Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS ONE
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Human-nature relationships in context.
Experiential, psychological, and contextual
dimensions that shape children’s desire to
protect nature
Matteo GiustiID*
Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Ga
¨vle, Ga
¨vle,
Sweden
*matteo.giusti@hig.se
Abstract
What relationship with nature shapes children’s desire to protect the environment? This
study crosses conventional disciplinary boundaries to explore this question. I use qualitative
and quantitative methods to analyse experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions
of Human-Nature Connection (HNC) before and after children participate in a project of
nature conservation. The results from the interviews (N = 25) suggest that experiential
aspects of saving animals enhance children’s appreciation and understanding for animals,
nature, and nature conservation. However, the analysis of children’s psychological HNC
(N = 158) shows no statistical difference before and after children participate in the project.
Analysing the third dimension–children’s contextual HNC–provides further insights. In-
cluding children’s contextual relations with home, nature, and city, not only improves the
prediction of their desire to work for nature, but also exposes a form of Human-Nature Dis-
connection (HND) shaped by children’s closeness to cities that negatively influence it. Over-
all, combining experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions of HNC provides rich
insights to advance the conceptualisation and assessment of human-nature relationships.
People’s relationship with nature is better conceived and analysed as systems of relations
between mind, body, culture, and environment, which progress through complex dynamics.
Future assessments of HNC and HND would benefit from short-term qualitative and long-
term quantitative evaluations that explicitly acknowledge their spatial and cultural contexts.
This approach would offer novel and valuable insights to promote the psychological and
social determinants of resilient sustainable society.
Introduction
Living within sustainable boundaries is a challenge that concerns this and the future genera-
tions of humans [1]. How future generations will develop the desire to protect the environ-
ment and live sustainably is a research subject that is receiving exponential attention [2].
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 1 / 24
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Giusti M (2019) Human-nature
relationships in context. Experiential, psychological,
and contextual dimensions that shape children’s
desire to protect nature. PLoS ONE 14(12):
e0225951. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0225951
Editor: Stefano Federici, Universitàdegli Studi di
Perugia, ITALY
Received: April 11, 2019
Accepted: November 15, 2019
Published: December 5, 2019
Copyright: ©2019 Matteo Giusti. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
Funding: I thank the Formas supported project
ZEUS (ref no.: 2016- 01193) granted to S.B. for
supporting this work. formas.se.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Across environmental and conservation psychology [3,4], landscape management [5,6], bio-
logical conservation [7,8] and social-ecological sustainability research [9–12], a personal con-
nection with nature is considered a core determinant for environmental protection and
sustainable living. However, many in academia recognise that the ability to appreciate, and
eventually protect, the biosphere is threatened by children’s lack of direct nature experiences
[13–16] and by the increasing virtualisation of children’s lives [17–19]. These pressures—and
the urgent need to create sustainable living standards—are driving a new multidisciplinary
arena that investigates how psychological and social determinants of sustainable societies
develop in people [4,20–22]. Hence, human-nature relationships are studied across many dis-
ciplines, but oftentimes disciplinary boundaries limit the valuable integration of the comple-
mentary insights produced [2]. This study addresses this interdisciplinary research gap.
This study aims to advance the conceptualisation and assessment of human-nature rela-
tionships to better understand what promotes children’s desire to protect nature. To achieve
this aim, this study investigates how participating in a project of nature conservation affects
children’s human-nature relationship. In the sections below, I introduce the different dimen-
sions of human-nature relationships that exist within disciplines, I described how the study is
designed and the conservation project under examination, and then list the methods used.
Afterwards, I describe the results of the study, summarise them in the context of the nature
conservation project, and then discuss how they contribute to improving the conceptualisation
and assessment of human-nature relationships to better predict children’s desire to work for
nature in the future.
Psychological, experiential, and contextual human-nature connection
Human-Nature Connection (HNC) is a concept that emerges from a multidisciplinary review
of the body of knowledge on human-nature relationships [2]. This concept joins three comple-
mentary dimensions of human-nature relationships that are often studied in isolation from
each other. The first dimension (psychological HNC) emerges from research that considers
human-nature relationships as an attribute of the mind. This body of literature studies the psy-
chological connection to an abstract form of nature. Changes in people’s connection with
nature are measured using quantitative methods often to describe psychological dynamics or
to predict specific pro-environmental behaviours (for examples see [23,24]). The second
dimension (experiential HNC) is representative of qualitative research that describes human-
nature relationships as experiences of being in nature. Here, researchers observe and describe
people’s interaction with local nature (for example see [25]). The last dimension (contextual
HNC) emerges from research on ‘sense of place’ and it investigates human-nature relation-
ships as the sense of belonging that people develop through time with geographical areas. Typi-
cally, these studies use questionnaires to study people’s attachment to specific natural
landscapes (for review see [6]).
Despite these psychological, experiential, and contextual dimensions of human-nature rela-
tionships being investigated and reported on, single studies usually focus only on one dimen-
sion. In doing so, the valuable cross-fertilization across these bodies of knowledge is largely
missing [2]. Beyond the missed opportunity for valuable interdisciplinary insights, disciplinary
boundaries have shown to limit the analysis of human-nature relationships. For instance, the
predictive power of psychological HNC alone for pro-environmental behaviours is limited
when contextual factors are introduced [26–28]. Duffy and Verges [26] show that seasonal and
meteorological factors meaningfully influence people’s association with nature. Contextual
influences to psychological HNC are also evident when the RSPB [29] reports that, somehow
counterintuitively, British children are psychologically closer to nature in urban rather than in
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 2 / 24
rural areas. Geographical access to nature experiences is shown to promote children’s psycho-
logical HNC [30], but it stands to question to what kind of nature children develop their appre-
ciation for. Not all nature experiences are equal [31–33] and there is initial indication that
different kinds of nature experiences contribute to different aspects of children’s relationship
with nature [34]. This study operationalises, analyses, and discusses the three dimensions of
HNC jointly and offers interdisciplinary insights to address some of these limitations.
Study design
Empirically, this study focuses on children. This is because nature experiences during child-
hood can promote the psychological foundation for a multitude of environmentally conscious
behaviours [35–37] and for an adult life devoted to environmental protection [38–41]. In this
study, the experiential dimension of HNC is assessed qualitatively after children participate in
a project of nature conservation (see section below for details). The impact of this nature expe-
rience on children’s psychological and contextual dimensions of HNC is then quantitatively
evaluated. This numerical data is analysed to understand what best predicts children’s desire
to protect the environment in the future or work for environmental organisations.
The design of this study responds to the need to analyse all dimensions of HNC simulta-
neously, by using a multi-method approach on a large dataset of participants in combination
with some control over socio-demographic factors [42]. This design addresses two critiques
common to retrospective research on nature experiences: first, participants have a nearly iden-
tical socio-cultural background (e.g. age, level of education, and culture) and, second, they are
assessed when memories are still vivid [43]. This multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary
investigation provides a set of results useful to discuss the constituents of human-nature rela-
tionships and to debate what shapes children’s desire to protect nature.
The salamander project
The Salamander Project (SP) is a voluntary program of nature conservation involving 10-year-
old students who attend a municipal school in the outskirts of Stockholm (Sweden). These stu-
dents are responsible for saving and documenting two endangered species of salamanders.
During every school day from April to May, a group of 5 to 8 children walk to a local park
guided by a schoolteacher. Every time the group of children is likely to be different. In the
park, there is a dry paddling pool in which salamanders frequently fall in to on their way to a
nearby breeding ground, remain trapped, dry, and consequently die. So, participating in the
SP means that children go into the dry pool, look for salamanders, pick them up out of the
pool by hand, document species and gender, and then release the salamanders into the nearby
pond where they can reproduce. All children from the 4
th
grade in this school are invited to
participate, but participation is voluntary. Still, the SP is a flagship of pride for this school and
children usually participate happily. Overall, the SP is an authentic project of nature conserva-
tion [44] with documented ecological success [45,46] and it is not conceived by the school as a
pedagogical activity. Nonetheless, the SP has inherent educational value for children as Barthel
et al. [44] have documented.
Methods
Participants
Participants are 158 (85 males, 73 females) 10-year-old students attending three schools in
Stockholm. Only one school takes part in the SP. The two schools not partaking in the SP act
as control groups to ensure a balanced number of subjects between control and treatment
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 3 / 24
groups. These schools are within 3 kilometres of each other to maintain social-economic fac-
tors and spatial access to natural environments outside the SP nearly constant. All schools are
recruited via personal contacts and phone calls and they decide to participate in the study to
know more about their pupils’ relationship with nature.
Participants attending one school (N = 67, 3 classes) partake in the SP, whereas the students
attending the other two schools do not participate (N = 91, 4 classes). Of the 67 children par-
taking in the SP, 25 children are interviewed after participating in the SP. This group of chil-
dren is recruited on voluntary basis. However, the final selection is made to ensure that this
group is equally distributed across the three classes involved in the SP, that there is equal gen-
der representation (12 males, 13 females), and that there is variety in the number of times chil-
dren directly participate in collecting salamander (2 to 5 times).
Materials
Experiential HNC. Experiential HNC is assessed by interviewing children after they par-
ticipate in the SP. The interviews follow an interview guide that focuses on what children think
and feel about the SP, salamanders, animals, and nature in general (S1 Appendix).
Psychological HNC. In order to evaluate different, and potentially complementary,
aspects of psychological HNC, I assess both ‘connection to nature’ [47] and ‘connectedness
with nature’ in its explicit (i.e. available to consciousness) and implicit (i.e. outside of con-
scious awareness) form [48,49]. These concepts refer to independent methods to assess psy-
chological HNC. Connection to nature is assessed using the Connection to Nature Index
(CNI) from Cheng and Monroe [47]. This is known to be a reliable tool to use with 10-year-
old children alike the participants in the study [50–53]. In addition, I revise four items from
the CNI subscale ‘empathy for creatures’ to assess exclusively empathy for salamanders (here-
inafter called salamander empathy) (S2 and S3 Appendix). The scale salamander empathy is
created to capture potential emotional changes specifically towards salamanders since the SP
focuses on saving these animals.
Explicit connectedness with nature is assessed using the Inclusion of Nature in Self scale
(INS) [49], because its graphical form (Fig 1A) is easy to understand for children [53–55] and
because it reports consistent results over time [56]. This method can also be considered an
assessment of children’s self-nature closeness [57]. Implicit connectedness with nature is
assessed using a computerized Implicit Association Test called FlexiTwins [48]. This is a video-
game that measures how quickly children can associate with words representing the built envi-
ronment or representing nature. How much faster children’s reaction times are with words
representing nature is an indication of their implicit association with nature. FlexiTwins is
chosen because it can reduce biased results, given that children might be incapable to fully
articulate their association with nature [56,58,59]. FlexiTwins is already used in studies with
young people [48,60].
Lastly, after the treatment group participated in the SP, all participating children answer in
written form to the question: “Would you like to work to protect nature or in environmental
projects in the future?”. All the above material is translated to Swedish to make it accessible to
Swedish children (see S2 and S3 Appendix).
Contextual HNC. The analysis of the contextual dimension of HNC is based on under-
standing relations among four concepts: self,nature,home, and city. In other words, it means
understanding how children perceive themselves, and their homes, integrated in the concepts
of nature and city. Home is unanimously considered the place to which people attach the most
meaning [61]. Home is the context people use as a reference point to construct reality in their
daily life [62]. In an extensive review of sense of place literature, Lewicka [6] writes: “Home is a
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 4 / 24
symbol of continuity and order, rootedness, self-identity, attachment, privacy, comfort, secu-
rity and refuge”. How nature is integrated in the concept of home, is a contextual relation
worth exploring to understand how contextual HNC influence children’s desire to work for
nature.
Another central concept for contextual HNC is city. Cities are amongst humankind’s great-
est inventions and amongst the biggest challenges to sustainability [63]. They are worth names
and they are elements of pride and conflicts in the history of humankind [6,64]. However, they
have the peculiarity of being environments exclusively constructed for human use, from which
natural dynamics are mostly separated and hidden [65]. Thus, how children perceive them-
selves and their homes in relation to the concept of city is crucial to unveil how their attach-
ment to this context might shape their relationship with nature and influence their desire to
work for nature.
The contextual dimensions of HNC are analysed with three variants of the Inclusion of
Other in the Self scale [57] and three sets of questions. First, I use seven pairs of increasingly
overlapping circles to quantify children’s self-city closeness (Fig 1B), home-nature closeness
(Fig 1C), and home-city closeness (Fig 1D). This scale is the same as the one used to assess self-
nature closeness, or INS, in the assessment of psychological HNC. Additionally, children are
asked to answer in written form to three questions for each context selected (i.e. city,home,
nature): “what does [city/home/nature] mean to you?”, “what is best about [city/home/
nature]?”, and “what is worst about [city/home/nature]?”. These questions unpack the mental
Fig 1. Diagrams used for analysis of explicit connectedness with nature and contextual HNC. The four diagrams used to assess children’s: self-nature closeness (i.e.
INS) (a), self-city closeness (b), home-nature closeness (c), home-city closeness (d).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.g001
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 5 / 24
representations that children use when they are asked about their closeness to nature and city,
and their home-nature and home-city closeness. Unfolding the attributes that constitutes chil-
dren’s home,nature, and city allows investigating the set of meanings that form the foundation
of children’s contextual HNC. All children’s written answers are coded using a thematic analy-
sis. All the material above is translated to Swedish to make it accessible to Swedish children
(see S2 and S3 Appendix).
Procedure
Experiential HNC. Children’s experiential HNC is assessed through interviews within one
week from participating in the SP (June 2015). All interviews are held in Swedish at the school dur-
ing school time and they last about 10 minutes each. They are recorded, transcribed, and induc-
tively coded using Atlas.ti following the systematic process described by Braun and Clarke [66].
Psychological and contextual HNC. Children’s psychological and contextual HNC are
assessed at the school that children attend during school hours using printed material. Partici-
pants receive brief oral instructions about the content of the activity and then are provided
with a printed booklet for the assessment (S3 Appendix). All children are given sufficient time
to complete the whole assessment in a reasonably distraction-free environment. After complet-
ing all written questions in the booklet, children are asked to move to a computer lab, or use
laptops, to play an offline version of FlexiTwins. This assessment is performed on all children
twice: before some of them participate in the SP (April 2015) and after (June 2015).
Ethical protocol
The ethical protocol of this study has been approved by the responsible ethical committee
(Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University). The author had a background police
check which was provided to all schools before fieldwork. All participants’ parents or guard-
ians received an informative letter about the study and provided written consent to allow chil-
dren to participate in the study. This consent allowed the author to record the interviews,
analyse results, and utilise quotes from the interviews anonymously. The names reported in
the quotes are fictional.
Results
Experiential HNC
The results from interviews suggest that (i) all 25 children interviewed perceive salamanders in
a different light after participating in the SP. In the eyes of these children, salamanders are now
associated with aesthetic pleasure, feelings of care, empathy, and respect. Children wonder
where salamanders are at night, how they feel, and what kind of life they have. In other words,
children show the capacity to imagine what the life of a salamander is, and show concern for
their livelihoods. The quotes below represent this finding.
“I have started to like them and I know now that you have to be careful with them.” (Sky)
“I had seen a salamander before (. . .) but I didn’t know so much about them. And now it
feels like ‘Oh, I want to have my own salamander’! They are so smooth and soft! (. . .) They
are so nice!” (Ellie)
“First I felt, well . . . how can I explain? ‘Yeah it’s exciting but they are . . .like . . .just sala-
manders’. But now I feel more like, they are alive, they exist. Before I didn’t think ‘I wonder
where they are.’ [. . .] I care more about them.” (Loreta)
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 6 / 24
“I have more [. . .] respect for how they live because it’s quite . . . I wouldn’t survive if I were
a salamander! . . . Now I see them in a different way. Before I thought they were like ani-
mals. Now it’s like they are beings that, well, they need help, just like people can need help
sometimes.” (Roberto)
These changes are not limited to children’s relation to salamanders. By immediate generali-
zation, children transpose these insights to others animals. Most children state that participating
in the SP has altered their relations to animals and nature in general, as the quotes below show.
“I have started to think more about animals and nature. Actually a lot more than what I did
before.” (Ale)
“That you shouldn’t harm them because they are also animals and they often live a hard
life.” (Quentin)
“Yes, well, I have much more of a sense for nature.” (Megan)
“Well, it’s like I’m less scared and I feel . . . more confident in nature.” (Stephan)
Notably, children’s narratives repeatedly report a specific formative moment. The emo-
tional reaction linked to finding salamanders is often associated with overcoming, what I call
here, the ‘yuck barrier’ (ii). Once a child finds a salamander, it is his or her responsibility to
collect it by hand and determine species and gender. Many children say that before participat-
ing in the SP they thought that holding a salamander is simply ‘yuck’, and this emotional
threshold kept them from touching, or even considering touching, these animals. However,
participating in the SP puts them in a position of responsibility that forces them to overcome
this emotional barrier, as the quotes below show.
“They were like this little slimy, I didn’t dare to hold it, but now I feel like, now I can hold
one without a problem.” (Liz)
“The first time it was a little scary. I’m a little afraid of animals so then it was a bit scary, if it
would bite me or how it would feel if it was on my hands. It was a little nerve-racking the
first time. [. . .] Then it was completely normal.” (Filippo)
All children are enthusiastic about participating in the SP. Moreover, the first-hand experi-
ence of saving the life of a salamander makes them understand the moral rationale that under-
pins nature conservation, as the quote below shows.
“I have learnt to take care of animals. I’m maybe thinking about doing something like that
maybe . . .to fix things so that everything is good with nature. (. . .) Yes . . .I have become
more nature-friendly.” (Johan)
Collectively, these results show that participating in the SP changes children’s relation to
salamanders, other animals, and nature in general. The importance of the SP in shaping chil-
dren’s relationship with nature is also confirmed in a follow-up study with the same children
two years after they participated in the SP [44].
Psychological and contextual HNC
The statistical analyses of psychological and contextual HNC are presented together because
they share the same quantitative methodology and because they provide similar insights.
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 7 / 24
Data screening. All data from FlexiTwins have to be screened for consistency following a
standard procedure prior to analysis (for details see [60]). Consequently, all participants’
results that have error rates above 65% (n = 21) or that have inconsistent scores within the two
phases of the same session (n = 27) are deleted. Overall, 48 of the 158 participants are excluded
from the analysis. This is a representative outcome for 10-year-old participants outside labora-
tory conditions. Children’s excitement of playing a videogame and comparing their perfor-
mances undermine the focus that FlexiTwins requires to obtain accurate results.
Data overview. The software R [67] is used to perform ANOVA tests and independent t-
tests on the psychological and contextual dimensions of HNC. The data are reported with p-
values between 0.1 and 0.9 as nonsignificant, whereas other results are interpreted according
to their p-values, effect size, and in terms of scientific importance and relevance [68,69].
Table 1 shows an overview of the resulting data. The main results are presented separately in
the following sections.
Baseline differences. There are no baseline differences across schools or classes between
control and treatment groups for any of the methods employed for contextual HNC (p>.1 for
home-nature, self-city, and home-city closeness). There are also no baseline differences for the
methods employed for psychological HNC (p>.1 for CNI and self-nature closeness), but for
FlexiTwins (p = .053, d = .39) and salamander empathy (p = .002, d = .55). For FlexiTwins,
that means that the control group has a higher implicit association with nature than the treat-
ment group, but the difference is moderate and statistically weak. For salamander empathy,
that means that empathy towards salamanders is higher in children who will participate but
have not yet participated in the SP (iii). In this case, the difference is quite large and statistically
strong.
Impact of participating in the Salamander Project. There are no statistical differences
before and after children participated in the SP for any of the methods employed for psycho-
logical or contextual HNC (p>.1 for FlexiTwins, CNI, salamander empathy, self-nature,
home-nature, self-city, and home-city closeness). Additional t-tests calculated on the mean dif-
ference between pre-SP and post-SP confirm these results. These results suggest that partici-
pating in the SP does not influence children’s psychological or contextual HNC (iv).
Gender differences. There are statistical differences due to gender in both sessions of
assessment. Females show significantly higher psychological and contextual HNC than males
(v). This is true for all the quantitative methods employed (.094<p<.001). The differences
range from small for contextual HNC (0.20<d<0.26 for home-nature, self-city, and home-city
closeness), to moderate for self-nature closeness (d = 0.34), FlexiTwins (d = 0.39), and sala-
mander empathy (d = 0.46), and large for CNI (d = 0.69).
Meanings of city,home, and nature.The thematic analysis of how children describe the
concepts of city,home, and nature produces 34 themes reported more than 1000 times (Fig 2).
These themes are valuable insights into what children assume city, home, and nature to be
when they are asked about their relations with such concepts in psychometric analysis. For
instance, children do not conceive the concept of city in terms of geographical size, urban den-
sity, or trading opportunities, but the 10 most frequently reported themes are: shop (84),
fumes (54), people (41), pollution (32), car (30) activities (28), fun (25), things (21), no nature
(14), and friends (13). These are the themes the constitute the concept of city to which children
are more or less close to. Differently, the 10 most frequent themes for home are: family (60),
living (35), nature (34), room (28), house (25), animals (23), things (20), safety (19), messy
(13), and peace (13). Lastly, the 10 most frequently reported themes that construct children’s
concept of nature are: animals (94), plants (65), pollution (31), danger (26), nice (25), play
(23), fun (21), peace (20), fresh air (19), freedom (16), and love (16). These results show that
what children mean by city, home, and nature is a collection of meaningful everyday activities
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 8 / 24
(e.g. shopping, living, playing), social contexts (e.g. people, family, friends), and emotions (e.g.
fun, safety, peace) (vi).
Predicting children’s desire to work for nature
All children answer the question about their desire to work for nature by writing yes, no, or
maybe (N-no = 19; N-maybe = 48; N-yes = 75). In line with all other methods, females show a
Table 1. Results of t-test analysis (means, t, df, p-values, effect size d) for differences in psychological and contex-
tual HNC due to baseline, due to impact of the SP, and due to gender.
baseline impact of SP gender
(control-treatment) (pre-post) (male-female)
Psychological HNC
FlexiTwins M
C
= 0.66±0.12 M
PRE
= 0.59±0.15 M
M
= 0.60±0.12
M
T
= 0.61±0.12 M
POST
= 0.59±0.14 M
F
= 0.65±0.12
t(99) = 1.96 p = .053 p>.1 t(212) = 2.84 p <.01
d = .39 d = .39
salamander M
C
= 0.63±0.25 M
PRE
= 0.79±0.18 M
M
= 0.68±0.22
empathy M
T
= 0.76±0.21 M
POST
= 0.81±0.19 M
F
= 0.78±0.19
t(136) = 3.22 p <.01 p>.1 t(279) = 3.86 p <.001
d = .55 d = .46
CNI M
C
= 0.71±0.16 M
PRE
= 0.73±0.18 M
M
= 0.67±0.17
M
T
= 0.73±0.18 M
POST
= 0.74±0.15 M
F
= 0.78±0.13
p>.1 p>.1 t(280) = 5.81 p <.001
d = .69
self-nature M
C
= 0.63±0.22 M
PRE
= 0.63±0.22 M
M
= 0.61±0.17
closeness M
T
= 0.64±0.22 M
POST
= 0.65±0.19 M
F
= 0.68±0.22
(INS) p>.1 p>.1 t(279) = 2.87 p <.01
d = .34
desire to work NA NA M
M
= 0.60±0.38
for nature M
F
= 0.81±0.29
t(138) = 3.88 p <.001
d = .66
Contextual HNC
home-nature M
C
= 0.58±0.28 M
PRE
= 0.62±0.25 M
M
= 0.57±0.27
closeness M
T
= 0.63±0.25 M
POST
= 0.59±0.21 M
F
= 0.62±0.21
p>.1 p>.1 t(274) = 1.76 p = .079
d = .21
self-city M
C
= 0.56±0.25 M
PRE
= 0.63±0.22 M
M
= 0.59±0.25
closeness M
T
= 0.54±0.26 M
POST
= 0.65±0.19 M
F
= 0.54±0.23
p>.1 p>.1 t(279) = 2.19 p = .029
d = .26
home-city M
C
= 0.55±0.27 M
PRE
= 0.48±0.27 M
M
= 0.56±0.27
closeness M
T
= 0.48±0.27 M
POST
= 0.53±0.24 M
F
= 0.51±0.24
p>.1 p>.1 t(276) = 1.68 p = .094
d = .20
M
C
: mean control group; M
T
: mean treatment group; M
M
: mean male; M
F
: mean female; M
PRE
: mean group before
SP; M
POST
: mean group after SP; NA: Not Available
p-values legend: 0.1>p>0.01: reported (light green)—p<0.01: green—p<0.001: dark green
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.t001
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 9 / 24
higher desire to work for nature than males (p <.001, d = 0.66) (v). This difference is large
and very significant. A correlation analysis (Fig 3A) shows that children’s desire to work for
nature significantly correlates with CNI (p = 0.42), self-nature closeness (p = 0.31), home-
nature closeness (p = 0.28), salamander empathy (p = 0.28), and FlexiTwins (p = 0.15), but it
correlates negatively with home-city (p = -0.37), and self-city closeness (p = -0.37).
Bartlett’s sphericity test shows that the data are adequate for factor analysis (p<2.2e-16).
The consequent principal component analysis shows that the majority of variance in this set of
variables is explained by two opposing factors (Fig 3B and Table 2). In order to investigate the
opposing drivers at play in how children learn the desire to work for nature, and because Flex-
iTwins, self-nature, and CNI are similar conceptualisations of one’s relationship with nature, I
choose to further analyse two sets of composite variables. The first one, termed Human-Nature
Connection (HNC), includes all variables that positively correlate to children’s desire to work
for nature: CNI, self-nature closeness, home-nature closeness, salamander empathy, and Flex-
iTwins. The second one, termed Human-Nature Disconnection (HND), includes the two vari-
ables that negatively correlates to children’s desire to work for nature: self-city and home-city
closeness.
The factors HND and HNC are treated as latent constructs in the structural equation model
called HND-HNC model (Fig 4C). The HND-HNC model is compared to other three to appre-
ciate which one offers the best fit for predicting children’s desire to work for nature (Fig 4).
The first comparative model is the measurement model, which predicts children’s desire to
work for nature by using only observed variables. The second comparative model (CTN
model) introduces a latent construct based on psychological conceptualisations of people’s
relationship with nature (Fig 4A). The third comparative model (HNC model) integrates posi-
tive contextual relations with children’s psychological HNC (Fig 4B).
Following the guidelines provided by Awang [70], I use multiple fit indices to evaluate the
good fit of the models (p-value, CFI, RMSEA, GIF, chisq/df) and to compare them with each
other (chisq/df, AIC, BIC). The analysis of fitness and comparison of all models is summarized
in Table 3. The analysis of fitness shows that the measurement model does not fit the data
(p>.5, CFI <.9, RMSEA>.08, chisq/df>3.0). The CTN model has almost acceptable fit to the
data (RMSEA>.08), whereas both HNC and HND-HNC models have a good fit to the data. In
Fig 2. Word clouds of themes for city, home, and nature. The themes are reported more than three times. The size of the words is weighted for how many times the
theme reoccurs in children’s answers.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.g002
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 10 / 24
all models, all standardized parameter coefficients, but FlexiTwins (.116<p<.199) are very
significant (p <.001). The fit indices show that integrating home-nature closeness in the CTN
model to contextualise children’s positive relationship with nature improves the fit of the data
for all indices (see RMSEA, chisq/df, AIC, and BIC in Table 3 between CTN and HNC model)
(vii). However, across all indices, the best model to predict children’s desire to work for nature
is the HND-HNC model. In this model, self-city and home-city closeness are indicators of a
Fig 3. Correlation table and principal component analysis. (a) Spearman correlation table for all quantitative methods employed. Crossed elements are non-
significant (p>.1). The strength of correlations is reported in the upper triangle. (b) Two-dimensional visualization of coordinates obtained from the principal
component analysis for children’s desire to work for nature.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.g003
Table 2. Results of principal component analysis.
variable M SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Human-Nature Connection
CNI 0.643 0.198 0.834 0.172 -0.030
self-nature 0.646 0.185 0.781 0.185 -0.250
home-nature 0.586 0.204 0.648 0.156 -0.202
salamander empathy 0.727 0.227 0.594 0.174 0.249
FlexiTwins 0.481 0.169 0.143 0.210 0.897
Human-Nature Disconnection
self-city 0.587 0.227 -0.402 0.766 -0.174
home-city 0.554 0.231 -0.250 0.856 -0.018
% of variance 33.178 21.191 14.299
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), factor loadings, and % of variance explained.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.t002
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 11 / 24
relationship with nature that is negatively linked to children’s desire to work for nature (viii).
Additionally, in the HND-HNC model the percentage of explained variance for children’s
desire to work for nature passes from 32.7% (CTN model), and 31.7% (HNC model), to 47.2%
(HND-HNC model).
Discussion
Summary of results
The aim of this paper is to advance the conceptualisation and assessment of human-nature
relationships to better understand the premises of children’s desire to protect nature. In sum-
mary, the results show that:
Fig 4. Three structural equation models to predict children’s desire to work for nature. a) CTN model; b) HNC model; c) HND-HNC model. Latent variables are in
circles, measured variables in rectangles, and the lines show standardized parameter estimates.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.g004
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 12 / 24
i. Experiencing the SP enables children to imagine what the life of a salamander is, to feel
empathy and concern for them and other animals, and to appreciate the reasoning behind
actions of nature conservation.
ii. Children’s relationship with salamanders changes drastically once they overcome the fear
of touching the first salamander (‘yuck’ barrier).
iii. Children who attend the school responsible for the SP have higher empathy towards sala-
manders than children who don’t, even before participating in the SP.
iv. The quantitative methods used to assess children’s psychological and contextual HNC can-
not distinguish between a child who participated in the SP and a child who did not.
v. Female children show higher values across all indicators of psychological and contextual
HNC, and higher desire to work for nature than male children.
Table 3. Fit indices for the four models studied.
models
measurem.CTN HNC HND-HNC
Fitness values
p-value
1
.000 .054 .195 .270
CFI
2
.749 . 958 .982 .987
GFI
3
.909 .972 .975 .965
Df 13 4 7 16
RMSEA
4
.159 .102 .058 .039
Comparison values
chisq/df 4.23 2.32 1.41 1.18
AIC -202.0 -277.5 -354.4
BIC -170.7 -237.9 298.1
R
2
desire to work 32.7 31.7 47.2
for nature
models
measurem.CTN HNC HND-HNC
p-value
1
.000 .054 .195 .270
CFI
2
.749 . 958 .982 .987
GFI
3
.909 .972 .975 .965
RMSEA
4
.159 .102 .058 .039
Df 13 4 7 16
chisq/df
56
4.23 2.32 1.41 1.18
AIC
6
-202.0 -277.5 -354.4
BIC
6
-170.7 -237.9 298.1
R
2
desire to work 32.7 31.7 47.2
for nature
6
Acceptable indices are highlighted in green, the darker the green the better the fit.
1
p-value: acceptable 0.05
2
CFI: acceptable 0.90
3
GIF: acceptable 0.90
4
RMSEA: acceptable 0.08
5
chisq/df: acceptable 3.0
6
Lowest AIC and BIC, highest chi-square/df, and highest R
2
work for nature indicate the best fitting model
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951.t003
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 13 / 24
vi. What children mean by home,nature, and city is a collection of meaningful everyday activi-
ties, social contexts, and emotions.
vii. Integrating contextual with psychological factors of HNC improves the prediction of chil-
dren’s desire to work for nature.
viii. Self-city and home-city closeness represent a Human Nature Disconnection (HND) that
is negatively linked to children’s desire to work for nature.
Overall, the SP seems to be a formative experience for children’s relationship with nature
even if the changes in how children value salamanders, animals, and nature in general could
not quantified. The SP shares many conditions that characterize the most effective programs
in environmental education: occurring over an extended period of time, learning about envi-
ronmental issues and practising action skills, experiencing and taking ownership of environ-
mental issues, and participating with role models [71]. Accordingly, the interviews suggest that
participating in the SP achieves many targets of successful environmental education: ecological
knowledge, environmental awareness, practical skills, environmental attitudes and intentions,
and enjoyment of the experience [50,72].
Yet, there is a visible discrepancy between the results of the interviews and the assessment
of psychological and contextual HNC. Psychological and contextual HNC do not change after
children participate in the SP. Regardless of the unexplored and potentially speculative motiva-
tions for this discrepancy, recognising such discrepancy is further testimony to the value of
interdisciplinary approaches to HNC. Identifying this discrepancy hints that in order to better
conceive children’s relationship with nature and understand the premises of their desire to
protect nature, HNC has to be operationalised, analysed, and discussed jointly from a multi-
tude of disciplinary perspectives. The aim of this paper is to do exactly so and the results of this
study promotes such opportunity.
In the sections below, I combine the findings above to advance future operationalisations
and assessments of human-nature relationships. The interdisciplinary findings of this study-
with the associated roman numeral in the list above—are discussed in three following sections:
conceptualizing human-nature relationships; assessing human-nature relationships, and chil-
dren’s desire to work for nature and the everyday habitat.
Conceptualizing human-nature relationships
The interdisciplinary analysis of the results suggests two properties of human-nature relation-
ships that are core characteristics of system thinking [73] and embodied ontologies [74,75].
First, HNC and HND can be interpreted as systems of meaningful relations between mind,
body, culture, and environment. Second, they seem to progress non-linearly through complex
dynamics with potential delays between causes and effects. In the sections below, I discuss how
the findings of this study suggest these two properties.
HNC and HND as systems of meaningful relations. Most conceptualisations of HNC
commonly suggest a separation between mind, body, and spatial and cultural context [2]. Sev-
eral findings of this study indicate that this separation is arbitrary and limiting. For instance,
this study shows that integrating contextual relations between self, home, nature, and city pre-
dict better children’s desire to work for nature than using psychological factors alone (vii).
Home-nature and home-city closeness contextualise children’s HNC in the local space and
culture. This means that children’s relationship with nature can predict their desire to work
for nature better when it is spatially and socially contextualised. This result is supported by
many in sense of place literature. Place attachment is a known driver for actions of nature con-
servation [6,76] and Masterson et al. [77] suggest that nature protective social norms are
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 14 / 24
inherently embedded in a place. Moreover, Kyle at al. [78] state that a sense of connection with
a space is also function of the value attributed to the social relations in that space. Children’s
HNC can be conceived as a system of relations between themselves and their context.
This study also shows that contextual relations can hamper, rather than promote, children’s
desire to work for nature (viii). I aggregated these relations in what I preliminary called
Human-Nature Disconnection (HND). HND is children’s identification with a system of
meanings that demotivate their desire to work for nature. The thematic analysis suggests that
those meanings relate to personal closeness to shopping, urban activities, or cars (vi). HND is
further indication that human-nature relationships embed spatial and social context. Including
the systems of positive and negative contextual meanings predicts children’s desire to work for
nature more appropriately (vii).
HNC and HND are conceptually similar to the opposing categories of biophilia and bio-
phobia [79]. Biophilia is an affinity with specific attributes of the natural world that human
beings have developed throughout evolution [80]. Conversely, phobic situations involve spi-
ders, snakes, heights, or other attributes that have posed dangers to humans throughout evolu-
tion [79]. Like biophilia and biophobia, HNC and HND develop through time—albeit on a
shorter time scale than human evolution—shaping appreciation or repulsion for future
nature-related experiences. It could be said that HNC and HND are systems of meaningful
human-nature relations acquired through personal living that supplement the biophilic and
biophobic relations acquired through evolution.
Inseparable interdependencies between self and context in human-nature relationships are
also supported by another result of this study (iii). A salamander-friendly culture is the social
background of only those children who attend the school responsible for the SP. In this school,
children are indirectly and unconsciously exposed to a culture of acceptance and appreciation
towards salamanders. This social context coincides with higher levels of empathy towards sala-
manders even before children participate in the SP (iii). However, participating in the SP does
not further increment such empathy (iv). This result should not be considered a failing of the
program, nor a failing of the methods used, but an additionally indication that children’s rela-
tionship with nature is context dependent and it is not solely identifiable through psychologi-
cal analysis. These findings suggest that in this situation children’s empathy towards
salamanders is more indicative of a social background than of a psychological trait.
Relational and systemic properties of can be also found in the meaning of the very concept
of nature–as well as in the concepts of home and city. Children’s meaning of nature is a mean-
ingful agglomeration of everyday activities, social contexts, and emotions (vi). Nature, in chil-
dren’s minds, is not an abstract and universal concept as assumed by psychometric
measurements, but a system of meaningful relations that includes physical environments (e.g.
plants, animals, and fresh air), emotions (e.g. fun, peace), actions (e.g. play), and culture (e.g.
freedom). This personal system of relations is what children connect to and it is what they con-
sider when they reply to psychometric surveys like the CNI and INS used in this study. Implic-
itly, assessing children’s ‘enjoyment of nature’ (CNI) or closeness to nature (INS) means
assessing attachment to a contextualised system of relations that embeds natural spaces and
shared social values. Hence, psychological HNC is different when its geographical and cultural
context is different. Not only nature experiences are embedded in social and political contexts
as Clayton et al. [32] advocate, but this study also suggests that the emerging human-nature
relationship is inseparable from its spatial and cultural context.
The last results that support a relational and systemic interpretation of human-nature rela-
tionships are those related to gender differences. Across all quantitative methods used, females
have higher nature connection, lower disconnection, and are more inclined to work to protect
the environment than males (v). These results echo many other studies that find that females
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 15 / 24
have stronger pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours than men [81–86]. Whether for
biological or cultural reasons, these results imply strong interdependencies between mind,
body, and culture that should be taken into account when conceptualising human-nature rela-
tionships. Otto et al. [87] shows that environmental attitudes are also a function of people’s
age. They report that environmental attitudes develop during childhood, consolidate during
teenage years, and then decline. This means that the same level of psychological HNC has dif-
ferent interpretations given one’s age, which implies once more that environmental attitudes
are embodied in one’s body.
In summary, this study suggest that human-nature relationships are better defined as sys-
tems of meaningful relations between mind, body, culture, and environment that can promote
(HNC) or hamper (HND) sustainable living. Conceptualising human-nature relationship as
systems of embodied relations enables such relationships to be categorised and investigated in
new ways. For instance, one could distinguish between systems of child-animals relationships,
female-forest relationships, or people-biosphere relationships and eventually explore their role
to promote or hamper sustainable living. Operationalising human-nature relationships using
embodied ontologies [74,88] and system approaches [73] raises new research questions of high
value for future sustainable societies. For example, what are the synergies between gender
equality and sustainable mindsets? Which spatial configuration of the human habitat best pro-
mote children’s relationship with nature? And—noting existing relations between certain cul-
tural products and social preferences and HND [89,90]—which social contexts hamper
environmental attitudes and sustainable living? Giusti et al. [34] show that professionals in the
field of connecting children to nature explain HNC as a set of abilities that children can learn
when given the appropriate spatial and social circumstances. Considering human-nature rela-
tionships as systems of meaningful relations between mind, body, culture, and environment
would also align academic knowledge with professionals’ wisdom.
HNC and HND progresses through complex dynamics. Current literature mostly pro-
poses linear growth for psychological [91] and contextual [6] dimensions of HNC. Conversely,
in line with Otto et al. [87] and Vining and Merrick [33], this study suggests that human-
nature relationships evolve following complex dynamics with potential delays between causes
and effects. For instance, the contributors to children’s desire to work for nature shown in this
study are not all positive (viii). The system of relations shaping HNC is in conflict with the sys-
tem of relations shaping HND when children consider working for nature in the future. That
means that human-nature relationships cannot be evaluated as one linear progression from
disconnection to connection. At any given point in time a degree of connection and a degree
of disconnection co-exist and they promote, or not, sustainable living. Similarly, biophobic
attitudes co-exist with biophilic attributes. As this study shows, children’s desire to work for
nature in this study is affected not only by the strength of positive relations, but also by the
weakness of their negative relations (viii). The progression of HNC and HND and their even-
tual contribution to sustainable living is therefore dictated by the complex, and conflicting,
interactions of their meanings (vi).
Overcoming the ‘yuck barrier’ is another indicator that human-nature relationships follow
complex rather than linear dynamics (ii). This experience is similar to what is known as ‘envi-
ronmental epiphany’ [33]. Before the SP, salamanders are “. . .just salamanders” (Loreta). After
the SP, salamanders are considered animals with feelings, pain, and life struggles to which chil-
dren can relate (i). This is not a linear increment in children’s HNC, but a transformative
change in the structure that shape their relationship with nature. After overcoming the ‘yuck
barrier’, children rely on new relations between their body (first time holding a salamanders),
mind (appreciation rather than disgust), and context (new support from peers). This new sys-
tem of relations is consolidated in memory [44] and enables them to approach and appreciate
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 16 / 24
a whole new set of nature situations, actions, emotions, and behaviours in the future. This
dynamic is a clear example of the embodied progression of children’s HNC proposed by Giusti
et al. [34]. Children’s HNC progresses from being comfortable with salamanders (i.e. touching
salamanders) to enjoy interact with them (i.e. document species and gender) to being able to
care for them (i.e. feeling care and concern). Ultimately, the ‘yuck barrier’ is an indication of
non-linear dynamics that further challenges disembodied conceptualisations of HNC and
HND.
Assessing human-nature relationships
The insights from the multi-dimensional and multi-method investigation performed in this
study suggest several ways to improve future assessments of human-nature relationships. One
salient result is that the impact of participating in the SP on children’s HNC could not be quan-
tified with the tools used here (iv). Despite children saying that they have “become more
nature-friendly” (Johan) and “have much more of a sense for nature” (Megan), the psychomet-
ric methods used do not report any statistical difference in how children enjoy, feel empathy,
or feel connected to nature. In short, none of these tools could distinguish between a child
who participated in the SP from a child who did not (iv). This discrepancy in assessments is a
major obstacle for any educational activity that is designed to promote children’s HNC and
that requires an evaluation of its effectiveness. Below, I present some limitations of the meth-
ods used here and discuss potential ways to improve future assessments of human-nature
relationships.
Despite being a child-friendly videogame, FlexiTwins has limitations when applied to real-
world situations with children. First, the level of attention required to generate accurate results
is incompatible with groups of children. In this paper, 30% of the participants’ scores have to
be discarded because they are inconsistent or because of high error rates. Second, despite pay-
ing a considerable amount of attention to the selection of words used in FlexiTwins, previous
research suggests that results might also be influenced by the translation to Swedish, the
valence of the words chosen, and the cultural and geographical nuances associated with such
words [27,92].
The assessment of children’s psychological HNC allows for further considerations. The
group of children in the school responsible for the SP shows significantly higher empathy
towards salamanders than the control group, even before participating in the project (iii). Yet,
the subscale ‘empathy towards animals’ in the CNI, from which the scale ‘salamander empathy’
is created does not. These results suggest that the generality and de-contextualization of exist-
ing psychometric scales impede the identification of changes in psychological HNC. As sala-
manders are not as intangible as the whole animal kingdom, ‘salamander empathy’ efficiently
identifies a pre-existing condition of greater association whereas ‘empathy towards animals’
does not. Children show that what they mean by nature includes emotions (fun, peace, love),
actions (playing), and culture (freedom). The abstract, ambiguous, and impersonal concept of
nature predominantly used in the literature to assess human-nature relationships [2] might be
a strong limiting factor of existing psychometric assessments.
Those limitations are recognised in the literature [42,93]. These methods are often validated
within laboratory conditions [4,94], in relation to self-reported environmental behaviours
[95], and they can often be considered markers of an overarching construct [91]. Thus, it
stands to question if the available psychometric measurements can measure the psychological
predictors of environmental actions and sustainable living in real-world situations. There is no
clear answer to this question yet. Following the results of this study, the assessment of psycho-
logical HNC alone is limited by the operationalisation of abstract and de-contextualised
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 17 / 24
concepts. Considering that human’s existence is dominated by automatic decisional processes
[96] and is embedded in space and culture [9], the potential of psychological assessments of
human-nature relationships to predict valuable environmental actions and sustainable living
might be limited.
These limitations can be addressed in a few ways. First, by taking into consideration the
temporal dimension of HNC and HND. Quantitative methods show low accuracy when they
assess real-world situations that operate in short time frames [27,28,42]. However, short nature
experiences such as the SP might still influence children’s HNC, as suggested by the interviews
here (i), but the effects of such changes might be quantifiable only after longer time. Temporal
delays between causes and effects are common in system dynamics [73]. Psychometric tools
have shown important results when assessing the impact of nature routines [13,34], so they
might be more suited for long-term evaluations. Second, exploring which and what kind of
spatial and social relations promote or hamper human-nature relationships can be achieved
using inductive methodologies. For instance, ethnographic assessments of nature experiences,
as in Elliot et al. [28], and qualitative explorations of the system of relational meanings that
constitute HNC and HND might offer novel insights in how to develop quantitative and con-
textualised methods of assessments. Third, human-nature relationships not only increase or
decrease, but they combine (as HNC and HND do for children’s desire to work for nature)
and transform (as by overcoming the ‘yuck barrier’) in context. As already suggested elsewhere
[34], different stages of development for human-nature relationships might exist. This implies
that assessing human-nature relationships cannot rely solely on single and linear pre-defined
indicators. Multi-methods evaluations should become the norm to assess human-nature rela-
tionships. Ultimately, to overcome the limitations listed above assessments should start from
the premise of contextualised, embodied, and systemic conceptualisations of human-nature
relationships.
Children’s desire to work for nature and the everyday habitat
From the results of this study is possible to draw some insights about the premises of children’s
desire to protect nature and how they can be promoted. Human-nature relationships are often
assumed in the literature to be predictors for environmental actions or sustainable living. This
is the case whether the predicted outcome is actions of nature conservation [14], sustainable
futures [9], or specific pro-environmental behaviours [97–100]. This study contributes to this
literature with new insights what promotes or hampers children’s desire to protect the envi-
ronment. In this study, contextualising children’s relationship with nature in space and culture
improves the prediction of their desire to work for nature by about 15% (vii, viii). This predic-
tion comprises the negative influence of children’s closeness to shopping, urban activities, and
cars, or indifference to pollution and fumes (vi). This model is, by some margin, the best one
to explain the premises of children’s commitment, even if hypothetical, to environmental
actions (viii).
These results suggest that the everyday habitat might hamper children’s motivation to pro-
tect the biosphere. However, the opposite is also true. Children in the school responsible for
the SP show high levels of empathy towards salamanders (iii). This implies that the everyday
social and spatial habitat can also promote human-nature relationships favourable to environ-
mental actions or sustainable living. This is also supported by other studies on nature routines
[13]. The conscious and unconscious interactions with natural elements occurring in chil-
dren’s lives form the basis of their nature routines. Nature-rich or nature-poor routines are
embedded in children’s everyday habitat and they either promote or hamper children’s desire
to protect nature. It follows that if the goal is to understand the predictors of sustainable
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 18 / 24
actions, lifestyles, and cultures more attention should be paid to qualities of the everyday
human habitat.
It follows that changing the everyday human habitat should form a central part of any inter-
ventions to promote environmental actions and sustainable living. Ensuring a spatial and cul-
tural context suitable for sustainable living is as important as–if not more–individuals’
education. Literature in environmental education recognises this need to shift from indoor
individual learning to outdoor community building [101,102]. The spatial human habitat can
be designed to be a constant reminder of what a sustainable relationship with nature entails.
The literature on biophilic design [103] and nature-connecting habitats [104,105] rests exactly
on this conviction. Spatial and cultural interventions on the human habitat have great potential
to enable the kind of human-nature relationships required for sustainable living.
Conclusion
Many in academia suggest that human-nature relationships can be used as a tool to transform
human’s unsustainable trends of development [11,12]. The results of this study counter the
common assumption that only one sustainable human-nature relationship exists and that can
be universally measured. De-contextualizing human-nature relationships from culture and
space has created an array of useful and valid psychometric measurements that are however
limited when applied to real-world situations. The findings of this study emphasize the embod-
ied, contextual, and systemic properties of children’s relationship with nature. The results sug-
gest that human-nature relationships are better defined as systems of meaningful relationships
between mind, body, culture, and environment that can promote (i.e. HNC) or hamper (i.e.
HND) sustainable living. These systems of relations likely progress through complex dynamics
in which the everyday spatial and social habitat plays a major role.
Future operationalisations of HNC and HND would profit from adopting embodied ontol-
ogies [74,75] and system thinking [73], as exemplified by the concepts of embodied ecosystems
[88] and existing research on children’s HNC [34]. Accordingly, future assessments of chil-
dren’s relationship with nature would benefit from mixed-methods approaches that explicitly
acknowledge the defining role of spatial and cultural contexts. This can be performed through
a combination of short-term qualitative and long-term quantitative assessments. Analysing
children’s nature routines and their everyday habitat are research efforts of particular promis-
ing value to understand the predictors of environmental actions and sustainable living. In con-
clusion, conceiving and operationalising human-nature relationships as systems of relations
would provide novel and valuable insights to promote the psychological and social determi-
nants of resilient sustainable societies.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Interview guide. Interview guide used in this study to assess children’s experi-
ential dimension of HNC.
(PDF)
S2 Appendix. Booklet used for assessment (English). Translation in English of the booklet
used in this study to assess children’s psychological and contextual dimensions of HNC.
(PDF)
S3 Appendix. Booklet used for assessment (Swedish). Booklet used in this study to assess
children’s psychological and contextual dimensions of HNC.
(PDF)
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 19 / 24
S1 data. Csv data file. Data utilised for the statistical analysis.
(CSV)
Acknowledgments
I thank Louise Chawla, Stephan Barthel, Therese Lindhal, and Elena Dawkins for comments
on previous versions of the manuscript, and the reviewers for their constructive feedback.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Matteo Giusti.
Data curation: Matteo Giusti.
Formal analysis: Matteo Giusti.
Investigation: Matteo Giusti.
Methodology: Matteo Giusti.
Project administration: Matteo Giusti.
Validation: Matteo Giusti.
Visualization: Matteo Giusti.
Writing – original draft: Matteo Giusti.
Writing – review & editing: Matteo Giusti.
References
1. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, et al. Planetary Boundaries:
Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009.
2. Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, et al. Human–nature connection: a
multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017; 26–27: 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2017.05.005
3. Saunders CD, Myers OE. Exploring the Potential of Conservation Psychology. Hum Ecol Rev. 2003;
10: 2–4.
4. Gifford R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014; 65: 541–79. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 PMID: 24050189
5. Meyfroidt P. Environmental cognitions, land change, and social–ecological feedbacks: an overview. J
Land Use Sci. 2013; 8: 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2012.667452
6. Lewicka M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol. 2011;
31: 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
7. Miller JR. Restoration, reconciliation, and reconnecting with nature nearby. Biol Conserv. 2006; 127:
356–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.021
8. Simaika JP, Samways MJ. Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conserv Biol.
2010; 24: 903–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01485.x PMID: 20337687
9. Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockstro
¨m J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. Reconnecting to the Bio-
sphere. Ambio. 2011; 40: 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y PMID: 22338712
10. Dı
´az S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework
—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015; 14: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2014.11.002
11. Fischer J, Gardner T a, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, et al. Advancing sustainability
through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;
14: 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002
12. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, et al. Leverage points for sus-
tainability transformation. Ambio. 2017; 46: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y PMID:
27344324
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 20 / 24
13. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Pre-
school Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014; 24: 16–16. https://doi.org/10.7721/
chilyoutenvi.24.3.0016
14. Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005; 20: 430–
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 PMID: 16701413
15. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front Ecol Envi-
ron. 2016; 14: 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
16. Samways MJ. Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodivers Conserv. 2007; 16: 1995–1997.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9144-4
17. Rideout V, Foehr U, Roberts D. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kai-
ser Family Foundation; 2010. Available: https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/
8010.pdf
18. Balmford A. Why Conservationists Should Heed Pokemon. Science. 2002; 295: 2367b–22367. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.295.5564.2367b PMID: 11924673
19. Ballouard J-M, Brischoux F, Bonnet X. Children Prioritize Virtual Exotic Biodiversity over Local Biodi-
versity. Somers M, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e23152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023152
PMID: 21829710
20. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 2002; 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540
21. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An
Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014; 119–143. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
22. Restall B, Conrad E. A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental
management. J Environ Manage. 2015; 159: 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022
PMID: 26087657
23. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social
Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999; 6: 81–97.
24. Schultz PW. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental
issues. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56: 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00174
25. Cosquer A, Raymond R, Prevot-Julliard A-C. Observations of everyday biodiversity: A new perspec-
tive for conservation? Ecol Soc. 2012; 17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04955-170402
26. Duffy S, Verges M. Forces of Nature Affect Implicit Connections With Nature. Environ Behav. 2010;
42: 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509338552
27. Verges M, Duffy S. Connected to Birds but Not Bees: Valence Moderates Implicit Associations With
Nature. Environ Behav. 2010; 42: 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508330210
28. Elliot E, Ten Eycke K, Chan S, Mu¨ller U. Taking Kindergartners Outdoors: Documenting Their Explora-
tions and Assessing the Impact on Their Ecological Awareness. Child Youth Environ. 2014; 24: 102.
https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0102
29. RSPB. Connecting with nature. RSPB; 2013. Available: http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/connecting-
with-nature_tcm9-354603.pdf
30. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Pre-
school Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014; 24: 16. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.
24.3.0016
31. Beery T, Raymond CM, Kytta
¨M, Olafsson AS, Plieninger T, Sandberg M, et al. Fostering incidental
experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. Ambio. 2017; 46: 717–730. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-017-0920-z PMID: 28444643
32. Clayton S, Colle
´ony A, Conversy P, Maclouf E, Martin L, Torres A-C, et al. Transformation of Experi-
ence: Toward a New Relationship with Nature: New experiences of nature. Conserv Lett. 2017; 10:
645–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12337
33. Vining J, Merrick M. Environmental epiphanies: theoretical foundations and practical applications. In:
Clayton S, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 485–508.
34. Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery T. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect
to Nature. Front Psychol. 2018; 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283 PMID: 29354088
35. Charles C, Keenleyside K, Chapple R, Kilburn B, van der Leest PS, Allen D, et al. Home to Us All: How
Connecting with Nature Helps Us Care for Ourselves and the Earth. Children and Nature Network;
2018. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/597b547aebbd1a681f3883f2/t/
5bf561f12b6a2890e1a04b37/1542808051665/HometoUsAll.pdf
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 21 / 24
36. Howell RA. It’s not (just) “the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of
people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Glob Environ Change. 2013; 23: 281–290. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.015
37. Hedlund-de Witt A, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of
worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles. J Environ Psychol. 2014; 37: 40–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.005
38. Chawla L. Significant Life Experiences Revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental
sensitivity. Environ Educ Res. 1998; 4: 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040402
39. Chawla L. Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ. 1999; 31: 15–26.
40. Kellert SR. Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children. In: Kel-
lert SR, Kahn Jr PH, editors. Children and Nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002. pp. 117–
151.
41. Evans GW, Brauchle G, Haq A, Stecker R, Wong K, Shapiro E. Young Children’s Environmental Atti-
tudes and Behaviors. Environ Behav. 2007; 39: 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506294252
42. Bruni CM, Winter PL, Schultz PW, Omoto AM, Tabanico JJ. Getting to know nature: evaluating the
effects of the Get to Know Program on children’s connectedness with nature. Environ Educ Res. 2017;
23: 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1074659
43. Gough A. Kids Don’t Like Wearing the Same Jeans as their Mums and Dads: so whose ‘life’ should be
in significant life experiences research? Environ Educ Res. 1999; 5: 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1350462990050404
44. Barthel S, Belton S, Raymond CM, Giusti M. Fostering Children’s Connection to Nature Through
Authentic Situations: The Case of Saving Salamanders at School. Front Psychol. 2018; 9. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00928 PMID: 29937747
45. Kiibus M. Kartla
¨ggning av och ra
¨ddningsinsatser fo
¨r salamanderpopulationerna i Olovslundsdammen,
Bromma. 2011. Available: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/vp/jud/
Vattensalamander_Olovslundsrapport_2011.pdf
46. Lundberg S, Kiibus M. Det våras fo
¨r salamandrarna i Stockholm–o
¨vervakning och återintroduktion av
sto
¨rre vattensalamander i stadsdelen Bromma. Fauna Flora. 2014;109. Available: http://www.artdata.
slu.se/FaunaochFlora/pdf/2014-1-Salamandrar-i-Bromma.pdf
47. Cheng JC-H, Monroe MC. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ
Behav. 2012; 44: 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
48. Bruni CM, Schultz PW. Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. J Environ
Psychol. 2010; 30: 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.004
49. Schultz PW. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations. Psychology of Sus-
tainable Development. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2002. pp. 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4615-0995-0_4
50. Ernst J, Theimer S. Evaluating the effects of environmental education programming on connectedness
to nature. Environ Educ Res. 2011; 17: 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.565119
51. Theimer S, Ernst J. Fostering “Connectedness to Nature” through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Edu-
cation and Outreach Programming: A Qualitative Evaluation. Appl Environ Educ Commun. 2012; 11:
79–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2012.751281
52. Fa
¨gerstam E. Children and Young People’s Experience of the Natural World: Teachers’ Perceptions
and Observations. Aust J Environ Educ. 2012; 28: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2012.2
53. Bragg R, Wood C, Barton J, Pretty J. Measuring connection to nature in children 8–12: A robust meth-
odology for the RSPB. 2013 pp. 1–64.
54. Kossack A, Bogner FX. How does a one-day environmental education programme support individual
connectedness with nature? J Biol Educ Routledge. 2012; 46: 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00219266.2011.634016
55. Sellmann D, Bogner FX. Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on environmental atti-
tudes and connectedness with nature. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2013; 28: 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10212-012-0155-0
56. Bru¨gger A, Kaiser FG, Roczen N. One for all?: Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environ-
mental identity, and implicit association with nature. Eur Psychol. 2011; 16: 324–333. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
57. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992; 63: 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
58. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K, Mertig A, Jones R. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm:
a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56: 425–442.
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 22 / 24
59. Schultz PW, Shriver C, Tabanico JJ, Khazian AM. Implicit connections with nature. J Environ Psychol.
2004; 24: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7
60. Bruni CM, Winter PL, Schultz PW, Omoto AM, Tabanico JJ. Getting to know nature: evaluating the
effects of the Get to Know Program on children’s connectedness with nature. Environ Educ Res. 2015;
4622: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1074659
61. Easthope H. A place called home. Hous Theory Soc. 2004; 21: 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14036090410021360
62. Porteous JD. Home: the territorial core. Geogr Rev. 1976; 66: 383–390.
63. Elmqvist T, Andersson E, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Olsson P, Gaffney O, et al. Sustainability
and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat Sustain. 2019; 2: 267. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41893-019-0250-1
64. Tuan YF. Space and place: The perspective of experience. 1977.
65. Folke C, Jansson Å, Larsson J, Costanza R. Ecosystem by Cities Appropriation. Ambio. 1997; 26:
167–172.
66. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77–101. https://
doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
67. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing,. Vienna, Austria; 2013. Available: http://www.R-project.org/.
68. Bangdiwala SI. Understanding Significance and P-Values. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016; 6: 522–524.
https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i1.14732 PMID: 27152231
69. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a World Beyond “p <0.05.” Am Stat. 2019; 73: 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
70. Awang Z. SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling. MPWS
Rich Publication; 2015.
71. Chawla L, Cushing DF. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ Educ Res. 2007; 13:
437–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539
72. Stevenson RB. Schooling and environmental education: contradictions in purpose and practice. Envi-
ron Educ Res. 2007; 13: 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701295726
73. Meadows D. Thinking in systems. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2008.
74. Chemero A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009.
75. Altman I, Rogoff B. World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and Transactional
Perspectives. In: Stokols D, Altman I, editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Volume 1).
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. pp. 7–40.
76. Chapin FS, Knapp CN. Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested
visions of sustainability. Environ Sci Policy. 2015; 53: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.
012
77. Masterson VA, Stedman RC, Enqvist J, Tengo
¨M, Giusti M, Wahl D, et al. The contribution of sense of
place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecol Soc. 2017; 22.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08872-220149
78. Kyle GT, Mowen AJ, Tarrant M. Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the
relationship between place motivation and place attachment. J Environ Psychol. 2004; 24: 439–454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001
79. Ulrich RS. Biophilia, Biophobia and Natural Landscape. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The Bio-
philia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 1993. pp. 73–137.
80. Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press; 1993.
81. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ Behav.
1993; 25: 322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
82. Scannell L, Gifford R. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local
Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ Behav. 2013; 45: 60–85. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013916511421196
83. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the
Gender Effect. J Consum Policy. 2012; 35: 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0
84. Gutteling JM, Wiegman O. Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands.
Sex Roles. 1993; 28: 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289606
85. Blocker TJ, Lee Eckberg D. Gender and Environmentalists: Results from the 1993 General Social Sur-
vey. Soc Sci Q. 1997; 78: 841–858.
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 23 / 24
86. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behav-
iour: A review. Int J Psychol. 2014 [cited 19 Dec 2017]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034 PMID:
24821503
87. Otto S, Evans GW, Moon MJ, Kaiser FG. The development of children’s environmental attitude and
behavior. Glob Environ Change. 2019; 58: 101947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101947
88. Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosys-
tem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plan Manag. 2017; 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09640568.2017.1312300
89. Aruguete MS, Gillen MM, McCutcheon LE, Bernstein MJ. Disconnection from nature and the admira-
tion of celebrities. Appl Environ Educ Commun. 2019; 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2019.
1591313
90. Kesebir S, Kesebir P. A Growing Disconnection From Nature Is Evident in Cultural Products. Perspect
Psychol Sci. 2017; 12: 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616662473 PMID: 28346112
91. Tam KP. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. J Envi-
ron Psychol. 2013; 34: 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
92. Bruni CM, Chance RC, Schultz WP, Nolan JM. Natural connections: Bees Sting and Snakes Bite, but
they are still nature. Environ Behav. 2012; 44: 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402062
93. Bruni CM, Fraser J, Schultz PW. The Value of Zoo Experiences for Connecting People with Nature.
Visit Stud. 2008; 11: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355489
94. Capaldi A. CA, Dopko L. RL, Zelenski JM. The relationship between nature connectedness and happi-
ness: A meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2014; 5: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00001
95. Kormos C, Gifford R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-ana-
lytic review. J Environ Psychol. 2014; 40: 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
96. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. 2011. Available: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=
en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Thinking+Fast+and+Slow#0
97. Hunecke M, Blobaum a., Matthies E, Hoger R. Responsibility and Environment: Ecological Norm Ori-
entation and External Factors in the Domain of Travel Mode Choice Behavior. Environ Behav. 2001;
33: 830–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973269
98. Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT. Personal and contextual influences on househould energy adapta-
tions. J Appl Psychol. 1985; 70: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.3
99. Thogersen J. Consumer behaviour and the environment: which role for information? Environment,
information and consumer behaviour. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2005. pp.
51–63.
100. Nilsson A, von Borgstede C, Biel A. Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of val-
ues and norms. J Environ Psychol. 2004; 24: 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.06.002
101. Nazir J, Pedretti E. Educators’ perceptions of bringing students to environmental consciousness
through engaging outdoor experiences. Environ Educ Res. 2016; 22: 288–304. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13504622.2014.996208
102. Wals A, Dillon J. Conventional and emerging learning theories: Implications and choices for educa-
tional researchers with a planetary consciousness. International handbook of research on environ-
mental education. 2013. pp. 253–261.
103. Kellert SR, Heerwagen JH, Mador LM. Biophilic Design. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.; 2008.
104. Giusti M. Home for future earth lovers: foundations of nature-connecting habitats for children. 2018.
105. Marcus L, Giusti M, Barthel S. Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: contributions of space
syntax and spatial cognition. J Urban Des. 2016; 21: 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.
2016.1184565
Human-nature relationships in context
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225951 December 5, 2019 24 / 24
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
