ties with the volunteers who collected them can weaken, and the sense of pride and emotional enrichment that motivates citizen scientists can erode if their knowledge becomes an untraceable instrument.

The deepest leverage point—shifting societal norms and paradigms—is where citizen science may hold its most profound potential. Empirical studies show that participation strengthens place attachment, nature connectedness and nature-noticing over both short and long timescales. Communities formed around monitoring projects build shared values and collective action, and so-called citizen science ambassadors inspire pro-environmental attitudes in their social circles. The authors caution, however, that it is methodologically difficult to distinguish values genuinely transformed by participation from values participants already held, and some longitudinal studies find no attitude change because participants began with strongly positive orientations toward nature. Measuring such shifts demands new approaches that explicitly track emotional connectedness and underlying norms.

From this analysis the team distills three overarching recommendations. First, recognize and measure: relational values must be made explicit in citizen science design, supported by new quantitative and qualitative methods, since they are both key motivations for participation and outcomes strengthened by it. Second, embrace diversity: plural valuation calls for plural publics, meaning the full variety of citizen science formats—from top-down governmental programs to grassroots community-led efforts—should be cultivated, with flexible roles that allow citizens, scientists and policymakers to grow into varied responsibilities. Third, pursue structural integration: case-by-case policy engagement is growing, but lasting change requires structural funding, long-term collaborations, storytelling that showcases how citizen science has informed decisions, and open science principles that ease institutionalization into policy processes.

The authors conclude that uniting citizen science and plural valuation is not merely an academic win–win but a necessary foundation for inclusive, effective environmental action and conservation. As governments worldwide struggle to meet biodiversity targets amid widening distrust in institutions, the perspective suggests a practical and democratizing pathway: the millions of volunteers already counting birds, measuring rivers and sensing air pollution are not just collecting data—they are articulating, practicing and fostering a richer, more plural vision of what nature is worth, and in doing so, they may be pulling the deepest levers of transformative change.

Subject of Research: Integrating citizen science with plural valuation of nature to leverage transformative change

Article Title: Uniting citizen science and plural valuation: Potential for leveraging transformative change

Article References: Verploegen, H., Dyke, A. J., Ganzevoort, W., Hugé, J., Jacobs, S., Neuteleers, S., Prats López, M., Verschuuren, B., & Wehn, U. (2026). Uniting citizen science and plural valuation: Potential for leveraging transformative change. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02458-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s13280-026-02458-z

Keywords: citizen science, plural valuation, transformative change, relational values, environmental policy, IPBES, leverage points, biodiversity, nature connectedness, environmental justice, Uniting, citizen

Urban dwellers often find themselves in environments that limit direct exposure to green spaces, despite the well-documented psychological and physical health benefits linked to nature. As cityscapes expand and socioeconomic inequalities deepen, access to natural surroundings becomes unevenly distributed. This disparity has long suggested lingering issues of environmental justice, where disadvantaged populations face hurdles not only in economic terms but also in their ability to engage with beneficial natural settings. The Kobe University team’s research objectively measures proximity and availability of natural spaces alongside subjective assessments of nature relatedness, thereby providing a multi-dimensional understanding of the issue.

The multi-site study surveyed around 3,500 residents from the Tokyo-Yokohama and Osaka-Kobe metropolitan regions. Using a combination of geographic information system (GIS) data and psychometric assessments, the team examined both the physical availability of parks, forests, and other natural areas, and the participants’ personal feelings of connection and relatedness to these natural environments. Through meticulous categorization by district socioeconomic status and the degree of urban development, the research delineated how these factors intersect to influence overall well-being.

Results from this investigation demonstrate that people who report a stronger relatedness to nature tend to experience better overall well-being. This association is most pronounced in densely populated urban districts with poorer socioeconomic conditions. The analysis suggests that in these areas, where residents often face heightened stress and limited access to health resources, nature serves as a critical buffer that mitigates psychological strain and fosters resilience. Conversely, in affluent districts, where alternative health and wellness resources abound, the incremental benefits derived from nature exposure appear less significant.

One particularly compelling aspect of the study relates to the role played by childhood experiences with nature. Researchers found that early-life contact with natural environments serves as a significant predictor of adult well-being, reinforcing the importance of formative interactions with nature. This insight holds profound implications for public health policy: ensuring equitable access to natural spaces for children, especially those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, could be instrumental in fostering long-term community health.

The policy ramifications stemming from this research are substantial. According to UCHIYAMA Yuta, the lead scientist on the project, enhancing existing green spaces and orchestrating community-based nature events could effectuate measurable improvements in well-being within economically challenged urban locales. The findings point to the merit of targeted urban planning strategies that prioritize the conservation and expansion of natural environments in underprivileged districts, bridging the gap between inequity and holistic health.

From a methodological perspective, the study’s integration of objective GIS measures with subjective survey data offers a robust framework for future investigations. By incorporating spatial analysis with psychological assessments of nature relatedness, the research provides a nuanced view of how environmental and perceptual factors coalesce to shape health outcomes. The inclusion of a third dimension—degree of urbanization—further refines the analysis, permitting differentiation between densely urbanized areas and less developed neighborhoods.

The importance of this dual approach cannot be overstated, especially given the burgeoning urbanization trends observed globally. As more populations migrate to cities, understanding the mechanisms by which natural exposure—or lack thereof—impacts well-being assumes ever-greater relevance. Moreover, the study’s findings align with broader global research suggesting that access to green spaces is a key social determinant of health, particularly for vulnerable populations facing economic hardship.

Looking ahead, the researchers outline plans to deepen their analysis by exploring how variables such as geographic mobility and shifts in socioeconomic status over time interact with individuals’ relationship to nature and their well-being. Unpacking these dynamic, time-varying factors could illuminate causal pathways and inform more responsive urban policy frameworks that evolve alongside changing demographic patterns.

Furthermore, this research is part of a growing international collaborative venture examining how knowledge and perceptions about nature influence resilience, well-being, and preparedness among urban residents and policymakers across Monsoon Asia. Cities like Bangkok and Manila, with socioeconomic and environmental contexts analogous to those in Japanese megacities, stand to benefit from the transferable insights derived from this study. Such multinational efforts underscore the shared challenges and opportunities in utilizing nature as a lever for urban health equity.

In conclusion, the Kobe University study elucidates that fostering a strong, accessible relationship between people and nature is not merely a matter of aesthetic or recreational value but is fundamentally connected to social justice and public health. Especially in economically disadvantaged urban zones, nature acts as a vital resource for mitigating stress and promoting well-being. Policymakers and urban planners must therefore prioritize equitable access to green spaces and childhood nature experiences as cornerstone strategies in the quest to reduce health disparities and enhance the quality of life in rapidly urbanizing regions.

—

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Association between objective and subjective relatedness to nature and human well-being: key factors for residents and possible measures for inequality in Japan’s megacities

News Publication Date: 3-May-2025

Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105377

Image Credits: UCHIYAMA Yuta

Keywords: Nature relatedness, well-being, socioeconomic status, urban green spaces, health disparities, environmental justice, childhood nature exposure, urban planning, Japan, megacities, public health, social inequality