Search

There is mounting concern that people living more urbanised, modern lifestyles have fewer and lower quality interactions with nature, and therefore have limited access to the associated health and well‐being benefits. Yet, variation in the different types of nature interactions and the factors that influence these interactions across populations are poorly understood.We compared four types of nature interactions by administering surveys across two cities that differ markedly in urbanisation pattern and population density—Singapore and Brisbane—: (a) indirect (viewing nature through a window at work or at home); (b) incidental (spending time in nature as part of work); (c) intentional interactions in gardens; and (d) intentional interactions in public urban greenspace.Our results show that Singapore respondents spent about half as much time (25.8 hr/week) interacting with nature as Brisbane respondents (52.3 hr/week), and indirect interactions were the most prevalent across both cities.Nature orientation, age, income and gender significantly predicted the duration of nature interactions in both cities, while self‐reported health, education and ethnicity additionally predicted the duration of nature interactions only for Brisbane. Also, the relationship(s) between each factor and duration could differ in direction and effect size between the types of nature interactions.As such, we conclude that there is much local variation in the dynamics of interactions between people and nature, and that focused studies are needed to develop effective interventions addressing declines in nature interactions in different locations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely believed that people living in cities have fewer and poorer daily experiences of nature, and that this contributes to the biodiversity crisis on the basis that if people do not know nature, they will not care for its conservation. In 1978, Pyle coined the term 'extinction of experience' to reflect the loss of opportunities to experience nature as urbanization progresses.However, evidence of an emotional disconnect from nature arising from an extinction of experience remains poorly documented. Here we repeat a study conducted in 1996 comprising household surveys and bird surveys in a neighbourhood of Singapore, one of the world's most densely populated cities. We investigate empirically whether experiences of nature, opportunities to experience nature and the emotional connection between people and nature have changed across 22 years.We discover that emotional connection with nature has actually increased among greenspace users and non‐users, while the frequency and duration of greenspace visits remained unchanged. Among greenspace users, the number of different nature elements experienced also remained unchanged and more frequent users demonstrated a stronger emotional connection with nature. We further found an increase in opportunities to experience local nature, as measured by bird species richness and abundance.While we found no evidence for an extinction of experience or an emotional disconnect from nature in this particular setting and timeframe in urban Singapore, similar studies elsewhere are necessary to explore whether there may be geographical, cultural or temporal variations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]