Background: Immersive technologies may be an avenue to explore the construct of human–nature connection more thoroughly and without some of the obstacles to accessing nature in-person. Purpose: The aim of this project was to discover if self-exposure to immersive virtual nature can lead to any change in nature connectedness. Methodology/Approach: Participants were recruited from the Texas State University campus and randomized into three experimental conditions: a filmed library or nature experience, and an in-nature experience. 360-degree videos of a nature preserve and the university library were projected within a head-mounted display in a laboratory setting. Results of pre- and postsurvey data were compared between experimental groups. Findings/Conclusions: Pairwise comparisons with the Nature Relatedness Scale indicated that participants in the in-nature experience reported significantly stronger beliefs about their connection to nature than those in either virtual condition. With respect to the State of Independence with Nature Scale, planned pairwise comparisons indicated that between participants in the in-nature experience and the virtual nature experience did not differ. Implications: This study suggests that to connect with nature, one should spend time there. In addition, here data support that a virtual immersive nature experience can affect a state-dependent measurement of nature connection, and even equal that of an in-nature experience.
AhnS. J.BailensonJ.ParkD. (2014). Short- and long-term effects of embodied experiences in immersive virtual environments on environmental locus of control and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.025
3.
AhnS. J.BostickJ.OgleE.NowakK.McGillicuddyK.BailensonJ. (2016). Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(6), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12173
4.
AndersonA. P.MayerM. D.FellowsA. M.CowanD. R.HegelM. T.BuckeyJ. C. (2017). Relaxation with immersive natural scenes presented using virtual reality. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 88(6), 520–526. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4747.2017
5.
AnnerstedtM.JönssonP.WallergårdM.JohanssonG.KarlsonB.GrahnP.… WährborgP. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—Results from a pilot study. Physiology and Behavior, 118, 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023
6.
AnthesC.García-HernándezR. J.WiedemannM.KranzlmüllerD. (2016). State of the art of virtual reality technology. IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings, June. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2016.7500674
7.
AppelL.AppelE.BoglerO.WisemanM.CohenL.EinN.CamposJ. L. (2020). Older adults with cognitive and/or physical impairments can benefit from immersive virtual reality experiences: A feasibility study. Frontiers in Medicine, 6(January), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00329
8.
BailensonJ. (2018). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do. W.W. Norton & Company.
9.
BausO.BouchardS. (2017). Exposure to an unpleasant odour increases the sense of presence in virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 21(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0299-3
10.
BrevesP.HeberV. (2020). Into the wild: The effects of 360° immersive nature videos on feelings of commitment to the environment. Environmental Communication, 14(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1665566
11.
BrowningM. H. E. M.MimnaughK. J.van RiperC. J.LaurentH. K.LaValleS. M. (2020). Can simulated nature support mental health? Comparing short, single-doses of 360-degree nature videos in virtual reality with the outdoors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(January), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667
12.
CalogiuriG.LitleskareS.FagerheimK. A.RydgrenT. L.BrambillaE.ThurstonM. (2018). Experiencing nature through immersive virtual environments: Environmental perceptions, physical engagement, and affective responses during a simulated nature walk. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02321
13.
CartwrightK. S.MittenD. (2018). Quantifying the human-nature relationship: A user’s guide. Research in Outdoor Education, 16, 42–70.
14.
ChiricoA.GaggioliA. (2019). When virtual feels real: Comparing emotional responses and presence in virtual and natural environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(3), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0393
15.
ChungK.LeeD.ParkJ. Y. (2018). Involuntary attention restoration during exposure to mobile-based 360 virtual nature in healthy adults with different levels of restorative experience: Event-related potential study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(11), Article e11152. https://doi.org/10.2196/11152
16.
CrononW. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Oxford University Press.
17.
HanleyA. W.DeringerS. A.SneedJ. C.BettmanJ. (under review). The state of interdependence with nature scale: Development and initial validation. Ecopsychology.
18.
HedblomM.GunnarssonB.IravaniB.KnezI.SchaeferM.ThorssonP.LundströmJ. N. (2019). Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7
19.
HowellA. J.DopkoR. L.PassmoreH. A.BuroK. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
20.
IvesC. D.AbsonD. J.von WehrdenH.DorningerC.KlanieckiK.FischerJ. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9
21.
JensenL.KonradsenF. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
22.
JosephA.BrowningM. H. E. M.JiangS. (2020). Using immersive virtual environments (IVEs) to conduct environmental design research: A primer and decision framework. Health Environments Research and Design Journal, 13(3), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586720924787
23.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
24.
KitsonA.PrpaM.RieckeB. E. (2018). Immersive interactive technologies for positive change: A scoping review and design considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(August), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01354
25.
KleinS. A.HilbigB. E. (2018). How virtual nature experiences can promote pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2018.10.001
26.
LeviD.KocherS. (1999). Virtual nature: The future effects of information technology on our relationship to nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972065
27.
MayerF. S.FrantzC.Bruehlman-SenecalE.DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The Role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
28.
MayerF. S.FrantzC. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
29.
McMahanE. A.EstesD. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224
30.
NadkarniN. M.HasbachP. H.ThysT.CrockettE. G.SchnackerL. (2017). Impacts of nature imagery on people in severely nature-deprived environments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(7), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1518
31.
NashR. (1973). Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University Press.
NisbetE. K.ZelenskiJ. M.MurphyS. A. (2009). With nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
34.
NukarinenT.IstanceH. O.RantalaJ.MäkeläJ.KorpelaK.RonkainenK.… RaisamoR. (2020). Physiological and psychological restoration in matched real and virtual natural environments. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—Proceedings, April, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382956
35.
OberyA.BangertA. (2017). Exploring the influence of nature relatedness and perceived science knowledge on proenvironmental behavior. Education Sciences, 7(1), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010017
36.
PalanicaA.LyonsA.CooperM.LeeA.FossatY. (2019). A comparison of nature and urban environments on creative thinking across different levels of reality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63(February), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.006
37.
RestallB.ConradE. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022
38.
RichardsonM.HussainZ.GriffithsM. D. (2018). Problematic smartphone use, nature connectedness, and anxiety. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.10
39.
SalamonN.GrimmJ. M.HorackJ. M.NewtonE. K. (2018). Application of virtual reality for crew mental health in extended-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica, 146(September), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.02.034
40.
ShultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP.SchultzW. P. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4
41.
SmithM. D.GetchellS.WeatherlyM. (2018). Human connectedness to nature: Comparison of natural vs. virtual experiences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11003, LNCS, 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99737-7_22
42.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
43.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2018). Shifting baseline syndrome: Causes, consequences, and implications. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(4), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1794
44.
SolimanM.PeetzJ.DavydenkoM. (2017). The impact of immersive technology on nature relatedness and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000213
45.
StevensT. H.MoreT. A.Markowski-LindsayM. (2014). Declining national park visitation: An economic analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 46(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2014.11950317
46.
TamK. P.ChanH. W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
47.
TaylorN.WrightJ.O’FlynnG. (2019). Embodied encounters with more-than-human nature in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 24(9), 914–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1519785
48.
WhiteM. P.YeoN. L.VassiljevP.LundstedtR.WallergårdM.AlbinM.LõhmusM. (2018). A prescription for “nature”—The potential of using virtual nature in therapeutics. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 14, 3001–3013. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S179038
49.
WolskoC.LindbergK. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2013.0008
50.
YinJ.YuanJ.ArfaeiN.CatalanoP. J.AllenJ. G.SpenglerJ. D. (2020). Effects of biophilic indoor environment on stress and anxiety recovery: A between-subjects experiment in virtual reality. Environment International, 136(December), Article 105427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105427
51.
YinJ.ZhuS.MacNaughtonP.AllenJ. G.SpenglerJ. D. (2018). Physiological and cognitive performance of exposure to biophilic indoor environment. Building and Environment, 132(January), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.006
52.
ZylstraM. J.KnightA. T.EslerK. J.Le GrangeL. L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2(1–2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
