Dear Readers, I knew that the UK was one of the most  nature-depleted countries in Europe, but I was somewhat surprised by a recent study, widely reported in the  press, which suggested that we were also towards the bottom of the nature-connectedness league too, way behind Nigeria, Nepal, and Bangladesh, and only slightly ahead of Canada, the Netherlands and Germany.

What the hecky-decky is going on? I asked myself. This seems like some kind of social science mash-up with no rhyme or reason. So I had to have a look for myself.

First up, what is nature-connectedness? There are various definitions, including a sense of oneness with nature, or the overlap between self and nature. It would certainly be true that lots of people no longer regard themselves as part of nature, but as something altogether different. This is clearly a dangerous perspective – as extreme weather events occur in larger swathes of the world, and with more frequency, it should act as a reminder that good old Mother Nature is more than capable of sweeping us away if the mood takes her, plus it wasn’t so long ago that all of our lives were upended by a tiny virus. Nature-connectedness seems to enhance how we feel, and also how we act, so for me it’s a good thing – you’re never alone with a plant, or an insect, and caring about the little things close to home can help build care for the wider world.

So far, so good. But how did the authors of the report come up with this league table of countries? Interestingly, I can’t see it in the actual paper (you can read it for free here) and it seems to have been concocted by the Guardian from one of the tables. However, the method involved taking both objective criteria for each country, such as the degree of urbanisation and the business culture, and subjective criteria, such as social behaviours and attitudes.

The objective criteria that seemed to make the most difference were the percentage of older adults (but does that suggest that younger adults have a better relationship with nature? I hope so, but I’m scratching my head a bit), the percentage of the population on the internet, and a ‘business-friendly environment’ (i.e. where regulation favoured business rather than the environment). Where a country scored high on these criteria, it was felt to show less ‘nature-connectedness’.

The subjective criteria that seemed to indicate nature-connectedness included spirituality and a belief in religion over science.

And at this point, I lost all faith in the whole thing. There are many kinds of spirituality, some of which can lead to the idea of ‘dominion’ over the natural world, and some of which can lead to wanting to protect it. Scientists are both at the forefront of climate science and biodiversity research, and are also working for fossil fuel companies. What the countries that lead the table share is that they are all developing countries, while the ones at the bottom are all industrialised. I suspect that the degree of urbanisation, ageing population and ‘business-friendly’ environments of these countries are what has put them at the bottom of the table, rather than the actual attitudes of the people who live there. The UK has the largest membership of environmental organisations of any country in Europe, which must stand for something.

I feel as if this paper is a great effort at wrestling the beast of the data of 61 countries to the ground, but I find it difficult to understand in its current state. What it might be is a great starting point for future, more focussed research.