Next Article in Journal
Effect of Detraining on Muscle Strength, Functional Capacity, Mental Health, and Body Composition in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury
Previous Article in Journal
Procrastination and Health in Nurses: Investigating the Roles of Stress, Health Behaviours and Social Support
Previous Article in Special Issue
Attitudes of Young Tri-City Residents toward Game Meat. Development and Validation of a Scale for Identifying Attitudes toward Wild Meat
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 21
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph21070899
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Connections among Interacting with Nature, Nature Relatedness and Dietary Choices: A Pilot Mixed Methods Study

by
Dahlia Stott
1,
Chetan Sharma
1,2,
Jonathan M Deutsch
1 and
Brandy-Joe Milliron
1,*
1
Department of Health Sciences, College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2
Department of Food and Animal Sciences, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(7), 899; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070899
Submission received: 1 May 2024 / Revised: 19 June 2024 / Accepted: 5 July 2024 / Published: 10 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Choices, Consumption, Nutrition Behaviors, and Human Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Interacting with nature and a connection to nature (Nature Relatedness [NR]) have been associated with better mental and physical health as well as higher levels of physical activity. However, limited research has explored how interacting with nature and NR may promote healthful dietary behaviors. The purpose of this pilot convergent mixed methods study was to explore the connections between interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices. For descriptive purposes, we measured participants’ (n = 25) interactions with nature, NR (total, experience, perspective, and self) scores, physical activity, and Healthy Eating Index-2020 scores. In-depth interviews (n = 13) explored the factors that influence interacting with nature and food choices. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately, and later integrated to yield a more complete understanding of the research inquiry than either form of data would have provided alone. The results from this pilot mixed methods study indicate that there are connections between the variables of interest and that NR may play a pivotal role in how interacting with nature may promote sustainable dietary behaviors. These findings could promote the potential for utilizing nature-based experiences to improve dietary intake.

1. Introduction

Emerging research suggests that interacting with nature is associated with better mental and physical wellbeing, cognitive health, and greater engagement with physical activity [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Three types of interactions with nature have been proposed by Keniger et al. (2013): intentional, incidental, and indirect [8]. Intentional interactions with nature have been defined as purposeful interactions with nature such as going to a park. Incidental interactions with nature can be defined as experiencing nature secondary to the main activity being performed and includes being in the presence of indoor plants or walking through a garden while on an errand. Indirect interactions with nature can be defined as experiencing nature without being in nature, such as looking at nature through a window. Each of these types of interactions with nature has been associated with positive mental and physical health statuses and engagement with healthy behaviors [5]. For example, Shanahan et al. (2016) suggest that if all individuals spent 30 min in nature (or intentionally interacting with nature), the cases of depression and high blood pressure would decrease by nearly 10% [4]. The authors of intervention studies have reported that after a nature-based interventions, mental and physical health improvements were observed [9,10,11,12]. The benefits of spending time in nature are not limited to spending time in an outdoor natural area. Incidentally interacting with nature by having houseplants in the home has been associated with mental wellbeing [13,14]. Having a view of nature at home, or indirectly interacting with nature, has been associated with greater life satisfaction and self-reported health and decreased depression and anxiety [2,15,16].
Connection to nature can be defined as an individual’s relationship with nature, including their feelings about, values of, and behaviors in nature [17]. While connection to nature was originally used to measure environmental stewardship, it has been adopted and utilized by health researchers [18]. Nature Relatedness (NR), a measurement of connection to nature, was first introduced by Nisbet and colleagues and consists of three subscales: he experience, perspective, and self [18]. NR Experience measures an individual’s physical familiarity with nature. NR Perspective is used to assess an individual’s personal external world view of nature. NR Self measures an individual’s personal connection to nature. Numerous researchers have reported that NR is also associated with positive mental health, physical health, and engagement with physical activity [19,20,21,22,23].
Despite the known health benefits of interacting with nature and connecting to nature, limited research has explored how interacting with and connecting to nature may influence dietary behaviors. Milliron et al. (2021) were the first to report greater fruit and vegetable consumption and dietary diversity among the individuals who report a higher NR score [24]. Understanding the connections among interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices is important because dietary choices influence personal health. Consuming a diet rich in fruits and vegetables and limited in ultra-processed foods is associated with a lower risk for the leading causes of death: cardiovascular disease, type two diabetes mellitus, and cancer [25,26,27,28]. The purpose of this study was to explore the interconnections among interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices using a mixed methods approach. The findings from this research may be used to inform the development of nature-based interventions to promote time spent in nature, NR, and a healthy diet.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Using a convergent mixed methods design, this pilot study collected descriptive quantitative data from a survey and dietary recalls and qualitative data from in-depth interviews (Figure 1). Both sets of data were collected and analyzed separately, and then results were integrated together to have a better understanding of the research question. This methodology was used to allow for the strengths of quantitative (objective measurements) and qualitative methods (details, personal experiences, etc.) to complement each other and provide more breadth and depth to the research inquiry [29]. Review and approval for this study and all procedures were obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Drexel University.

2.2. Participants

ResearchMatch®, a national health volunteer registry that connects potential research participants with researchers, was used to recruit the participants for this study. The participants were eligible for this study if they were fluent in English, at least 18 years of age, resided in the state of Pennsylvania, had at least a high school education, and had access to a computer. The exclusion criteria included medication use for weight loss, adherence to a restrictive diet, and pregnancy, as these factors may change the usual dietary intake. The individuals who were interested in this study completed a screening survey on REDCap®. Once the individuals had been determined to be eligible, they reviewed the consent form and provided consent online as a proxy for written informed consent. In the qualitative phase, all the participants were invited to be interviewed, and 13 responded and were interviewed. The participants received USD 30 for completing the survey and dietary assessments and received USD 20 for completing the in-depth interview.

2.3. Data Collection and Measures

The participants completed a survey via Qualtrics® (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA), which measured interactions with nature, NR, and physical activity. Three random 24 h dietary recalls were completed by the participants on non-consecutive days via the Automated Self-Administered 24 h Dietary Assessment Tool® to measure dietary quality [30]. A subset of participants also completed in-depth interviews. Data collection occurred between January and September 2022.
Interacting with nature was assessed using a survey based on the work of Shanahan et al. (2016) [4]. In our survey, the participants were asked to report what close views of nature they had and if there were any pictures of nature in the room that they spent the most time in at home and work. These questions measured indirect interactions with nature. The participants also indicated if they had any plants or flowers in the rooms they spent the most time in at home and work, indicating incidental interactions with nature. Additionally, the participants were asked to self-report the amount of time that they spent in nature during their daily lives over the previous week. This was used to measure the duration of intentionally interacting with nature.
The NR scale was used to measure the participants connection to nature [18]. The participants indicate their rate of agreement on 21 items using a 5-item Likert scale. The appropriate items are reverse-scored, and the average was taken to calculate the NR total and subscale (experience, perspective and self) scores. The NR total and component scores range from 0 to 5, and a greater score indicates a greater connection to nature. The NR scale has demonstrated acceptable internal validity [18].
The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)–short form was utilized to measure the participants’ level of physical activity. The participants indicated the amount of vigorous- and moderate-intensity physical activity and walking they took part in over the previous seven days. Following scoring published by the IPAQ group, the participants were categorized into low, moderate, and high physical activity groups [31]. This questionnaire has demonstrated acceptable internal validity [32].
Using the data collected by three, non-consecutive 24 h dietary recalls, dietary quality was assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2020 (HEI-2020) score, which measures an individual’s adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025 [33]. This index assesses adequate intake of several items: total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids. In addition, the index assesses the intake of food items that should be consumed in moderation: refined grains, sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats. Each component has a standard minimum score of zero and a maximum score of five or ten. The HEI-2020 total score ranges from 0 to 100, and a greater score indicates greater adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
In-depth interviews used a descriptive approach and a phenomenological orientation and were facilitated by a research team member who is experienced in qualitative research [DS] [34]. These interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview guide with probes and transitions as appropriate. The questions explored factors that related to participants’ food choices and interactions with nature. The interview guide was refined during data collection to ensure that rich data were collected. The interviews took place on HIPAA-compliant Zoom™ (Zoom Technologies, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), lasted about 30 min, were recorded, and converted to a clean verbatim transcript.

2.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 28.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp). Missing data were determined to be missing completely at random and were handled via list-wise deletion, which excluded five cases. The participants’ demographic characteristics, views of nature, and nature in the home, and IPAQ categories were tabulated as frequencies and percentages. Descriptive characteristics, including mean, median, and range, were calculated for dietary quality, NR (total, experience, perspective, and self), and the duration of intentional interactions with nature over the previous week. Within this article, the normally distributed data are presented as mean and standard deviation, and non-normally distributed data are presented as median and interquartile range. The duration of intentional interactions with nature was presented to participants as categorical options (e.g., 1–2 h). As such, the midpoint of each answer was calculated (e.g., 90 min), and minutes were divided by 60 to calculate hours [4].
NVIVO 14 (QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 14, 2023, Burlington, MA, USA) qualitative data analysis software was used to aid in qualitative data management and analysis. Qualitative data analysis consisted of thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Two researchers performed the main coding, and a third researcher resolved the discrepancies [D.S., C.S., and B.J.M.]. The coding process consisted of open coding two interview transcripts, and then creating and refining the codebook using an iterative approach. During the analysis of the final interview, no new codes were identified, ensuring that data saturation was reached. After categorizing the codes, themes were developed. The integration of the data involved merging the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the main research question using joint displays. This type of analysis allows for a more nuanced examination of the research findings compared to the understanding that either type of data could provide alone [35].

2.5. Enhancing Validity and Credibility

Several steps were taken to enhance validity and credibility in both phases of this research study. In the quantitative phase, internal validity and reliability was established by using validated instruments [36]. Generalizability was established by having inclusion and exclusion criteria and utilizing validated instruments [36]. In the qualitative phase, credibility was established by triangulating the data with quantitative data [37]. Multiple researchers analyzed the qualitative data, providing dependability [37]. Transferability was assured by providing thick description herein [37]. Confirmability was established by recording all the research activities and triangulating the qualitative and quantitative data [37].

3. Results

The following section describes the results of our pilot convergent mixed methods study. The quantitative results are presented first, followed by the qualitative findings, and lastly the integrated results, which directly address the study objectives. Twenty-five participants completed the survey and dietary assessment, and a sample of thirteen of those participants completed in-depth interviews. The average age of the participants was 38 years (SD = 10.87 years). Most participants were Non-Hispanic White (80%) and female (68%). In addition, 92% of the participants had a college or graduate degree. Forty-four percent of the participants had an annual household income of USD 65,000–77,999. Table 1 displays the participants’ demographics.

3.1. Quantitative Results

The median (IQR, range) amount of time intentionally interacting with nature over the previous week was 3 h (2.63, 15.75). The participants had a median (IQR, range) NR total score and NR Perspective score of 3.43 (1.07, 2.33) and 3.50 (2.08, 3.17), respectively. The average (SD) NR Experience score was 3.47 (0.73) and NR Self score was 3.86 (0.65). The participants had a mean (SD) HEI-2020 score of 54.48 (10.47), which is close to the average HEI-2020 score of 57 for adults living in the United States [38].
Nearly all the participants (92%) indirectly interacted with nature as they had a view of nature from the room they spent the most time in at home or had pictures of nature (40%). The participants incidentally interacted with nature by having house plants (60%) and flowers (52%) indoors. Sixty-eight percent of the participants were categorized as performing high levels of physical activity. The quantitative results are displayed in Table 2.

3.2. Qualitative Results

Three themes relating to spending time with nature, NR, and dietary choices were identified: (1) the influential role of Nature Relatedness, (2) finding harmony in oneself, and (3) connecting to others through nature. The first and second themes begin to explain the connections among interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices. While the third theme solely focuses on interacting with nature, we feel it is important to highlight the participants’ experiences and voices. The themes, categories, and exemplary quotes are displayed in Supplementary Table S1.

3.2.1. The Influential Role of Nature Relatedness

NR was a pervasive topic throughout the interviews. The participants expressed emotional connections to nature by using words and phrases such as “love”, “enjoy”, and “connects us to mother earth”. Engaging the senses of touch, hearing, sight, and smell were important parts of interacting with nature for our participants. Touching nature was important for P24’s description of interacting with nature: “If I am on a sidewalk, that clearly makes me feel differently. Cause there can be trees around me but if I’m walking on a sidewalk, it’s very different to me than going on a hike where you’re walking on a dirt path. … What surface I am on makes a difference”. P11 said “I love to go to the beach and read, listen to the water. Toes in the sand. It’s kinda my happy place”. Looking at nature through a window (indirect interaction with nature) was an important way to be immersed in nature for many of our participants. P23 spoke about how he changed where his desk was when he started working from home, “I was spending a lot of time like looking sideways out the window. I was like, ‘Wait, I could just change my desk’”. Viewing nature from inside was formative for P09’s feelings about nature: “When I was growing up, the house that we lived in, the kitchen faced the outside. And so I used to enjoy washing dishes … to see the different types of birds”. Smell seemed to be important to evoking memories. P10 detailed the nostalgia that she feels when she “smell[s] cut grass, I think of my dad cutting grass in the summer while I was playing baseball or something with my neighbors”.
During the interviews, many participants reflected on memories of being in nature and how it has impacted their lives. For P22, her experiences during childhood made her long to be in nature, “I grew up being able to wander through nature freely. That has always stuck with me. That’s something I yearn for. I don’t want to be a desk worker, but we have to be as adults. If it was up to me, I would spend all my time in nature”. Likewise, P31 recalled doing a particular hike with her family “when [she] was seven and eight and nine”, and further described that her family still hikes that trail once a year, despite it being across the country. P11 described that being at the beach brought upon feelings of wonder, “Just nature itself is utterly amazing. … How do we survive here? It’s amazing”. Interacting with nature, creating and reflecting on memories, and experiencing wonder seemed to build the participants’ NR.
Having a concern for nature and recognizing one’s impact on nature is part of NR. When discussing what factors impact their dietary choices, a number of the participants talked about how they believed they were making sustainable dietary choices, such as buying local foods and food items with less packaging. For P23, the environmental impact of meat was important to his food choices: “I try to eat things that have less environmental impact. So, I eat meats like chicken and fish. I’m somewhat aware of the greenhouse gas impact of foods”. Beef was also discussed by P23 and others as being avoided because of its environmental impact. “I know beef farms are the biggest issue with climate stuff in terms of food. So, we try not to eat a lot of beef specifically”, said P24. Local foods, wild caught fish, cage-free eggs, seasonal items, and foods from farmers markets were factors in P07’s food choices that lowered her environmental impact. P09 detailed that food packaging impacted what foods she chose to buy, “[Plastic and Styrofoam are] going to end up in a landfill someplace. They’re not going to break down. So that’s a concern. I would hate to see Styrofoam end up in the ocean because that will harm the inhabitants of the ocean, because it doesn’t break down”.

3.2.2. Finding Harmony with Oneself

The factors that influenced interacting with nature and for making certain dietary choices were similar and centered around finding harmony with oneself. Being in nature and making certain dietary choices were ways that the participants could engage in healthy behaviors, promoting their own health. For example, interacting with nature allowed time for the participants to disengage from daily life. P05 detailed that being in nature “gets me away from the hustle bustle”. The process of disengaging also promoted mental wellbeing. When describing nature, P05 said, “it’s my peace. It’s my solace. It’s my centering. It’s my rejuvenation”. Likewise, P07 said, “I think just the experience of being outdoors, I think it it’s been great for my mental health. It allows me to move beyond the tasks that I have like lined up and the drag of everyday life and to actually connect with my surroundings. I think that that has been important to me”. Promoting health through outdoor physical activity was another motivator for intentionally interacting with nature. P10 described that a healthy lifestyle was important for her, “Physical exercise is another aspect of a healthy lifestyle. So that’s another motivator, just cause I want to be active and improve my running overall”.
The participants spoke about multiple dietary factors that they made to promote their personal health, including avoiding processed foods, choosing foods with fewer ingredients, avoiding certain ingredients, and choosing whole foods. P05 described that she had kidney disease, so she avoided certain micronutrients, “I’m very careful now with how much phosphorus is in, how much salt, how much potassium [are in foods]”. P10 also described dietary components that she avoided, “I try to avoid having a super high diet of saturated fats, trans fats, a lot of cholesterol, things like that. I try and stay away from more processed foods and rely more on whole foods that I cook”.

3.2.3. Connecting to Others through Nature

The participants in this study described how intentionally interacting with nature provided them with an avenue to connect with family and friends. Activities such as walks, water activities, and hiking were described as activities that the participants did with others. P11 described that she “take[s] a walk every evening with [her] neighbor”. For P29, making her parents happy was her primary motivator for interacting with nature. “I know [it] make[s] them happy when I spend time with them out there and like they like gardening. So, it’s something that will make them happy if I help them”.
Interacting with nature also connected the participants to previous generations, such as their parents and grandparents. P11 discussed how she and her daughter looked for reminders of her father: “My father passed away recently, and I like to watch for cardinals or symbols that I think is him. So, my daughter and I will sit and watch and wait for the cardinals to come. Even if it’s from the house, if we’re not outside, we will try to enjoy from inside as much as we can”. Intentionally interacting with nature also connected individuals with their distant ancestors. When describing activities that she does in nature, P31 detailed that a recent visit to Maine helped her appreciate what her ancestors experienced as pioneers: “[Maine was] a boating, fishing, water culture. Of course, they would not have known how to work a wagon. They weren’t farmers, so it was interesting to just see what a change they made because they left”.

3.3. Integrated Results

Once the quantitative and qualitative data were separately analyzed, the results were compared to identify how the data converged. In Table 3, we highlight two participants whose quantitative results and interviews varied. A comparison of these cases highlighted that NR may promote interactions with nature and the participants’ beliefs that they were making sustainable dietary choices. Participant 07’s HEI-2020 total score, NR total and component scores, and time spent in nature over the previous week were above the sample average. Being surrounded by a natural area was a factor in where they lived and their mental health was positively affected by interacting with nature. The impact that their food potentially has on the environment was important to them and influenced what food items they chose to buy. Participant 30 reported several quantitative measures (HEI-2020, NR Experience, and NR Self scores, and time spent in nature) below the sample average. In their interview, they did not convey an affinity toward nature and did not express how being in nature may have benefited their health. This participant reported that their schedule was the principal influence on their dietary choices.
During the analysis of the interviews, we identified a cyclical relationship among interacting with nature; creating or reflecting on memories and experiencing wonder; and NR, which may have ultimately impacted dietary choices (Figure 2a). This may be reflected in the quantitative data as the participants who expressed NR and their belief in making sustainable dietary choices had greater seafood and plant protein HEI-2020 component scores (maximum score = 5) (Mdn = 5.00, IQR = 1.23, range = 1.64) compared to the other participants interviewed (Mdn = 1.64, IQR = 4.01, range = 4.16) (Figure 2b). This meta-inference highlights that NR may influence the importance of and beliefs in making sustainable dietary choices and the practice of consuming more protein sources that have a smaller environmental impact than ruminants (e.g., cows) [39].
The participants conveyed aspects of NR (experience, perspective, and self) during their discussions of interacting with nature and dietary choices (Figure 3). The box plot represents the scores of each subscale and the illustrative quotes provide context as to how dietary choices and interacting with nature pertain to NR. For example, the participants’ familiarity with nature during their childhood remained an important influence for their desire to continue interacting with nature, which pertains to NR Experience. Further, the participants’ perspective of their impact on nature affected their dietary choices (NR Perspective) and discussed that being connected to nature positively impacted themselves (NR Self).

4. Discussion

In this pilot convergent mixed methods study, we explored the connections among interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices. The quantitative and qualitative findings confirmed and expanded upon each other, allowing for greater depth and breadth. The integrated findings indicated that NR promoted interacting with nature and interest in making sustainable dietary choices. Further, the integrated findings highlight that aspects of NR were pervasive in the participants’ discussions of interacting with nature and dietary choices.
Through data integration, we were able to identify that NR may play a key role in both interacting with nature and the perceived practice of making sustainable dietary choices. Becoming more physically connected to nature through the senses, creating or reflecting on memories in nature, and experiencing wonder in nature built the individuals’ NR (specifically NR Experience and NR Perspective) and further promoted them to interact more with nature. Others have reported that interacting with nature may be associated with NR [2,21,40,41]. Our research builds upon these previous findings, providing more context to how this relationship may be built and strengthened.
In our study, we found that NR may promote the interest in making sustainable dietary choices. NR and other measurements of connection to nature have been associated with greater environmental stewardship and concern for nature [18,42,43]. We are not the first to report that connection to nature may promote sustainable dietary choices. Weber et al. (2020) reported that individuals who reported greater NR also reported greater sustainable nutrition behaviors, such as the intention to eat sustainably and positive attitudes toward sustainable eating [44]. Likewise, it has been reported that a greater connection to nature measured by the connection to nature scale has been associated with purchasing seasonal, local, organic, and climate friendly foods, which are aspects of sustainable dietary choices [45,46]. The associations between NR and sustainable food consumption have yet to be explored. We report that the individuals who spoke about their beliefs in making sustainable dietary choices, including eating food that they perceived as having a smaller environmental impact, had greater seafood and plant protein intake. The EAT-Lancet Commission, a group of scientists who aim to improve human health and environmental sustainability, has recommended that protein from ruminants (e.g., cows) should be replaced with proteins from plants and seafood, even though seafood can still have an deleterious effect on the environment [39]. While our work begins to explore how NR is related to sustainable dietary choices, seafood and plant protein intake is not a comprehensive nor sufficient measurement of sustainable dietary intake. More appropriate measurements of sustainable dietary consumption, such as the EAT-Lancet Index [47] or Sustainable HEalthy Diet (SHED) Index [48], would provide a more robust understanding of the relationship between NR and sustainable dietary intake.
The other insights gained in this study were that the motivators to interacting with nature and making certain dietary choices were similar, centering around being healthy, and that our participants found nature as a place they could connect with others. A plethora of research has identified that interacting with nature and eating healthy foods is beneficial for promoting health [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,13,15,16,26,27,28]. Our participants were able to identify how interacting with nature and dietary choices affected their health, bridging these behaviors. Multiple researchers have reported that individuals connect with others in nature [49,50,51,52]. Our research adds to these findings as interacting with nature also allows for individuals to connect with previous generations by reminding the individuals of family members, seeking signs of family members through nature, and gaining an appreciation for their ancestors.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations of this research. First, there was a small sample size of participants consistent with a pilot study [53]. Further, the individuals were only sampled from Pennsylvania, USA. These limitations restrict the generalizability of the results. Future studies should be conducted with a larger sample, allowing for statistical tests such as correlation and regression to be conducted. While our exclusion criteria attempted to exclude individuals who may have had changes to their usual dietary intake, we acknowledge that our participants may have additional conditions or circumstances that change their dietary habits (i.e., sicknesses, eating disorders, etc.). Additionally, in the survey, the participants did not have the option to indicate that they did not spend time in nature over the previous week, as such, we were not able to determine if the participant did not spend any time in nature over the previous week or had skipped the question, which excluded five cases. Despite these limitations, this study utilized a convergent mixed methods design which allowed for the quantitative and qualitative data to be triangulated and merged. This allowed each form of data to explain the results of the other.

5. Conclusions

Understanding the connections among interacting with nature, NR, and dietary choices may give us insight into how to promote healthy dietary choices through greater interaction with and affinity toward nature. The results from this pilot mixed methods study indicate that there are connections among the variables of interest and that NR may play a pivotal role in how interactions with nature may promote sustainable dietary behaviors. Future studies should examine if NR mediates or moderates the relationship between interacting with nature and sustainable dietary behaviors.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph21070899/s1, Table S1: Themes, categories, and exemplar quotes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S. and B.-J.M.; methodology, D.S. and B.-J.M.; formal analysis, D.S., C.S. and B.-J.M.; investigation, D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S.; writing—review and editing, C.S., J.M.D. and B.-J.M.; visualization, D.S.; supervision, B.-J.M.; project administration, D.S.; funding acquisition, D.S., J.M.D. and B.-J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Dean’s PhD Student Research Awards from the College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Drexel University (protocol code: 2110008826; approved 17 December 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support this article are available from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the individuals who took part in this study. Patricia A. Shewokis, who directs the Biostatistical Core for Doctoral Students and Post-Doctoral Fellows in the College of Nursing and Health Professions at Drexel University, provided support for the quantitative statistical analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Burrows, E.; O’Mahony, M.; Geraghty, D. How Urban Parks Offer Opportunities for Physical Activity in Dublin, Ireland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cox, D.T.C.; Hudson, H.L.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The Rarity of Direct Experiences of Nature in an Urban Population. Landsc. Urban Plan 2017, 160, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marselle, M.R.; Warber, S.L.; Irvine, K.N. Growing Resilience through Interaction with Nature: Can Group Walks in Nature Buffer the Effects of Stressful Life Events on Mental Health? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Stott, D.; Forde, D.; Sharma, C.; Deutsch, J.M.; Bruneau, M.; Nasser, J.A.; Vitolins, M.Z.; Milliron, B.-J. Interactions with Nature, Good for the Mind and Body: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Coventry, P.A.; Brown, J.V.E.; Pervin, J.; Brabyn, S.; Pateman, R.; Breedvelt, J.; Gilbody, S.; Stancliffe, R.; McEachan, R.; White, P.C.L. Nature-Based Outdoor Activities for Mental and Physical Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. SSM Popul. Health 2021, 16, 100934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What Are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 913–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ho, P.L.; Li, T.W.; Liu, H.; Yeung, T.F.; Hou, W.K. Testing a New Protocol of Nature-Based Intervention to Enhance Well-Being: A Randomized Control Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, J.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Takayama, N.; Park, B.-J.; Li, Q.; Song, C.; Komatsu, M.; Ikei, H.; Tyrväinen, L.; Kagawa, T.; et al. Influence of Forest Therapy on Cardiovascular Relaxation in Young Adults. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2014, 2014, 834360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maund, P.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Reeves, J.; Strong, E.; Cromie, R.; Dallimer, M.; Davies, Z.G. Wetlands for Wellbeing: Piloting a Nature-Based Health Intervention for the Management of Anxiety and Depression. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Song, C.; Ikei, H.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. Effects of Walking in a Forest on Young Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Garrido-Cumbrera, M.; Foley, R.; Correa-Fernández, J.; González-Marín, A.; Braçe, O.; Hewlett, D. The Importance for Wellbeing of Having Views of Nature from and in the Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Results from the GreenCOVID Study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 83, 101864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pérez-Urrestarazu, L.; Kaltsidi, M.P.; Nektarios, P.A.; Markakis, G.; Loges, V.; Perini, K.; Fernández-Cañero, R. Particularities of Having Plants at Home during the Confinement Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Urban For. Urban Green 2021, 59, 126919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Tsuchiya, K.; Fukano, Y. A Room with a Green View: The Importance of Nearby Nature for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 31, e2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bi, W.; Jiang, X.; Li, H.; Cheng, Y.; Jia, X.; Mao, Y.; Zhao, B. The More Natural the Window, the Healthier the Isolated People—A Pathway Analysis in Xi’an, China, during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Salazar, G.; Monroe, M.C.; Jordan, C.; Ardoin, N.M.; Beery, T.H. Improving Assessments of Connection to Nature: A Participatory Approach. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 8, 609104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M.; Murphy, S.A. The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2008, 41, 715–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dean, J.H.; Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Barber, E.; Franco, L.; Fuller, R.A. Is Nature Relatedness Associated with Better Mental and Physical Health? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Martyn, P.; Brymer, E. The Relationship between Nature Relatedness and Anxiety. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 1, 1436–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Colléony, A.; Levontin, L.; Shwartz, A. Promoting Meaningful and Positive Nature Interactions for Visitors to Green Spaces. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 1373–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Flowers, E.P.; Freeman, P.; Gladwell, V.F. A Cross-Sectional Study Examining Predictors of Visit Frequency to Local Green Space and the Impact This Has on Physical Activity Levels. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lawton, E.; Brymer, E.; Clough, P.; Denovan, A. The Relationship between the Physical Activity Environment, Nature Relatedness, Anxiety, and the Psychological Well-Being Benefits of Regular Exercisers. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Milliron, B.-J.; Ward, D.; Granche, J.; Mensinger, J.; Stott, D.; Chenault, C.; Montalto, F.; Ellis, E.V. Nature Relatedness Is Positively Associated With Dietary Diversity and Fruit and Vegetable Intake in an Urban Population. Am. J. Health Promot. 2022, 36, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ahmad, F.B.; Anderson, R.N. The Leading Causes of Death in the US for 2020. JAMA 2021, 325, 1829–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Casas, R.; Castro-Barquero, S.; Estruch, R.; Sacanella, E. Nutrition and Cardiovascular Health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Di Renzo, L.; Gualtieri, P.; De Lorenzo, A. Diet, Nutrition and Chronic Degenerative Diseases. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pericleous, M.; Rossi, R.E.; Mandair, D.; Whyand, T.; Caplin, M.E. Nutrition and Pancreatic Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014, 34, 9–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Turner, L.A. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2007, 1, 112–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. ASA24® Dietary Assessment Tool. Available online: https://epi.grants.cancer.gov/asa24/ (accessed on 29 September 2021).
  31. The IPAQ Group Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)-Short and Long Forms. Available online: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0aGVpcGFxfGd4OjE0NDgxMDk3NDU1YWRlZTM (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  32. Craig, C.L.; Marshall, A.L.; Sjöström, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Booth, M.L.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Pratt, M.; Ekelund, U.; Yngve, A.; Sallis, J.F.; et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003, 35, 1381–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Shams-White, M.M.; Pannucci, T.E.; Lerman, J.L.; Herrick, K.A.; Zimmer, M.; Meyers Mathieu, K.; Stoody, E.E.; Reedy, J. Healthy Eating Index-2020: Review and Update Process to Reflect the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2023, 123, 1280–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, H.; Sefcik, J.S.; Bradway, C. Characteristics of Qualitative Descriptive Studies: A Systematic Review. Res. Nurs. Health 2017, 40, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Steinmetz-Wood, M.; Pluye, P.; Ross, N.A. The Planning and Reporting of Mixed Methods Studies on the Built Environment and Health. Prev. Med. 2019, 126, 105752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Curry, L.; Nunez-Smith, M. Mixed Methods in Health Sciences Research: A Practical Primer; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015; p. 91320. ISBN 978-1-4833-0677-3. [Google Scholar]
  37. Guba, E.G. Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. ECTJ 1981, 29, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Average Healthy Eating Index-2020 Scores for the U.S. Population-Total Ages 2 and Older and by Age Groups, WWEIA, NHANES 2017–2018 2023. Available online: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/media/file/AverageHealthyEatingIndex-2020ScoresfortheUSPopulation.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2023).
  39. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J. Doses of Nearby Nature Simultaneously Associated with Multiple Health Benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lesser, I.A.; Nienhuis, C.P.; Belanger, L. Active by Nature: Exploring Cancer Survivors’ Exercise Barriers, Facilitators, Preferences, and Psychosocial Benefits of Engaging in Outdoor Physical Activity. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 4095–4103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schultz, P.W. The Structure of Enviornmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other People, and the Biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Weber, A.; Büssing, A.G.; Jarzyna, R.; Fiebelkorn, F. Do German Student Biology Teachers Intend to Eat Sustainably? Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior with Nature Relatedness and Environmental Concern. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Spendrup, S.; Hunter, E.; Isgren, E. Exploring the Relationship between Nature Sounds, Connectedness to Nature, Mood and Willingness to Buy Sustainable Food: A Retail Field Experiment. Appetite 2016, 100, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Teixeira, A.; Gabriel, R.; Martinho, J.; Santos, M.; Faria, A.; Oliveira, I.; Moreira, H. Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Relationship With Nature Visits, Connectedness to Nature and Physical Activity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2023, 37, 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stubbendorff, A.; Sonestedt, E.; Ramne, S.; Drake, I.; Hallström, E.; Ericson, U. Development of an EAT-Lancet Index and Its Relation to Mortality in a Swedish Population. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 115, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tepper, S.; Geva, D.; Shahar, D.R.; Shepon, A.; Mendelsohn, O.; Golan, M.; Adler, D.; Golan, R. The SHED Index: A Tool for Assessing a Sustainable HEalthy Diet. Eur. J. Nutr. 2021, 60, 3897–3909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Howarth, M.; Rogers, M.; Withnell, N.; McQuarrie, C. Growing Spaces: An Evaluation of the Mental Health Recovery Programme Using Mixed Methods. J. Res. Nurs. 2018, 23, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Irvine, K.N.; Marselle, M.R.; Melrose, A.; Warber, S.L. Group Outdoor Health Walks Using Activity Trackers: Measurement and Implementation Insight from a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kiers, A.H.; Rakow, D.A.; Parker, S.; Dewa, C.S. A Pilot Study on the Potential for Formalized Nature-Based Instruction to Mitigate Stress and Increase Social Bonds in University Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2021, 71, 1596–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Smyth, N.; Thorn, L.; Wood, C.; Hall, D.; Lister, C. Increased Wellbeing Following Engagement in a Group Nature-Based Programme: The Green Gym Programme Delivered by the Conservation Volunteers. Healthcare 2022, 10, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. In, J. Introduction of a Pilot Study. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2017, 70, 601–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 21 00899 g001
Figure 1. Diagram of convergent mixed methods study design.
Figure 1. Diagram of convergent mixed methods study design.
Ijerph 21 00899 g001
Ijerph 21 00899 g002
Figure 2. Joint display of the connections among interacting with nature, Nature Relatedness, and beliefs in making sustainable dietary choices: (a) qualitative insight; (b) reflection of insight in seafood and plant protein component scores.
Figure 2. Joint display of the connections among interacting with nature, Nature Relatedness, and beliefs in making sustainable dietary choices: (a) qualitative insight; (b) reflection of insight in seafood and plant protein component scores.
Ijerph 21 00899 g002
Ijerph 21 00899 g003
Figure 3. Joint display of Nature Relatedness (NR) subscales and illustrative quotes.
Figure 3. Joint display of Nature Relatedness (NR) subscales and illustrative quotes.
Ijerph 21 00899 g003
Table 1. Participant demographics a.
Table 1. Participant demographics a.
n = 25
Age (mean ± standard deviation)38.00 ± 10.87
Gender
   Male8 (32%)
   Female17 (68%)
Race and Ethnicity
   Asian3 (12%)
   Black or African American1 (4%)
   Hispanic White1 (4%)
   Non-Hispanic White20 (80%)
Education
   Highschool, GED, or Some college2 (8%)
   College graduate14 (56%)
   Graduate school9 (36%)
Annual Household income
   <USD 20,8003 (12%)
   USD 20,800–41,5991 (4%)
   USD 41,600–64,9994 (16%)
   USD 65,000–77,99911 (44%)
   >USD 78,0006 (24%)
a Values are expressed as number (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Table 2. Key measures.
Table 2. Key measures.
M (SD)Mdn (IQR)Range
Duration of intentional interactions with
nature a		3.94 (3.26)3.00 (2.63)15.75
Nature Relatedness Total3.58 (0.62)3.43 (1.07)2.33
Nature Relatedness Experience3.47 (0.73)3.50 (1.00)3.17
Nature Relatedness Perspective3.26 (1.06)3.50 (2.08)3.17
Nature Relatedness Self3.86 (0.65)3.78 (0.89)2.67
Healthy Eating Index-202054.48 (10.74)54.56 (14.25)43.82
n%
Has a view of nature at home
(indirect interaction)		2392
Types of nature in room spent most time in
  Plants (incidental interaction)1560
  Flowers (incidental interaction)1352
  Pictures of nature (indirect interaction)1040
Level of physical activity
  Low28
  Moderate624
  High1768
a Represented in hours over the previous week.
Table 3. Joint display of exemplar participants’ quantitative measures, quotes, and mixed methods interpretation.
Table 3. Joint display of exemplar participants’ quantitative measures, quotes, and mixed methods interpretation.
ParticipantQuantitative ResultsExemplar QuotesMixed Methods
Interpretation
07HEI-202063.40“I think especially when it comes to things like seafood, like ensuring that it’s like wild caught as opposed to farm raised is important and I think like something that really influences me is trying to buy locally as often as I can. I try to go to farmers markets and buy from local farmers, because I know that even the journey that the food will take up is going to have some type of environmental impact and what farmers end up supplying us tends to be whatever is in season as well, and so I think seasonal foods are also like something that I pay attention to. … I think when it comes to eggs like you know cage free, ensuring that, you know, the chickens are kind of–they have lived like a full life to the extent that I can gather.”
“I live in a pretty urban environment … and so I live right across from a park and that was a very important decision to me in like making the decision to live here and in this neighborhood.”
“[Nature] has the ability to provide a meditative, self-reflecting quality.” 		This participant’s quantitative results were above the sample average. They make specific dietary choices that benefit themselves and believe the dietary choices they make benefit the environment. They value nature, which impacts their daily life and mental wellbeing.
NR4.57
NR Experience3.83
NR Perspective5.00
NR Self4.78
Duration of intentional interactions with nature4 h
30HEI-202046.97“I see my schedule would be a huge factor in like also availability of food around me. I feel like I wouldn’t go out of my way to probably grab something healthy in that sense.”
“I mean, it sometimes reminds me of when I would go to the park as a child with my parents, or even like picnics with my family or this one time I went on a trip with my sister.”
“A lot of times I just sit around on the lawn with my friends. I also walk around the river trail. So, I think that is also nice because it is kind of like an enclosed area with a lot of trees and like the rivers just on the side. Yeah, it’s usually just like sitting or like walking around.”		This participant had HEI-2020, NR Experience, and NR Self scores below the sample average. This participant also spent less time in nature over the previous week than the sample. Their personal schedule was the primary factor in their dietary choices; prioritizing easy to grab and quick foods over healthier options. They spoke about childhood nature experiences that they thought about sometimes when in nature. While the participant was able to identify nature around them and times that they spend in nature, they did not convey a special affinity toward nature or express how nature benefitted them.
NR3.48
NR Experience2.50
NR Perspective4.50
NR Self3.44
Duration of intentional interactions with nature30 min
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stott, D.; Sharma, C.; Deutsch, J.M.; Milliron, B.-J. The Connections among Interacting with Nature, Nature Relatedness and Dietary Choices: A Pilot Mixed Methods Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070899

AMA Style

Stott D, Sharma C, Deutsch JM, Milliron B-J. The Connections among Interacting with Nature, Nature Relatedness and Dietary Choices: A Pilot Mixed Methods Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(7):899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070899

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stott, Dahlia, Chetan Sharma, Jonathan M Deutsch, and Brandy-Joe Milliron. 2024. "The Connections among Interacting with Nature, Nature Relatedness and Dietary Choices: A Pilot Mixed Methods Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 7: 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21070899

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop