DOI: 10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr
title: Survey, waiver, and data evaluating human-nature connection in urban parks

description: Human-nature connection (HNC) is a concept derived from investigating the
 formulation and extent of an individual’s identification with the natural
 world. This relationship is often characterized as an emotional bond to
 nature that develops from the contextualized, physical interactions of an
 individual, beginning in childhood. This outcome presents complexity in
 evaluating the development of HNC but suggests optimism in the pathways
 for enhancing lifelong HNC. As urban populations increase, there is a
 growing recognition worldwide of the potential for urban green space to
 cultivate HNC and thus shape the environmental identity of urban
 residents. The results of an online survey of 560 visitors to three
 community parks (managed primarily to provide a variety of physical,
 social and cultural opportunities) and three conservation parks (managed
 primarily to protect native plants and wildlife) in Madison, Wisconsin,
 USA, were used to investigate HNC. Linear mixed effects models evaluated
 visitors’ HNC as a function of their (1) literacy and sentiment about
 wildlife species, (2) park experience, (3) number and frequency of nine
 childhood and adult recreation experiences, and (4) demographics. Across
 the park response groups, the number and frequency of childhood and adult
 recreation experiences was significantly associated with HNC, and this
 positive association persisted in multiple recreation activities.
 Furthermore, species literacy and sentiment, visiting a park for
 'Nature', and frequent and extended visitation also was
 significantly associated with HNC by park type. Our research demonstrates
 the importance of lifelong recreation experiences in the development and
 enhancement of HNC and provides evidence for differences in the expression
 of HNC associated with particular attributes of urban park visitors and
 their views of wildlife.
description: <strong>Methodology</strong>
 <em>Study
 Area</em> Madison has a population of approximately 270,000
 residents, covers approximately 260 km2, and is located in south central
 Wisconsin, USA (US Census Bureau, 2022).  Madison is currently the fastest
 growing city in Wisconsin and is home to the state capital and the
 University of Wisconsin-Madison (US Census Bureau, 2022). The study area
 is within the Yahara Watershed, now largely dominated by agricultural and
 urban land cover, and experiences four distinct seasons (Carpenter et al.,
 2007, Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2010).  
 The six selected parks were based
 on their classification as a community or conservation park; an estimated
 visitation rate; a central, western, or eastern location in Madison; and
 approval from the Madison Parks Division of the City of Madison (Figure
 1).  The size of the community parks ranged from 19.07 ha to 101.50 ha,
 and the size of the conservation parks ranged from 24.39 ha to 39.17 ha. 
 The parks can be broadly described as mixed forest ecosystems with open
 grass areas and low levels of pavement and structural development. 
 Conservation parks contain native grasslands whereas community parks may
 contain native grasslands and/or mowed turf.  By definition, conservation
 parks are managed to protect native plant and wildlife species, resulting
 in the inclusion of vegetation and management practices supporting that
 objective (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022).  As a result of their
 conservation status, recreation therein is limited to physical activities
 such as hiking and snowshoeing and nature-based activities such as
 watching birds / wildlife and photography.  Dogs are not allowed in
 conservation parks.  Community parks are designed to provide a variety of
 physical, social, and cultural opportunities, including athletic fields
 and courts, playgrounds, and picnic shelters.  Community parks allow dogs
 that are leashed and licensed (City of Madison Parks Division, 2022).    
 <em>Study Population and
 Survey</em> We conducted an online
 survey to park visitors in three conservation parks and three community
 parks in Madison. Our research design was approved by the University of
 Wisconsin Education and Social/Behavioral Science Institutional Review
 Board as exempted research. We developed the survey in Google Forms and
 administered it in the parks using a park-specific quick response (QR)
 code printed either (1) on posters that were statically accessible to park
 visitors throughout the study period or (2) on postcards dynamically
 handed to park visitors at selected times during the study period.  The
 posters were visible outdoors in all six parks from 2021-09-04 through
 2021-10-24 (high-use fall period) and from 2022-06-09 through 2022-08-24
 (high-use summer period).  Postcards were distributed in the six parks on
 four Saturdays in both September and July from 10.00 to 12.00.  These
 dates and times were selected to coincide with the days and times with the
 highest number of park visitors, the availability of surveyors, and the
 approval of the Madison City Parks Division.  Each postcard had a unique
 three-digit number required to access the online survey.    Adults (18
 years or older) were approached by the surveyor (lead author and/or
 student assistants trained in research ethics and project specifics) and
 invited to participate.  After verbally agreeing to participate (standard
 approach for exempted research), each potential respondent was asked three
 questions to check for nonresponse bias: (1) zip code, (2) year of birth,
 and (3) main reason for visitation. For poster and postcard respondents
 who continued on to take the online survey, the first question was a
 screening for informed consent, with only those who actively acknowledged
 consent continuing into the study’s content questions.  
 The online survey consisted of 30
 questions, grouped into four categories: (1) literacy and sentiment about
 wildlife species, (2) recreation and park experience, (3) HNC, and (4)
 demographics.  For species literacy and sentiment, respondents were asked
 questions evaluating (1) the correct photographic identification of six
 mammal species, each considered a generalist and likely present in the
 study parks, and (2) visitor sentiment about each species (Figure 2).  For
 recreation activity, respondents were asked questions about (1) the number
 and frequency of childhood and adult experiences with bird / wildlife
 watching, camping, canoeing / kayaking, fishing, gardening, hiking,
 hunting, nature photography, and picnicking; (2) the main reason for
 visitation; (3) prior visitation; (4) length of visit; and (5) distance of
 residence to the park.  For HNC, the abbreviated six-item short form of
 the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6) was used, with four statements from
 NR-Self (1-4) and two statements from NR-Experience (5 and
 6): 
 My connection to nature and the
 environment is a part of my spirituality.
 My relationship to nature is an
 important part of who I am. I feel very connected to all living things and the
 earth. I
 always think about how my actions affect the
 environment. My ideal vacation spot would be a remote,
 wilderness area. I take notice of wildlife wherever I
 am. Demographic questions included age group,
 educational level, and gender.  The survey responses were in the form of a
 short answer (only identification of species), exclusionary checkboxes, or
 a 5-point Likert scale response (“Never” to “Very Often” or “Disagree
 Strongly” to “Agree Strongly”).  Wildlife literacy and sentiment questions
 were accompanied by a corresponding species-specific color photo (Figure
 2).  Species sentiment was measured by species-specific exclusionary
 responses: 'I am happy they live at the park’, ‘I think they are
 important for the park ecosystem', 'I am concerned about their
 impact on human safety', 'I am concerned that they bring
 disease', 'I think they are a nuisance', or 'I am
 unsure how I feel or do not care’.  We piloted the survey with a focus
 group before administering it in the six parks to identify possible issues
 such as unclear language or challenges in viewing on mobile devices and
 adjusted our final survey accordingly.  All survey responses were
 anonymous.       
 <em>Analysis</em>
 Initial exploratory analysis
 included a random effect for park type (community and conservation) and a
 random effect and interaction term for survey type (postcard and poster). 
 The type of park was a significant factor, and the models afterwards were
 separated into two model sets, one for community park visitors and one for
 conservation park visitors.  A random effect was included for the parks
 sampled (3 community parks or 3 conservation parks) within the
 corresponding model set.  The type of survey was not a significant random
 effect, and the data of each type of survey were combined based on the
 type of park.  No differences were found between the potential and actual
 respondents by postcard with respect to zip code, year of birth, and main
 reason for visitation. This suggests that nonresponse bias was unlikely. 
 Mixed-effects linear models were applied using the
 ‘lme’ function in the 'nlme' package (v3. 1-152; Pinheiro et
 al., 2021) of the R software, version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2019).  As our
 work forwards investigation on the specific factors associated with HNC
 (using the mean NR-6 score of a respondent) rather than the conventional
 application of NR-6 as a predictor of pro-environmental behavior or
 self-assessed well-being, we evaluated factors independently rather than
 collectively. Separate models were developed for community and
 conservation park survey data to evaluate HNC as a function of factors
 within four categories: (1) species literacy and positive species
 sentiment; (2) number, frequency, and type of outdoor recreation
 activities of childhood and adulthood; (3) main reason for visitation,
 prior visitation, length of visit, and distance of residence to the park;
 and (4) demographic factors (age category, educational level, and
 gender).  Species literacy was calculated as the average of responses
 recorded in six species: '1' for a correct answer and
 '0' for an incorrect answer.  Positive species sentiment was
 calculated as '1' for 'I am happy they live at the
 park' or 'I think they are important for the park
 ecosystem' or '0' for all other responses, recorded in six
 species.  The frequency of participation in childhood and adult recreation
 activities was calculated for each respondent as the average of responses
 from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) for the three activities respondents
 listed as the most frequent.  This method was chosen to reduce penalties
 for individuals who participated in fewer activities compared to those who
 participated in a greater number of activities.  The main reason for
 visiting had one of three options: 'Passive' included
 playground, picnic, and socialization, 'Active' included
 walking, exercise, and sports, and a third category 'Nature'
 included responses specific to nature-based activities (enjoying nature,
 watching birds / wildlife and nature photography).  The category
 'Nature' is a subset of activities derived from activities
 otherwise categorized as 'Passive' but specific to
 nature-related recreation (Çetinkaya et al., 2017; Metin et al., 2017;
 Sampath et al., 2020).  The assumptions for the models, including
 linearity and normality, were graphically checked using residual versus
 fitted value plots and QQ plots of residuals.  To correct for the large
 number of tests performed, we used the false discovery rate (FDR) method
 (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995, Benjamini et al., 2005). We set our
 false discovery rate at 5%. F-test p-values and confidence intervals
 reported in our paper are FDR-adjusted and can be compared to 0.05 to
 determine significance. For categorical predictor variables, if the
 overall F-test was significant by the FDR method, the means were separated
 using Tukey’s HSD method.
description: # Human-nature connection consent form and survey
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h70rxwdqr) The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article. ## Description of the data and file structure The data set contains the raw and coded data used in the analysis as presented in the published article. The supplementary material contains two documents, the consent form that preceded the survey and the survey questions that were administered online to community and conservation park visitors in Madison, WI, USA as presented in the published article. The following provides a definition for each column notation. ParkID indicates each park's identification code: 1-3=community parks and 4-6=conservation parks Age indicates one of seven age categories: (1=18-24), (2=25-34), (3=35-44), (4=45-54), (5=55-64), (6=64-74), (7=75 or older) Gender indicates one of three gender categories: 1=female, 0=male, 2=other Education indicates one of 6 options: 3=High school, 4=Two-year college graduate, 5=Four-year college graduate, 6=Graduate or professional degree, 2=Other, 1=Do not wish to answer NR-6 indicates mean NR-6 score as average for six questions Literacy indicates the average of correct species identification responses (for all six species) Sentiment indicates the average of positive species sentiment scores (for all six species) Main Reason indicates one of three categories: 0=passive, 1=active, 2=nature How Long indicates one of three categories: 1=less than 1 hour, 2=1 to 2 hours, 3=greater than 2 hours How Far indicates one of six categories: 0=Other, 1=1/4 mile to 1/2 mile, 2=1/2 mile to 1 mile, 3=1 mile to 3 miles, 4=3 miles to 5 miles, 5=greater than 5 miles Previous Visits indicates 0=0 times, 1=1 time, 2=2 to 5 times, 3=6 to 10 times, 4=11 to 20 times, 5=greater than 20 times Number Youth indicates the number of recreation activities in childhood Number Adult indicates the number of recreation activities in adulthood NA indicates information provided by the respondent that was incorrect (e.g., place of birth instead of year of birth) ## Sharing/Access information The results of this study are published in People and Nature.