The Human-Nature Relationship: Complexity of the Phenomenon, Historical Evolution and Its Reflection in Artistic Works

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2026.28.10

Keywords:

connection to nature, children, forest, art, history

Abstract

This study explores the connection between humans and nature, distinguishing childhood as the critical period of its formation. Based on these studies, it is argued that early experiences in nature determine not only the formation of an emotional connection with the environment, but also long-term human ecological awareness and psychological well-being. However, urbanization processes, loss of biodiversity and the reduction of natural spaces in  cities weaken the opportunities to experience everyday connection with nature, which raises the need to study the cultural, historical and visual roots of this phenomenon.

In order to understand the cultural and historical context of this connection, a visual graphical analysis of historical works of art, revealing how nature, children and their interaction were depicted in various periods is conducted. European paintings and other visual sources created from prehistoric times to the 21st century are analyzed. The analysis aims to determine how representations of the relationship between people and nature have changed in various historical periods, what sociocultural meanings these images convey, and how they reflect broader societal changes. A literature analysis was also conducted to understand how the relationship between people and nature has changed over historical periods.

Artistic narratives reflect not only the change in the concept of nature, but also society's attitude towards the relationship with the environment. The analysis shows that from early images, in which nature is perceived as the source of human life, to urbanized modern images, the connection with nature is weakening. Based on the results of the study, it is concluded that the connection with nature experienced in childhood is the essential basis of the human-nature relationship, which has a long-term impact on emotional, cognitive, and social development. It is recommended to create more accessible natural spaces in cities, and apply urban strategies that help restore children's daily contact with the natural environment.

Author Biographies

  • Egle Januskiene, Kaunas University of Technology

    Received the degree of Bachelor of Architecture in 2009, and the degree of Master of Architecture in 2011. She is currently a PhD student at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the Kaunas University of Technology. She is also a practising architect, an immovable cultural heritage protection specialist, a specialist in special and detailed planning of territories, and a children‘s educator. She is the author of two architectural books for children. Her main research interests cover architecture for children, sustainable architecture, landscape architecture, and cultural heritage. Since 2016, she has been a member of the Architects Chamber of Lithuania.
    ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0051-4040

  • Jurate Kamicaityte, Kaunas University of Technology

    Received the degree of Bachelor of Architecture in 1997, the degree of Master of Architecture in 1999, and the degree of Doctor of Technological Sciences in 2003. She is currently a Professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture of Kaunas University of Technology. She is also a Vice-Dean for Education and a member of the Doctoral Committee of History and Theory of Arts. Today, she is the author and co-author of more than 70 scientific articles, 2 course books and a scientific study; presented research results at more than 30 national and international scientific conferences. Together with co-authors prepared 20 architectural and spatial planning projects; participated and is participating in 10 research and 4 study projects. Her main research interests include analysis and evaluation of landscape visual quality, methods of visual impact assessment, evaluation of potential and dynamics of city structures, cultural and landscape identity studies, sustainable architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning. Since 2018 she has been a member of the Research Group “Cultural and Spatial Environment” at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture (KTU) and an associate member of the research laboratory of CNRS ESPACE UMR 7300 (University of Aix-Marseille).
    ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8821-5764

References

1. Bailey A. W., Kang H.-K. Walking and Sitting Outdoors: Which Is Better for Cognitive Performance and Mental States? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, no. 19(24), p. 16638. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416638.

2. Barragan-Jason G., Loreau M., De Mazancourt C., Singer M. C., Parmesan C. Psychological and Physical Connections with Nature Improve Both Human Well-Being and Nature Conservation: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Biological Conservation, 2023, no. 277, p. 109842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109842.

3. Bashan D., Colléony A., Shwartz A. Urban versus Rural? The Effects of Residential Status on Species Identification Skills and Connection to Nature. People and Nature, 2021, no. 3(2), p. 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10176.

4. Baur J. W. R., Ries P., Rosenberger R. S. A Relationship between Emotional Connection to Nature and Attitudes about Urban Forest Management. Urban Ecosystems, 2020, no. 23(1), p. 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00905-2.

5. Beery T., Olafsson A. S., Gentin S., Maurer M., Stålhammar S., Albert C., Bieling C., et al. Disconnection from Nature: Expanding Our Understanding of Human–Nature Relations. People and Nature, 2023, no. 5(2), p. 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10451.

6. Bratman G. N., Hamilton J. P., Daily G. C. The Impacts of Nature Experience on Human Cognitive Function and Mental Health: Nature Experience, Cognitive Function, and Mental Health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2012, no. 1249(1), p. 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x.

7. Carignano Torres P., Morsello C., Parry L., Pardini R. Who Cares about Forests and Why? Individual Values Attributed to Forests in a Post-Frontier Region in Amazonia. PLOS ONE, 2016, no. 11(12), p. e0167691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167691.

8. Carman J. Elders’ Lifelong Connection with the Natural Environment. Educational Gerontology, 2011, no. 37(6), p. 488–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2011.570203.

9. Carrus G., Panno A., Aragones J. I., Marchetti M., Motta R., Tonon G., Sanesi G. Public Perceptions of Forests across Italy: An Exploratory National Survey. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2020, no. 13(1), p. 323–328. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor3394-013.

10. Church S. P. From Street Trees to Natural Areas: Retrofitting Cities for Human Connectedness to Nature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2018, no. 61(5–6), p. 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428182.

11. Congying A., Liu J., Liu Q., Liu Y., Fan X., Hu Y. How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, no. 19(2), p. 2–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883.

12. Dadvand P., Nieuwenhuijsen M. J., Esnaola M., Forns J., Basagaña X., Alvarez-Pedrerol M., et al. Green Spaces and Cognitive Development in Primary Schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, no. 112(26), p. 7937–7942. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503402112.

13. De Bell S., Graham H., White P. C. L. The Role of Managed Natural Spaces in Connecting People with Urban Nature: A Comparison of Local User, Researcher, and Provider Views. Urban Ecosystems, 2018, no. 21(5), p. 875–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0762-x.

14. Duvernoy I., Gambino M. Where to Find Nature? Connecting with Nature in Urban and Non-Urban Areas in Southwestern France. GeoJournal, 2022, no. 87(4), p. 2771–2786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10392-8.

15. Fehnker L., Pearson D., Howland P. J. Exploring Conceptualisations of “Connections to Nature” from an Environmental Management Perspective: A Case Study in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, no. 29(1), p. 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2022.2035834.

16. Frantz C., Mayer F. S., Norton C., Rock M. There Is No “I” in Nature: The Influence of Self-Awareness on Connectedness to Nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2005, no. 25(4), p. 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.002.

17. Furness E. Understanding the Lived Experience of Connection to Nature. Conservation Science and Practice, 2021, no. 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.440.

18. Häggström M. Lived Experiences of Being-in-the-Forest as Experiential Sharing with the More-than-Human World. Environmental Education Research, 2019, no. 25(9), p. 1334–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1633275.

19. Harper A., Hespos S., Gray T. Nature Play in Primary School: Supporting Holistic Development Through Outdoor Learning. Education Sciences, 2025, no. 15(11), p. 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111487.

20. Harshaw H. W., Tindall D. B. Social Structure, Identities, and Values: A Network Approach to Understanding People’s Relationships to Forests. Journal of Leisure Research, 2005, no. 37(4), p. 426–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950061.

21. Hatty M. A., Mavondo F. T., Goodwin D., Smith L. D. G. Nurturing Connection with Nature: The Role of Spending Time in Different Types of Nature. Ecosystems and People, 2022, no. 18(1), p. 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2143570.

22. Hatty M., Goodwin D., Smith L., Mavondo F. Speaking of Nature: Relationships between How People Think about, Connect with, and Act to Protect Nature. Ecology and Society, 2022, no. 27(3), p. art17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13369-270317.

23. Hung S.-H., Chang C.-Y. How Do Humans Value Urban Nature? Developing the Perceived Biophilic Design Scale (PBDs) for Preference and Emotion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2022, no. 76, p. 127730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127730.

24. Kiewra C., Veselack E. Playing with Nature: Supporting Preschoolers’ Creativity in Natural Outdoor Classrooms. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 2016, no. 4(1), p. 70–95.

25. Krejčí H., Stárová M., Hrbek I., Navrátilová M., Beranová M. The Perception of Forests by the Czech Republic General Public. Journal of Forest Science, 2019, no. 65(6), p. 226–233. https://doi.org/10.17221/138/2018-JFS.

26. Lande U. S., Herfindal I., Willebrand T., Moa P. F., Storaas T. Landscape Characteristics Explain Large-Scale Variation in Demographic Traits in Forest Grouse. Landscape Ecology, 2014, no. 29(1), p. 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9960-3.

27. Lapka M., Vávra J., Sokolíčková Z. Cultural Ecology: Contemporary Understanding of the Relationship between Humans and the Environment. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 2012, no. 5(2).

28. Lawrence A., Gatto P., Bogataj N., Lidestav G. Forests in Common: Learning from Diversity of Community Forest Arrangements in Europe. Ambio, 2021, no. 50(2), p. 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01377-x.

29. Luo F., Wang C., Lei H., Xiao Z. Young Adults’ Perception of Forests Using Landscape-Image-Sketching Technique: A Case

Study of Changsha, Central China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023, no. 20(4), p.

2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042986.

30. Lupp G., Kantelberg V., Fäth J., Hirschbeck T., Käsbauer C., Ritter A., Schisslbauer J., Pauleit S. Through the Eyes of Forest Visitors—Perception and Scenic Preferences of Munich’s Urban Proximate Woodlands. Forests, 2022, no. 13(10), p. 1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101584.

31. Mackay C. M. Do People Who Feel More Connected to Nature Do More to Protect It? A Meta-Analysis, n.d.

32. Mackevičiūtė J. Žmogaus Ir Gamtos Santykių Problemos Raida Filosofijoje. Problemos, 2000, no. 58. ISSN 1392-1126.

33. Nelson T. M., Strong M. J., Johnson T. Aesthetic and Biological Perceptions of Successional Forest. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2006, no. 16(3), p. 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2006.9752563.

34. Oh R. R. Y., Zhang Y., Nghiem L. T. P., Chang C.-C., Tan C. L. Y., Quazi S. A., Shanahan D. F., et al. Connection to Nature and Time Spent in Gardens Predicts Social Cohesion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2022, no. 74, p. 127655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127655.

35. Petri A. C., Koeser A. K., Lovell S. T., Ingram D. How Green Are Trees? — Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods to Assess Net Environmental Benefits. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 2016, no. 34(4), p. 101–110. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-34.4.101.

36. Plieninger T., Shamohamadi S., García-Martín M., Quintas-Soriano C., Shakeri Z., Valipour A. Community, Pastoralism, Landscape: Eliciting Values and Human-Nature Connectedness of Forest-Related People. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2023, no. 233, p. 104706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104706.

37. Referowska-Chodak. Management and Social Problems Linked to the Human Use of European Urban and Suburban Forests. Forests, 2019, no. 10(11), p. 964. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10110964.

38. Richardson M., Maspero M., Golightly D., Sheffield D., Staples V., Lumber R. Nature: A New Paradigm for Well-Being and Ergonomics. Ergonomics, 2017, no. 60(2), p. 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1157213.

39. Ritter E., Dauksta D. Human–Forest Relationships: Ancient Values in Modern Perspectives. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2013, no. 15(3), p. 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9398-9.

40. Rosa C. D., Profice C. C., Collado S. Nature Experiences and Adults’ Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Role of Connectedness to Nature and Childhood Nature Experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, no. 9, p. 1055. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01055.

41. Roux J.-L., Konczal A., Bernasconi A., Bhagwat S., De Vreese R., Doimo I., Marini Govigli V., et al. Exploring Evolving Spiritual Values of Forests in Europe and Asia: A Transition Hypothesis toward Re-Spiritualizing Forests. Ecology and Society, 2022, no. 27(4), p. art20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13509-270420.

42. Salazar G., Monroe M. C., Jordan C., Ardoin N. M., Beery T. H. Improving Assessments of Connection to Nature: A Participatory Approach. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2021, no. 8, p. 609104. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.609104.

43. Samus A., Freeman C., Van Heezik Y., Krumme K., Dickinson K. J. M. How Do Urban Green Spaces Increase Well-Being? The Role of Perceived Wildness and Nature Connectedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2022, no. 82, p. 101850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101850.

44. Snell T. L., Simmonds J. G., Klein L. M. Exploring the Impact of Contact with Nature in Childhood on Adult Personality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020, no. 55, p. 126864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126864.

45. Stevenson M. P., Dewhurst R., Schilhab T., Bentsen P. Cognitive Restoration in Children Following Exposure to Nature: Evidence From the Attention Network Task and Mobile Eye Tracking. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, no. 10, p. 42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00042.

46. Sutton M. Q., Anderson E. N. Introduction to Cultural Ecology. 3rd ed. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press (Rowman & Littlefield), 2014.

47. Tang I.-Ch., Sullivan W. C., Chang C.-Y. Perceptual Evaluation of Natural Landscapes: The Role of the Individual Connection to Nature. Environment and Behavior, 2015, no. 47(6), p. 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513520604.

48. Wells N. M., Evans G. W. Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress Among Rural Children. Environment and Behavior, 2003, no. 35(3), p. 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003001.

49. Wood C. J., Smyth N. The Health Impact of Nature Exposure and Green Exercise across the Life Course: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 2020, no. 30(2), p. 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2019.1593327.

50. Zelenski J. M., Nisbet E. K. Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 2014, no. 46(1), p. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512451901.

Landscape architecture and art

Downloads

Published

30-09-2026

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 28 (2026): Landscape architecture and art : scientific journal of the Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Landscape Architecture and Art

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The Human-Nature Relationship: Complexity of the Phenomenon, Historical Evolution and Its Reflection in Artistic Works. (2026). Landscape Architecture and Art, 28(28), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2026.28.10