How do Russian city dwellers relate to nature? Adaptation of the Biophilic Attitudes Inventory

Context and relevance. In the context of accelerated urbanization and a growing disconnect from the natural environment, there is increasing interest in biophilic attitudes — a system of stable views, beliefs, and evaluations that reflect a person's relationship with living nature and shape their psychological well-being and environmentally responsible behavior. Existing tools for their measurement, such as the Biophilic Attitudes Inventory (BAI), have primarily been validated on Western samples, and their applicability in the Russian-speaking context remained unexplored. Objective: to adapt and validate the Russian-language version of the Biophilic Attitudes Inventory on a sample of Russian city dwellers. Hypotheses. We hypothesized that adapting the inventory would require revising its structure, as the original model would not fit the data obtained from Russian respondents. It was also expected that the adapted tool would possess the property of measurement invariance between groups differing by gender and experience of interaction with nature, and that the level of biophilic attitudes would be higher among women, as well as among people who have pets or plants at home. Methods and materials. The study involved 383 respondents (77.9% female) aged 18—55. We employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, reliability assessment, multi-group factor analysis, and comparative analysis. Results. The original models of the Biophilic Attitudes Inventory were not confirmed. A new five-factor model was developed, consisting of 20 items and including the scales: Naturalism, Dominion, Ecologism, Interest, and Safety. The model showed good fit (CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.036), satisfactory reliability (ω = 0.68—0.87), and configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender and pet/plant ownership. Construct validity (correlations with environmental identity) and criterion validity (links with behavior) were confirmed. Expected group differences were found: pet/plant owners showed higher Ecologism; men scored higher on Dominion, while women scored higher on Ecologism and Interest. Conclusions. The adapted BAI is a valid and reliable tool for assessing biophilic attitudes in the Russian-speaking environment. Its application opens up opportunities for research into the link with psychological well-being and for developing ecopsychological interventions for urban populations.

1. Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F. (1997). Nature is Scary, Disgusting, and Uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 443—467. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900401
2. Capaldi, C.A., Dopko, R.L., Zelenski, J.M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
3. Chen, F.-F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464—504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
4. Clayton, S., Czellar, S., Nartova-Bochaver, S., Skibins, J.C., Salazar, G., Tseng, Y.-C., Irkhin, B., Monge-Rodríguez, F.S. (2021). Cross-cultural validation of a revised environmental identity scale. Sustainability, 13(4), 2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042387
5. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones, R.E. (2000). New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425—442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
7. Gillis, K., Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings, 5, 948—963. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings5030948
8. Gravetter, F.J., Wallnau, L.B. (2017). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
9. Gunderson, R. (2014). Erich Fromm’s ecological messianism: The first biophilia hypothesis as humanistic social theory. Humanity & Society, 38(2), 182—204.
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597614529112
10. Hu, L., Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1—55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
11. Kellert, S.R. (1984). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In: M.W. Fox, L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 177—213). The Humane Society of the United States. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4998-0_11
12. Letourneau, L. (2013). Development and validation of the Biophilic Attitudes Inventory (BAI) (Paper 1855) (Publication No. 1855) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/1855/ (viewed: 02.02.2026)
13. Lumber, R., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PloS one, 12(5), e0177186.
14. Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607—643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
15. Milfont, T., Duckitt, J. (2010). The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80—94.
16. Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A. (2011). Happiness is in our Nature: Exploring Nature Relatedness as a Contributor to Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303—322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7
17. Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Yamaura, Y. (2016). Gardening is beneficial for health: A meta-analysis. Preventive medicine reports, 5, 92—99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.11.007
18. Thompson, S.C., Barton, M.A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), 149—157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9
19. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation biology: The journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180—193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381
20. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in health: The journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 8(2), 94—104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x
21. Woods, V., Knuth, M. (2023). The Biophilia Reactivity Hypothesis: biophilia as a temperament trait, or more precisely, a domain specific attraction to biodiversity. Journal of Bioeconomics, 25(3), 271—293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-023-09342-w