BIO-WELL Questionnaire

1. Abstract

The BIO-WELL Questionnaire (Irvine et al., 2023) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to capture and quantify human multidimensional wellbeing responses elicited by specific attributes and metrics of biodiversity. Developed in response to the growing necessity within environmental psychology, public health, and conservation policy for fine-grained evaluative tools, the scale moves beyond broad conceptualizations of “green space” to isolate the psychological impacts of biological complexity itself. The scale was established through a rigorous multiphase development pipeline comprising deliberative stakeholder workshops, qualitative thematic analyses, multidisciplinary expert panels, and comprehensive psychometric validation across adult United Kingdom cohorts.

The operationalized instrument comprises 17 biodiversity stem questions paired with five core wellbeing domain evaluative items reflecting a holistic biopsychosocial-spiritual paradigm. The biodiversity stems encompass ecological metrics (encountering living organisms, biological abundance, species diversity, interspecific interactions, and foundational ecological processes) as well as structural and sensory attributes (variety and distinctiveness of acoustic signals, chromatic variety and vividness, structural form and organismal maturity, tactile diversity and texture, olfactory profiles, and dynamic behavioral or seasonal phenomena). Wellbeing responses are recorded on a continuous 100-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) bounded by bipolar linguistic anchors across physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual dimensions. Psychometric evaluation utilizing Item Response Theory (Samejima’s Graded Response Model) and factor analysis demonstrated robust item discrimination, unidimensional structural viability within individual stem configurations, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and robust convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive validity.

2. Keywords

Biodiversity, Environmental Psychology, Wellbeing, Visual Analogue Scale, Biopsychosocial-Spiritual Model, Nature Connectedness, Ecological Attributes, Item Response Theory, Restorative Environments, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The BIO-WELL Questionnaire was formulated and validated by an interdisciplinary consortium of researchers specializing in social ecology, conservation biology, environmental economics, and psychometrics:

• Katherine N. Irvine (Corresponding Author) — Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, United Kingdom. ORCID: 0000-0001-8860-2783. Email: [email protected]
• Jessica C. Fisher — Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
• Phoebe R. Bentley — Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
• Maximillian Nawrath — Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
• Martin Dallimer — Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
• Gail E. Austen — Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom. ORCID: 0000-0001-6005-4869.
• Rob Fish — Centre for the Study of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
• Zoe G. Davies — Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the BIO-WELL Questionnaire is to provide a standardized, psychometrically sound instrument capable of disaggregating and quantifying the specific psychological and subjective wellbeing responses elicited by distinct components of biodiversity. Historically, research examining nature-health interactions has operated under relatively coarse paradigms, treating the natural world as an undifferentiated green canvas. Epidemiological and environmental psychology studies frequently employ metrics such as proximity to green space, canopy cover percentages, or normalized difference vegetation indices (NDVI). While such studies have conclusively demonstrated that contact with nature supports health, they fail to elucidate whether ecological variation—such as species richness, ecological complexity, structural heterogeneity, or sensory richness—provides additive psychological value or distinct restorative pathways.

The BIO-WELL was constructed to address this methodological and conceptual deficit. Specifically, it enables researchers, urban planners, public health officials, and environmental policymakers to systematically assess how individuals psychologically experience both abstract ecological properties (e.g., trophic interactions, biological abundance, decay processes) and perceptible ecological phenotypes (e.g., birdsong variety, olfactory scents of damp humus, visual variations in floral color and geometric canopy structures). Clinically and practically, the scale serves multiple vital functions:

• Empirical Research into the Biodiversity-Health Nexus: The instrument facilitates controlled empirical investigations determining which particular ecological features promote distinct dimensions of human restoration, allowing researchers to build mechanistic models linking ecological integrity to human health.
• Targeted Environmental and Urban Interventions: Landscape architects and urban foresters can utilize the BIO-WELL to evaluate the prospective psychological impact of urban rewilding initiatives, habitat restoration projects, and biodiversity enhancement strategies within urban parks and healthcare facilities.
• Social Prescribing and Green Care Programs: Healthcare providers implementing nature-based health interventions (such as green social prescribing or ecotherapy) can employ the instrument to determine which types of natural environments optimize therapeutic outcomes for individuals presenting with affective disorders, chronic stress, or social isolation.
• Cost-Benefit Conservation Justifications: In conservation economics and ecosystem service valuation, demonstrating direct, measurable psychological benefits tied to species-rich habitats provides critical evidence supporting biodiversity conservation mandates beyond utilitarian or intrinsic arguments.

5. Psychological Construct

The BIO-WELL Questionnaire measures subjective psychological, somatic, and existential wellbeing outcomes directly induced by exposure to biodiversity. Rather than treating wellbeing as a monolithic or strictly hedonic construct, the instrument conceptualizes human psychological state as an integrated, multidimensional biopsychosocial-spiritual model. This model posits that experiential encounters with ecological elements simultaneously influence autonomic nervous system arousal, emotional valence, attentional processing, relational prosocial orientation, and transpersonal self-transcendence.

The instrument couples 17 biodiversity inquiry stems with five specific wellbeing response dimensions:

Wellbeing Response Dimensions

• Physical Domain (Somatic Regulation): Evaluates somatic tension versus relaxation. The item contrasts feeling Physically relaxed against feeling Physically tense. This dimension captures autonomic equilibrium, parasympathetic activation, and the attenuation of physiological strain resulting from ambient natural stimuli.
• Emotional Domain (Affective Valence): Measures immediate hedonic and emotional state, contrasted between Joyful and Sad. This reflects primary affective restoration, elevation of positive mood, and the alleviation of depressive or dysphoric emotional states.
• Cognitive Domain (Mental Clarity): Assesses attentional and mental processing capabilities, anchored between Clear minded and Muddled. Rooted in cognitive restoration theory, this subscale captures the recovery of directed attentional capacity, cognitive reorganization, and the reduction of cognitive fatigue.
• Social Domain (Prosocial Orientation): Captures relational openness and social connectedness, measured between Open to people and Closed to people. It assesses whether immersion in diverse ecological contexts facilitates interpersonal empathy, prosocial inclination, and reductions in defensive social withdrawal.
• Spiritual Domain (Transpersonal Connectedness): Captures self-transcendence, existential awe, and integration into ecological reality, anchored between Part of something bigger than myself and Not part of something bigger than myself. This dimension operationalizes the feeling of unity, sacredness, and cosmological belonging elicited by the living biosphere.

Biodiversity Attributes and Metrics

The five wellbeing dimensions are systematically assessed across 17 distinct biodiversity stems, split into ecological metrics and observable biological attributes:

• Ecological Metrics: These measure responses to fundamental scientific properties of the ecosystem, including Encountering living organisms, the perceived Abundance of living things, taxonomic Species Diversity, dynamic Species Interactions (e.g., pollination or predation), and ongoing Ecological Processes (e.g., biological growth and decomposition).
• Sensory and Morphological Attributes: These assess perceptible ecological dimensions, including acoustic stimuli (Sound variety and Distinctive sounds), visual chromatic properties (Colour variety and Vivid colours), morphological structure (Shape variety and Maturity of organisms), tactile properties (Texture variety and Sponginess of organic matter), chemical/olfactory cues (Smell variety and Woody smells), and dynamic phenological behaviors (Seasonal changes and Presence of wild animals).

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the BIO-WELL Questionnaire bridges environmental psychology, evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. The scale’s theoretical underpinnings are primarily anchored in three complementary theoretical frameworks:

The Biophilia Hypothesis

Formulated by Edward O. Wilson (1984), the Biophilia Hypothesis posits an innate, biologically evolved emotional propensity of human beings to connect with life and lifelike processes. Wilson argued that human cognitive architecture, sensory modalities, and affective mechanisms developed through millions of years of evolutionary adaptation within species-rich, biodiverse environments. Consequently, exposure to diverse forms of life, ecological interactions, and biological cues triggers innate, positively valenced psychological responses. The BIO-WELL directly operationalizes this concept by disaggregating “life” into perceptible components (such as organismal variety, animal behaviors, and plant growth) and measuring whether humans experience heightened vitality, joy, and spiritual elevation in the presence of higher biological richness.

Attention Restoration Theory (ART)

Developed by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan (1989), Attention Restoration Theory asserts that contemporary urban environments demand sustained, effortful “directed attention,” leading to directed attention fatigue, cognitive irritability, and mental errors. Natural environments mitigate this fatigue by engaging “soft fascination”—an effortless, involuntary form of attention elicited by aesthetically rich, non-threatening stimuli. In the BIO-WELL framework, complex biodiversity attributes, such as chromatic contrast, varied auditory patterns, and undulating organic forms, are theorized to provide the optimal substrate for soft fascination, enabling the cognitive domain anchor (clearing a “muddled” mind into a “clear-minded” state) to function effectively.

Stress Recovery Theory (SRT)

Roger Ulrich’s (1983) Stress Recovery Theory draws upon evolutionary neurobiology, arguing that unthreatening natural landscapes characterized by biological complexity, visual depth, and vegetative growth prompt immediate, automatic parasympathetic nervous system restoration. This rapid neuroendocrine and affective response reduces sympathetic arousal, mitigates autonomic tension, and replaces negative affect with positive feelings. The BIO-WELL’s somatic (physically relaxed vs. tense) and affective (joyful vs. sad) response metrics directly align with Ulrich’s SRT mechanisms.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the BIO-WELL was established through a series of empirical investigations documented by Irvine et al. (2023), drawing on diverse adult samples from the United Kingdom. The scale exhibits strong construct, convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and predictive validity.

Item Response Theory (IRT)

Psychometric refinement utilized Samejima’s Graded Response Model (GRM) within an IRT framework. Initial testing evaluated eight theoretical wellbeing response items across all 17 biodiversity stems. Evaluation of item discrimination parameters (α), item category characteristic curves, item information curves, and residual infit/outfit statistics demonstrated superior model fit for a reduced five-item set. Three items exhibited redundant information, suboptimal discrimination across trait spectrums, or psychometric overlap (e.g., “physically comfortable,” “connected to people,” and “connected to nature”) and were excised, leaving the definitive five-domain configuration.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To establish convergent and discriminant validity, Irvine et al. correlated BIO-WELL composite scores with validated measures of psychological resilience (Brief Resilience Scale), trait self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and subjective nature connectedness (Nature Relatedness Scale). Pearson correlation coefficients confirmed that while BIO-WELL scores demonstrated moderate, statistically significant positive associations with general positive affect and nature relatedness (demonstrating convergent validity), they remained conceptually and statistically distinct from general resilience and self-esteem (demonstrating discriminant validity), establishing that BIO-WELL captures state-level ecological wellbeing rather than baseline personality traits.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was established through known-groups differentiation across participant demographics. Individuals who reported frequent childhood or adolescent exposure to woodlands exhibited statistically significantly higher overall BIO-WELL scores compared to individuals with low childhood nature contact. Similarly, respondents who placed high personal importance on outdoor recreation and nature engagement scored significantly higher across all biodiversity dimensions than less nature-oriented cohorts.

Predictive Validity

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the predictive capacity of the BIO-WELL while controlling for sociodemographic covariates (age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and rural/urban living). The BIO-WELL composite score accounted for significant increments in explained variance across three distinct behavioral and psychological criteria: the perceived importance of spending recreational time outdoors, the frequency of noticing nature in everyday life, and the strength of personal nature identification.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the BIO-WELL Questionnaire has been thoroughly demonstrated through evaluations of internal consistency and scale structural stability across varied demographic segments.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha (α) calculated across the five wellbeing response items for each of the 17 biodiversity stems independently. Across all stems, Cronbach’s alpha values consistently ranged from high to exemplary (α = .88 to .95), well above standard psychometric benchmarks (α ≥ .70 or .80). Corrected item-total correlations across the five wellbeing domains consistently exceeded .65, demonstrating that physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual responses cohere into a unified, reliable evaluative response to biological stimuli.

Measurement Invariance and Repeatability

The scale items exhibited minimal measurement error across split-sample validation cohorts. Infit and outfit mean square (MNSQ) statistics obtained during the item response modeling phase conformed closely to the ideal parameter range (0.7 to 1.3), verifying that the measurement instrument maintains uniform measurement properties across differing levels of participant ecological interest and baseline psychological state.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the BIO-WELL was examined using rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal axis factoring was initially performed across participant responses to evaluate the structural integrity of the wellbeing items across the different biodiversity stems. Factor extraction procedures evaluated 1-factor, 2-factor, and 3-factor solutions across all stems. Eigenvalue inspection, Scree plot analyses, and model fit criteria revealed nuanced patterns: statistical support for the precise optimal number of latent dimensions varied somewhat across specific stems. In certain complex stems (such as dynamic species interactions or decomposition processes), cognitive and spiritual items exhibited slight secondary factor loadings. However, a dominant general factor emerged across all stems, accounting for the vast majority of observed variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the formal parsimony and fit of a proposed unidimensional (1-factor) model for the five wellbeing response items across each biodiversity stem. Across the full battery of 17 biodiversity stems, the unidimensional model demonstrated acceptable to good fit with the empirical data. Key goodness-of-fit indices met established psychometric standards:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranged from .94 to .98 across stems, indicating strong comparative fit relative to the null baseline model.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently exceeded the .92 benchmark for fair to excellent model fit.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Exhibited values between .045 and .078, indicating adequate to close approximation fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Maintained values below .05 across all stems.

All standardized factor loadings of the five wellbeing response items onto the latent wellbeing factor were strong, ranging from .72 to .91 (all p < .001), substantiating the use of composite mean scores for each biodiversity inquiry stem.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The formal specification, structural parameters, and scoring protocols of the BIO-WELL Questionnaire are detailed below:

• Test Type: Original multidimensional psychometric rating scale / situational inventory.
• Format: Digital/electronic self-report questionnaire presenting 17 situational biodiversity stems, each evaluated across five continuous Visual Analogue Scales (VAS).
• Item Count: 17 biodiversity stem questions × 5 core wellbeing response dimensions (85 evaluative VAS interactions in total).
• Administration Modality: Online, computer-assisted, or digital mobile platform. Participants are presented with an imaginative or situated prompt (“For each of the following questions, imagine yourself in a nearby woodland at this time of year. Please think about the living things, including the plants, fungi and animals (but not pets, horses, cows, sheep), in that woodland.”).
• Authentic Response Scale: Exploratory Factor Analysis: Using principal axis factoring, the authors compared 1-factor, 2-factor, and 3-factor solutions. However, upon examining the loadings and model fit statistics together, the authors found statistical support for the number of factors differed for each biodiversity stem question.
• Operational Response Mechanism: Responses are registered on a 100 mm continuous Visual Analogue Scale slider ranging from 0 to 100. During raw administration, the slider is configured such that positions 0–49 represent positive states, 50 represents a neutral baseline, and 51–100 represent negative states.
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Score Inversion: Prior to analytical compilation, raw scores are inverted to enhance intuitive interpretation such that higher values reflect superior positive wellbeing: Inverted Score = 100 - Raw Score. On this inverted scale, 0–49 denotes negative wellbeing, 50 indicates neutral affect, and 51–100 indicates positive wellbeing.
  • Stem Composite Calculation: A stem-level score is computed as the arithmetic mean of the five inverted wellbeing response items for that specific biodiversity stem: BIO-WELL Stem Score = ∑(Inverted Item Scores) / 5.
  • Domain Composite Calculation: Researchers may also calculate domain-specific indices (e.g., Physical, Cognitive, Emotional, Social, or Spiritual) by averaging a single wellbeing domain across all 17 biodiversity stems.
  • Global Index: A global BIO-WELL index can be derived by calculating the grand mean across all 85 responses.
• Target Population: General adult population (aged 18 years and older), adaptable for environmental research, public health cohorts, and urban planning assessments.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The BIO-WELL Questionnaire was formally published and validated in 2023 by Katherine N. Irvine and colleagues. The scale and its foundational research were funded by academic and ecological research grants and published open access in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.

• Permissions: The scale is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Researchers, educators, non-profit institutions, and health practitioners may freely use, replicate, modify, and distribute the instrument for research and teaching purposes.
• Commercial Use: Permitted under CC BY 4.0 with mandatory attribution to the original authors and journal publication. However, commercial users should consult the primary correspondence author regarding proprietary adaptations.
• Fee: Free / Open Access. No licensing or administration fees are required for academic or non-commercial application.
• Correspondence Contact: Katherine N. Irvine, The James Hutton Institute, Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected].

12. References

The development, validation, and theoretical framework of the BIO-WELL Questionnaire are grounded in the following academic literature:

• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• Irvine, K. N., Fisher, J. C., Bentley, P. R., Nawrath, M., Dallimer, M., Austen, G. E., Fish, R., & Davies, Z. G. (2023). BIO-WELL: The development and validation of a human wellbeing scale that measures responses to biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85, 101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101921
• Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
• Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4, Pt. 2), 1–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x
• Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 85–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
• Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674045231

13. Items of the Scale