Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 1
REVIEW
published: 09 April 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763
Edited by:
Aoife A. Donnelly,
Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Reviewed by:
Paola Passafaro,
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Simon Bell,
The University of Edinburgh,
United Kingdom
*Correspondence:
Claudio D. Rosa
claudio2008ilheus@hotmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Environmental Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 11 December 2018
Accepted: 19 March 2019
Published: 09 April 2019
Citation:
Rosa CD and Collado S (2019)
Experiences in Nature
and Environmental Attitudes
and Behaviors: Setting the Ground
for Future Research.
Front. Psychol. 10:763.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763
Experiences in Nature and
Environmental Attitudes and
Behaviors: Setting the Ground for
Future Research
Claudio D. Rosa1*and Silvia Collado2
1Department of Development and Environment, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Brazil, 2Department of
Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain
There is empirical evidence suggesting a positive link between direct experiences
in nature and people’s environmental attitudes (EA) and behaviors (EB). This has
led researchers to encourage more frequent contact with nature, especially during
childhood, as a way of increasing pro-environmentalism (i.e., pro-EA and pro-EB).
However, the association between experiences in nature and EA/EB is complex, and
specific guidelines for people’s everyday contact with nature cannot be provided. This
article offers an overview of the research conducted until know about the relation
between experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism, and opens up new inquiries
for future research. We begin with an introduction to people’s current tendency toward
an alienation from the natural world and set out the objectives of the article. It is followed
by three main sections. The first one reports on what experiences in nature refer to, how
and where they occur. The second section describes the different approaches used to
investigate and interpret the experiences in nature-EA and EB relation. The last section
provides suggestions for future research. We close by making some final remarks about
the importance of (re)stablishing a greater interaction with nature for people’s pro-EA
and EB.
Keywords: biophilia, connection to nature, ecological behavior, environmental identity, experiences of nature,
nature-based recreation, nature exposure, outdoor recreation
INTRODUCTION
Experiences in nature are associated with several benefits, such as recovery of cognitive resources
(Hartig et al., 2014), increased pro-environmental attitudes (EA) (Chawla and Derr, 2012) and
behaviors (EB) (Evans et al., 2018), more frequent physical activity (Schaefer et al., 2014) and
increases pro-social orientation (Joye and Bolderdijk, 2014). In spite of these positive effects of
people’s contact with nature, there is mounting evidence indicating that people’s direct contact
with nature is diminishing (Zaradic et al., 2009;Soga and Gaston, 2016). Several reasons
have been suggested for this growing alienation from the natural world, including increased
urbanization rates, more frequent use of new technologies for entertainment, and the perception
of nearby natural places as insecure (Clements, 2004;Tandon et al., 2012;Soga and Gaston, 2016;
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 2
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
Larson et al., 2018a). Researchers have warned that this lack
of experiences in nature may have negative consequences for
people’s pro-environmentalism (i.e., their pro-EA and pro-
EB) (Soga and Gaston, 2016;Evans et al., 2018;Rosa et al.,
2018), which could lead to detrimental consequences for
the environment (Evans, 2019). As a result, there has been
a proliferation of initiatives (e.g., no child left inside) and
publications (e.g., Louv, 2008) targeted at the general public
with the aim of encouraging a more frequent contact with
nature from early childhood. Yet, is the link between experiences
in nature and pro-environmentalism as well-stabilished as the
studies above suggest? Based on what is currently known
about experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism, the
main goal of this article is to outline a number of issues for
future research on this area. To do this, we first review and
synthetize the different approaches from which the relation
between experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism has
been studied. In our review, EA are seen as a “collection of
beliefs, affect, and behavioral intentions a person holds regarding
environmentally related activities or issues” (Schultz et al.,
2005, 458). This definition is quite broad and, as such, we
consider in our review studies evaluating people’s ecological
beliefs (Van Liere and Noe, 1981), connectedness to nature
(Mayer and Frantz, 2004), place attachment (Hou et al., 2005),
biophilia (Zhang et al., 2014), and willingness to engage on EB
(Larson et al., 2018b).
Experiences in nature are positively associated with stronger
pro-environmentalism, such as emotional affinity toward nature
(Kals et al., 1999), willingness to conserve biodiversity (Soga
et al., 2016), willingness to pay for the conservation of urban
green spaces (Lo and Jim, 2010), and pro-EB (Evans et al., 2018).
Overall, researchers have found a positive link between EA and
EB (Bamberg and Möser, 2007). This is in line with the Theory
of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2011), and the Value-Belief-Norm-
Theory (Stern et al., 1999), and have been supported empirically
(e.g., Dunlap et al., 2000;Markle, 2013). As a general trend, the
relation between experiences in nature and EB is mediated by
EA (Larson et al., 2011;Pensini et al., 2016;Otto and Pensini,
2017;Rosa et al., 2018). Several ideas have been offered to
explain why experiences in nature positively influence EB. These
explanations include increased biocentric values (Larson et al.,
2011), connectedness to nature (Otto and Pensini, 2017), and
beliefs about the New Environmental Paradigm (Collado et al.,
2013), a stronger sense of place attachment (Lawrence, 2012),
increased positive emotions (Mayer et al., 2009) and renewal of
depleted attentional capabilities (i.e., psychological restoration)
(Byrka et al., 2010;Collado and Corraliza, 2015;Wyles et al.,
2017), and a stronger sense of morality toward the environment
(Hahn and Garrett, 2017).
In spite of the positive associations between experiences
in nature and pro-environmentalism reported in previous
studies, this relation is a complex one (Clayton et al., 2017).
This complexity has, to our knowledge, been overlooked.
Our departure point is an overview of the research findings
in this area, distinguishing six different approaches used
to examine the relation between people’s experiences in
nature and pro-environmentalism. Then, we address what we
consider to be more urgent in terms of future research. The
article has been organized in three main sections describing:
(a) experiences in nature: how and where they occur, (b)
approaches used to investigate and interpret the link between
experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism, and (c)
future research.
EXPERIENCES IN NATURE: HOW AND
WHERE THEY OCCUR
By experiences in nature we refer to time spent in natural
areas, including wild natural areas, such as forests, but also
nearby natural environments, like urban parks, gardens, and
vacant lots (Chawla and Derr, 2012;Keniger et al., 2013;
Rupprecht et al., 2016). Several authors have defined experiences
in nature by focusing on specific aspects of the person–nature
interaction. For instance, Keniger et al. (2013) considered the
motivation for people’s interactions with nature (i.e., intentional
or non-intentional). According to these authors, there are
two different types of experiences in nature. First, individuals
can have incidental contact with nature (i.e., experiencing
nature as a by-product of another activity, such as walking
the dog). Second, experiences in nature can be direct and
intentional, when people have the intention to be in direct
contact with nature. Direct and intentional contact with nature
in an esthetically pleasing environment is thought to be the
best way for people to connect with nature, as it involves
the use of diverse senses (Lumber et al., 2017;Giusti et al.,
2018). In line with this, Mayer et al. (2009) found a higher
increase in connectedness to nature after people had a direct
experience in nature compared to an indirect contact with nature
through a video.
Another way of defining people’s experiences in nature is
by focusing on the type of activity conducted in the natural
setting [see Berns and Simpson (2009) for a review]. The authors
distinguish three types of experiences in nature: consumptive,
mechanized, and appreciative. According to Berns and Simpson
(2009), consumptive activities in nature refer to taking something
from the environment for your own use (e.g., fishing, hunting).
In turn, mechanized activities in nature are activities in
which mechanized equipment is used to interact with nature
(e.g., off road vehicles). Last, appreciative activities in nature
relate to enjoying the natural environment (almost) without
altering it through self-propelled non-mechanized activities (e.g.,
surfing, birdwatching, hiking). Research evidence suggests that
appreciative experiences in nature are the ones more strongly
linked to pro-environmentalism.
Clayton et al. (2017) went a step further in defining
people’s experiences in nature. The authors considered the
social context in which experiences in nature take place. In
their view, experiences in nature can be self-directed, when
the person interacts freely with the environment or other-
directed, when the person interacts with the natural environment
following someone else’s guidance (e.g., tour guide). In addition,
interactions with nature can be solitary experiences or they
can happen in the company of others and, at the same time,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 3
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
they can provide positive or negative emotional responses
(Clayton et al., 2017).
APPROACHES USED TO INVESTIGATE
AND INTERPRET THE LINK BETWEEN
EXPERIENCES IN NATURE AND
PRO-ENVIRONMENTALISM
According to our review of the research findings in this
area, we can distinguish six main research approaches to
examine the relation between experiences in nature and pro-
environmentalism. Below, we describe the main findings derived
from each of these approaches. These are summarized in Table 1.
First, the relation between people’s experiences in nature
and pro-environmentalism has been examined from research
in the area of significant life experience (SLE). According
to SLE studies, childhood positive experiences in nature are
the main factor predicting pro-environmentalism later in
life (Tanner, 1980;Chawla, 1999;Corcoran, 1999;Chawla
and Derr, 2012). These studies are mainly qualitative and
retrospective. For instance, Tanner (1980) evaluated the
experiences that 45 environmental activists recalled as being
more important for their decision of working as environmental
conservationists. According to Tanner’s (1980) findings,
experiences in nature as a child were the main predictor of
their choice. Recently, Cagle (2018) conducted a retrospective
investigation about experiences in nature over time. Participants
were 12 environmentally committed faculty members of Duke
University (United States). Her results supported previous
findings, indicating that childhood experiences in nature
were important for the formation of a bond with nature that
lasts until adulthood. In line with these results, Gray and
Pigott (2018) found that people who participated in a 2-year
nature-immersive activity when they were about 15 years old
recalled that experience, 30 years later, as a motivating factor to
choose a career related to conservation, wilderness guiding, and
environmental education.
A second research approach involves the evaluation of the
effect that different types of activities in nature may have in pro-
environmentalism. For instance, Knopp and Tyger (1973) found
that individuals engaged in an appreciative activity (ski touring)
held stronger EA than those involved in a mechanized activity
(snowmobiling). Similarly, Wolsko and Lindberg (2013) found
a positive link between participating in appreciative activities
and connectedness to nature, and a negative association between
participating in motorized activities and connectedness to nature.
Due the cross-sectional design of these studies, it is not possible to
establish whether individuals with strong EA prefer appreciative
activities as argued by Bjerke et al. (2006), or if participating
in appreciative activities improves individuals’ EA, as argued
by Dunlap and Hefferman (1975). Yet, both perspectives could
be correct (Jackson, 1986). In concordance with Dunlap and
Hefferman’s (1975) perspective, Wyles et al. (2017) conducted
an experimental study analyzing the effect of three appreciative
activities (e.g., coastal walking) in individuals’ intention to engage
on responsible environmental behaviors and found that the three
activities increased participants’ intention to engage in these
behaviors in a similar way.
TABLE 1 | Description of the approaches applied to the study of the relation between experiences in nature and EA and EB.
Approach Brief description Main insights Example of classical
studies
1. Significant life experience (SLE) Studies analyzing the reasons why environmental
activists devoted their lives to taking care of the
environment. Childhood experiences in nature have
been identified as a main driver for adulthood
pro-environmentalism.
SLE literature shows that it is important to
consider lifetime experiences with nature in
order to understand current EA and EB.
Tanner, 1980
2. Comparison between
nature-based recreationists EA
and EB
Studies analyzing if individuals involved in different
nature-based recreational activities have distinct EA
and EB. For example, comparing EA and EB of
hunters with those of birdwatchers.
These studies indicate that the type of
interaction with nature (e.g., consumptive
vs. appreciative) needs to be considered
when analyzing the link between
interactions with nature and
pro-environmentalism.
Dunlap and Hefferman,
1975
3. Specialization Studies analyzing whether differences in
pro-environmentalism are linked to nature-based
recreationist specialization (e.g., experience and
technical skills a person has on a recreational
activity).
This literature provides insights about the
relevance of individuals’ specialization on a
nature-based recreational activity to the
understanding of their EA and EB.
Bryan, 1977
4. Interactions with nature
influences pro-environmentalism
Studies analyzing whether interactions with nature
can increase people’s pro-environmentalism.
Positive direct experiences in nature are
linked to an increase in
pro-environmentalism.
Mayer et al., 2009
5. EA influence interactions with
nature
Studies analyzing whether people’s EA can
influence their pattern of interactions with nature.
This literature suggests that EA may be a
driver for interactions with nature.
Lin et al., 2014
6. The perceived benefits of
interactions with nature as
predictors of pro-environmentalism
Studies analyzing if the perceived benefits of
interactions with nature (e.g., restoration, pleasure)
are associated with people’s pro-environmentalism.
Studies on this approach suggest that
people EA and EB may change when they
realize the benefits of nature to their lives.
Hartig et al., 2001
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 4
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
A third line of study consists on analyzing the possible
differences on nature-based recreationists’ EA and EB based
on their specialization on a specific nature-based activity.
Specialization is generally considered a multidimensional
concept formed by behavioral, affective, and cognitive factors
(Scott and Shafer, 2001;Garlock and Lorenzen, 2017;Kim
and Song, 2017). It is commonly assessed by a series of factors
such as recreationists’ experience in a nature-based activity,
the importance of this activity for the individual’s lifestyle,
the technical skills required by this specific activity, and the
expenses of the activity (McFarlane and Boxall, 1996;Scott
and Shafer, 2001;Garlock and Lorenzen, 2017;Kim and Song,
2017). In comparison to less specialized recreationists, the more
specialized ones are expected to be more experienced, to show
greater mastery of the techniques associated with the leisure
activity, to spend more money on the activity, and to perceived
the activity as more relevant for his/her lifestyle (Scott and Shafer,
2001). Previous studies have investigated if more specialized
nature-based recreationists such as birdwatchers (McFarlane and
Boxall, 1996), anglers (Garlock and Lorenzen, 2017), and boaters
(Jett et al., 2009) hold distinct EA and EB than less specialized
nature-based recreationists. One hypothesis is that as a person
specializes in an activity, pro-EA and engagement in pro-EB
can increase (Bryan, 1977;McFarlane and Boxall, 1996). This
may occur because more specialized recreationists perceive the
recreational activity they practice as more relevant for them
than less specialized recreationists, and these activities depend
upon natural resources (Bryan, 1977). Hence, more specialized
recreationists may hold greater concern for the maintenance of
the natural resources where the activity is conducted than less
specialized recreationists. Literature findings generally support
this hypothesis, with more specialized individuals reporting
higher levels of environmental concern and greater engagement
in pro-environmental behaviors (Thapa et al., 2006).
A fourth approach in the study of people’s experiences in
nature and pro-environmentalism involves the prediction that
direct experiences in natural environments foster pro-EA and
EB. In the last years, several interventions have showed that
experiences in nature can foster children’s (Crawford et al.,
2017;Schneider and Schaal, 2017) and adults’ connectedness to
nature (Lumber et al., 2017;Richardson and McEwan, 2018), an
important predictor of pro-EB (Tam, 2013;Frantz and Mayer,
2014). For example, Barton et al. (2016) found an increase in
adolescents’ connectedness to nature after a wildness expedition.
Evans et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal study in which they
found, after controlling for possible confounding variables (e.g.,
child environmental behavior), that one of the main predictors
of young adults’ EB was time spent outdoors during childhood.
Considering these results, it does not come as a surprise that
direct contact with nature has been seen as a predictor of pro-
environmentalism in the environmental education domain, with
several environmental education projects focusing on nature
experiences as a way of promoting EA and EB (Evans et al.,
2007;Duerden and Witt, 2010). For example, De Dominicis
et al. (2017) found an increase on place attachment, pro-EA,
and self-reported pro-EB after a nature-based environmental
education program. Similarly, Collado et al. (2013) found that
time spent in nature-based summer camps, with and without
environmental education within their daily program, had positive
effects on EA and EB.
The fifth approach in the study of the link between experiences
in nature and pro-environmentalism relates to the influence of
EA on the way people interact with nature. Empirical evidence
supports that EA motivate people to interact with nature (Lin
et al., 2014;Soga and Gaston, 2016;Lin et al., 2017) and
influences their choice for nature-based activities (Bjerke et al.,
2006;Thapa, 2010;Marques et al., 2017). For example, Lin
et al. (2014) found that people who felt more connected to
nature were more likely to visit parks and to spend more
time on their private yard than people who felt less connected
to nature. Similarly, Bjerke et al. (2006) noted that people’s
environmental beliefs were associated to their preference for
nature-based activities. They found that individuals with stronger
environmental beliefs reported higher preference for activities,
like scenery photographing and mountaineering, compared to
individuals with weaker environmental beliefs.
The last approach involves the perceived benefits of
experiences in nature and how these perceptions lead to
pro-environmentalism (Hartig et al., 2007;Byrka et al., 2010;Lee,
2011;Collado and Corraliza, 2015;Lee and Jan, 2018;Whitburn
et al., 2018). Natural settings are often perceived as places linked
to wellbeing (Carrus et al., 2015), where attentional resources
can be recovered (Carrus et al., 2017) and energy can be regained
(Ryan et al., 2010). For instance, Lee (2011) reported that
individuals’ satisfactions with time spent in nature was related to
their conservation commitment and pro-EB. Similarly, Collado
and Corraliza (2015) found that children who reported higher
restoration after spending time in nature held stronger pro-EA
which, in turn, led to conducting pro-EB more frequently.
Hartig et al. (2001, 2007) reached similar conclusions with adult
samples. These results suggest that the link between experiences
in nature and pro-environmentalism can be explained, at least
partly, by the benefits people perceive they obtain from time
spent in nature.
Overall, the six approaches described suggest that there
is a positive relation between experiences in nature and
pro-environmentalism. However, as previously indicated, this
relation is a complex one (Clayton et al., 2017) and contradictory
results have been found in the literature. For example,
considering SLE, Howell and Allen (2016) concluded that nature
experiences during childhood did not have a major formative
influence on 85 people involved in climate change education
and mitigation. Their findings suggest that for their participants,
factors different from nature experiences during childhood, such
as altruistic concerns about climate change, may play a major
role in the way they behave toward the environment during
adulthood. Also, one would expect that spending time in natural
areas while being part of an EE program provides an additional
benefit to pro-environmentalism due to the relevant formal
environmental information that participants received through
EE programs (Kuo et al., 2019). However, this is not always the
case. In fact, EE programs could constrain individuals’ willingness
to experience nature freely, and the provision of environmental
knowledge may be seen as boring (Duerden and Witt, 2010;
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 5
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
Collado et al., 2013). Thus, environmental educators have made
an effort to develop ways of learning in nature while keeping
the experience as fun as possible (Crawford et al., 2017;
Schaal et al., 2018).
Contradictory results were also found when considering how
different types of experiences in nature were associated to
EB (Cooper et al., 2015). The authors expected appreciative
activities to be more strongly associated to pro-EB than
consumptive activities. However, they found that individuals
participating regularly in both hunting and birdwatching
(hunter–birdwatcher) were more likely to engage in specific
conservation behaviors than individuals participating regularly
either in hunting (consumptive) or birdwatching (appreciative).
Regarding specialization, Jett et al. (2009) found a negative
association between the level of specialization of boaters and
their attitudes related to marine conservation. According to their
results, more specialized individuals were less likely to agree that,
regardless of regulations, manatees deserve to be protected and
that reducing vessel speed is an effective strategy for marine
conservation. Jett et al. (2009) believe that the reason behind
these results is the aversion of more specialized individuals to
limitations to their leisure pursuit. The benefits people attribute
to time spent in nature (e.g., psychological restoration, well-
being) can be moderated by people’s EA (Davis and Gatersleben,
2013;Knez and Eliasson, 2017;Craig et al., 2018). In line
with this idea, Knez and Eliasson (2017) found that people feel
greater well-being when visiting outdoor settings if they held
stronger attachment to these settings. Likewise, Craig et al. (2018)
noted that people more connected to nature perceive nature
experiences as more pleasurable than those whose connection to
nature is lower.
To sum up what we can learn from these approaches,
experiences in nature during childhood and adulthood are
positively linked to pro-environmentalism (Tanner, 1980;
Crawford et al., 2017;Lumber et al., 2017;Rosa et al., 2018).
The effect of nature experiences on people’s EA and EB depends
on several factors, such as type of experience in nature (Knopp
and Tyger, 1973), perceived benefits of these experiences (Hartig
et al., 2001;Carrus et al., 2017), and the person’s level of
specialization in a certain activity (Bryan, 1977). However, the
results found until now are mixed, indicating that the relation
between experiences in nature, EA, and EB is not simple, and
that there is a need for more nuanced research on the topic.
Following, we suggest what we consider to be the most urgent
lines of research.
FUTURE RESEARCH
By now we have reviewed the diverse approaches used to
investigate and interpret the relation between experiences
in nature and EA and EB. We acknowledge the scientific
advances done on this topic during the last four decades.
Yet, the relation between experiences in nature and pro-
environmentalism is, in our opinion, not completely understood.
There are some knowledge gaps, contradictory results, and
methodological issues that preclude us to firmly claim how
and when experiences in nature lead to an increase in
pro-environmentalism. Below, we highlight six areas for
further investigation.
First, researchers should acknowledge the possibility
of a cyclical relation between experiences in nature and
pro-environmentalism. There is theoretical and empirical
support for two perspectives: (1) experiences in nature
enhance EA, leading to EB; and (2) EA can influence
people’s patterns of interaction with nature. Whereas
several experiments have supported the first perspective
(Mayer et al., 2009;Crawford et al., 2017;Lumber et al.,
2017), the second one has not been, to our knowledge,
experimentally proven. The experimental examination of the
second perspective as well as of the possible cyclical relation
between experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism awaits
future research.
Second, a clear definition of what researchers understand
by experiences in nature is still missing. Experiences in nature
can have many different forms. For instance, they can be
direct and incidental (e.g., experiencing nature while walking
the dog), direct and intentional (e.g., surfing), alone or with
company (e.g., family, friends), and during work or leisure
time. Moreover, even if a definition is given (e.g., Collado
and Sorrel, 2019), it is generally broad, and focused on
contact with green natural elements. The possible effects that
exposure to different types of natural environments have in
pro-environmentalism, including water bodies (e.g., oceans,
lakes, rivers), settings with different geological and orographic
characteristics (e.g., mountain area versus a plain natural setting),
and different meteorological conditions remain underexplored.
For instance, Talebpour (2018) found that fifth-grade students
who participated in a nature immersive program during
inclement weather had a decrease in their connectedness to
nature compared to before the immersion, whereas students
who had the same nature experience with better weather
conditions had an increase in connectedness to nature after
the immersive program. Future studies should describe in
detail how experiences in nature take place, including the
meteorological conditions as well as the natural elements
participants might encounter. The possible positive impact of
direct and visual contact with non-human animals on people’s
pro-environmentalism also needs further consideration [see
Young et al. (2018) for a review]. Finally, the word nature
can have different meanings for people from different cultures
(Wohlwill, 1983;Collado et al., 2016;Profice, 2018) and
as such the definition of experiences in nature should take
into account participants’ cultural background. For instance,
some people may consider humans are part of nature while
others may not (Wohlwill, 1983;Mayer and Frantz, 2004)
and differences in the esthetic perception of nature have
consequences for biodiversity protection (Williams and Cary,
2002). Given that the meaning of nature is influenced by
our social context (Wohlwill, 1983), researchers should pay
special attention to people’s conceptions of nature in cross-
cultural research.
Third, a clear definition of experiences in nature should
be accompanied by a valid measure of frequency of contact
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 6
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
with nature. This would facilitate the comparison of results
among studies as well as the generalization of findings.
Whereas there are likely hundreds of published studies
on the topic, to our knowledge, a validated and reliable
measure of frequency of contact with nature has not been
developed. Researchers generally develop or adapt ad hoc
measures for their own studies. Experts on the appraisal
of measures have argued that the use of non-validated
and reliable measures may be a waste of resources and
unethical (Mokkink et al., 2018). In light of the research lines
described above, researchers may need to think of different
measures for different population groups (e.g., children and
adults), as well as to be used in different contexts in which
experiences in nature are likely to differ (e.g., developed versus
developing countries).
Forth, the type of activities in nature leading to pro-
environmentalism are fairly unknown, as well as the social
context in which these activities occur. We know from
previous studies that positive, appreciative experiences in
nature may play a stronger role in the formation of pro-
environmentalism than consumptive and mechanized activities
but we know little about the different effect that different
appreciative activities may have (Wyles et al., 2017). For
instance, would going for a walk in nature have the same
effect as sitting and relaxing in a park? In line with
this idea, Giusti et al. (2018) developed a framework to
understand how children connect with nature. Their results
showed that some forms of experiencing nature (those that
engaged children’s senses were children-driven and thought
provoking) were more effective to connect children with
nature than others (e.g., structured activities). And, would the
link between experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism
be stronger when these experiences take place alone or
when they take place with the company of close ones?
Retrospective studies have shown that adults recall positive
experiences in nature during childhood in the company of
others as the main driver of their current pro-environmentalism
(Chawla and Derr, 2012). Yet, when in need of psychological
restoration, adults prefer to spend time alone in a natural
environment (Staats and Hartig, 2004). Whether there is
a difference between spending time in nature alone or
with friends in terms of pro-environmentalism and the
possible effect of the foreseeable change of children’s social
group as they grow up deserves further exploration. Future
longitudinal research should focus on how experiences in
nature change through the lifespan (Cagle, 2018) and how
these different interactions in the natural environment lead
to pro-environmentalism.
Fifth, participants’ sociodemographic characteristics should be
considered in the experiences in nature–pro-environmentalism
relation. These include age, gender, education, place of residence
(urban vs. rural), and political ideology [see Gifford and
Nilsson (2014) for a review]. Younger people, women, and
liberals tend to be more open to improve their EA than
older people, men, and conservatives (Heberlein, 2012;Gifford
and Nilsson, 2014). Thus, experiences in nature may have
a greater impact on young women with liberal ideas. Given
that individuals with a lower educational level generally hold
weaker EA (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014), they may benefit
the most from experiences in nature. Also, people living in
rural areas tend to have more frequent contact with nature
(Hinds and Sparks, 2008;Muslim et al., 2017) than those
living in cities. Rural residents also differ from urban ones
in their preference for different types of landscapes (Williams
and Cary, 2002) and their daily type of contact with nature
(Collado et al., 2015) which can influence the outcomes of
experiences in nature. For example, Bixler et al. (1994) found
that urban residents tend to express fear and discomfort when
spending time in wildland areas. Williams and Cary (2002)
found that urban residents held a stronger preference for
more grazed woodland landscapes than rural residents do.
Considering children, Collado et al. (2015) concluded that
children living in mountain rural areas experienced nature more
freely than those living in cities. Even though these studies
suggest that the effects of experiences in nature on people’s
pro-environmentalism may be moderated by sociodemographic
characteristics, only a few studies have included them in their
studies (e.g., Mayer et al., 2009;Larson et al., 2011;Collado
et al., 2015;Rosa and Profice, 2018). These individual factors
should be considered in future research about the experiences in
nature–pro-environmentalism link.
Sixth, most of the studies revised through this paper are
cross-sectional and their samples non-representative. This limits
causal inferences and the generalization of the results to
larger populations. Also, most of the studies investigating EB
and experiences in nature assessed self-report (vs. observed)
behaviors. This could be an issue because self-reports can
be influenced by diverse biases such as social desirability,
mood state, and consistency motif (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Hence, self-reported behaviors may not correspond to observable
behaviors (Kormos and Gifford, 2014). Moreover, most of studies
investigating the association between childhood experiences
in nature and adults’ pro-environmentalism relied solely on
adults’ self-reported experiences in nature during childhood
(e.g., Wells and Lekies, 2006;Larson et al., 2011;Pensini
et al., 2016;Asah et al., 2018;Rosa et al., 2018) with few
exceptions (Liddicoat and Krasny, 2014;Evans et al., 2018;Gray
and Pigott, 2018). Adults’ self-reports of childhood experiences
in nature could be imprecise and may be influenced by
their actual EA (Kals et al., 1999;Wells and Lekies, 2006).
Therefore, there is a need for representative surveys, more reliable
measures of EB and experiences in nature, and longitudinal
studies estimating experiences in nature and EA and EB at
different time-points.
FINAL REMARKS
There is plenty of evidence supporting the positive link between
experiences in nature, EA, and EB. We agree with previous
researchers encouraging a more frequent exposure to nature
both for adults and children, as this can have positive effects
both on pro-environmentalism (Crawford et al., 2017;Lumber
et al., 2017) and health (Hartig et al., 2014;Kuo et al., 2019).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 7
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
However, the complexity of the positive association between
experiences in nature and pro-environmentalism urges future
studies with which researchers can provide plausible explanations
of this positive link, as well as offer more specific guidelines
for translating empirical studies into every day practices. For
example, future studies can help to shed some light about
which are the best type experiences in nature to improve
pro-environmentalism (e.g., Giusti et al., 2018), and ways to
increase people’s contact with nature within their daily life
(e.g., Soga et al., 2018).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
CR and SC conceived the ideas included in the manuscript and
wrote the manuscript.
FUNDING
This study was partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness (Grant No PSI-2013-44939) and
FUAG (2018/B008).
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections.
Psychol. Health 26, 1113–1127. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Asah, S. T., Bengston, D. N., Westphal, L. M., and Gowan, C. H. (2018).
Mechanisms of children’s exposure to nature: predicting adulthood
environmental citizenship and commitment to nature-based activities.
Environ. Behav. 50, 807–836. doi: 10.1177/0013916517718021
Bamberg, S., and Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford,
and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-
environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.
2006.12.002
Barton, J., Bragg, R., Pretty, J., Roberts, J., and Wood, C. (2016). The wilderness
expedition: an effective life course intervention to improve young people’s well-
being and connectedness to nature. J. Exp. Educ. 39, 59–72. doi: 10.1177/
1053825915626933
Berns, G. N., and Simpson, S. (2009). Outdoor recreation participation and
environmental concern: a research summary. J. Exp. Educ. 32, 79–91.
Bixler, R. D., Carlisle, C. L., Hammitt, W. E., and Floyd, M. F. (1994). Observed
fears and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas.
J. Environ. Educ. 26, 24–33. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1994.9941430
Bjerke, T., Thrane, C., and Kleiven, J. (2006). Outdoor recreation interests and
environmental attitudes in Norway. Manag. Leis. 11, 116–128. doi: 10.1080/
13606710500520197
Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of
trout fishermen. J. Leis. Res. 9, 174–189. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1977.11970328
Byrka, K., Hartig, T., and Kaiser, F. G. (2010). Environmental attitude as a
mediator of the relationship between psychological restoration in nature and
self-reported ecological behavior. Psychol. Rep. 107, 847–859. doi: 10.2466/07.
PR0.107.6.847-859
Cagle, N. L. (2018). Changes in experiences with nature through the lives of
environmentally committed university faculty. Environ. Educ. Res. 24, 889–898.
doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1342116
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F.,
et al. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the
well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 134, 221–228. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Panno, A., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Pirchio, S., et al.
(2017). A different way to stay in touch with “Urban Nature”: the perceived
restorative qualities of botanical gardens. Front. Psychol. 8:914. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00914
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. J. Environ. Educ.
31, 15–26. doi: 10.1080/00958969909598628
Chawla, L., and Derr, V. (2012). “The development of conservation behaviors
in childhood and youth,” in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and
Conservation Psychology, ed. S. Clayton (New York, NY: Oxford University
Press), 527–555.
Clayton, S., Colléony, A., Conversy, P., Maclouf, E., Martin, L., Torres, A. C., et al.
(2017). Transformation of experience: toward a new relationship with nature.
Conserv. Lett. 10, 645–651. doi: 10.1111/conl.12337
Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemp. Issues
Early Child. 5, 68–80. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2004.5.1.10
Collado, S., and Corraliza, J. A. (2015). Children’s restorative experiences and self-
reported environmental behaviors. Environ. Behav. 47, 38–56. doi: 10.1177/
0013916513492417
Collado, S., Corraliza, J. A., Staats, H., and Ruíz, M. (2015). Effect of frequency and
mode of contact with nature on children’s self-reported ecological behaviors.
J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.001
Collado, S., Íñiguez-Rueda, L., and Corraliza, J. A. (2016). Experiencing nature and
children’s conceptualizations of the natural world. Child. Geogr. 14, 716–730.
doi: 10.1080/14733285.2016.1190812
Collado, S., and Sorrel, M. A. (2019). Children’s environmental moral judgments:
variations according to type of victim and exposure to nature. J. Environ.
Psychol. 62, 42–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.005
Collado, S., Staats, H., and Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children’s
summer camps: affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. J. Environ.
Psychol. 33, 37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.002
Cooper, C., Larson, L., Dayer, A., Stedman, R., and Decker, D. (2015). Are
wildlife recreationists conservationists? Linking hunting, birdwatching, and
pro-environmental behavior. J. Wildl. Manag. 79, 446–457. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.
855
Corcoran, P. B. (1999). Formative influences in the lives of environmental
educators in the united states. Environ. Educ. Res. 5, 207–220. doi: 10.1080/
1350462990050207
Craig, T. P., Fischer, A., and Lorenzo-Arribas, A. (2018). Shopping versus nature?
An exploratory study of everyday experiences. Front. Psychol. 9:9. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00009
Crawford, M. R., Holder, M. D., and O’Connor, B. P. (2017). Using mobile
technology to engage children with nature. Environ. Behav. 49, 959–984.
doi: 10.1177/0013916516673870
Davis, N., and Gatersleben, B. (2013). Transcendent experiences in wild and
manicured settings: the influence of the trait “Connectedness to Nature.”
Ecopsychology 5, 92–102. doi: 10.1089/eco.2013.0016
De Dominicis, S., Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., Perucchini, P.,
and Bonnes, M. (2017). Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for
environmental education in Italy. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 16, 171–185.
doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2017.1322014
Duerden, M. D., and Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect
experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 379–392. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007
Dunlap, R. E., and Hefferman, R. B. (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental
concern: an empirical examination. Rural Sociol. 40, 18–30.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., and Jones, R. E. (2000). New
trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the
New Ecological Paradigm: a Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442.
doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Evans, G. W. (2019). Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 70, 449–474. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103023
Evans, G. W., Brauchle, G., Haq, A., Stecker, R., Wong, K., and Shapiro, E. (2007).
Young children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environ. Behav. 39,
635–658. doi: 10.1177/0013916506294252
Evans, G. W., Otto, S., and Kaiser, F. G. (2018). Childhood origins of
young adult environmental behavior. Psychol. Sci. 29, 679–687. doi: 10.1177/
0956797617741894
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 8
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
Frantz, C. M., and Mayer, F. S. (2014). The importance of connection to nature
in assessing environmental education programs. Stud. Educ. Eval. 41, 85–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.001
Garlock, T., and Lorenzen, K. (2017). Marine angler characteristics and attitudes
toward stock enhancement in Florida. Fish. Res. 186, 439–445. doi: 10.1016/j.
fishres.2016.08.017
Gifford, R., and Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-
environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int. J. Psychol. 49, 141–157.
doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034
Giusti, M., Svane, U., Raymond, C. M., and Beery, T. H. (2018). A framework
to assess where and how children connect to nature. Front. Psychol. 8:2283.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283
Gray, T., and Pigott, F. (2018). Lasting lessons in outdoor learning: a facilitation
model emerging from 30 Years of reflective practice. Ecopsychology 10, 195–204.
doi: 10.1089/eco.2018.0036
Hahn, E. R., and Garrett, M. K. (2017). Preschoolers’ moral judgments of
environmental harm and the influence of perspective taking. J. Environ. Psychol.
53, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.004
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., and Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in
nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environ. Behav. 33,
590–607. doi: 10.1177/00139160121973142
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., and Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in
nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environ. Conserv. 34,
291–299. doi: 10.1017/S0376892907004250
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., and Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health.
Annu. Rev. Public Health 35, 207–228. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-
032013-182443
Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199773329.001.0001
Hinds, J., and Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: the
role of affective connection and identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 109–120.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
Hou, J.-S., Lin, C.-H., and Morais, D. B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment
to a cultural tourism destination: the case of Hakka and Non-Hakka
Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. J. Travel Res. 44, 221–233. doi: 10.1177/
0047287505278988
Howell, R. A., and Allen, S. (2016). Significant life experiences, motivations and
values of climate change educators. Environ. Educ. Res. doi: 10.1080/13504622.
2016.1158242 [Epub ahead of print].
Jackson, E. L. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the
environment. Leis. Stud. 5, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/02614368600390011
Jett, J. S., Thapa, B., and Ko, Y. J. (2009). Recreation specialization and boater
speed compliance in manatee zones. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 14, 278–292.
doi: 10.1080/10871200902905984
Joye, Y., and Bolderdijk, J. W. (2014). An exploratory study into the effects of
extraordinary nature on emotions, mood, and prosociality. Front. Psychol.
5:1577. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01577
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., and Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward
nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 31, 178–202.
doi: 10.1177/00139169921972056
Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., and Fuller, R. A. (2013). What are
the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10,
913–935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10030913
Kim, H., and Song, H. (2017). Measuring hiking specialization and identification
of latent profiles of hikers. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 13, 59–68. doi: 10.1007/s11355-
016-0312-8
Knez, I., and Eliasson, I. (2017). Relationships between personal and collective
place identity and well-being in mountain communities. Front. Psychol. 8:79.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00079
Knopp, T. B., and Tyger, J. D. (1973). A Study of conflict in recreational land use:
snowmobiling vs. ski-touring. J. Leis. Res. 5, 6–17. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1973.
11970138
Kormos, C., and Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of
proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J. Environ. Psychol. 40,
359–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
Kuo, M., Barnes, M., and Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature
promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship.
Front. Psychol. 10:305. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305
Larson, L. R., Szczytko, R., Bowers, E. P., Stephens, L. E., Stevenson, K. T.,
and Floyd, M. F. (2018a). Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to
nature: troubling trends among rural youth? Environ. Behav. doi: 10.1177/
0013916518806686 [Epub ahead of print].
Larson, L. R., Usher, L. E., and Chapmon, T. (2018b). Surfers as environmental
stewards: understanding place-protecting behavior at Cape Hatteras National
Seashore. Leis. Sci. 40, 442–465. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2017.1305306
Larson, L. R., Whiting, J. W., and Green, G. T. (2011). Exploring the influence
of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a
demographically diverse population. Local Environ. 16, 67–86. doi: 10.1080/
13549839.2010.548373
Lawrence, E. K. (2012). Visitation to natural areas on campus and its relation to
place identity and environmentally responsible behaviors. J. Environ. Educ. 43,
93–106. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2011.604654
Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation
commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 19,
895–915. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2011.570345
Lee, T. H., and Jan, F. H. (2018). Ecotourism behavior of nature-based
tourists: an integrative framework. J. Travel Res. 57, 792–810. doi: 10.1177/
0047287517717350
Liddicoat, K. R., and Krasny, M. E. (2014). Memories as useful outcomes of
residential outdoor environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 45, 178–193.
doi: 10.1080/00958964.2014.905431
Lin, B. B., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., and Shanahan, D. F. (2014).
Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS One
9:e87422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087422
Lin, B. B., Gaston, K. J., Fuller, R. A., Wu, D., Bush, R., and Shanahan, D. F.
(2017). How green is your garden?: urban form and socio-demographic factors
influence yard vegetation, visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 157, 239–246. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.007
Lo, A. Y., and Jim, C. Y. (2010). Willingness of residents to pay and motives for
conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban
For. Urban Green. 9, 113–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.001
Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods. New York, NY: Workman Publishing
Company.
Lumber, R., Richardson, M., and Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature:
contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature
connection. PLoS One 12:e0177186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: does it matter how it’s
measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior
scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 41, 905–914. doi: 10.1007/s10745-013- 9614-8
Marques, C., Reis, E., Menezes, J., Salgueiro, M., and de, F. (2017). Modelling
preferences for nature-based recreation activities. Leis. Stud. 36, 89–107.
doi: 10.1080/02614367.2015.1014928
Mayer, F. S., and Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a
measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol.
24, 503–515. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M. P., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., and Dolliver, K. (2009). Why
is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environ. Behav. 41,
607–643. doi: 10.1177/0013916508319745
McFarlane, B. L., and Boxall, P. C. (1996). Participation in wildlife conservation by
birdwatchers. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/10871209609359066
Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J.,
Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic
reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 27, 1171–1179.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-017- 1765-4
Muslim, H. F. M., Hosaka, T., Numata, S., and Yahya, N. A. (2017). Nature-
related experience during childhood in urban and rural areas: the case of
Peninsular Malaysians. Urban Stud. Res. 2017:7349219. doi: 10.1155/2017/
7349219
Otto, S., and Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children:
environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related
to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2017.09.009
Pensini, P., Horn, E., and Caltabiano, N. J. (2016). An exploration of the
relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure and
their mental well-being. Child. Youth Environ. 26, 125–147. doi: 10.7721/
chilyoutenvi.26.1.0125
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
fpsyg-10-00763 April 8, 2019 Time: 7:54 # 9
Rosa and Collado Experiences in Nature and Pro-environmentalism
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in Behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.
88.5.879
Profice, C. (2018). Nature as a living presence: drawings by Tupinambá
and New York children. PLoS One 13:e0203870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.
0203870
Richardson, M., and McEwan, K. (2018). 30 days wild and the relationships
between engagement with nature’s beauty, nature connectedness and well-
being. Front. Psychol. 9:1500. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500
Rosa, C. D., and Profice, C. C. (2018). Que tipo de educação ambiental e para quem?
Fatores associados a atitudes e comportamentos ambientais. Rev. Bras. Educ.
Ambient. 13, 111–125.
Rosa, C. D., Profice, C. C., and Collado, S. (2018). Nature experiences and adults’
self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: the role of connectedness to nature
and childhood nature experiences. Front. Psychol. 9:1055. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.
2018.01055
Rupprecht, C. D. D., Byrne, J. A., and Lo, A. Y. (2016). Memories of vacant
lots: how and why residents used informal urban green space as children and
teenagers in Brisbane, Australia, and Sapporo, Japan. Child. Geogr. 14, 340–355.
doi: 10.1080/14733285.2015.1048427
Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., and Gagné,
M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. J. Environ. Psychol.
30, 159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.009
Schaal, S., Otto, S., Schaal, S., and Lude, A. (2018). Game-related enjoyment or
personal pre-requisites – which is the crucial factor when using geogames to
encourage adolescents to value local biodiversity. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 8,
213–226. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2018.1441571
Schaefer, L., Plotnikoff, R. C., Majumdar, S. R., Mollard, R., Woo, M., Sadman, R.,
et al. (2014). Outdoor time is associated with physical activity, sedentary time,
and cardiorespiratory fitness in youth. J. Pediatr. 165, 516–521. doi: 10.1016/j.
jpeds.2014.05.029
Schneider, J., and Schaal, S. (2017). Location-based smartphone games in
the context of environmental education and education for sustainable
development: fostering connectedness to nature with Geogames. Environ. Educ.
Res. 24, 1597–1610. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1383360
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., and
Franˇ
ek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern
and conservation behavior. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 36, 457–475. doi: 10.1177/
0022022105275962
Scott, D., and Shafer, C. S. (2001). Recreational specialization: a critical look
at the construct. J. Leis. Res. 33, 319–343. doi: 10.1017/CBO97811074153
24.004
Soga, M., and Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of
human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101. doi: 10.1002/
fee.1225
Soga, M., Gaston, K. J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K., and Hanaki, K. (2016). Both
direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to
conserve biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13:E529. doi: 10.3390/
ijerph13060529
Soga, M., Yamanoi, T., Tsuchiya, K., Koyanagi, T. F., and Kanai, T. (2018). What
are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landsc.
Urban Plan. 180, 114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.015
Staats, H., and Hartig, T. (2004). Alone or with a friend: a social context for
psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol.
24, 199–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T. D., Guagnano, G. A., and Kalof, L. (1999).
A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of support for social movements: the case of
environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81–97. doi: 10.2307/2083693
Talebpour, L. (2018). Evaluating Outcomes of an Immersive-Field-Study Program on
Fifth-Grade Students’ Connectedness with Nature. San Francisco, CA: University
of San Francisco.
Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature:
similarities and differences. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 64–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.
2013.01.004
Tandon, P. S., Zhou, C., and Christakis, D. A. (2012). Frequency of parent-
supervised outdoor play of US preschool-aged children. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc.
Med. 166, 707–712. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.1835
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: a new research area in environmental
education. J. Environ. Educ. 11, 20–24. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1980.9941386
Thapa, B. (2010). The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation
on environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. J. Environ. Educ. 41,
133–150. doi: 10.1080/00958960903439989
Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., and Meyer, L. A. (2006). Specialization and marine
based environmental behaviors among SCUBA divers. J. Leis. Res. 38, 601–615.
doi: 10.1080/00222216.2006.11950094
Van Liere, K. D., and Noe, F. P. (1981). Outdoor recreation and environmental
attitudes: further examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociol. 46,
503–513.
Wells, N. M., and Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: pathways from
childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalis. Child. Youth Environ.
16:41663.
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. L., and Milfont, T. L. (2018). Exposure to urban nature
and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection
to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental
attitudes. Environ. Behav. doi: 10.1177/0013916517751009 [Epub ahead of
print].
Williams, K. J. H., and Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological
quality, and biodiversity protection. Environ. Behav. 34, 257–274. doi: 10.1177/
0013916502034002006
Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). “The concept of nature: a psychologist’s view,” in Behavior
and the Natural Environment, eds I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (New York, NY:
Plenum Press), 5–37. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3539- 9_2
Wolsko, C., and Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature:
the matrix of psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation.
Ecopsychology 5, 80–91. doi: 10.1089/eco.2013.0008
Wyles, K. J., Pahl, S., Holland, M., and Thompson, R. C. (2017). Can beach cleans
do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities.
Environ. Behav. 49, 509–535. doi: 10.1177/0013916516649412
Young, A., Khalil, K. A., and Wharton, J. (2018). Empathy for animals: a review of
the existing literature. Curator 61, 327–343. doi: 10.1111/cura.12257
Zaradic, P. A., Pergams, O. R. W., and Kareiva, P. (2009). The impact of nature
experience on willingness to support conservation. PLoS One 4:e7367. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0007367
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., and Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects
children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biol.
Conserv. 177, 109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.011
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Rosa and Collado. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 763
Content uploaded by Silvia Collado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Silvia Collado on Apr 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
