Contact with nature, nature prescriptions, and loneliness: Evidence from an international survey of adults in Australia, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Thomas Astell-Burt; Michelle Kondo; Tanya Pritchard; Katarzyna Olcon; J Aaron Hipp; Deepti Adlakha; Evangelos Pappas; Xiaoqi Feng

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103331

Contact with nature, nature prescriptions, and loneliness: Evidence from an international survey of adults in Australia, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Health Place. 2024 Oct 7:90:103331. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103331. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Thomas Astell-Burt¹, Michelle Kondo², Tanya Pritchard³, Katarzyna Olcon⁴, J Aaron Hipp⁵, Deepti Adlakha⁶, Evangelos Pappas⁷, Xiaoqi Feng⁸

Affiliations

¹ School of Architecture, Design, and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab (PowerLab), Sydney, Australia.
² US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia, United States.
³ School of Population Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
⁴ School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
⁵ Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States.
⁶ Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Delft, The Netherlands.
⁷ School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia; Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
⁸ Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab (PowerLab), Sydney, Australia; School of Population Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 39378733
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103331

Abstract

Evidence to support nature contact and nature prescriptions to reduce loneliness is scant. A total of 2100 individuals took part in a survey conducted in Australia (n = 525, mean age = 34.1), India (n = 526, mean age = 29.5), Singapore (n = 523, mean age = 36.1), the UK (n = 526, mean age = 37.3), and the US (n = 525, mean age = 43.6) in 2022 (overall age range 18-89yrs). Multilevel logistic regressions adjusted for confounding indicated mean levels of overall loneliness tended to be higher in India (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 0.90-1.62), Singapore (OR = 1.54, 95%CI = 1.15-2.07), the UK (OR = 1.26, 95%CI = 0.96-1.67) and the US (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94-1.64) compared with Australia. Notable differences were observed by loneliness type, for example, with lower odds of social loneliness (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.41-0.79) and higher odds of emotional loneliness (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.14-2.06) in India compared with Australia. Findings with regards to loneliness and nature contact varied between country. In general, social loneliness was lower in participants who visited natural surroundings regularly (OR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.61-0.98) and spent two hours or more per week in nature (OR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.49-0.81). Overall loneliness (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.48-2.47) and emotional loneliness (OR = 2.84, 95%CI = 2.13-3.51) were substantially higher among those who felt having no-one to go with was a barrier to spending time in nature. Emotional loneliness was higher in those who had more time in nature (OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 0.94-1.75) or more frequent visits (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 0.94-1.49), which may be indicative of selective processes by which some people who feel emotionally lonely seek meaningful sources of connection or solace in natural environments. In sum, these findings highlight potentially important contingencies in how people feel lonely in different countries, and the potential of contact with nature as a means to address this critical issue of modern times. Randomised trials of nature prescription interventions for loneliness co-designed with respect to contrasting cultural, economic, and climatic contexts are needed to ensure programs intended to reconnect people with nature are effective, equitable, and acceptable for everyone.