在生态文明转型与数字社会兴起背景下,公众自然接触的心理测量与结构建模面临理论与方法双重挑战。研究提出自然接触的三维结构（客观环境、主观体验、互动行为）,构建中文语境下自然接触心理词典,并将其应用于2010-2024年间微博数据,动态表征自然接触在时空维度的演化特征。结果表明,该词典具备良好效度与响应性,能够捕捉政策节点与区域结构中的心理表达变动。我国自然接触水平,在2010-2024年间呈系统性上升趋势,并于2012、2017、2022年显现明显跃升;空间分布上呈现“西高东低、边疆高、核心城市低”的地理结构。研究实现了自然接触的开放语境测量,描绘出我国自然接触的时空分布结构,为生态文明评估、绿色干预与数字治理提供测量工具与理论支持。
Abstract
This study aims to develop a structured and scalable method for measuring nature contact in open-language environments and to examine the long-term temporal evolution and regional variation of public nature contact in China. While previous studies have emphasized either physical exposure to nature or subjective experiences in isolated settings, little is known about how nature contact is expressed and can be quantified at scale within digital behavioral data.
To address this issue, a semantic dictionary of nature contact was constructed based on a tripartite conceptual framework that encompasses physical environmental presence, psychological responses, and interactive behaviors. The initial candidate pool was derived from 30 established psychometric instruments, such as the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS), the Nature Relatedness Scale (NR-6), and the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS). In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 active Sina Weibo users to collect contextually embedded and vernacular expressions of nature contact. These data were expanded using a Chinese large language model. A final lexicon of 4,014 nature-related terms was established after semantic screening and expert validation.
To evaluate the validity of the dictionary, two procedures were conducted. First, 200 Weibo posts were randomly sampled and scored independently by four trained raters using a 5-point Likert scale. The dictionary-based scores showed a statistically significant correlation with the human scores (r = .647, p < .001). Second, the dictionary-based scores were found to be highly correlated with objective annual indicators of natural resource abundance. Together, these findings provide robust evidence for the high validity of the nature contact dictionary.
The validated dictionary was applied to a large corpus of Weibo data collected from 1.23 million active users, comprising approximately 60 billion characters from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2024. The weiboSpider procedure was used to collect original posts from ordinary users with ≤3,000 followers and ≥20 posts. Posts were assigned to 31 provincial-level administrative regions using user location tags.
Two major analyses were conducted. First, the average annual nature contact score was computed for the entire sample, revealing an upward trajectory from 2010 to 2024. Notably, three distinct surges in nature-related expressions were temporally aligned with the 18th, 19th, and 20th National Congresses of the Chinese Communist Party, suggesting a coupling between major environmental policy announcements and collective psychological responses. Second, regional differences were analyzed. Higher scores were found in provinces with rich ecological resources such as Tibet, Guizhou, Yunnan, and Hainan. In contrast, lower scores were recorded in urbanized coastal provinces such as Shanghai and Guangdong, indicating disparities in digital expressions of nature awareness.
The results indicate that the proposed dictionary-based method enables high-resolution, behaviorally grounded measurement of nature contact within digital discourse. The study highlights that public nature contact is not static, but rather evolves alongside national policy discourse and varies across geographical contexts. The findings support the view that nature awareness is socially constructed and context-dependent, reflecting the intertwined relationship between environmental presence and psychological accessibility.
In conclusion, this research offers a conceptually sound, linguistically structured, and computationally scalable tool for measuring nature contact in naturalistic settings. It also contributes novel empirical evidence regarding the temporal growth and spatial distribution of nature contact in China over a 15-year period. The methodology may be extended to other psychological constructs and supports future work on ecological communication, public well-being, and green behavioral interventions in digital societies.
关键词
自然接触 /
智能化测量 /
微博语料 /
时间演进 /
空间差异
Key words
nature contact /
intelligent measurement /
Weibo corpus (2010-2024) /
temporal dynamics /
spatial variation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 董波, 王微, 秦思思, 田晓明. (2025). 环境心理学的研究现状与未来路向——基于30年来JEVP和EB刊文的文献计量学分析. 心理科学, 48(2), 495-511.
[2] 董颖红,陈浩,赖凯声, 乐国安. (2015). 微博客基本社会情绪的测量及效度检验. 心理科学, 38(5), 1141-1146.
[3] 李云昊, 杜雪妍, 吴建平. (2024). 感知复愈性量表的中文版修订. 中国健康心理学杂志, 32(12), 1883-1889.
[4] 罗蓝, 姜斌. (2024). 接触自然——有潜力的物质成瘾缓解和恢复策略:理论机制及关键问题. 中国园林, 40(1), 33-39.
[5] 彭红松, 李畅, 钟士恩, 章锦河. (2023). 人与自然的关系研究:接触、联结及益处. 地理研究, 42(4), 1101-1116.
[6] 饶丽威, 赵丹, 韩雨森, 王小玲, 杨丽. (2024). 孤独感与自杀的关系:自然联结的补偿和调节作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 32(6), 1195-1200, +1206.
[7] 宋瑞新, 耿柳娜. (2024). 人与自然和谐共生研究热点与前沿分析——基于CiteSpace软件的可视化研究. 生态经济, 40(9), 221-226.
[8] 王璟, 张春晖. (2022). 自然旅游地感知环境美学质量对游客积极情绪的影响——多重中介模型研究. 旅游学刊, 37(7), 80-94.
[9] 吴胜涛, 茅云云, 吴舒涵, 冯健仁, 张庆鹏, 谢天, 陈浩, 朱廷劭. (2023). 基于大数据的文化心理分析. 心理科学进展, 31(3), 317-329.
[10] 杨雨凡, 陈美爱, 徐丽华. (2024a). 基于CiteSpace的城市自然与人群健康效应研究进展. 生态学报, 44(14), 1-15.
[11] 杨雨凡, 陈美爱, 徐丽华. (2024b). 基于文献计量的城市自然与人群健康效应研究进展. 生态学报, 44(14), 6391-6404.
[12] 张昊天, 喻丰. (2023). 自然性偏好的概念、表现及成因. 心理科学进展, 31(12), 2393-2405.
[13] 张珂烨, 左孟杰, 耿柳娜. (2021). 走进大自然:自然体验及其积极效应. 心理科学, 44(6), 1469-1475.
[14] 章彦博, 黄峰, 莫柳铃, 刘晓倩, 朱廷劭. (2025). 基于大语言模型的自杀意念文本数据增强与识别技术. 心理学报, 57(6), 987-1000.
[15] Berman M. G., Jonides J., & Kaplan S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207-1212.
[16] Bratman G. N., Anderson C. B., Berman M. G., Cochran B., de Vries S., Flanders J., Folke C., Frumkin H., Gross J. J., Hartig T., Kahn P. H., Kuo M., Lawler J. J., Levin P. S., Lindahl T., Meyer-Lindenberg A., Mitchell R., Ouyang Z., Roe J., & Daily G. C. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903.
[17] Bratman G. N., Daily G. C., Levy B. J., & Gross J. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41-50.
[18] Browning M. H., Mimnaugh K. J., Van Riper C. J., Laurent H. K., & LaValle S. M. (2020). Can simulated nature support mental health? Comparing short, single-doses of 360-degree nature videos in virtual reality with the outdoors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2667.
[19] Capaldi C. A., Dopko R. L., & Zelenski J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 92737.
[20] Clayton S., Devine-Wright P., Swim J., Bonnes M., Steg L., Whitmarsh L., & Carrico A. (2016). Expanding the role for psychology in addressing environmental challenges. American Psychologist, 71(3), 199-215.
[21] Devlin J., Chang M. W., Lee K., & Toutanova K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies. Minneapdis, MN, Association for Computational Linguistics.
[22] Frumkin H., Bratman G. N., Breslow S. J., Cochran B., Kahn Jr P. H., Lawler J. J., Levin P. S., Tandon P. S., Varanasi U., & Wolf K. L. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001.
[23] Gao R., Hao B., Li H., Gao Y., & Zhu T. (2013). Developing simplified Chinese psychological linguistic analysis dictionary for microblog. Proceedings of brain and health informatics: International conference, BHI 2013, Maebashi, Japan.
[24] Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-157.
[25] Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv.
[26] Hartig T., Mitchell R., De Vries S., & Frumkin H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207-228.
[27] Helbich M., De Beurs D., Kwan, M. P. O'Connor, R. C., & Groenewegen P. P. (2018). Natural environments and suicide mortality in the Netherlands: A cross-sectional, ecological study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(3), e134-e139.
[28] Holland I., DeVille N. V., Browning M. H., Buehler R. M., Hart J. E., Hipp J. A., Mitchell R., Rakow D. A., Schiff J. E., & White M. P. (2021). Measuring nature contact: A narrative review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4092.
[29] Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Goal-directed conservation behavior: The specific composition of a general performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1531-1544.
[30] Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.
[31] Kuo M., Browning M. H., & Penner M. L. (2018). Do lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement? Refueling students in flight. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2253.
[32] Largo-Wight, E. (2011). Cultivating healthy places and communities: Evidenced-based nature contact recommendations. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 21(1), 41-61.
[33] Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230.
[34] Li L., Li A., Hao B., Guan Z., & Zhu T. (2014). Predicting active users' personality based on micro-blogging behaviors. PLoS one, 9(1), e84997.
[35] Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503-515.
[36] Nisbet E. K., Zelenski J. M., & Murphy S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.
[37] Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2008). Between conjecture and memento: Shaping a collective emotional perception of the future. AAAI spring symposium: Emotion, personality, and social behavior. Stanford.
[38] Proshansky, H. M. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialisation of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 299-313.
[39] Rogers E. M., Singhal A., & Quinlan M. M. (2014). Diffusion of innovations. In D. W. Stacks & M. B. Salwen(Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 432-448). Routledge.
[40] Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck. & W. P. Schulz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Springer.
[41] Shanahan D. F., Fuller R. A., Bush R., Lin B. B., & Gaston K. J. (2015). The health benefits of urban nature: How much do we need? BioScience, 65(5), 476-485.
[42] Song, M., & Zhao, N. (2023). Predicting life satisfaction based on the emotion words in self-statement texts. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1121915.
[43] Stern P. C., Dietz T., Abel T., Guagnano G. A., & Kalof L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97.
[44] Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24-54.
[45] Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 25-38.
[46] Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Attman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). Springer.
[47] Van den Berg, A. E., Hartig T., & Staats H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 79-96.
[48] White M. P., Alcock I., Grellier J., Wheeler B. W., Hartig T., Warber S. L., Bone A., Depledge M. H., & Fleming L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7730.
[49] Williams T. G., Logan T. M., Zuo C. T., Liberman K. D., & Guikema S. D. (2020). Parks and safety: A comparative study of green space access and inequity in five US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103841.
[50] Xiaoming, T. (2010). Loneliness: A psychological turning point in the reconstruction of the urban order in China. Social Sciences in China, 31(4), 147-164.
[51] Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3-23.
[52] Zimmer M., Ajonina G. N., Amir A. A., Cragg S. M., Crooks S., Dahdouh-Guebas F., Duke N. C., Fratini S., Friess D. A., & Helfer V. (2022). When nature needs a helping hand: Different levels of human intervention for mangrove (re-) establishment. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 784322.
基金
*本研究得到国家自然科学基金项目（32100841,32100842）、江苏省学位与研究生教育教学改革课题（JGKT23_B047）、江苏高校“青蓝工程”项目和江苏省高校哲学社会科学重大项目（2025SJZD141）的资助
PDF(968 KB)
