The Guardian corrects claim that new research was the first global study of nature connectedness

The Guardian has amended its reporting on international attitudes toward nature, clarifying that the study it cited was one of the first global investigations into how people relate to the natural world, not the first as originally stated.

In the article published on 1 November under the headline “Britain one of least ‘nature-connected’ nations in world – with Nepal the most,” the newspaper initially described the research as “the first ever global study” of human-nature connectedness. The correction notes that earlier work — specifically a 2024 paper in the Journal of Environmental Psychology — provided the foundational data on which the new study built.

The update also adds that the 2025 paper, led by Professor Miles Richardson of the University of Derby, drew on this prior dataset rather than conducting a wholly original survey.

While the change may appear minor, it meaningfully alters the study’s framing within academic and environmental discourse. Presenting it as the first suggested a landmark discovery in the field, when in fact it represents a continuation and expansion of existing research. In scientific reporting, such distinctions matter: chronology shapes perceived innovation and authority, influencing how findings are cited and understood by policymakers and educators.

The Guardian’s original wording risked overstating both the novelty and independence of the study, inadvertently minimising previous international efforts to measure psychological connectedness to nature. At a time when environmental communication depends heavily on trust between journalists and researchers, mischaracterising the originality of work can blur that relationship.

The clarification restores proper context — situating the new research as part of a growing body of scholarship rather than a solitary breakthrough. For readers tracking the global effort to quantify humanity’s estrangement from nature, accuracy in such details reinforces confidence that the science, and not the storytelling, leads the narrative.