Enabling Relationships with Nature in Cities

Abstract

Limited exposure to direct nature experiences is a worrying sign of urbanization, particularly for children. Experiencing nature during childhood shapes aspects of a personal relationship with nature, crucial for sustainable decision-making processes in adulthood. Scholars often stress the need to ‘reconnect’ urban dwellers with nature; however, few elaborate on how this can be achieved. Here, we argue that nature reconnection requires urban ecosystems, with a capacity to enable environmental learning in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains, i.e., learning that occurs in the head, heart and hands of individuals. Drawing on environmental psychology, urban ecology, institutional analysis and urban planning, we present a theoretical framework for Human–Nature Connection (HNC), discuss the importance of nurturing HNC for children, elaborate on the role of property-rights and the importance of creating collective action arenas in cities for the promotion of urban resilience building. As values and environmental preconceptions underly environmental behavior, there are limits to achieving HNC in cities, as presumptive sentiments toward nature not always are positive. We end by discussing the role of new digital technologies in relation to HNC, and conclude by summarizing the major points brought forward herein, offering policy recommendations for HNC as a resilience strategy that can be adopted in cities throughout the world.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Enabling Relationships with Nature in Cities
Johan Colding 1, 2, * , Matteo Giusti 1, Andreas Haga 1, Marita Wallhagen 1and
Stephan Barthel 1,3
1Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle,
Kungsbäcksvägen 47, 80176 Gävle, Sweden; Matteo.Giusti@hig.se (M.G.); Andreas.Haga@hig.se (A.H.);
Marita.Wallhagen@hig.se (M.W.); Stephan.Barthel@hig.se (S.B.)
2The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 50005,
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
3Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
*Correspondence: Johanc@beijer.kva.se or Johan.Colding@hig.se
Received: 14 April 2020; Accepted: 20 May 2020; Published: 27 May 2020


Abstract:
Limited exposure to direct nature experiences is a worrying sign of urbanization, particularly
for children. Experiencing nature during childhood shapes aspects of a personal relationship with
nature, crucial for sustainable decision-making processes in adulthood. Scholars often stress the need
to ‘reconnect’ urban dwellers with nature; however, few elaborate on how this can be achieved. Here,
we argue that nature reconnection requires urban ecosystems, with a capacity to enable environmental
learning in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains, i.e., learning that occurs in the head,
heart and hands of individuals. Drawing on environmental psychology, urban ecology, institutional
analysis and urban planning, we present a theoretical framework for Human–Nature Connection
(HNC), discuss the importance of nurturing HNC for children, elaborate on the role of property-rights
and the importance of creating collective action arenas in cities for the promotion of urban resilience
building. As values and environmental preconceptions underly environmental behavior, there are
limits to achieving HNC in cities, as presumptive sentiments toward nature not always are positive.
We end by discussing the role of new digital technologies in relation to HNC, and conclude by
summarizing the major points brought forward herein, offering policy recommendations for HNC as
a resilience strategy that can be adopted in cities throughout the world.
Keywords:
Human–Nature Connection; cognitive; affective and psychomotor environmental learning;
resilience building; sense of place; immersive technologies; property rights; urban green commons
1. Introduction
As urbanization endures on a global scale, policy makers, planners and urban designers need
to think about how to improve the sustainability of cities to a much greater extent. Local conditions,
cultural contexts, socio-economic history, institutional path dependency, etc., determine what potential
solutions can be achieved in order to build more ecologically compatible cities. In this overview paper,
we present lessons learned about the Human–Nature Connection (HNC). In addition to presenting an
overview and theorizing around HNC, we discuss how collective action arenas in cities can enable
a relationship with urban nature with a potential to promote urban resilience building. Resilience
building in relation to the natural environment has emerged as a lens of analysis that serves a platform
for interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration and is about “cultivating the capacity to sustain
development in the face of expected and surprising change and diverse pathways of development and
potential thresholds between them” [1].
The global COVID-19 pandemic all too clearly demonstrates how vulnerable our societies are to
various types of disturbance and stresses, which often appear as true wicked problems and surprises.
Sustainability 2020,12, 4394; doi:10.3390/su12114394 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 2 of 16
Wicked problems are largely unsolvable in the sense that solutions to one aspect of the problem
discloses or generate other, even more complex problems, which demand further solutions [
2
]. When
disturbances hit us, whether pandemic, climate-related or socio-economic, they remind us that we
need to think considerably more on how to nurture resilience, or a ‘buffering capacity’, to deal with
unknown and known disruptions in constructive ways [
3
,
4
]. For one thing, city governance needs to
create increased preparedness to deal with shocks on the global food system, climate-change effects
and socio-economic disruptions that potentially can affect quality of life in cities [5,6].
The preservation of ecosystems is of critical importance in urban resilience building, since their
services are critical to psychological, physical and spiritual human wellbeing [
7
,
8
], and also provide
adaptation to extreme weather events [
9
]. Current urbanization pressures, however, result far too
often in the loss of ecosystems, with adverse effects on biodiversity [
10
], which, in turn, can reduce
opportunity for urban residents to interact with and experience natural environments. Current
urbanization pressures have globally led to a general decline in urban dwellers’ everyday interaction
with nature [
11
], stressing the need to connect, or ‘reconnect’, urban dwellers with nature [
12
,
13
].
For one thing, it will be extremely difficult to gain public support for taking action against climate
change without environmentally concerned citizens of all ages [
14
]. Emblematic to this point is Pyle’s
famous quote: “What is the extinction of a condor to a child that has never seen a wren?” [
15
] (p. 147).
Paper Outline and Aims
Deliberately shifting societal values to promote sustainable futures is a well-debated strategy in
nature conservation [
16
–
18
]. One conclusion is evident from these academic exchanges, namely that the
transformative potential of deliberate interventions in how humans relate to nature is a crux of future
sustainable societies. However, vast gaps of knowledge impede the development of interventions to
ameliorate such relationships. We assume herein that strengthening HNC among urban populations is
pivotal for both urban resilience and for urban sustainability, as green infrastructures may promote
general urban resilience building, related to a vast array of external disturbances [
19
,
20
], and also
specifically related to enabling resilient levels of human wellbeing inside cities [
8
,
21
,
22
]. Further,
we assume
that HNC enhances people’s willingness to protect and manage urban green infrastructures
of importance for urban resilience. HNC is argued to promote general pro-environmental behaviors and,
hence, play part in sustainability transformations [
23
,
24
]. We acknowledge, however, the complexity
involved in such assumptions, as the knowledge-action gap, value-action gap and the attitude-action
gap are still unresolved issues in psychology and in the humanities [2,25].
Framed by resilience theory, environmental psychology and learning theory, we here make the
argument that policies concerning urban ecosystems to a greater extent need to enable activities that
nurture environmental learning in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains, i.e., learning that
occurs in the head, heart and hands of individuals. The resilience approach to sustainability is less about
controlling, and more about creating conditions of opportunity for navigating transformations toward
sustainability [1], where continuous learning is an important feature of ‘the navigation process’ [26].
Colding and Barthel [
27
] (p. 162) have earlier elaborated on an approach they coined cognitive
resilience building, denoting “the mental processes of human perception, memory and reasoning that
people acquire from interacting frequently with local ecosystems, shaping peoples’ experiences, world
views, and values towards local ecosystems and ultimately towards the biosphere”. They wanted
to emphasize that resilience building is not only an external endeavor (e.g., building resilience in
ecosystems or social systems), but also an exercise for transforming human behavior in the way people
think, feel and relate to nature.
In this paper, we go beyond merely the cognitive dimensions of peoples’ relation to nature,
by stressing that HNC-building fundamentally entails a person’s affective and psychomotor modes of
interacting with nature. Contextual, experiential and psychological dimensions of HNC identified
in the existing literature [
28
] and practitioners knowledge [
24
] have all been found, in an empirical
study, to be crucial to shaping one’s desire to protect nature. Additionally, Sipos, et al. [
29
] argue that

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 3 of 16
engaging with Bloom’s influential three domains of learning (i.e., cognitive, affective and psychomotor
learning) may enable transformative experiences and learning in society. Mezirow [
30
] argues that
their integration may ultimately lead to perspective transformation: the process of questioning and
adjusting one’s world-view in light of newfound knowledge, “and/or transformation of the behavioral
domain: the interaction of cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning that shapes the way one
behaves” [31] (p. 23).
Our prime motive behind this paper is that regular interactions between people and nature follow
the current trend of persistent decline of nature in cities [
11
]. This phenomenon has been called
the ‘extinction of experience’ of nature, and is recognized as having detrimental effects on nature
conservation worldwide [11,32,33].
With a focus on enabling a relationship with nature for urban dwellers, and drawing on
environmental psychology, urban ecology, institutional analysis and urban planning, this paper
is organized as follows: we begin by presenting a theoretical background of the Human–Nature
Connection (HNC), followed by a discussion about the importance of nurturing human–nature
relationships for children. We proceed by elaborating at more depth on what role property rights play
for HNC, as well as discussing the importance of creating collective action arenas in cities, with an
ability to promote psychomotor environmental learning. This is followed by an elaboration on the
role of values and environmental preconceptions play for HNC. In this era of increased digitalization
and the notion of smart cities, we also address what role new digital technologies can play in creating
linkages to urban nature. We conclude by summarizing the major points brought forward herein,
offering some policy recommendations concerning the kind of HNC among urban populations, which
are vital for resilient processes towards urban sustainability.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Human–Nature Relationships and Human–Nature Connection
Some scholars in academia have recently remarked that cultural human–nature relationships in
Western societies are both a root cause of current unsustainable patterns of development, and the crux
to embarking towards a more sustainable society [
34
–
37
]. Simultaneously, the same remarks have
been made in popular writing [
13
]. The ways societies perceive, value and interact with non-human
life forms and natural resources have to transform radically in order to support sustainable lifestyles.
In other words, achieving sustainable human societies require a “mind shift at the scale of a ‘Copernican
revolution’ [...] to put our minds in harmony with the earth system we depend on” [
38
]. Despite various
normative goals, for instance, supporting biodiversity conservation [
32
], promoting pro-environmental
behaviors [
39
,
40
] or enabling sustainable development [
12
], research in a variety of different disciplines
aims to promote such a mind shift. However, research that actively promotes the transformation
towards more symbiotic relationships with nature is still at its infancy [
28
,
41
]. This is because of
a variety of factors. First, because human–nature apparent dichotomy is entrenched in Western
civilization [
42
] and academic culture [
16
,
17
]. Second, because there is no philosophical agreement of
whether nature has an intrinsic, extrinsic or relational value for humankind [
43
,
44
]. Third, because
these different disciplines rely on different ontological grounds and the integration of their results is
very limited [
28
]. However, in the broadest sense human–nature relationships can be conceived in
similar fashion to human–human relationships [
23
,
45
,
46
]. Some psychometric methods to analyze the
psychological inclusion of nature in a human ‘self‘ are indeed a direct modification of those used to
measure empathy among people [
45
,
47
]. In line with the existing literature [
23
,
24
,
28
,
48
], human–nature
relationships are considered sustainable in this paper when they enable, promote, or assist lifestyles
that progressively lower the negative impact on the biosphere. This is what we consider here to
be the Human–Nature Connection (HNC). In its very definition [
24
], HNC describes a relationship
with nature that encompasses many attributes already identified elsewhere in the academic literature.
For example, the ability to be comfortable and curious about nature [
49
], the capacity to experiences

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 4 of 16
awe and wonder [
50
], ecological literacy [
51
] and a connection with natural landscapes [
52
]. These
attributes are aggregated in three distinguished and consecutive abilities: the ability to be in nature,
with nature and for nature [24].
2.2. Questioning Disembodied Views of Nature
Raymond et al. [
48
] argue that the current ecosystem services framework promotes a non-cultural
and decontextualized understanding of the benefits provided by ecosystems. Such conceptualization of
ecosystem services is grounded in a disembodied view of nature “which views the mind as independent
of the body, culture and the environment” [
48
] (p. 2). That means that the value provided by an
ecosystem (e.g., ecosystem services) is conceived to be implicit in the ecosystem itself. In the context of
environmental management, this anthropocentric view of nature promotes its commodification [
53
],
and further separates humans from nature in the everyday culture. In contrast, an embodied ecosystem
approach [
48
] means that the value provided by an ecosystem is an emergent property of a set
of human–nature relationships. These are relationships that exist in individuals within a local
socio-environmental system, which, in turn, is embedded in a larger culture.
Under this
relational
approach, the value provided by the ecosystem is defined as “systems of meaningful relationships
between mind, body, culture, and environment” [
23
]. In a systematic and multidisciplinary literature
review, Ives et al. [
28
] noted that the literature on sense of place, on psychological drivers of
pro-environmental behaviors and on direct nature experiences can all contribute to the identification of
sustainable patterns of human development. However, their integration is limited and problematic,
because the concept of nature is often used departing from a disembodied approach. When experiential,
psychological and contextual dimensions are analyzed together, studies show that attachment to
certain kinds of dense urban environments can have a detrimental effect on people’s desire to act
pro-environmentally [
23
]. Ultimately, an embodied approach aims to analyze mind, body, culture and
environment as one system, in search of HNCs that drive sustainable development trajectories.
3. Children’s Habitats and Human–Nature Relationships
Deep seated HNC emerge during childhood [
54
,
55
], and seem to remain rather stable in
adulthood [
56
]. Arguably, the main promoters of HNC are authentic nature experiences during
childhood [
57
–
60
]. However, most children now live in highly urbanized landscapes, with little access
to natural areas [
61
]. Soga et al. [
62
] highlight examples where children in Japan spend much less time
in nature environments than only ten years ago, and that 12% of English children have not visited a
green-space environment in a whole year. In the UK, 8- to 13-year-old children spend 16 min a day in
natural locations, and, among 14- and 15-years old, this decreases to 10 min [
63
]. At the same time,
children in the USA spend 7 1
⁄
2 h a day in front of a screen [
64
]. Coincidently, children know Pok
é
mon
better than animals [
65
]; prioritize the protection of animals seen on the Internet, rather than local
animals [
66
]; and can distinguish several hundreds of corporate logos, but identify only a few local
plant or animal species [67].
Limited exposure to direct nature experiences in childhood is worrying, because experiencing
nature during childhood shapes certain aspects of a personal relationship with nature that are crucial for
sustainable decision-making processes in adulthood [
55
,
68
,
69
]. Mitigating against growing phobias and
disaffection of nature shaping the everyday habitat by promoting sustainable relationships with nature
is crucial [
23
,
70
,
71
]. Biophilic design [
72
] and the analysis of nature-connecting habitats [
23
,
24
,
71
] have
this goal. Everyday exposure to natural environments is shown to be formative for children’s HNC
from as young as five years old [
71
]. Unfortunately, children’s association with the dense and lively
urban environments demotivates children to protect nature [23]
Developing nature-reconnecting habitats for children is a spatial design intervention for enabling
stronger HNC, including a stronger sense of place among children [
24
,
73
,
74
]. Sense of place could be
relevant for both the cognitive and affective environmental learning domains of HNC [
75
,
76
]. Studies
show that active green-area management promotes sense of place [
77
–
79
], and that such a HNC can give

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 5 of 16
rise to a feeling of moral responsibility and behavior towards the environment [
71
,
80
,
81
]. A number of
researchers have also shown how HNC relates to more traditional value-based or cognitive hierarchy
models of environmentally significant behavior [
81
,
82
], while the value–action gap is not yet a resolved
issue in sustainability science [40,60,83].
4. Property-Rights, and Human–Nature Relationships
In a study of the nature routines of preschool children in Stockholm, Sweden, it was found that
preschools closer to nature had children who were more empathetic and concerned for non-human life
forms, and were more cognitively aware of human–nature interdependences [
71
]. While the spatial
distribution of natural areas is an important factor for enabling HNC, property rights is an equally
important aspect to consider. Institutional scholars have long recognized the role of property rights in
linking people to nature [
84
] and in shaping incentives behind human exchange, whether political, social
or economic. However, the dynamics of property rights regimes and their bundles of rights have largely
been ignored in urban sustainability studies [
27
,
85
]. However, the decentralization of management
rights from local governments to local-level organizations and groups, such as neighborhood groups,
local communities, NGOs and similar, is increasing in many parts of the world, as it holds implications
for the eradication of ecological illiteracy [86].
While urban design determines proximity (both metric and cognitive distance) to urban nature,
property rights arrangements affect HNC by regulating omission to or entry to nature in cities. This is
often determined by whether land (and water) is owned and controlled by the government, or in
private or collective ownership. In addition, a bundle of rights and responsibilities regulate entrance
rights to land, the right to withdraw resources from land, the right to manage resources, and the right
to exclude non-owners from enjoying the benefits that land provides, as well as the right to alienate
(e.g., sell) or lease out land (Table 1).
Table 1.
The bundles of property rights are held by individuals with different positions, and are
frequently held in the cumulative manner of the table, encompassing rights of access (i.e., “the right to
enter a defined physical area and enjoy nonsubtractive benefits”); withdrawal (“the right to obtain the
resource units or “products” of a resource”); management (“the right to regulate internal use patterns
and transform the resource by making improvements”); exclusion (“the right to determine who will
have an access right, and how that right may be transferred”); and alienation (“the right to sell or lease
either or both of the above collective-choice rights”) [87].
Authorized Entrant Authorized User Claimant Proprietor Owner
Access x x x x x
Withdrawal x x x x
Management x x x
Exclusion x x
Alienation x
Source: Modified and adapted from Schlager and Ostrom [88].
It is worth emphasizing that few property rights regimes in cities enable a larger set of urban
residents to actively manage land in cities. As Table 2indicates, many natural and semi-natural habitats,
such as public parks, street alleys, bioswales, pocket parks, etc., only offer access rights to land, but do
not offer management rights to ordinary residents, but rather to public and private land care takers
and park administrators. In situations where land is held in private regimes only the owner (and his or
her associates) enjoys management rights to land. In contrast, common property-rights regimes allow
for a considerably larger set of the urban populace to manage land in cities, especially lands managed
as urban green commons (UGCs) that represent urban ecosystems of diverse ownership that depend
on collective organization and management [27].

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 6 of 16
Table 2.
Bundle of rights to nature from a citizen-perspective in relation to different landforms.
In residential gardens only the owner can conduct gardening. In street tree alleys and parks, people
normally only have access rights. Allotments and PAC-gardens increase the opportunity for urban
residents to have management and access rights to urban ecosystems relative. (x) =partial rights.
Modified and adapted from Colding et al. [27].
Residential Garden Tree Alleys Parks Allotments PAC-Gardens
Access x x x x x
Withdrawal x x x
Management x x x
Exclusion x x (x)
Alienation x
Governance type Private Public Public Common Common
4.1. Psychomotor Environmental Learning in Cities
It has for long been proposed that healthy urban environments should provide the opportunity
for and encourage stewardship of natural resources through the opportunity to recycle, reduce, and
reuse [
89
]. As pointed out earlier, such stewardship needs also involve children. However, the same
way as property-rights regimes in large have been ignored in urban environmental policy building,
environmental learning that involves land stewardship of a greater set of urban residents has also been
neglected. Ecological stewardship of different kinds involves psychomotor learning, which comprises
learning by doing and through practice [
90
], ranging from tacit and unconscious learning to explicit
and codified learning [
91
]. Hence, much psychomotor learning is never articulated, it is simply what
we do, or “what changes our ability to engage in practice, the understanding of why we engage in it,
and the resources we have at our disposal to do so” [92] (p. 97).
The enhancement of resilience building at a more transformational scale in society requires the
existence of ecosystems that also provide opportunities for humans to physically engage with nature,
(Figure 1) i.e., through manual or physical skills coordinated by the arms, hands, fingers, and feet,
without verbal processes. Planners and urban designers need to pay increased attention to such
land-management systems. Ecologists have for long referred to psychomotor learning in cruder
terminology as ‘ecosystem management’ or ‘ecosystem stewardship’ [93].
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
residents to have management and access rights to urban ecosystems relative. (x) = partial rights. 237
Modified and adapted from Colding et al. [27]. 238
Residential garden
Tree alleys
Parks
Allotments
PAC-gardens
Access
x
x
x
x
x
Withdrawal
x
x
x
Management
x
x
x
Exclusion
x
x
(x)
Alienation
x
Governance type
Private
Public
Public
Common
Common
4.1. Psychomotor Environmental Learning in Cities 239
It has for long been proposed that healthy urban environments should provide the opportunity 240
for and encourage stewardship of natural resources through the opportunity to recycle, reduce, and 241
reuse [89]. As pointed out earlier, such stewardship needs also involve children. However, the same 242
way as property-rights regimes in large have been ignored in urban environmental policy building, 243
environmental learning that involves land stewardship of a greater set of urban residents has also 244
been neglected. Ecological stewardship of different kinds involves psychomotor learning, which 245
comprises learning by doing and through practice [90], ranging from tacit and unconscious learning 246
to explicit and codified learning [91]. Hence, much psychomotor learning is never articulated, it is 247
simply what we do, or “what changes our ability to engage in practice, the understanding of why we 248
engage in it, and the resources we have at our disposal to do so” [92] (p. 97). 249
The enhancement of resilience building at a more transformational scale in society requires the 250
existence of ecosystems that also provide opportunities for humans to physically engage with nature, 251
(Figure 1) i.e., through manual or physical skills coordinated by the arms, hands, fingers, and feet, 252
without verbal processes. Planners and urban designers need to pay increased attention to such land-253
management systems. Ecologists have for long referred to psychomotor learning in cruder 254
terminology as ‘ecosystem management’ or ‘ecosystem stewardship’ [93]. 255
256
Figure 1. Illustration of how urban environments could promote cognitively-affectively-257
psychomotorically engaged children, elucidating the therapeutic effect of symbiotic relationships 258
with nature. 259
Figure 1.
Illustration of how urban environments could promote cognitively-affectively-psychomotorically
engaged children, elucidating the therapeutic effect of symbiotic relationships with nature.

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 7 of 16
Sustainable agriculture education [
31
] and gardening [
29
,
94
] comprise psychomotor learning
and involve, but is not limited to, the formation and retention of memories and skills in the motor
cortices [
95
]. Barthel et al. [
96
] provide several examples of ecosystem management practices in
Stockholm that comprise psychomotor learning, referring to these practices as ‘social-ecological
memory’, involving practical skills for gardening and wildlife support, e.g., creating habitat support
for the diversity and abundance of wild bees and other pollinators, as well as habitats for the support
of insectivorous birds. Similarly, Giusti [
23
] provides evidence of ecological and social benefits that
occur when children lead a project of nature conservation.
4.2. Collective Action Arenas and Psychomotor Environmental Learning
Planners and urban designers need to foster arenas in cities that promote collective action and
where urban residents can interact with nature more fundamentally with their heads, hands and heart.
Collective action refers to action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to achieve a common
objective. At the operational level this can, for example, be achieved by designing collective-choice
property rights that include management, exclusion and alienation of natural resources [
87
]. Extensive
fieldwork has established that individuals in many parts of the world voluntarily organize themselves so
as to gain the benefits of creating and enforcing rules for managing and protecting natural resources [
97
].
Creating collective action for resilience building is especially important in cities to counteract ecological
illiteracy. An interesting type of collective action arenas that promote HNC in cities is “urban green
commons” (UGCs), representing land forms managed as common property and where control and
management rights to land are held by an identifiable community, or group of users, that may craft
their own institutions (i.e., rules) for managing the resources [
27
]. UGCs can be viewed as the urban
analogues to the local commons that can be found in rural settings and in traditional societies, where
common-property systems are plentiful [
98
–
100
]. In contrast to stewards of rural commons, people
managing resources in urban green commons do not depend on these for their daily livelihood, but
partake in UGCs for a number of reasons, such as having an interest to learn about gardening, having
contact with nature, to socialize and for keeping up intra-cultural identities [101–103].
An individual that becomes member in an urban common holds rights as a proprietor (Table 1).
The same individual, however, only has the rights of an authorized entrant when accessing a public
green space such as a park; hence, an individual is not allowed to pick flowers in most public parks
(withdrawal right) or cultivate vegetables and flowers (management right). That urban commons
grant people the right to manage land and cultivate food in cities, stimulate psychomotor learning
skills, which in turn can improve ecological literacy [104–106].
One example of UGCs is public-access community gardens (PAC-gardens) that represent urban
gardening projects located on public land in the city of Berlin (Figure 2). These gardens grant
management rights to parts or whole parklands that are collectively managed by stewardship groups.
In a study by Bendt et al. [
86
], it was found that PAC-gardens promote four broader learning
streams, including: (1) learning about gardening and local ecological conditions; (2) learning about
self-organization and social integration; (3) learning about the politics of urban space; and (4) learning
about social entrepreneurship.
Since partaking in PAC-gardening, most respondents stated that they had learned about
micro-ecological conditions, e.g., soil quality, shade patterns, heat levels in different parts of the
garden, local wind patterns and had also become more aware of climate change and displayed an
increased concern for environmental issues [
86
]. Hence, PAC-gardening instills participants with new,
or reinforced, awareness of ecological issues and processes, operating at greater scales than the gardens
themselves [
86
]. Barthel et al. [
96
] provide examples of psychomotor learning skills in relation to
allotment holders in Stockholm. As allotment gardening involves inter-relational processes between
people, as well as between people and other organisms, individual trial-and-error practices generate
experiences in individuals and modify ecological practices, which may or may not be transmitted to
others via mimicking or oral means [
96
]. For example, gardeners learn to monitor how plants and

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 8 of 16
animals in allotments respond to management inputs. Out of the 362 surveyed allotment gardeners,
27% stated that they enhanced habitats for small birds, and 45% said that they enhanced habitats to
support bumblebees that are critical to maintain for pollination. There also exist strong social norms
in allotment gardens to exclude the use of pesticides and synthetic manure. The gardeners also hold
norms to grow certain vegetables, fruits, berries and traditional flowers. These norms are enforced by
way of social pressure.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
Sustainable agriculture education [31] and gardening [29,94] comprise psychomotor learning 260
and involve, but is not limited to, the formation and retention of memories and skills in the motor 261
cortices [95]. Barthel et al. [96] provide several examples of ecosystem management practices in 262
Stockholm that comprise psychomotor learning, referring to these practices as ‘social-ecological 263
memory’, involving practical skills for gardening and wildlife support, e.g., creating habitat support 264
for the diversity and abundance of wild bees and other pollinators, as well as habitats for the support 265
of insectivorous birds. Similarly, Giusti [23] provides evidence of ecological and social benefits that 266
occur when children lead a project of nature conservation. 267
4.2. Collective Action Arenas and Psychomotor Environmental Learning 268
Planners and urban designers need to foster arenas in cities that promote collective action and 269
where urban residents can interact with nature more fundamentally with their heads, hands and 270
heart. Collective action refers to action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to achieve 271
a common objective. At the operational level this can, for example, be achieved by designing 272
collective-choice property rights that include management, exclusion and alienation of natural 273
resources [87]. Extensive fieldwork has established that individuals in many parts of the world 274
voluntarily organize themselves so as to gain the benefits of creating and enforcing rules for 275
managing and protecting natural resources [97]. Creating collective action for resilience building is 276
especially important in cities to counteract ecological illiteracy. An interesting type of collective action 277
arenas that promote HNC in cities is “urban green commons” (UGCs), representing land forms 278
managed as common property and where control and management rights to land are held by an 279
identifiable community, or group of users, that may craft their own institutions (i.e., rules) for 280
managing the resources [27]. UGCs can be viewed as the urban analogues to the local commons that 281
can be found in rural settings and in traditional societies, where common-property systems are 282
plentiful [98–100]. In contrast to stewards of rural commons, people managing resources in urban 283
green commons do not depend on these for their daily livelihood, but partake in UGCs for a number 284
of reasons, such as having an interest to learn about gardening, having contact with nature, to 285
socialize and for keeping up intra-cultural identities [101–103]. 286
An individual that becomes member in an urban common holds rights as a proprietor (Table 1). 287
The same individual, however, only has the rights of an authorized entrant when accessing a public 288
green space such as a park; hence, an individual is not allowed to pick flowers in most public parks 289
(withdrawal right) or cultivate vegetables and flowers (management right). That urban commons 290
grant people the right to manage land and cultivate food in cities, stimulate psychomotor learning 291
skills, which in turn can improve ecological literacy [104–106]. 292
293
Figure 2. Prinzessinnengärten, a public-access community (PAC)-garden and an urban common at 294
Moritzplatz in Berlin Kreuzberg. Local residents and people from all over Berlin get a chance to dig 295
into the soil, work with their hands and, together with others, cultivate vegetables and take care of 296
Figure 2.
Prinzessinnengärten, a public-access community (PAC)-garden and an urban common at
Moritzplatz in Berlin Kreuzberg. Local residents and people from all over Berlin get a chance to dig
into the soil, work with their hands and, together with others, cultivate vegetables and take care of
and manage green space. To gather around an activity like urban gardening, city inhabitants become
active stewards of the green environment, and can make a difference in facing the real challenges that
humans face today with climate change and the loss of biological diversity and ecosystem services.
Photo: Seven Frames Film Production.
While there might be hybrid forms of UGCs that draw on private forms of roof gardening or utility
garden allotments, an often-time neglected aspect of green roofs that commonly replace natural areas
on the ground, is that they only are accessible to a limited set of urban residents [
107
]. PAC-gardens,
in contrast, are open to anyone living in the city, although membership may be a way to regulate
congestion [27].
5. Identity-Environment Fit and Environmental Preconditions
Previous studies on how HNC is strengthened in societies have not paid enough attention to
individuals’ preconception of nature (or worldview), such as their previous values and environmental
concerns. Preconceptions could, of course, be of many kinds, such as positive, indifferent and negative.
Recent studies in psychology indicate that preconceptions, in many cases, determine behavioral choices
in relation to the environment. For example, in a study by Sörqvist et al. [
108
], it was found that
environmental concerns determined the self-reported sensory experiences of products. Experiments
showed that such preconceptions shaped people’s perception, performance and sensations, such as
tasting, comfortability, proofreading and even the color vision of participants [
109
,
110
], establishing
that such effects of environmental labelling of products was greater for people that scored high in
environmental concern, compared to people that scored low in environmental concern.
Values and environmental concern are also relevant for how people form expectations about
future events like, future experiences, decisions and behavior, and that the relationship between
environmental concern and values play part in such psychological dynamics [82,111].

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 9 of 16
Not surprisingly, environmental concerns and values also shape how we experience the features
of the natural environment. An experiment showed that participants who were told they were
listening to industrial sounds reported lower restoration than participants who were told they were
listening to sounds with nature characteristics, even if, in reality, all participants listened the same
sound [
112
]. Schultz and Zelezny [
113
] showed that people with self-transcendence values tend to care
more for environmental issues over economic growth, and were more engaged in pro-environmental
behaviors, and individuals that valued self-enhancing life goals had a more egoistic concern for
environmental issues.
Halpenny and Caissie [114] showed that people’s concern and empathy for wildlife and natural
environments under danger of being transformed appear to be in line with the same value orientation
as described above. Schultz [
115
] found that concern for environmental problems was fundamentally
linked to the degree to which people view themselves as part of the natural environment.
Along with the reasoning above, a study by Rossi et al. [
116
] found that values are important
mediators for people’s perception and experience of natural settings, and that this, together
with worldviews and ethics, influences people’s ability to strengthen HCN. This holds important
ramifications for urban planning. In some sense, cities represent a refuge for people having adverse
views of nature. For example, many dwellers in urban areas display a fear of nature, due to cultural
reasons [
117
]. Lush green area habitats may be frightening for people for safety reasons; hence, designs
of semi-natural environments in cities often need to account for safety through technical measures, e.g.,
width of sidewalks, presence and brightness of street lights, etc. [118].
6. New Digital Technologies and Human–Nature Relationships
Ever since Roger Ulrich published his classic study showing that patients with windows
against greenery recovered faster, felt better and used less painkillers than patients with a view of a
settlement [
119
], there has been interest in exploring the role of different technologies in providing nature
experiences, albeit as a surrogate of nature contact. Nature photography and videos, art and recorded
sounds are examples of indirect nature contact that have been shown to be health-promoting [
120
,
121
].
Even though digital technologies may reduce the actual time spent in outdoor natural environments,
digital technology, such as the use of immersive technologies like virtual reality, mixed reality and
augmented reality, may have positive environmental impacts. Augmented reality is a technology
that uses virtual reality to add virtual objects to real environments in real-time, using technological
devices for the overlapping of images [
122
]. Studies show that it can be used to make public space,
e.g., parks and open space natural habitats, more attractive to different age groups [
123
]. Pok
é
mon Go,
for example, brought people outdoor to places they might otherwise not have visited [
124
] and can
improve players’ sense of place and connection to places.
Augmented reality is increasingly used in planning processes, as it is gaining momentum as a tool
for visualizing urban design choices, and for promoting stakeholder participation [
125
]. For example,
immersive technologies can be used by allowing users to experience what a neighborhood may look or
feel like by superimposing designs over a two-dimensional plane [
126
]. Augmented reality applications
can also be used for monitoring and visualizing ecosystem services, such as displaying urban tree
cover, and also add augmented information on site about planted vegetation, and how the different
varieties of plants should be managed (Figure 3). Used in this way, this technology might have the
potential to promote affective relationships to nature, although this requires further study.
Immersive technologies are also used as a pedagogical tool to spread environmental knowledge.
However, to what extent these technologies promote HNC represents a hitherto unexplored research
frontier. Hypothetically, they have the potential to make people more environmentally concerned,
for example, by taking action against climate change [
127
]. While augmented reality may promote
cognitive and affective environmental learning [
128
], most still only deal with the augmentation of
vision. While technologies for the augmentation of other senses are under development, such as
balance, touch, acceleration, temperature, and sound, we are probably quite far away from developing

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 10 of 16
tools with the ability to promote psychomotor environmental learning that enables development of
deeper layers of HNC.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
listening to sounds with nature characteristics, even if, in reality, all participants listened the same 347
sound [112]. Schultz and Zelezny [113] showed that people with self-transcendence values tend to 348
care more for environmental issues over economic growth, and were more engaged in pro-349
environmental behaviors, and individuals that valued self-enhancing life goals had a more egoistic 350
concern for environmental issues. 351
Halpenny and Caissie [114] showed that people’s concern and empathy for wildlife and natural 352
environments under danger of being transformed appear to be in line with the same value orientation 353
as described above. Schultz [115] found that concern for environmental problems was fundamentally 354
linked to the degree to which people view themselves as part of the natural environment. 355
Along with the reasoning above, a study by Rossi et al. [116] found that values are important 356
mediators for people’s perception and experience of natural settings, and that this, together with 357
worldviews and ethics, influences people’s ability to strengthen HCN. This holds important 358
ramifications for urban planning. In some sense, cities represent a refuge for people having adverse 359
views of nature. For example, many dwellers in urban areas display a fear of nature, due to cultural 360
reasons [117]. Lush green area habitats may be frightening for people for safety reasons; hence, 361
designs of semi-natural environments in cities often need to account for safety through technical 362
measures, e.g., width of sidewalks, presence and brightness of street lights, etc. [118]. 363
6. New Digital Technologies and Human–Nature Relationships 364
Ever since Roger Ulrich published his classic study showing that patients with windows against 365
greenery recovered faster, felt better and used less painkillers than patients with a view of a 366
settlement [119], there has been interest in exploring the role of different technologies in providing 367
nature experiences, albeit as a surrogate of nature contact. Nature photography and videos, art and 368
recorded sounds are examples of indirect nature contact that have been shown to be health-369
promoting [120,121]. Even though digital technologies may reduce the actual time spent in outdoor 370
natural environments, digital technology, such as the use of immersive technologies like virtual 371
reality, mixed reality and augmented reality, may have positive environmental impacts. Augmented 372
reality is a technology that uses virtual reality to add virtual objects to real environments in real-time, 373
using technological devices for the overlapping of images [122]. Studies show that it can be used to 374
make public space, e.g., parks and open space natural habitats, more attractive to different age groups 375
[123]. Pokémon Go, for example, brought people outdoor to places they might otherwise not have 376
visited [124] and can improve players’ sense of place and connection to places. 377
378
Figure 3. The higher the biological values are, the more complex a green area can be to understand 379
and manage in a correct way. In the EU project Augmented Urbans - Visionary, Participatory Planning 380
Figure 3.
The higher the biological values are, the more complex a green area can be to understand and
manage in a correct way. In the EU project Augmented Urbans—Visionary, Participatory Planning and
Integrated Management for Resilient Cities researchers are investigating if the use of AR technologies can
help shaping more resilient cities with increased stakeholder participation. In one of the local action
projects in the city of Gävle, Sweden, the University of Gävle, in collaboration with the municipality
owned housing company Gavlegårdarna, is developing and testing AR tools for giving tenants and
managers of outdoor environments site-specific GIS positioned up-to-date information in their phone
when they carry out garden work. Such a tool could make it easier to design and plant greenery with
high biodiversity.
While urban simulation games such as SimCity can help students gain intellectual access to
complex ecological systems, there are also significant limitations, e.g., the tools do not represent
actual cases, lack connection to real places and provide simplistic experiences and understandings of
HNC. Hence, it is important to link real and virtual elements in augmented reality in environmental
education [
129
,
130
]. A pivotal issue is also to consider how to counteract the increasing amount of
screen time that children face nowadays [13].
7. Concluding Remarks
As pointed out in the introduction, how humans relate to nature in cities is an issue of immense
importance for urban resilience and for sustainability transformations. Folke [
1
] argues that the
resilience approach concerns encouraging transformative environmental learning at small scales, and
initiatives to emerge and spread across levels and scales. Deep leverage points for sustainability
transformations involve broad-based socio-cultural processes of self-concept change and social norm
formation [41], where learning towards stronger HNC in cities plays an important part [23,60,71].
At present, new digital technologies are integrated into the operation of city functions, as in the
form of smart cities [
131
,
132
]. The applicability of immersive technology, like augmented reality, will
inevitably increase quite drastically in the near future, together with artificial intelligence. To what
extent they will contribute to HNC, however, is an open question. As pondered upon herein, augmented
reality can promote outdoor activities and the use of urban space. However, enhancing HNC does not
only require a mind shift in people’s way of thinking, but also a change of heart, and also needs to
preferably involve active engagement and authentic relations [133,134].

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 11 of 16
Hence, people’s affective and psychomotor domains should not be left out when devising
opportunities for HNC in cities. Additionally, HNC-learning cannot solely be achieved through the
creation of more spatially accessible natural environments in cities, but needs to be circumscribed
by property rights that allow institutional accessibility for people to physically engage with natural
environments. It has been argued that people acquire positive attitudes toward an attitudinal object
because of what they do behaviorally, as opposed to the opposite assumption that people behave
in certain ways because they like it [
101
,
135
]. There are also limits to achieving HNC in cities,
as presumptive sentiments toward nature not always are positive.
We conclude by stating that policies aiming to achieve stronger HNC in cities—instead of trying
to change people’s values through information campaigns—should create spatial and institutional
accessibility to HNC building activities. To enhance sustainability transformations through fostering
HNC, the city and its culture must allow people’s ‘nature-care-taking behaviors’ to develop over
time. However, the privatization of public space is a global phenomenon [
136
] and when public green
space is lost, the spread of ‘environmental generational amnesia’ likely follows [
58
], which diminishes
chances for HNC in cities. Thus, and as another policy advice, planners and policy makers need more
meticulously address the fact that urban residents increasingly lose access and use rights to land and
resources in cities [
137
]. Instead of privatizing public land, policy makers need to a greater extent
consider spatially accessible urban green commons as solutions to fiscal shortcuts, at least as interim
solutions. In this way, local governments can promote resilient processes towards sustainability in
cities through HNC by still owning land, but transfer proprietor rights to local civic groups, social
networks and NGOs.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.C. and S.B.; Methodology, J.C., M.G., S.B., A.H. and M.W.;
Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.C., M.G., S.B., A.H. and M.W.; Leading of the writing process, J.C.;
Corresponding author, J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
Johan Colding’s, Stephan Barthel’s, Andreas Haga’s, Matteo Giusti’s, and Marita Wallhagen’s work
have been funded by University of Gävle. Barthel’s work has also been funded by FORMAS/The Swedish
Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning. The project is called Spatial
and Experiential Analyses for Urban Social Sustainability (ZEUS) (reference number: 2016-01193). Barthel’s
and Wallhagen’s work have also been funded by EU Interreg Central Baltic. The project is called Augmented
Urbans—Visionary, Participatory Planning and Integrated Management for Resilient Cities. Barthel’s work is
also funded by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Johan Colding’s work has also been partly funded through a
research grant (reference number: 2017-00937) received from the Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), and through means provided by the Beijer Institute of
Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Acknowledgments:
The authors wish to thank University of Gävle for administrative support of this study, and
Jonas Adner for his nice artwork with Figure 1.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Folke, C.; Biggs, R.; Norström, A.V.; Reyers, B.; Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based
sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 2016,21, art41. [CrossRef]
2. Hulme, M. One Earth, Many Futures, No Destination. One Earth 2020,2, 309–311. [CrossRef]
3.
Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
1973
,4, 1–23. [CrossRef]
4.
Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems; Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; ISBN 9780521815925.
5.
Barthel, S.; Isendahl, C. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for
long-term food security in cities. Ecol. Econ. 2013,86, 224–234. [CrossRef]
6.
Barthel, S.; Isendahl, C.; Vis, B.N.; Drescher, A.; Evans, D.L.; van Timmeren, A. Global urbanization and food
production in direct competition for land: Leverage places to mitigate impacts on SDG2 and on the Earth
System. Anthr. Rev. 2019,6, 71–97. [CrossRef]
7. Hartig, T.; Kahn, P.H. Living in cities, naturally. Science 2016,352, 938–940. [CrossRef]
8.
Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health
2014
. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 12 of 16
9.
Colding, J.; Marcus, L.; Barthel, S.; Andersson, E.; Gren, Å.; Borgström, S. Ekosystemtjänster i Stockholmsregionen;
Tillväxt, miljö och regionplanering, Stockholms Läns Landsting: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013.
10.
Gren, Å.; Colding, J.; Berghauser-Pont, M.; Marcus, L. How smart is smart growth? Examining the
environmental validation behind city compaction. Ambio 2019,48, 580–589. [CrossRef]
11.
Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2016,14, 94–101. [CrossRef]
12.
Folke, C.; Jansson, Å.; Rockström, J.; Olsson, P.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Cr
é
pin, A.-S.; Daily, G.;
Danell, K.; Ebbesson, J.; et al. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO 2011,40, 719. [CrossRef]
13. Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods; Workman Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
14.
Holmgren, M.; Kabanshi, A.; Langeborg, L.; Barthel, S.; Colding, J.; Eriksson, O.; Sörqvist, P. Deceptive
sustainability: Cognitive bias in people’s judgment of the benefits of CO2 emission cuts. J. Environ. Psychol.
2019,64, 48–55. [CrossRef]
15. Pyle, R.M. The extinction of experience. Horticulture 1978,56, 64–67.
16.
Ives, C.D.; Fischer, J. The self-sabotage of conservation: Reply to Manfredo et al. Conserv. Biol.
2017
,31,
1483–1485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Teel, T.L.; Fulton, D.; Schwartz, S.H.; Arlinghaus, R.; Oishi, S.; Uskul, A.K.;
Redford, K.; Kitayama, S.; et al. Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv.
Biol. 2017,31, 772–780. [CrossRef]
18.
Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Teel, T.L.; Fulton, D.C.; Oishi, S.; Uskul, A.K.; Redford, K.H.; Schwartz, S.H.;
Arlinghaus, R.; Kitayama, S.; et al. Revisiting the challenge of intentional value shift: Reply to Ives and
Fischer. Conserv. Biol. 2017,31, 1486–1487. [CrossRef]
19.
Barthel, S.; Koffman, A.; Bovin, M.; Lundqvist, E.; Campbell, E.; Tuvendal, M. Kartläggning och Analys av
Ekosystemtjänster i Stockholms Stad; Calluna: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015.
20.
McPhearson, T.; Andersson, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Frantzeskaki, N. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem
services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015,12, 152–156. [CrossRef]
21.
Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.;
Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to
health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017,158, 301–317. [CrossRef]
22.
Giusti, M.; Samuelsson, K. The regenerative compatibility: A synergy between healthy ecosystems,
environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences. PLOS ONE 2020,15, e0227311. [CrossRef]
23.
Giusti, M. Human-nature relationships in context. Experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions
that shape children’s desire to protect nature. PLOS ONE 2019,14, e0225951. [CrossRef]
24.
Giusti, M.; Svane, U.; Raymond, C.M.; Beery, T. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect
to Nature. Front. Psychol. 2018, 8. [CrossRef]
25.
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. [CrossRef]
26.
Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, L. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island
Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
27.
Colding, J.; Barthel, S. The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience building of cities. Ecol.
Econ. 2013,86, 156–166. [CrossRef]
28.
Ives, C.D.; Giusti, M.; Fischer, J.; Abson, D.J.; Klaniecki, K.; Dorninger, C.; Laudan, J.; Barthel, S.; Abernethy, P.;
Mart
í
n-L
ó
pez, B.; et al. Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
2017,26–27, 106–113. [CrossRef]
29.
Sipos, Y.; Battisti, B.; Grimm, K. Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and
heart. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008,9, 68–86. [CrossRef]
30. Mezirow, J. A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education. Adult Educ. Q. 1981,32, 3–24. [CrossRef]
31.
Battisti, B.T.; Passmore, C.; Sipos, Y. Action Learning for Sustainable Agriculture: Transformation through
Guided Reflection. NACTA J. 2008,52, 23–31.
32.
Miller, J.R. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol.
2005
,20, 430–434.
[CrossRef]
33. Samways, M.J. Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007,16, 1995–1997. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 13 of 16
34.
Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R.; Farley, J.; Garza, E.; Kent, J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Martinez, L.; McCowen, T.; Murphy, K.;
Myers, N.; et al. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews,
institutions, and technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009,106, 2483–2489. [CrossRef]
35.
Brooks, J.S.; Waring, T.M.; BorgerhoffMulder, M.; Richerson, P.J. Applying cultural evolution to sustainability
challenges: An introduction to the special issue. Sustain. Sci. 2018,13, 1–8. [CrossRef]
36.
Kinzig, A.P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Alston, L.J.; Arrow, K.; Barrett, S.; Buchman, T.G.; Daily, G.C.; Levin, B.; Levin, S.;
Oppenheimer, M.; et al. Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges: The Complex Interaction of
Behaviors, Values, and Policy. BioScience 2013,63, 164–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Meadows, D. Thinking in Systems; Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, Vermont, 2008;
ISBN 978-1-60358-055-7.
38.
Rockstrom, J.; Klum, M. The Human Quest: Prospering within Planetary Boundaries; Miller, P., Moberg, F.,
Klum, M., Eds.; Bokforlaget Max Strom: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; ISBN 978-91-7126-289-9.
39. Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014,65, 541–579. [CrossRef]
40.
Linder, N.; Lindahl, T.; Borgström, S. Using behavioural insights to promote food waste recycling in urban
households-evidence from a longitudinal field experiment. Front. Psychol. 2018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.;
Ives, C.; Lang, D.J. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio
2017
,46, 30–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
De Groot, M.; Drenthen, M.; De Groot, W.T. Public visions of the human/nature relationship and their
implications for environmental ethics. Environ. Ethics 2011,33, 25–44. [CrossRef]
43.
Chan, K.M.; Gould, R.K.; Pascual, U. Editorial overview: Relational values: What are they, and what’s the
fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018,35, A1–A7. [CrossRef]
44.
Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biol. Conserv.
2017,209, 366–376. [CrossRef]
45.
Schultz, P.W. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations. In Psychology of Sustainable
Development; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 61–78.
46.
The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, 1st ed.; Clayton, S.D., Ed.; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-0-19-973302-6.
47.
Aron, A.; Aron, E.N.; Smollan, D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992,63, 596–612. [CrossRef]
48.
Raymond, C.M.; Giusti, M.; Barthel, S. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem
services: Toward embodied ecosystems. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018,61, 778–799. [CrossRef]
49.
Ernst, J.; Burcak, F. Young Children’s Contributions to Sustainability: The Influence of Nature Play on
Curiosity, Executive Function Skills, Creative Thinking, and Resilience. Sustainability
2019
,11, 4212.
[CrossRef]
50. Washington, H. Education for Wonder. Educ. Sci. 2018,8, 125. [CrossRef]
51.
Hollweg, K.S.; Taylor, J.R.; Bybee, R.W.; Marcinkowski, T.J.; McBeth, W.C.; Zoido, P. Developing a
Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy; North American Association for Environmental Education
(NAAEE): Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.naaee.net/framework (accessed on
26 February 2020).
52.
Beery, T.; Wolf-Watz, D. Nature to place: Rethinking the environmental connectedness perspective. J. Environ.
Psychol. 2014,40, 198–205. [CrossRef]
53.
Washington, H.; Maloney, M. The need for ecological ethics in a new ecological economics. Ecol. Econ.
2020
,
169, 106478. [CrossRef]
54.
Chawla, L. Significant Life Experiences Revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental
sensitivity. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998,4, 369–382. [CrossRef]
55. Chawla, L. Life paths into effective environmental action. J. Environ. Educ. 1999,31, 15–26. [CrossRef]
56.
Kaiser, F.G.; Brügger, A.; Hartig, T.; Bogner, F.X.; Gutscher, H. Appreciation of nature and appreciation of
environmental protection: How stable are these attitudes and which comes first? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol.
2014,64, 269–277. [CrossRef]
57.
Cheng, J.C.-H.; Monroe, M.C. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ.
Behav. 2012,44, 31–49. [CrossRef]
58.
Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Kellert, S.R. Children and Nature; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; ISBN 0-262-11267-1.

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 14 of 16
59.
Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. I Am What I Am, by Looking Past the Present: The Influence of
Biospheric Values and Past Behavior on Environmental Self-Identity. Environ. Behav.
2014
,46, 626–657.
[CrossRef]
60.
Barthel, S.; Belton, S.; Raymond, C.M.; Giusti, M. Fostering Children’s Connection to Nature Through
Authentic Situations: The Case of Saving Salamanders at School. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9. [CrossRef]
61.
United Nations World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352); United Nations:
New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-92-1-151517-6.
62.
Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Koyanagi, T.F.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Urban residents’ perceptions of neighbourhood
nature: Does the extinction of experience matter? Biol. Conserv. 2016. [CrossRef]
63.
Gershuny, J.; Sullivan, O. United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2014–2015; UK Data Service; Centre for Time Use
Research, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2017. [CrossRef]
64.
Rideout, V.; Foehr, U.; Roberts, D. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds; Henry, J., Ed.; Kaiser
Family Foundation: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010.
65. Balmford, A. Why Conservationists Should Heed Pokemon. Science 2002,295, 2367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Ballouard, J.-M.; Brischoux, F.; Bonnet, X. Children Prioritize Virtual Exotic Biodiversity over Local Biodiversity.
PLoS ONE 2011,6, e23152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Armitage, K. What Studying Nature Has Taught Us. Solut. J. 2010,1, 74–78.
68.
Evans, G.W.; Brauchle, G.; Haq, A.; Stecker, R.; Wong, K.; Shapiro, E. Young Children’s Environmental
Attitudes and Behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2007,39, 635–658. [CrossRef]
69.
Hsu, S. Significant life experiences affect environmental action: A confirmation study in eastern Taiwan.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2009,15, 497–517. [CrossRef]
70.
Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Yamanoi, T.; Fukano, Y.; Tsuchiya, K.; Koyanagi, T.F.; Kanai, T. How can we mitigate
against increasing biophobia among children during the extinction of experience? Biol. Conserv.
2020
,242,
108420. [CrossRef]
71.
Giusti, M.; Barthel, S.; Marcus, L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
Children in Stockholm. Child. Youth Environ. 2014,24, 16. [CrossRef]
72. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
73.
Lewicka, M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place
attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010,30, 35–51. [CrossRef]
74.
Masterson, V.A.; Stedman, R.C.; Enqvist, J.; Tengö, M.; Giusti, M.; Wahl, D.; Svedin, U. The contribution
of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: A review and research agenda. Ecol. Soc.
2017
,22.
[CrossRef]
75.
Millar, M.G.; Millar, K.U. The Effects of Direct and Indirect Experience on Affective and Cognitive Responses
and the Attitude–Behavior Relation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1996,32, 561–579. [CrossRef]
76.
Duerden, M.D.; Witt, P.A. The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010,30, 379–392. [CrossRef]
77. Stedman, R.C. Toward a Social Psychology of Place. Environ. Behav. 2002,34, 561–581. [CrossRef]
78.
Kiesling, F.M.; Manning, C.M. How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological
gardening practices. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010,30, 315–327. [CrossRef]
79.
Althaus Ottman, M.M.; Maantay, J.A.; Grady, K.; Cardoso, N.; da Fonte, N.N. Community Gardens: An
Exploration of Urban Agriculture in the Bronx, New York City. Cities Environ. 2010,3, 20. [PubMed]
80.
Schroeder, H.W. Place experience, gestalt, and the human-nature relationship. J. Environ. Psychol.
2007
.
[CrossRef]
81.
Gosling, E.; Williams, K.J.H. Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing
connectedness theory among farmers. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010,30, 298–304. [CrossRef]
82. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994. [CrossRef]
83.
Kaaronen, R.O. Affording sustainability: Adopting a theory of affordances as a guiding heuristic for
environmental policy. Front. Psychol. 2017,8, 1–13. [CrossRef]
84.
Hanna, S.; Folke, C.; Mäler, K.-G. Property Rights and the Natural Environment. In Rights to Nature: Ecological,
Economic, Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment; Island Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 1996.
85.
Colding, J.; Barthel, S.; Bendt, P.; Snep, R.; van der Knaap, W.; Ernstson, H. Urban green commons: Insights
on urban common property systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013,23, 1039–1051. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 15 of 16
86.
Bendt, P.; Barthel, S.; Colding, J. Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community
gardens in Berlin. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013,109, 18–30. [CrossRef]
87.
Ostrom, E.; Schlager, E. The formation of property rights. In Rights to Nature; Hanna, S., Folke, C., Mäler, K.-G.,
Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 127–156.
88.
Schlager, E.; Ostrom, E. Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis. Land Econ.
1992,68, 249. [CrossRef]
89.
Largo-Wight, E. Cultivating healthy places and communities: Evidenced-based nature contact
recommendations. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2011,21, 41–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90.
Lave, J. Situating learning in communities of practice. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition; American
Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 63–82.
91.
Leonard, D.; Sensiper, S. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. Calif. Manag. Rev.
1998
. [CrossRef]
92.
Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1998; ISBN 9780521663632.
93.
Folke, C.; Kofinas, G.K.; Chapin, F.S. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
94.
Inwood, H.; Sharpe, J. Growing a Garden-Based Approach to Art Education. Art Educ.
2018
,71, 43–49.
[CrossRef]
95.
Shmuelof, L.; Krakauer, J.W. Recent insights into perceptual and motor skill learning. Front. Hum. Neurosci.
2014,8. [CrossRef]
96.
Barthel, S.; Folke, C.; Colding, J. Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—Retaining the capacity for
management of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 255–265. [CrossRef]
97. Ostrom, E. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 2000,14, 137–158. [CrossRef]
98.
Colding, J.; Folke, C.; Elmqvist, T. Social institutions in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation.
Trop. Ecol. 2003,44, 25–41.
99. Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In Linking Social
and Ecological Systems; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 0521785626.
100. Ostrom, E. Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999,2, 493–535. [CrossRef]
101.
Sanecka, J.; Barthel, S. Countryside within the City: A Motivating Vision behind Civic Green Area Stewardship
in Warsaw, Poland. Sustainability 2020,12, 2313. [CrossRef]
102.
Pearsall, H.; Gachuz, S.; Rodriguez sosa, M.; Schmook, B.; Wal, H.; Gracia, M.A. Urban Community Garden
Agrodiversity and Cultural Identity in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. Geogr. Rev.
2017
,107, 476–495. [CrossRef]
103.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L.; Krasny, M.E. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic
agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agric. Hum. Values 2004. [CrossRef]
104.
Theodori, G.L.; Luloff, A.E.; Wdlits, F.K.; Willits, F.K. The association of outdoor recreation and environmental
concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis. Rural Sociol. 1998. [CrossRef]
105. McKinney, M.L. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience 2002. [CrossRef]
106.
McDaniel, J.; Alley, K.D. Connecting local environmental knowledge and land use practices: A human
ecosystem approach to urbanization in West Georgia. Urban Ecosyst. 2005,8, 23–38. [CrossRef]
107.
Lindholm, G. Land and Landscape; Linking Use, Experience and Property Development in Urban Areas.
Land 2019,8, 137. [CrossRef]
108.
Sörqvist, P.; Hedblom, D.; Holmgren, M.; Haga, A.; Langeborg, L.; Nöstl, A.; Kågström, J. Who Needs Cream
and Sugar When There Is Eco-Labeling? Taste and Willingness to Pay for “Eco-Friendly” Coffee. PLoS ONE
2013,8, e80719. [CrossRef]
109.
Sörqvist, P.; Haga, A.; Langeborg, L.; Holmgren, M.; Wallinder, M.; Nöstl, A.; Seager, P.B.; Marsh, J.E. The
green halo: Mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,43, 1–9. [CrossRef]
110.
Sörqvist, P.; Haga, A.; Holmgren, M.; Hansla, A. An eco-label effect in the built environment: Performance
and comfort effects of labeling a light source environmentally friendly. J. Environ. Psychol.
2015
,42, 123–127.
[CrossRef]
111.
Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, G.; Schmuck, P.; Franˇek, M. Values and their Relationship
to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005,36, 457–475. [CrossRef]
112. Haga, A.; Halin, N.; Holmgren, M.; Sörqvist, P. Psychological Restoration Can Depend on Stimulus-Source
Attribution: A Challenge for the Evolutionary Account? Front. Psychol. 2016, 7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
113.
Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Reframing Environmental Messages to be Congruent with American Values.
Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2003,10, 126–136.

Sustainability 2020,12, 4394 16 of 16
114.
Halpenny, E.A.; Caissie, L.T. Volunteering on Nature Conservation Projects: Volunteer Experience, Attitudes
and Values. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2003,28, 25–33. [CrossRef]
115.
Schultz, P.W. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective talking on concern for environmental
issues. J. Soc. Issues 2000. [CrossRef]
116.
Rossi, S.D.; Byrne, J.A.; Pickering, C.M.; Reser, J. “Seeing red” in national parks: How visitors’ values affect
perceptions and park experiences. Geoforum 2015. [CrossRef]
117.
Skår, M. Forest dear and forest fear: Dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2010,98, 110–116. [CrossRef]
118.
Cervero, R.; Duncan, M. Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay
Area. Am. J. Public Health 2003,93, 1478–1483. [CrossRef]
119. Ulrich, R. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984,224, 420–421. [CrossRef]
120. Ulrich, R.S. How design impacts wellness. Healthc. Forum J. 1992,35, 20–25.
121.
de Kort, Y.A.W.; Meijnders, A.L.; Sponselee, A.A.G.; IJsselsteijn, W.A. What’s wrong with virtual trees?
Restoring from stress in a mediated environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006,26, 309–320. [CrossRef]
122.
Höhl, W. Interactive Environments with Open-Source Software—3D Walkthroughs und Augmented Reality
for Architects with Blender 2.43, DART 3.0 and ARToolKit 2.72. 2009. Available online: https://link.springer.
com/book/10.1007/978-3-211-79170-7 (accessed on 23 February 2020).
123.
Potts, R.; Jacka, L.; Yee, L.H. Can we ‘Catch ‘em All’? An exploration of the nexus between augmented reality
games, urban planning and urban design. J. Urban Des. 2017. [CrossRef]
124.
Althoff, T.; White, R.W.; Horvitz, E. Influence of pok
é
mon go on physical activity: Study and implications.
J. Med. Internet Res. 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125.
Prilenska, V. Current Research Vectors in Games for Public Participation in Planning. Preprint. Research Gate.
2020, pp. 1–20. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339781511_Current_Research_
Vectors_in_Games_for_Public_Participation_in_Planning (accessed on 23 February 2020).
126.
Wagner,I.; Basile, M.; Ehrenstrasser, L.; Maquil, V.; Terrin, J.-J.; Wagner, M. Supporting community engagement
in the city. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies—C&T ’09;
Pennsylvania State University, June 2009; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 185.
127.
Vella, K.; Johnson, D.; Cheng, V.W.S.; Davenport, T.; Mitchell, J.; Klarkowski, M.; Phillips, C. A Sense of
Belonging: Pokémon GO and Social Connectedness. Games Cult. 2019. [CrossRef]
128.
Lu, S.J.; Liu, Y.C. Integrating augmented reality technology to enhance children’s learning in marine education.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2015. [CrossRef]
129.
Beckett, K.L.; Shaffer, D.W. Augmented by Reality: The Pedagogical Praxis of Urban Planning as a Pathway
to Ecological Thinking. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2005,33, 31–52. [CrossRef]
130.
Klopfer, E.; Squire, K. Environmental detectives-the development of an augmented reality platform for
environmental simulations. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2008. [CrossRef]
131.
Colding, J.; Barthel, S. An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. J. Clean. Prod.
2017
,164, 95–101.
[CrossRef]
132.
Colding, J.; Barthel, S.; Sörqvist, P. Wicked Problems of Smart Cities. Smart Cities
2019
,2, 512–521. [CrossRef]
133.
Chawla, L.; Keena, K.; Pevec, I.; Stanley, E. Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for
resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health Place 2014,28, 1–13. [CrossRef]
134.
Chawla, L.; Cushing, D.F. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res.
2007
,13,
437–452. [CrossRef]
135.
Bem, D.J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol. Rev.
1967,74, 183–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Lee, S.; Webster, C. Enclosure of the urban commons. GeoJournal 2006. [CrossRef]
137.
Colding, J. Creating incentives for increased public engagement in ecosystem management through urban
commons. In Adapting Institutions; Boyd, E., Folke, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2011; pp. 101–124, ISBN 9781139017237.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).