zondag 2 november 2025

Nature connectedness is a psychological concept that measures the closeness of an individual’s relationship with other species.

 

Studies have found that people with higher levels of nature connectedness enjoy improved wellbeing. Photograph: Ben Pipe Photography/Getty Images/Image Source

Britain one of least ‘nature-connected’ nations in world – with Nepal the most

Others languishing near bottom of 61-country study include Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan and Spain
Britain is one of the least “nature connected” nations in the world, according to the first ever global study of how people relate to the natural world.
Britain ranks 55th out of 61 countries in the study of 57,000 people, which looks at how attitudes towards nature are shaped by social, economic, geographical and cultural factors.
The most nature-connected nation is Nepal, followed by Iran, South Africa, Bangladesh and Nigeria, according to the study, which is published in the journal Ambio. Croatia and Bulgaria are the only European nations in the top 10, followed by France in 19th place.
Languishing below Britain are the Netherlands, English-speaking Canada, Germany, Israel, Japan and Spain, which is the least nature-connected of the 61 nations surveyed.

Study shows Nepal is the most nature-connected nation

Index of nature connectedness, UK = 0
Country
Nepal
1.39
Iran
1.22
South Africa
1.2
Bangladesh
1.14
Nigeria
1.11
Chile
0.96
Croatia
0.94
Ghana
0.92
Bulgaria
0.88
Tunisia
0.86
Country
Russia
0.09
Ireland
0.09
Saudi Arabia
0.08
UK
0
Netherlands
−0.05
Canada
−0.07
Germany
−0.08
Israel
−0.3
Japan
−0.39
Spain
−0.61
Guardian graphic.Source: Richardson et al. 2025, Swami et al. 2024.Notes: study of 57,000 people in 61 countries
Nature connectedness is a psychological concept that measures the closeness of an individual’s relationship with other species. Studies have found that people with higher levels of nature connectedness enjoy improved wellbeing and are more likely to act in environmentally friendly ways. Low levels of nature connectedness have been identified as one of three major underlying causes of biodiversity loss alongside inequality and the prioritisation of individual, material gains.
Researchers from Britain and Austria, led by Miles Richardson, professor of nature connectedness at the University of Derby, found the strongest indicator for a close relationship with nature was high levels of “spirituality” in a society. More religious societies and cultures where there was a preference for faith over science showed high levels of nature connection.
In contrast, the study also found that “ease of doing business” – a World Bank measurement of the business-friendly character of a country – was correlated with less nature connection.
Although Britain is believed to have one of the highest levels of membership of environmental organisations in the world, this apparently pro-nature indicator was found to have little impact on closeness to nature.
More concrete factors found by the study to be linked to a lack of connection with nature included levels of urbanisation, mean income and internet use.
“Nature connectedness is not just about what we do, but how we feel, think, and value our place in the living world,” said Richardson, who admitted he was not surprised that Britain languished so low in the nature connection league table.
“We’ve become a more rational, economic and scientific society. That’s obviously brought some fantastic benefits but it’s how we balance them with the unforeseen problems,” he said. “How do we reintegrate natural thinking in our very technological world? It’s obviously very difficult to change cultures but it’s about mainstreaming the value of nature, making it integral to our wellbeing, so it becomes respected and almost sacred.”
According to Richardson, ways of fostering nature connection could include better use of natural environments in NHS treatments of mental and public health; developing rights of nature in law, and bringing nature into boardrooms and business decisions through regulations such as biodiversity net gain.
He admitted the study revealed a tension between business and the environment. “We still need a functioning economy,” he said. “There’s ways we can rethink the way we do business – bringing nature into decision-making, nature in the boardroom, and biodiversity net gain. They can start to shift the system, where nature isn’t just simply treated as a resource but as a stakeholder.”
While bringing nature into urban areas might reinvigorate nature connection in very urban societies, Richardson added: “It’s not just about putting a park in. How do you create sacred urban nature? It’s easy to build a park but it needs to go deeper than that.”
The correlation between nature connection and “spirituality” in countries was discovered using measurements of the importance of religion, beliefs in a god and faith in different countries recorded by the World Values Survey.
Graham Usher, the bishop of Norwich and lead for environmental affairs for the Church of England, said: “We’ve long known that getting out into nature is good for body, mind and soul. In the Gospels we keep encountering Jesus going out to be alone in nature to be with God; he notices the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. I believe that what we notice we begin to love, and what we love we come to treasure, and what we treasure we want to protect. It all starts with children and is why activities like forest school and wild church are important for people and nature.”

Zo buiten in de omgeving zo binnen in ons lichaam

 

The nature extinction crisis is mirrored by one in our own bodies. Both have huge implications for health

Modern life is waging a war against ecosystems around us and inside us. Keeping our own microbes healthy is another reason to demand action to preserve the natural world
Human bodies are like cities, teeming with microcitizens – vast communities of viruses, fungi and bacteria that live all over our skin and inside us. Unsung public servants help us digest food, regulate our immune system, defend against pathogens, and keep hormones in check. Together, they make up what we call the human microbiome.
Most people have probably heard of the gut microbiome, but different microbes thrive all over our bodies – in our nostrils, on our feet, in our eyes. They are slightly different, like boroughs are composed of different communities of people. Ninety per cent of cells in our body are microbes, and “clouds” of bacteria come off someone’s body as they enter a room. We are all walking ecosystems, picking up and shedding material as we move through life.
Modern life is waging a war against ecosystems inside us and surrounding us, however. When people think about the nature crisis they probably think about vanishing rainforests or species going extinct, but there is another, hidden extinction happening at a microscopic level. At the same time we are losing species from our planet, we are also losing them from within our own bodies – with huge implications for human health.
“What’s happening inside our own bodies is kind of mirroring what’s happening at a global ecosystem level,” says Anastasia Theodosiou from the school of infection and immunity at the University of Glasgow. “We are increasingly thinking about it as an ecological narrative.”
There is already plenty of evidence that the outdoors is good for us: better physical health, cleaner air, less exposure to extreme heat. But a growing body of research shows the surprising way that not all green space is created equal: the diversity of life that surrounds us is linked to our own health.
Sometimes researchers refer to this as the outer and inner layers of biodiversity. The greater the richness of species surrounding us, the more healthy microbes make their way to our bodies.
Across urban environments, there are higher rates of inflammatory disorders, including allergies, asthma and type 1 diabetes. Fewer people today die of infectious diseases, but autoimmune diseases have increased, and “this is hypothesised to be related to the loss of microbes”, says Ina Schuppe Koistinen, an associate professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. This idea is called the “biodiversity hypothesis” and it came about thanks to the iron curtain.
In the 1980s, a team of researchers looked at differences in allergies between people living in the Finnish and Russian Karelia, who were genetically related. The Russian side was part of the Soviet Union with a subsistence economy, while the Finnish side had urbanised. The number of people with allergies was significantly higher in Finland, while in Russia, asthma was rare and pollen and food allergies almost nonexistent.
The Karelia Allergy Study was the first to link less exposure to nature to an increase in health problems. Fast forward to now and our disconnection from nature has become more acute. Deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate, with more than 8m hectares (20m acres) destroyed last year. By 2050, about 70% of the global population is expected to live in urban areas. The reduction in contact with nature has negative health impacts, including weaker immune systems and increased rates of asthma and anxiety.
The destruction of the natural world has also become the biggest driver of infectious disease outbreaks, as habitat loss forces humans and wild animals into contact. Research published last month concluded that preserving Amazonian forests would protect millions from disease.
However, just as these human and ecosystem losses are happening in tandem, so the solutions work together too. Last month, a sweeping review of 1,550 studies found that taking action for biodiversity in cities had significant, wide-ranging benefits: better physical and mental health, healthier childhood development, stronger social connections, and less exposure to extreme heat, air pollution and noise pollution.
“The key take-home points are that if you take action for biodiversity in cities (through tree planting, or enhancing habitat in parks, or creating greenways), these actions will also likely yield benefits to human health,” says Erica Spotswood, a senior scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute and lead author of the paper published in the journal People and Nature.
“The potential for biodiversity and human health to benefit from taking action to green cities is huge,” says Spotswood.
Often, when we increase people’s encounters with nature, the results are immediate. An amazing study from Finland showed that just one month of growing plants boosted skin bacteria and the body’s immune response. It was not the act of gardening that was important but contact with healthy, biodiverse soils.
Research on the microbiome is proof of how intertwined our bodies are with the natural world. Every mouthful of food, the air we breathe and things we touch connects these two worlds. The desire to keep our own microcitizens healthy is another reason for people to demand we live more nature-rich lives, and take urgent action to preserve a thriving natural world.
bron: the Guardian.org, 31.10.2025

zaterdag 1 november 2025

Mensen houden van de voorkant en ontkennen de achterkant....Mariët Meester

"De metafoor van het menselijke uitlaatgas is helemaal zo gek nog niet. Met de winden die gepaard gaan met het verteringsproces van één mens, kan volgens de auteur van Het ultieme schetenboek (2006), filosoof en godsdienstwetenschapper Bart Lauvrijs, dagelijks een ballon worden gevuld. Het verteringsproces van vliegtuigen, en van een auto als de onze, mag daar best mee vergeleken worden: ook die komen alleen vooruit wanneer ze worden gevoed met een product van organische oorsprong, waarna er verbrandingsgassen verschijnen op een plek die de gebruiker niet ziet of ruikt. Mensen houden van de voorkant en ontkennen de achterkant, je zou het haast een natuurwet kunnen noemen. Wanneer je niet direct de nadelen ervaart, zal het allemaal vast wel meevallen.


vermoed ik dat ieder individu een beperkte hoeveelheid wilskracht ter beschikking heeft. En dan bedoel ik wilskracht zoals Immanuel Kant die ongeveer heeft gedefinieerd: de kracht om in vrijheid beslissingen te nemen die ook voor anderen gunstig kunnen zijn. Die beperkte hoeveelheid moet je, lijkt mij, bewaren voor de belangrijke kwesties. Om niet in de verleiding te komen ‘troep’ te kopen, haal ik daarom iedere week een papieren tas die door anderen is gevuld met onbespoten groenten en fruit, zodat ik mijn reservoirtje wilskracht niet hoef aan te spreken om te bedenken wat we gaan eten. Bij producten die incidenteel nodig zijn, zoals verf of tafelzeil, blijkt de wilskracht alweer verbruikt.


.......Erich Fromm, de filosoof en psychoanalyticus, heeft er in 1976 over geschreven in zijn boek Een kwestie van hebben of zijn. Hij legt uit dat het streven naar een ‘goede’ leefwijze vroeger de vervulling van een religieuze of ethische eis was. Dat geldt nu niet meer, voor het eerst in de geschiedenis heeft dat streven te maken met de fysieke overlevingskansen van de mensheid." 


uitspraken uit artikel in nrc vandaag

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/10/31/ik-wil-wel-duurzamer-leven-maar-a4909934#/krant/2025/11/01/#308