What Counts as Nature? A Cross-Sectional Study of American Adults’ Perceptions of Nature Places

Abstract

Growing evidence links nature contact to improved physical and mental health, yet self-reported measures often rely on undefined concepts of “time in nature.” While experts define nature spaces broadly, from national parks to houseplants, it is unclear if the public shares this view. This study examined how adults perceive the “nature richness” of various environments to determine which spaces the public considers valid for nature contact. A stratified panel sample of U.S. adults (N = 303) completed an online survey rating 16 specific places on a scale from 0 (absolutely zero nature contact) to 100 (complete nature experience). Places were categorized into three subscales: Open Nature (e.g., national parks, lakes), Integrated Nature (e.g., yards, neighborhoods), and Mediated Nature (e.g., VR, screens). Participants held a hierarchical view of nature. Only five of the 16 items received median ratings above 50/100, with Open Nature destinations rated significantly higher than Integrated Nature spaces found in daily life. Mediated Nature was rated lowest overall; however, Black participants rated Mediated Nature significantly higher than all other racial/ethnic groups. Nature connectedness positively predicted ratings across all categories. Results reveal a disconnect between expert and public definitions of nature. By largely discounting Integrated Nature (backyards, neighborhoods), the public may under-report nature contact in standard health surveys. Furthermore, the higher endorsement of Mediated Nature among Black participants may reflect structural inequities in access to safe outdoor green spaces (the “Nature Gap”). Future surveillance tools should differentiate between “time outdoors” and “time in nature” to accurately capture health-promoting exposure.