Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors

Abstract

Urbanization, screen dependency, and the changing nature of childhood and parenting have led to increased time indoors, creating physical and emotional distancing from nature and time spent in natural environments. Substantial evidence from observational and intervention studies indicates that overall time spent in nature leads to increased perceived value for connectedness to nature and, subsequently, greater pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (PEAB). This narrative review of the recent literature evaluates associations between time spent in nature with values ascribed to nature and nature connectedness, as well as PEAB. We discuss the influence of nature exposure and education in childhood on subsequent development of PEAB in adulthood. We analyze theoretical frameworks applied to this research as well as metrics employed, populations studied, and individual and societal values before presenting limitations of this research. We conclude with suggestions for future research directions based on current knowledge, underscoring the importance of promoting time spent in nature and PEAB in the face of growing challenges to planetary health. Research indicates that overall time spent in nature, regardless of the quality of environmental conditions, leads to increased perceived values ascribed to nature, which is associated with PEAB; however, this literature is predominantly cross-sectional. Furthermore, personal and social factors may influence PEAB. Thus, more longitudinal studies that consider these factors are needed to assess the duration and frequency of time spent in nature in childhood and its impact on PEAB throughout the life course. Identifying contexts which cultivate PEAB and reverse alienation from nature beginning in childhood may better sensitize adults to the urgency of environmental issues such as climate change, which adversely impact individual and environmental health.

Full text

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Time Spent in Nature Is Associated with Increased
Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors
Nicole V. DeVille 1,2,*,† , Linda Powers Tomasso 3, 4,† , Olivia P. Stoddard 5, Grete E. Wilt 3,4, Teresa H. Horton 6,
Kathleen L. Wolf 7, Eric Brymer 8, Peter H. Kahn, Jr. 7,9 and Peter James 3 ,10


Citation: DeVille, N.V.; Tomasso,
L.P.; Stoddard, O.P.; Wilt, G.E.;
Horton, T.H.; Wolf, K.L.; Brymer, E.;
Kahn, P.H., Jr.; James, P. Time Spent in
Nature Is Associated with Increased
Pro-Environmental Attitudes and
Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2021,18, 7498. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147498
Academic Editor: Soumya Mazumdar
Received: 26 May 2021
Accepted: 5 July 2021
Published: 14 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
2Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
3
Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
tomasso@hsph.harvard.edu (L.P.T.); gwilt@g.harvard.edu (G.E.W.); pjames@hsph.harvard.edu (P.J.)
4Population Health Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
5Department of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
ostoddard@hsph.harvard.edu
6
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA; thorton@northwestern.edu
7School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;
kwolf@uw.edu (K.L.W.); pkahn@uw.edu (P.H.K.J.)
8Faculty of Health, Gold Coast Campus, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast 4225, Australia;
Eric.Brymer@acap.edu.au
9Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
10 Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School,
Boston, MA 02115, USA
*Correspondence: nhnvd@channing.harvard.edu
† These authors contributed equally to this article.
Abstract:
Urbanization, screen dependency, and the changing nature of childhood and parenting
have led to increased time indoors, creating physical and emotional distancing from nature and time
spent in natural environments. Substantial evidence from observational and intervention studies
indicates that overall time spent in nature leads to increased perceived value for connectedness to
nature and, subsequently, greater pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (PEAB). This narrative
review of the recent literature evaluates associations between time spent in nature with values
ascribed to nature and nature connectedness, as well as PEAB. We discuss the influence of nature
exposure and education in childhood on subsequent development of PEAB in adulthood. We analyze
theoretical frameworks applied to this research as well as metrics employed, populations studied,
and individual and societal values before presenting limitations of this research. We conclude with
suggestions for future research directions based on current knowledge, underscoring the importance
of promoting time spent in nature and PEAB in the face of growing challenges to planetary health.
Research indicates that overall time spent in nature, regardless of the quality of environmental
conditions, leads to increased perceived values ascribed to nature, which is associated with PEAB;
however, this literature is predominantly cross-sectional. Furthermore, personal and social factors
may influence PEAB. Thus, more longitudinal studies that consider these factors are needed to
assess the duration and frequency of time spent in nature in childhood and its impact on PEAB
throughout the life course. Identifying contexts which cultivate PEAB and reverse alienation from
nature beginning in childhood may better sensitize adults to the urgency of environmental issues
such as climate change, which adversely impact individual and environmental health.
Keywords:
nature; nature exposure; time in nature; nature affinity; environmental values; pro-
environmentalism; environmental education; nature experience; environmental attitudes; environ-
mental behaviors
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147498 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 2 of 18
1. Introduction
There has been a considerable increase in the number of epidemiological studies
examining associations between exposure to nature and various health outcomes, primar-
ily in observational research [
1
–
4
]. Generally, exposure to nature, which is defined and
measured in different ways across studies and disciplines, demonstrates positive associa-
tions with overall physical and psychological health, emotional wellbeing, mortality, and a
host of other health outcomes [
5
–
11
]. Studies also indicate that time spent in nature may
positively influence pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (PEAB) through several
pathways, including cultivation of biocentric values [
12
], connection to nature [
13
], place
attachment [
14
], and psychological restoration [
15
,
16
]. Recent studies add empirical evi-
dence that strengthens known associations between childhood nature exposure and time
spent in nature and PEAB across cultures [
17
–
21
]. However, a growing body of research
indicates that children and young adults may be spending less time outdoors than previous
generations [
22
–
26
], and in doing so, neglect stimulation of major pathways shown to
catalyze empathy and care for the environment [
27
] and different and complex neural
pathways developed through mentored introductions to nature [
28
]. Diminishing exposure
to nature may adversely impact pro-environmentalism or individuals’ PEAB, with ensuing
negative consequences for the environment [
29
]. Thus, cultivating PEAB through nature
exposure and connection to nature is critical in buffering ecosystem vulnerability in the face
of climate change and other environmental stressors of human habitation. Furthermore,
PEAB should be examined alongside other health and wellbeing benefits derived from
nature contact.
Research on the health benefits of contact with nature and research on environmental
sustainability are rarely integrated. Individuals who spend more time in nature tend to be
both healthier as well as more disposed toward acknowledging and addressing challenges
to planetary health where nature can potentially offer solutions such as the slowing of
the climate crisis. Thus, updates to the literature on nature exposure and environmen-
tal attitudes/environmental behaviors (EA/EB) should also incorporate environmental
sustainability, including climate activity.
Broadly, environmental attitudes are an individual’s beliefs, affect, and behavioral in-
tentions regarding nature and environmentally related activities or issues [
30
]. Environmen-
tal attitudes encompass aspects such as an individual’s environmental reasoning
[31–34]
,
ecological beliefs [
35
], connection to nature [
36
], place attachment [
37
], biophilia [
38
,
39
],
and willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [
17
–
19
]. Pro-environmental
behavior is defined as environmentally responsible or environmentally protective behav-
ior [
20
], such as biodiversity conservation [
40
] or adoption of recycling efforts [
41
]. Research
demonstrates positive associations between environmental attitudes and behaviors [
42
],
with pro-environmental attitudes generally mediating the relationship between nature
exposure and pro-environmental behaviors [13,21,43].
Most observational research measures exposure to nature by time spent outdoors or
in a natural environment. Nature contact may be intentional, incidental, or indirect, and
this contact occurs within diverse cultural, geographic, and ecological contexts
[44,45]
.
Although the benefits of spending time in nature, including urban nature, are well-
documented, mounting evidence of population level declines in time in nature may be
due to factors including increased urbanization, reliance on technology for work and
entertainment, societal changes toward more structured childhood activities, and negative
perceptions of nearby nature [
22
,
40
,
46
–
49
]. Therefore, interventions to raise awareness of
and exposure to nature should be definitionally broad.
Existing reviews of time spent in nature characterize the role of environmental values
as forerunners to explicit outcome behaviors, with most dedicated to pro-environmentalism.
One comprehensive review evaluated (a) the ways people define nature experiences;
(b) current research approaches to investigate EA/EB linkages and interrelationships;
and (c) recommendations for future research, including some standardization of criteria for
defining and measuring exposure frequency for time in nature as well as a cross-cultural

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 3 of 18
and sociodemographic comparison of effects [
21
]. Other reviews assess more specific
relationships with EB outcomes rooted in more narrow exposure scenarios or interventions,
such as those resulting from environmental education initiatives [
50
]; participation in
wildlife recreational activities, which includes environmental stewardship among its many
emotional outcomes [
51
]; and connectedness with nature (CWN) as a predictor of environ-
mentally responsible behavior [
52
]. A review of theoretical frameworks and intervention
strategies to promote EB draws from environmental psychology without explicit reference
to time in nature [
53
]. A final review of the nature–learning relationship examined nature
as a facilitator and contextual mediator of cognitive and emotional learning outcomes and
environmental stewardship as one learning, though not behavioral, outcome tied to nature
contact [54].
In contrast to these, this narrative review incorporates theoretical approaches to culti-
vating PEAB, paying specific attention to studies which respond to previously highlighted
research needs to examine cultural and social variability in PEAB and inequities in nature
access and experience which impact PEAB promotion. This narrative literature review
briefly examines existing metrics of time spent in outdoor or natural environments during
childhood within the fields of environmental health, education, and psychology and in-
troduces definitions and metrics of environmental values, attitudes, and behaviors. We
consider conceptual frameworks that connect nature exposure to PEAB. We evaluate ev-
idence for how exposure to nature in childhood influences environmental attitudes and
behaviors in adulthood across demographic and cultural contexts, outline research gaps
and limitations, and propose future directions to address these gaps.
2. Materials and Methods
Narrative reviews consolidate the results of quantitative and qualitative studies that
employ diverse methodologies and/or theoretical frameworks, without a strong focus on
the statistical significance of the individual study results [
48
,
49
]. Our intent to provide
a comprehensively broad overview of PEAB research development precluded the use of
a strict hypothesis and the narrower article selection required to defend or refute it. We
conducted a keyword search-based literature review using PubMed Advanced Search and
Web of Science search for studies with titles or abstracts containing “nature exposure,”
“time in nature,” “nature affinity,” “environmental values,” “pro-environmentalism,” “envi-
ronmental education,” “nature experience,” “environmental attitudes,” or “environmental
behaviors.” We limited this review to research on human subjects only and included En-
glish language-based, international peer-reviewed articles (e.g., primary research, reviews),
online reports, electronic books, and press releases. We included both experimental and
observational studies and applied a snowballing search methodology using the references
cited in the articles identified in the literature search. Each identified item was assessed for
relevance by a member of the study team, and we included articles that examined PEAB,
as well as how nature exposure is linked to PEAB. This review is not comprehensive but is
intended to summarize literature on nature exposure and PEAB. Our search included publi-
cations from January 1980, approximately marking the foundational research of significant
life experience in nature and environmental education, through June 2021.
3. Results
In examining literature on nature exposure and PEAB, we reviewed 67 published
articles drawn from multiple disciplines, geographic regions, and study populations.
Evidence from the experimental and observational studies presented below represents
selected literature from the last four decades on nature exposure and PEAB, primarily from
Western countries.
3.1. Defining and Measuring Environmental Values
Defining and measuring environmental values has become a major focus of envi-
ronmental and psychological research as researchers evaluate the origins and drivers

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 4 of 18
of PEAB to design environmental education programs that will promote these attitudes
and behaviors.
Van den Bosch and Depledge provide a conceptual framework for understanding
how spending time in nature might lead to changes in pro-environmental behaviors [
55
].
Drawing on evidence from both observational and experimental research, the authors
posit that natural environments evoke automatic, unconscious reactions, potentially in
the pro-environmental direction, which are mediated by underlying physiological pro-
cesses [
55
]. In environmental education research, Brymer and Davids propose an ecological
dynamics model of behavior change, which emphasizes interactions between diverse in-
dividual, environmental, and task constraints, as a theoretical framework for developing
pro-environmental behaviors [
56
]. In this approach, individuals are considered unique,
complex systems comprised of interacting subsystems for thinking, perceiving, learning,
and acting. Physical, cultural, social, psychological, and emotional factors can influence
these subsystems and influence the adoption of new behaviors. While these frameworks
provide broad conceptualizations of how natural environments may affect PEAB, it is
important to recognize the diversity of values that shape the way individuals think about
and understand their relationship with nature [57].
Consideration of individual and societal values is an integral component in under-
standing pro-environmental values and behaviors. Defining the value priorities of individ-
uals as a reflection of social experiences and outward behaviors and choices is an important
starting point. Schwartz’s Value Theory presents values as desirable goals that serve as
guiding principles [
58
]. The four key features are: (1) A value reflects a belief on the
desirability of a certain end state; (2) Values are abstract and transcend specific situations;
(3) Values serve as a guiding principle for selecting or evaluating people, behavior, or
events; and (4) Values are ordered in a system of value priorities [
58
,
59
]. It is important to
note that competing values may be activated in different situations, with individualized,
value-based choices [
60
,
61
] incompatible with cross-cultural or cross-national priorities.
These features are useful for environmental research by identifying situations that activate
values relevant to pro-environmentalism.
Table 1outlines three types of values (i.e., intrinsic, instrumental, and relational)
mapped against three foci of values related to nature, nature’s contribution to people, and
quality of life. Intrinsic values are those inherent to nature and are considered nonan-
thropocentric. Instrumental values facilitate achieving human ends or satisfying human
preferences. Relational values are those that are derived from human relationships with
and responsibilities towards nature [
62
]. Pascual et al. emphasize that values related to
nature’s contribution to people are fluid and cannot be placed into a single value cate-
gory [
57
]. Both instrumental and relational values can be ascribed to the value of nature’s
contribution to people, highlighting that nature’s contributions to people are intertwined
with both nature and a good quality of life.
Environmental beliefs, attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors are related to the
category of self-transcendent values. Self-transcendence is the process of psychological
expansion beyond the self [
63
]. Individuals who favor self-transcendent values are more
likely to hold pro-environmental beliefs, compared to those who favor self-enhancement
values [
30
,
60
,
61
,
64
–
66
]. Of particular importance in understanding PEAB are altruistic
and biospheric values, two types of self-transcendent values, and hedonic and egoistic
values, two types of self-enhancement values [
67
]. Altruistic values reflect concern with the
welfare of others, and biospheric values reflect concern with nature and the environment
for the sake of its existence. Hedonic values reflect concern with improving one’s own
feelings and pleasure while reducing effort, and egoistic values reflect increasing one’s
own resources or power [
67
]. Individuals who hold altruistic values will likely consider
the costs and benefits of their actions to other people. Individuals who hold biospheric
values will make choices they believe are likely to benefit the environment [
61
]. Conversely,
those who hold self-enhancement values may consider the personal costs and benefits of
environmental actions and act pro-environmentally only when personal benefit outweighs

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 5 of 18
the personal cost (i.e., if the pro-environmental option is cheaper or more comfortable than
the more environmentally harmful option) [
68
]. Consideration of different value systems
is integral to future research aimed at understanding how to strengthen the values that
promote PEAB.
Table 1. Diverse values related to nature, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life.
Foci of Value Type of Value Examples
Nature Intrinsic
(non-anthropocentric)
Animal welfare/rights
Gaia, Mother Earth
Evolutionary and ecological processes
Genetic diversity, species diversity
Nature’s Contributions
to People Instrumental
(anthropocentric)
Habitat creation and maintenance, ecosystem services, pollination and
propagule dispersal, regulation of climate
Food and feed, energy, materials
Good Quality of Life Relational
(anthropocentric) Physical and experiential interactions with nature, symbolic
meaning, inspiration
Physical, mental, emotional health
Way of life
Cultural identity, sense of place
Social cohesion
Note: Adapted from Pascual et al., 2017 [57].
Measuring environmental values is the first step towards examining patterns of en-
vironmental value norms in populations and applying this knowledge of value norms to
cultivate PEAB. However, measuring abstract concepts such as environmental values is a
challenging task for sociological, psychological, and environmental researchers. A number
of environmental value scales exist, including the Environmental-Schwartz Value Survey (E-
SVS) [
67
], Environmental-Portrait Value Questionnaire (E-PVQ) [
69
], New Environmental
Paradigm (NEP) [
70
,
71
], Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) [
72
], and Ecological World View
(EWV) Scale [
73
] (Table 2). Each of these scales has limitations in methodology and validity
and often positions an individual’s values along a linear continuum from anthropocentric
(i.e., “anti-environmental”) to biocentric (i.e., “pro-environmental”) worldviews [74]. The
two-dimensional measurement of environmental values (2-MEV) expands upon these
widely used frameworks and transitions from a unidimensional to two-dimensional frame-
work, which allows investigators to simultaneously explore environmental attitudes and
behaviors [
75
]. Under this approach, environmental values are determined by an indi-
vidual’s position on two statistically independent dimensions: a biocentric dimension
that reflects conservation and protection of the environment (Preservation or P) and an
anthropocentric dimension that reflects the utilization of natural resources (Utilization
or U) [
76
]. The framework places individuals into one of four quadrants, a schema that
enables mutually high scoring for both Preservation and Utilization, suggesting individ-
uals can simultaneously have biocentric and anthropocentric worldviews [
77
]. Ad hoc
measurements or adaptations of these scales are often created that are best suited to address
specific research questions, limiting the generalizability of findings [78].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 6 of 18
Table 2. Brief descriptions of selected environmental value scales.
Environmental Value
Scale Citation Scale Description
Environmental-
Schwartz Value Survey
(E-SVS) Steg et al., 2014 [67]
A 16-item scale containing descriptions of the biospheric, altruistic,
hedonic, and egoistic values. Items are assessed on a 9-point scale (ranging
from “
−
1 opposed to my values” to “0 not important” to “3 important” to
“6 very important” to “7 of supreme importance”) indicating how
important each value is as a guiding principle in life.
Environmental-
Portrait Value
Questionnaire (E-PVQ)
Bouman et al., 2018 [69]
A 17-item scale adapted from E-SVS. Participants asked to respond on a
7-point scale (ranging from “1 not like me at all” to “7 very much like me”)
how much another (gender-matched) person is similar to themselves in
terms of biospheric, altruistic, hedonic, and egoistic values.
New Environmental
Paradigm (NEP)
Arcury et al., 1986 [70];
Dunlap and Van Liere
2008 [71]
A 12-item scale measuring acceptance of the NEP, which includes
questions related to emerging environmental issues (e.g., limits to growth,
balance of nature, anti-anthropocentrism). Items are assessed on a 4-point
Likert scale and summed to give a rating scale ranging from 12 (i.e.,
complete rejection of the NEP) to 48 (i.e., complete acceptance of the NEP).
Dominant Social
Paradigm (DSP) Dunlap and Van Liere
1984 [72]
A 37-item scale measuring commitment to society’s dominant values and
beliefs across eight dimensions (e.g., support for laissez faire government,
support for status quo, support for private property rights, faith in science
and technology, support for individual rights, support for economic
growth, faith in material abundance, faith in future prosperity). A general
negative association between DSP and environmental concern is strongly
supported in the literature.
Ecological World View
(EWV) Scale Blaikie 1993 [73]
A 24-item scale, including original and modified items from the NEP (6),
DSP (6), and Richmond and Baumgart (8) scales. Items are assessed on a
5-point Likert scale (ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”)
and summed to create a score assigned to one of the following EWV
categories: Very High, High, Moderate, Low.
Two-Dimensional
Measurement of
Environmental Values
(2-MEV)
Bogner 2018 [75]
A 21-item scale measuring factors of preservation, utilization, and
appreciation. Items are assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “1 I
totally disagree” to “5 I totally agree”). A nature-oriented person would
score high in preservation and appreciation, but low in utilization.
3.2. Nature Experiences and Subsequent Attitudes towards Nature
A large body of literature, primarily in the fields of environmental education, envi-
ronmental psychology, and environmental tourism, examines formative experiences in
nature and how these experiences shape an individual’s later attitudes towards the natural
environment (Table 3).
Environmental education research has focused on youth populations who are im-
mersed in educational experiences for short periods of times (e.g., days or weeks), such as
National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) and environmental-focused summer camps.
Researchers examining youth participation in nature-based summer camps versus urban
camps found that nature-based camps increased children’s connection to nature (mea-
sured via the Emotional Affinity towards Nature scale [
79
]), pro-environmental attitudes
(measured via the New Environmental Paradigm scale [
75
]), and willingness to display
pro-environmental behaviors (pre- and post-test assessment of intention to visit nature
and willingness to carry out daily conservation actions and environmental citizenship
behaviors) [
94
]. Researchers have also considered the importance of depth of experience
among student populations, comparing deep nature experiences, (e.g., immersive mul-
tiday backpacking trips) to more mild nature experiences (e.g., walking along a park
trail) [
95
,
96
]. Deep nature experiences were associated with more positive attitudes to-
wards nature, even after controlling for inclement weather and negative nature experiences
(e.g., mosquito bites).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 7 of 18
Table 3. Studies associating forms of nature exposure and experiences with PEAB outcomes.
Nature Experience Citation Direction of PEAB Outcome
Short-term nature
immersion, e.g., NOLS,
summer camp Müller et al., 2009 [79]
Nature-based camps vs. urban camps increased children’s
connection to nature, PEA, and willingness toward PEB
engagement. Deeper nature experiences led to more positive
attitudes toward nature vis àvis mild experiences.
PEA vs. PEB
discretely assessed
van Heezik 2021 [80]Childhood time in nature not associated with increased PEB or
adult time spent in nature in N.Z. study.
Adam 2021 [81]Industrial study of pro-EA and education led to increased PEB in
Indonesia.
PEAB assessed
in tandem
Alcock 2020 [82]Time in nature increased nature appreciation in PB in large
U.K. study.
Prati 2017 [83]
The influence of social identity among Italian college students on
separately measured EA/EB and institutional support for the
environment showed negative relationships for EA on EB and for
EB on EA.
Review papers of
nature exposure and
PEAB
Gralton et al., 2004 [50]Sparse evidence that environmental education leads to long-term
EB change.
Steg and Vlek 2009 [53]Found the design and evaluation of EB change
interventions inconsistent.
Whitburn et al., 2019 [84]
Meta-analysis found that adults more connected to nature appeared
more engaged in PEB, an effect partially explained by deeper
nature connection.
Review paper of
wilderness recreation
experience Holland et al., 2018 [51]Wilderness-based recreation led to enhanced personal
development, pro-social behaviors, mental restoration, and
environmental stewardship outcomes.
Review of childhood
nature experiences
Bratman et al., 2019 [10]
Childhood nature experiences vital for learning, development, and
nurturing environmental stewardship.
Zylstra et al., 2014 [52]Nature connectedness essential for cultivating PEAB in this
multidisciplinary review.
Wells and Lekies 2016 [85]Nature exposure and environmental education in childhood
associated with short-term but not long-term PEAB.
Varied forms of nature
exposure Martin et al., 2020 [86]
Variability of nature exposure associated differently with PEAB.
Nature visits, living in green neighborhoods, and viewing nature
documentaries induced different strengths of PEAB and wellbeing,
as also influenced by levels of nature connectedness.
Environmental
tourism Lee and Jan 2015 [87]
Su, Huang and Pearce 2018 [88]Tourists exposed to nature through learning and education more
positively perceived nature-based environments.
Nature-related
significant life
experiences
D’Amore and Chawla 2012 [89]
Stevenson et al., 2014 [90]
Hsu 2009 [91]
SLE associated with increases in environmental knowledge and
awareness, climate change concern, and conservation behaviors.
Howell and Allen 2019 [92]
Outdoor experiences in childhood shown not to contribute to adult
climate change activism in U.K., and social/environmental justice
concerns outweighed biospheric concerns.
Broom 2017 [93]Those expressing PEA were not more prone to PEB than those not
espousing PEA.
Research weighing the influence of nature experience in cultivating perspectives sym-
pathetic toward the environment overall tends to assess environmental attitudes in tandem
with environmental behaviors. However, individual study results frequently find that
expressed pro-environmental attitudes do not easily translate into manifested behaviors,
such that EA and EB present as different constructs that require discrete evaluation, often
presenting contradictory evidence of the disjoined phenomena. Where one study from

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 8 of 18
New Zealand found that time spent in nature during childhood did not predict PEB or
even adult time in natural spaces [
80
], an industry-based study from Indonesia found
attitudes inclined toward environmental protection did in fact predict PEB [
81
]. Similar
discrepancies in study findings have occurred when PEAB were synchronously assessed as
separate outcomes: whereas time in nature among UK survey takers elicited both greater
appreciation for nature and PEB [
82
], a longitudinal study of Italian students which evalu-
ated the effects of social identify on EA, EB, and institutional support for environmentalism
uncovered negative relationships of EA predicting EB, and vice versa [
83
]. Such gaps be-
tween expressions of and actual engagement in positive environmental change, especially
among young adults, are cautionary concerning legislation surrounding climate change,
for instance.
Recent reviews investigating associations between exposure to nature and PEAB in
children and adults have addressed study gaps brought to light by earlier review papers,
such as sparse evidence that environmental education initiatives may lead to long-term
environmental behavior change [
50
] or shortcomings with the design and evaluation of
environmental behavioral change interventions [
53
]. One systematic review and meta-
analysis found that adults who are more connected to nature reported greater engagement
in pro-environmental behaviors and that a deeper connection to nature may partially
explain why some people behave more pro-environmentally than others [
84
]. Another
systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2016 examined individual psy-
chological, social, and educational outcomes associated with wilderness recreation and
found empirical evidence of multiple benefits, including personal development, prosocial
behaviors, mental restoration, and environmental stewardship [
51
]. Additionally, evidence
from different disciplines converges around nature’s influence on learning, development,
and environmental stewardship [
10
], with more than 50 studies demonstrating nature’s
role in developing PEAB by fostering an emotional connection to nature. An interdisci-
plinary review of literature from the 1970s to the 1990s using nature connectedness as
a core concept emphasized its importance for developing pro-environmental behavioral
outcomes such as environmental conservation [
52
]. However, some inconsistencies ex-
ist in the evidence base. One review of 25 studies focusing on the relationship between
childhood nature experiences and adult environmental attitudes and behaviors suggested
participation in nature-based environmental education programs may lead to short-term
but not necessarily long-term improvement in PEAB [85].
The variety inherent in nature exposure is associated with differential PEAB. Different
forms of nature contact represented by visits to nature areas, living in a green neighborhood,
and nature documentary watching on both nature connectedness and PEAB were studied
among nearly 5000 English adults [
86
]. Weekly visits to nature areas promoted both
wellbeing and nature conservation behaviors, though the strength of this relationship varied
according to underlying nature connectedness; watching nature conservation programs
resulted in significantly higher eudaimonic wellbeing (i.e., related to meaning and purpose)
and a greater tendency to engage in pro-environmental behaviors compared to those
who did not watch nature documentaries. Individuals who reported higher pre-existing
nature connectedness also increased their pro-environmental behaviors after watching
conservation documentaries.
An emerging research area focuses on adult perceptions of the environment acquired
through environmental tourism intended to minimize the impact on sensitive ecosystems,
promote environmental protection, and contribute to local economic sustainability through
travel. Research demonstrates that increased environmental tourist participation and
nature engagement was associated with increased positive perceptions of nature. Tourist
participation suggests that the more individuals learn about and interact with environments,
the more topophilic (i.e., place-connected) they feel, with such experiences leading to
greater positivity toward nature [87,88].
The existing evidence on nature-related significant life experiences, broadly recognized
as influential childhood play outdoors and people who provided healthy introductions to

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 9 of 18
nature, and subsequent PEAB is inconsistent. Associations between significant life experi-
ences in nature and adult PEAB are documented across age, race, and country of origin and
point to varied manifestations of PEAB, including environmental knowledge and awareness,
climate change concern, and conservation behaviors [
89
–
92
]. There is also evidence of null
associations, which nonetheless bring forth other possible relational pathways. An examina-
tion of significant life experiences and formative influences outdoors among UK residents
involved in climate change education and mitigation concluded that outdoor experiences in
childhood were not a significant contributor to adult climate change concern or activism [
92
].
Rather, social and environmental justice concerns were more important than biospheric
concerns, suggesting that climate change concern may be rooted in other relational values
and not in nature connectedness. A study of Australian university students showed that
positive childhood experiences in nature were associated with pro-environmental attitudes
in adults but not necessarily with pro-environmental behaviors [
93
]. Participants who
indicated pro-environmental attitudes did not engage in more pro-environmental behaviors
than did participants who held less pro-environmental attitudes.
3.3. Socioeconomic Status, Race, Geography, and Access Barriers and Pro-Environmental Attitudes
and Behaviors
Different demographic, cultural, and national contexts magnify the challenge of
interpreting how exposure to nature influences PEAB. The ways in which socioeconomic
status, physical identifiers of race, cultural heritage or place of origin as ethnicity markers,
geography, and country of residence that shape and potentially moderate these associations
create additional layers of complexity for interpreting early life nature exposure as a
predictor of adult PEAB. Inconsistencies in defining nature exposure and interventions
across these contexts present a challenge to drawing reliable comparisons. Furthermore,
the terminology used to discuss humans’ relationship to nature has an Anglo-centric focus,
e.g., stronger individualistic vis àvis community or topophilic identity, likely reflecting
many researchers’ origins. One strong exception considers cultural connectedness to the
land and environment through the research lens of Indigenous values [97].
Though the scientific literature is sparse, some evidence suggests effect modification of
associations between nature exposure and PEAB by culture and regional influence (Table 4).
The relatively few existing studies demonstrate how socioeconomic status or race modifies
these associations between nature exposure and PEAB. One multinational study conducted
in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, India, New Zealand, and Russia supports the cross-
cultural generalizability of the relationship between values and attitudes and the structure
of environmental concern [
30
]. Across all countries evaluated, self-transcendent values
were positively associated with PEAB, while self-enhancement values were negatively
associated with PEAB. Findings from this study are consistent with a separate 14-country
multinational study among college students in the U.S., Canada, and several Spanish-
speaking countries in the Americas conducted by the same researchers [68].
Some studies have explicitly explored race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors as
modifiers of PEAB. For example, researchers examined demographic factors that may
influence American college students’ attitudes towards nature and found that white stu-
dents had fewer negative feelings toward nature (i.e., fear of nature, disconnection with
nature) than students of other races [
98
]. Further, gender, age, parental education, and
first-generation college student status were important predictors of attitudes toward nature
beyond race. For instance, parent’s educational attainment influenced thinking about both
natural and human-made hazards, and first-generation college students were more likely
to perceive nature as loathsome and fearful places, which could negatively influence these
individuals’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. Historical, cultural, and racial factors
play a role in determining attitudes towards nature. For example, an influential study
examining African American park visitors’ various outdoor experiences argued that a
history of slavery and racial violence has shaped cultural attitudes towards the "great out-
doors" and has determined who should and can have access to natural spaces (e.g., national
parks) [
99
]. Research exploring the cultural and historical foundations of continued nonuse

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 10 of 18
of nature [
100
], the imperatives of nature equity [
101
], and the need for environmental
education shaped by diverse racial perspectives [
102
] derives from this foundational work.
More inclusive assessment studies based on cultural historicity, community values, and
urban and rural land uses could elucidate potential modifying roles of race and ethnicity
on the relationship between nature exposure and PEAB.
Table 4. Studies associating specific cultural and sociodemographic attributes with PEAB outcomes.
Cultural or SD Attribute Citation Direction of PEAB Outcome
Nationally measured
cultural values toward the
environment
Schultz et al., 2005 [30]
Schultz and Zelezny 1999 [68]
Multinational studies support cross-cultural generalizability
relating EA and environmental concern. Self-transcendent values
link to PEAB. Same outcomes realized across the Americas.
Race, ethnicity, and SES as
PEAB modifiers
Taylor 2019 [98]
Race but also academic interests, gender, age, parents’ education,
and first-generation college status impact how college students
think of nature.
Finney 2014 [99]NPS origins of 1964 Wilderness Act reflect prevailing cultural
leadership of time and not current diversity of user public.
Theriault and Mowatt 2020 [
100
]
History of African American relationship toward wilderness is
examined through dialectic of historical periods and
environmental affordances.
Jelks et al., 2021 [101]Review of green gentrification of marginalized communities
suggests a worsening divide in health and wellbeing between old
and new residents.
Stapleton 2020 [102]Sociohistorical shaping of race-based perspectives toward
environmental issues requires that environmental education be
recast to reflect broader experience.
Urbanization patterns
Broom 2017 [93]Positive childhood exposures to nature resulted in increased EA
but did not necessarily translate into EB.
Marczak and Sorokowski 2018
[103]
Despite general pro-nature attitudes among Kenyan
agriculturalists, economic dependency on natural environments
associated negatively with nature connectedness.
Barriers to accessing
positive nature
experiences
Holland et al., 2018 [51]Examines unique contributions of wildlife experience, finding
value in programmatic and leadership aspects, and research gaps
on setting’s importance.
Zylstra et al., 2014 [52]
Measured connectedness with nature manifests as prerequisite for
PEAB and socially desired conservation outcomes.
Whitburn et al., 2019 [84]Meta-analysis of nature connectedness finds significant and
positive relationship with PEAB.
Lekies and Wells 2016 [85]
Kellert 2018 [104]
Childhood experiences in nature associated with adult
environmentalism, with wild nature experiences more strongly
manifested than with domesticated nature.
Urbanization has changed patterns in childhood play in nature that may impact adult
environmental attitudes and behaviors. An Australian study found that urban dwellers
stated they “loved” or “somewhat loved” nature more often than rural dwellers, though
expressed love of nature did not differ significantly across socioeconomic classes within
urbanicity strata [
93
]. A study in Kenya showed that economic dependency on surrounding
natural environments diminished connectedness with nature and adult PEAB. Specifically,
a more traditional lifestyle among the Meru people of Kenya was negatively associated with
emotional connectedness to nature [
103
]. These findings suggest that nature contact under
conditions of direct dependence on the natural environment may negatively influence
individuals’ feelings toward nature.
Barriers to positive nature experiences are not primarily weather based, although
certain types of weather (e.g., rain, cold temperatures) restrict people from spending

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 11 of 18
time in nature [
51
]. In addition, research suggests that prior perceptions of weather and
personal preferences play a role in nature experience [
52
]. For instance, people from
colder climates are more likely to spend time in nature, regardless of degree of cold,
whereas people from warmer climates are more likely to perceive cold temperature as
a barrier to engaging in nature experiences. Furthermore, more time spent in nature is
associated with increased self-worth and self-efficacy in the face of challenges [
84
]. Studies
of environmental experience across different natural landscapes (i.e., varying vegetation
types and densities) reveal that isolated and enclosed spaces appear to be less desirable
than forested areas and open landscapes or viewsheds, suggesting that natural landscape
type might moderate experiences in nature [85,104].
4. Discussion
Research indicates that overall time spent in nature, regardless of the quality of
environmental conditions, leads to increased perceived values ascribed to nature, which is
associated with PEAB [
105
]. While associations between time spent outdoors or in nature
in childhood and PEAB is well-studied, research exploring the influence of time spent
outdoors in nature and demonstration of PEAB is predominantly cross-sectional and not
assessed longitudinally. Furthermore, a multitude of personal and social factors, including
childhood experience, knowledge and education, personality, values, worldviews, goals,
felt responsibility, cognitive biases, place attachment, age, gender, religion, urban–rural
differences, norms, socioeconomic status, and proximity to problematic environmental
sites, may influence PEAB [
106
,
107
]. Thus, more longitudinal studies that consider these
factors are needed to assess duration and frequency of time spent in nature in childhood
and its impact on PEAB throughout the life course.
There are several explanations for the shallow evidence base across demographic and
cultural contexts analyzing childhood predictors of adult environmental attitudes and
behaviors. First, the current evidence base is limited by the use of convenience samples of
university students, which minimizes variability in participants’ socioeconomic status, and
is conducted in relatively homogeneous societies (e.g., Scandinavia, Australia) rather than
across subpopulations of interest. Second, comparisons of adult environmental attitudes
and behavioral outcomes across demographics or countries require that time spent in nature
be consistently defined at baseline in a way that ensures inclusivity and equity. Third,
cross-cultural comparisons should consider the quantity and quality of the surrounding
biodiversity that may impact associations with nature exposure and urban socioeconomic
factors. Furthermore, inconsistent development and deployment of tools to measure nature
exposure make it difficult to identify which specific elements of nature contact most directly
stimulate pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral change.
4.1. Data Gaps and Limitations
While the literature demonstrates associations between exposure to nature and PEAB,
much is still unknown, such as how different nature qualities and interactions with nature
differentially impact individuals’ PEAB [
44
,
108
], how to account for different types of
nature exposure (e.g., green space, blue space, deserts) [
109
], and the mechanistic pathways
for the associations of nature contact and PEAB.
Several limitations constrain the research of how nature experiences shape PEAB.
A lack of longitudinal studies limits knowledge on how perceptions of nature change
over time within individuals and how singular events (e.g., environmental tourism and
short-term educational experiences in youth) may impact one’s long-term perception of
nature. Many of the studies we examined are cross-sectional, making it difficult to deter-
mine whether positive associations between nature experiences and PEAB attenuate with
time elapsed since the experience. Additional research examining mechanistic pathways
activated by childhood nature exposure and outdoor play that may foster PEAB throughout
the life course is needed.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 12 of 18
It is critical to recognize that what qualifies as a significant nature experience can
vary across individuals and populations, which may result in differing outcomes related
to connection to nature in childhood. Furthermore, nature affinity in childhood may
evolve over time as one’s experiences (e.g., frequency of experience, type of experience)
in nature change [
110
]. Current findings from small-scale interventions evaluating nature
exposure and changes in environmental attitudes and behaviors may not translate to larger
system-wide studies to increase nature exposure across population groups.
It remains unclear how differences in frequency and the duration of nature exposure
across the life course in understudied populations might affect PEAB. While research
indicates that aging positively impacts perceptions of nature [
111
,
112
], too few studies
have considered the influence of disabilities [
113
]; older and disabled individuals encounter
more barriers to spending time in and making connections with the natural world [
114
].
Most research to date is focused on higher-income, Western, and relatively homogeneous
populations, which limits opportunities to compare the influence of nature exposure both
within and across populations by urban–rural gradient, sociodemographic characteristics,
ecological knowledge, cultural attributes, and prioritized values. Socioeconomic status
may pose a significant barrier to engaging in formative childhood nature experiences which
are associated with the connection to nature in adulthood [
115
]; however, few studies have
examined financial means and access to nature experiences [116,117].
4.2. Future Research Directions
4.2.1. Enhancing Study Design
Availability of and access to nature is important but sometimes insufficient to encour-
age its use, which may play a role in the development of PEAB. Identifying interventions
and system-level changes that can lead to increased and more equitable exposure to and
engagement with nature is necessary. Few longitudinal studies exist that track whether,
how, and why individuals have contact with nature and how their attitudes and behaviors
towards nature evolve over longer time periods. Consequently, many researchers call for
high-quality longitudinal, population-level analyses to build upon the plethora of evidence
from small-scale nature interventions. It may be helpful to describe nature in terms of
availability, access, quality, and usage to examine associations across socioeconomic status,
age, race, geographic location, and cultures to ensure inclusivity. Although some longitu-
dinal research has been conducted [
118
,
119
], more is needed at the population level that
integrates previously mentioned factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, age, race).
A substantial amount of research documents associations between children’s exposure
to nature and various emotional and cognitive outcomes and the development of pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviors. Moving forward, there is a need for multinational
studies featuring multiple sites of varying population densities, socioeconomic levels, and
demographic makeups that will assess the frequency and duration of nature exposure
and subsequent attitudes towards nature among a cohort of children. Relating these
predictor variables to standardized outcomes (e.g., PEAB) will aid in the formulation of
a baseline set of global indicators that may also help delineate patterns of frequency and
duration in nature and outcomes predicted by measured contact. Another important area
of interest is the role of nature exposure on children in transition, such as children of recent
immigrants, children whose families have recently urbanized, or children in shelters or
temporary homes. Determining how these factors might impact PEAB in both childhood
and adulthood is timely and critical.
4.2.2. Improving Assessment of Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors
Future research on environmental values should focus on revising measurement tools
to encompass research needs and determine which specific types of nature contact most
directly impact pro-environmental behaviors to inform development of environmental
interventions and programs. Consideration of different values is integral to future research
aimed at understanding ways to prioritize PEAB. Future studies should aim to determine

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 13 of 18
how biospheric values can be strengthened and activated to increase pro-environmental
behaviors [
61
]. While some two dozen iterations of a nature connectedness scale have
been developed to assess the predictive relationship of connection to nature and PEAB,
relatively few studies have looked at environmental behaviors as an outcome of nature
exposure [
86
]. More research on the linkages between PEAB with nature and global
sustainability outcomes is warranted. Individuals who spend more time in nature tend
to be both healthier as well as more inclined towards PEAB to mitigate climate change.
Thus, research into nature exposure and environmental attitudes and behaviors should be
updated to include climate-related outcomes.
4.2.3. Furthering Mechanistic Research
The mechanisms through which early time spent in nature might influence PEAB are
not well understood. Early exposure to nature could be based on positive, significant life
experiences or, conversely, exposure could serve as a buffer against the later-life effects
of adverse childhood experiences that influence PEAB [
120
]. One potential mechanistic
pathway for PEAB is attention restoration, with perceived restorativeness from nature
reinforcing the relationship between environmental knowledge and pro-environmental
behavior [
121
]. A second proposed mechanism is detachment from materialistic values,
where one imagines personal worth derived from possessions and status, in spite of
the negative environmental impact of overconsumption. Exposure to nature has been
associated with decreased materialistic impulses among individuals directed to nature-
based imagery relative to viewers of urban scenes and activated altruism as a mediator of
diminished materialism [122], lending credence to this mechanism.
Disentangling mechanistic pathways will be critical for designing and evaluating inter-
ventions that aim to promote PEAB, such as environmental education programming [
106
].
The field would benefit immensely from studies that assess PEAB beginning early in life
and following participants throughout the life course to examine changes to individual set
(e.g., cultural values) and setting (e.g., built and natural environments). Future mechanistic
studies should include ecological momentary assessments, which involve the repeated
sampling of participants’ current behaviors, emotions, and experiences in real time as
participants move throughout natural environments [
123
], and the effect of in situ na-
ture contact on pro-environmental inclinations. The theories presented in this section
are anthropocentric, and the field would benefit immensely from future research using a
relational theoretical approach, where humans are considered part of, rather than distinct
from, ecology [124,125].
5. Conclusions
Substantial evidence from observational and intervention studies indicates that overall
time spent in nature is associated with increased perceived value for and connection to
nature and, subsequently, greater PEAB. The current evidence base is limited by several
factors, including primarily cross-sectional studies, a lack of mechanistic research, and
inconsistencies in the assessment of nature exposure and PEAB. We suggest several future
research directions (enhancing study design, improving assessment of PEAB, and further-
ing mechanistic research), each of which underscores the importance of promoting time
spent in nature and PEAB in the face of growing challenges to planetary health.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, N.V.D., L.P.T. and P.J.; methodology, N.V.D., L.P.T. and
P.J.; writing—original draft preparation, N.V.D., L.P.T., O.P.S., G.E.W. and P.J.; writing—review and
editing, N.V.D., L.P.T., O.P.S., G.E.W., T.H.H., K.L.W., E.B., P.H.K.J. and P.J.; supervision, P.J.; project
administration, N.V.D.; funding acquisition, P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by The National Geographic Society and NIH grants R00
CA201542, R01 HL150119, and T32 ES007069. T.H.H. is supported by a gift from The Negaunee
Foundation to the Laboratory for Human Biology Research, Department of Anthropology, North-
western University.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 14 of 18
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments:
We thank Louise Chawla and Rebecca Lovell for their early contributions to the
ideas that led to the development of this paper. We appreciate the time and input from the following
individuals who provided feedback on an early draft of this review: Elise G. Elliott, Marcia I. Pescador
Jimenez, and Jaime E. Hart.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014,35, 207–228. [CrossRef]
2.
van den Bosch, M.; Ode Sang, Å. Urban Natural Environments as Nature-Based Solutions for Improved Public Health–A
Systematic Review of Reviews. Environ. Res. 2017,158, 373–384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Zhang, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhao, B.; Sun, R.; Vejre, H. Links between Green Space and Public Health: A Bibliometric Review of Global
Research Trends and Future Prospects from 1901 to 2019. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020,15, 063001. [CrossRef]
4.
Jimenez, M.P.; DeVille, N.V.; Elliott, E.G.; Schiff, J.E.; Wilt, G.E.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. Associations between Nature Exposure and
Health: A Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 4790. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Dadvand, P.; Bartoll, X.; Basagana, X.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; Martinez, D.; Ambros, A.; Cirach, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.;
Borrell, C.; et al. Green Spaces and General Health: Roles of Mental Health Status, Social Support, and Physical Activity. Environ.
Int. 2016,91, 161–167. [CrossRef]
6.
Dadvand, P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Green Space and Health. In Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning: A
Framework; Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Khreis, H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 409–423. ISBN
978-3-319-74983-9.
7.
Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martinez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Forns, J.; Plasencia, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Mental Health Benefits
of Long-Term Exposure to Residential Green and Blue Spaces: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2015
,12,
4354–4379. [CrossRef]
8.
Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2018,15, 445. [CrossRef]
9.
van den Berg, M.; van Poppel, M.; van Kamp, I.; Andrusaityte, S.; Balseviciene, B.; Cirach, M.; Danileviciute, A.; Ellis, N.; Hurst,
G.; Masterson, D.; et al. Visiting Green Space Is Associated with Mental Health and Vitality: A Cross-Sectional Study in Four
European Cities. Health Place 2016,38, 8–15. [CrossRef]
10.
Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.;
et al. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019,5, eaax0903. [CrossRef]
11.
Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Residential Green
Spaces and Mortality: A Systematic Review. Environ. Int. 2016,86, 60–67. [CrossRef]
12.
Larson, L.R.; Whiting, J.W.; Green, G.T. Exploring the Influence of Outdoor Recreation Participation on Pro-Environmental
Behaviour in a Demographically Diverse Population. Local Environ. 2011,16, 67–86. [CrossRef]
13.
Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-Based Environmental Education of Children: Environmental Knowledge and Connectedness to
Nature, Together, Are Related to Ecological Behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017,47, 88–94. [CrossRef]
14.
Lawrence, E.K. Visitation to Natural Areas on Campus and Its Relation to Place Identity and Environmentally Responsible
Behaviors. J. Environ. Educ. 2012,43, 93–106. [CrossRef]
15.
Byrka, K.; Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G. Environmental Attitude as a Mediator of the Relationship between Psychological Restoration in
Nature and Self-Reported Ecological Behavior. Psychol. Rep. 2010,107, 847–859. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Collado, S.; Corraliza, J.A. Children’s Restorative Experiences and Self-Reported Environmental Behaviors. Environ. Behav.
2015
,
47, 38–56. [CrossRef]
17.
Choi, A.S.; Fielding, K.S. Environmental Attitudes as WTP Predictors: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecol. Econ.
2013,89, 24–32. [CrossRef]
18.
Martín-López, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. The Non-Economic Motives behind the Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation.
Biol. Conserv. 2007,139, 67–82. [CrossRef]
19.
Zelenika, I.; Moreau, T.; Lane, O.; Zhao, J. Sustainability Education in a Botanical Garden Promotes Environmental Knowledge,
Attitudes and Willingness to Act. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018,24, 1581–1596. [CrossRef]
20.
Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A
Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987,18, 1–8. [CrossRef]
21.
Rosa, C.D.; Profice, C.C.; Collado, S. Nature Experiences and Adults’ Self-Reported Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Role of
Connectedness to Nature and Childhood Nature Experiences. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 1055. [CrossRef]
22. Clements, R. An Investigation of the Status of Outdoor Play. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 2004,5, 68–80. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 15 of 18
23.
Larson, L.R.; Green, G.T.; Cordell, H.K. Children’s Time Outdoors: Results and Implications of the National Kids Survey. J. Park
Recreat. Adm. 2011,29, 1–20.
24.
Larson, L.R.; Szczytko, R.; Bowers, E.P.; Stephens, L.E.; Stevenson, K.T.; Floyd, M.F. Outdoor Time, Screen Time, and Connection
to Nature: Troubling Trends Among Rural Youth? Environ. Behav. 2019,51, 966–991. [CrossRef]
25. Moss, S. Natural Childhood; UK National Trust: Swindon, UK, 2012.
26.
Natural England. Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) Survey: Headline Report from the 2015-16 Survey;
Natural England: York, UK, 2017.
27.
Chawla, L. Childhood Nature Connection and Constructive Hope: A Review of Research on Connecting with Nature and Coping
with Environmental Loss. People Nat. 2020,2, 619–642. [CrossRef]
28.
Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P.; Montarzino, A. The Childhood Factor: Adult Visits to Green Places and the Significance of
Childhood Experience. Environ. Behav. 2008,40, 111–143. [CrossRef]
29. Evans, G.W. Projected Behavioral Impacts of Global Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019,70, 449–474. [CrossRef]
30.
Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, D.; Schmuck, P.; Franˇek, M. Values and Their Relationship to Environmental
Concern and Conservation Behavior. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2005,36, 457–475. [CrossRef]
31.
Kahn, P.H.; Lourenço, O. Water, Air, Fire, and Earth: A Developmental Study in Portugal of Environmental Moral Reasoning.
Environ. Behav. 2002,34, 405–430. [CrossRef]
32.
Severson, R.L.; Kahn, P.H. In the Orchard: Farm Worker Children’s Moral and Environmental Reasoning. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.
2010,31, 249–256. [CrossRef]
33.
Kahn, P.H.; Friedman, B. Environmental Views and Values of Children in an Inner-City Black Community. Child Dev.
1995
,66,
1403–1417. [CrossRef]
34.
Kahn, P.H. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999;
ISBN 978-0-262-11240-6.
35.
Van Liere, K.D.; Noe, F.P. Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Attitudes: Further Examination of the Dunlap-Heffernan
Thesis. Rural Sociol. 1981,46, 505–513.
36.
Mayer, F.S.; Frantz, C.M. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature. J.
Environ. Psychol. 2004,24, 503–515. [CrossRef]
37.
Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Weber, D. The Measurement of Place Attachment: Personal, Community, and Environmental
Connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010,30, 422–434. [CrossRef]
38. Clowney, D. Biophilia as an Environmental Virtue. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013,26, 999–1014. [CrossRef]
39.
Zhang, W.; Goodale, E.; Chen, J. How Contact with Nature Affects Children’s Biophilia, Biophobia and Conservation Attitude in
China. Biol. Conserv. 2014,177, 109–116. [CrossRef]
40.
Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Yamaura, Y.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Both Direct and Vicarious Experiences of Nature Affect Children’s
Willingness to Conserve Biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016,13, 529. [CrossRef]
41.
Escario, J.-J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Casaló, L.V. The Influence of Environmental Attitudes and Perceived Effectiveness on
Recycling, Reducing, and Reusing Packaging Materials in Spain. Waste Manag. 2020,113, 251–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants
of pro-Environmental Behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007,27, 14–25. [CrossRef]
43.
Pensini, P.; Horn, E.; Caltabiano, N.J. An Exploration of the Relationships between Adults’ Childhood and Current Nature
Exposure and Their Mental Well-Being. Child. Youth Environ. 2016,26, 125–147. [CrossRef]
44. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.;
et al. Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017,125, 075001. [CrossRef]
45.
Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What Are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2013,10, 913–935. [CrossRef]
46.
Rosa, C.; Collado, S. Experiences in Nature and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Setting the Ground for Future Research.
Front. Psychol. 2019,10, 763. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Tandon, P.S.; Zhou, C.; Christakis, D.A. Frequency of Parent-Supervised Outdoor Play of US Preschool-Aged Children. Arch.
Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2012,166. [CrossRef]
48. Hartig, T.; Kahn, P.H. Living in Cities, Naturally. Science 2016,352, 938–940. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Valentine, G.; McKendrick, J. Children’s Outdoor Play: Exploring Parental Concerns about Children’s Safety and the Changing
Nature of Childhood. Geoforum 1997,28, 219–235. [CrossRef]
50.
Gralton, A.; Sinclair, M.; Purnell, K. Changes in Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviour: A Critical Review of Research into the Impacts
of Environmental Education Initiatives. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2004,20, 41–52. [CrossRef]
51.
Holland, W.H.; Powell, R.B.; Thomsen, J.M.; Monz, C.A. A Systematic Review of the Psychological, Social, and Educational
Outcomes Associated With Participation in Wildland Recreational Activities. J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh.
2018
,10.
[CrossRef]
52.
Zylstra, M.J.; Knight, A.T.; Esler, K.J.; Le Grange, L.L.L. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary
Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci. Rev. 2014,2, 119–143. [CrossRef]
53.
Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.
2009,29, 309–317. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 16 of 18
54.
Kuo, M.; Barnes, M.; Jordan, C. Do Experiences with Nature Promote Learning? Converging Evidence of a Cause-and-Effect
Relationship. Front. Psychol. 2019,10. [CrossRef]
55.
Annerstedt van den Bosch, M.; Depledge, M.H. Healthy People with Nature in Mind. BMC Public Health
2015
,15, 1232. [CrossRef]
56.
Madan, C.; MacIntyre, T.E.; Beckmann, J.; Cappuccio, M. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Nature. In Physical Activity in Natural
Settings: Green and Blue Exercise; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-351-71845-5.
57.
Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Ba¸sak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al.
Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017,26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef]
58.
Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Adv.
Exp. Psychol. 1992,25, 1–65.
59. Schwartz, S.H. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012,2. [CrossRef]
60.
de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure
Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value Orientations. Environ. Behav. 2008,40, 330–354. [CrossRef]
61. Steg, L.; de Groot, J.I.M. Environmental Values. Oxford Handb. Environ. Conserv. Psychol. 2012. [CrossRef]
62.
Chan, K.M.A.; Balvanera, P.; Benessaiah, K.; Chapman, M.; Díaz, S.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Gould, R.; Hannahs, N.; Jax, K.;
Klain, S.; et al. Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2016
,113, 1462–1465.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Levenson, M.R.; Jennings, P.A.; Aldwin, C.M.; Shiraishi, R.W. Self-Transcendence: Conceptualization and Measurement. Int. J.
Aging Hum. Dev. 2005,60, 127–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64.
Collins, C.M.; Steg, L.; Koning, M.A.S. Customers’ Values, Beliefs on Sustainable Corporate Performance, and Buying Behavior.
Psychol. Mark. 2007,24, 555–577. [CrossRef]
65. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value Structures behind Proenvironmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002,34, 740–756. [CrossRef]
66.
Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Effects of Values, Problem Awareness, and Personal Norm on Willingness to Reduce Personal Car Use.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2003,23, 339–347. [CrossRef]
67.
Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E.; Lurvink, J. The Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant Attitudes,
Preferences, and Actions. Environ. Behav. 2014,46, 163–192. [CrossRef]
68.
Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L. Values as Predictors of Environmental Attitudes: Evidence for Consistency Across 14 Countries. J.
Environ. Psychol. 1999,19, 255–265. [CrossRef]
69.
Bouman, T.; Steg, L.; Kiers, H.A.L. Measuring Values in Environmental Research: A Test of an Environmental Portrait Value
Questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 564. [CrossRef]
70.
Arcury, T.A.; Johnson, T.P.; Scollay, S.J. Ecological Worldview and Environmental Knowledge: The “New Environmental
Paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1986,17, 35–40. [CrossRef]
71. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The New Environmental Paradigm. J. Environ. Educ. 2008,40, 19–28. [CrossRef]
72.
Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality. Soc. Sci. Q.
1984,65, 1013–1028.
73.
Blaikie, N. Education and Environmentalism: Ecological World Views and Environmentally Responsible Behaviour. Aust. J.
Environ. Educ. 1993,9, 1–20. [CrossRef]
74.
Manoli, C.C.; Johnson, B.; Dunlap, R.E. Assessing Children’s Environmental Worldviews: Modifying and Validating the New
Ecological Paradigm Scale for Use With Children. J. Environ. Educ. Madison 2007,38, 3–13. [CrossRef]
75. Bogner, F. Environmental Values (2-MEV) and Appreciation of Nature. Sustainability 2018,10, 350. [CrossRef]
76.
Wiseman, M.; Bogner, F. A Higher-Order Model of Ecological Values and Its Relationship to Personality. Personal. Individ. Differ.
2003,34, 783–794. [CrossRef]
77.
Manoli, C.; Johnson, B.; Buxner, S.; Bogner, F. Measuring Environmental Perceptions Grounded on Different Theoretical Models:
The 2-Major Environmental Values (2-MEV) Model in Comparison with the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. Sustainability
2019,11, 1286. [CrossRef]
78.
Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring Pro-Environmental Behavior: Review and Recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol.
2019
,63,
92–100. [CrossRef]
79.
Müller, M.; Kals, E.; Pansa, R. Adolescents’ Emotional Affinity toward Nature: A Cross-Societal Study. J. Dev. Process.
2009
,4,
59–69.
80.
van Heezik, Y.; Freeman, C.; Falloon, A.; Buttery, Y.; Heyzer, A. Relationships between Childhood Experience of Nature and
Green/Blue Space Use, Landscape Preferences, Connection with Nature and pro-Environmental Behavior. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2021,213, 104135. [CrossRef]
81.
Adam, D.; Siregar, E.; Musannip, Z.; Supriadi, E.; Ende, Y. Environmental Concern and Environmental Knowledge, Attitude
toward Pro-Environmental Behavior as Predictors of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Textile Industry in Indonesia.
Calitatea 2021,22, 138–144.
82.
Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Duarte-Davidson, R.; Fleming, L.E. Associations between Pro-Environmental Behaviour and
Neighbourhood Nature, Nature Visit Frequency and Nature Appreciation: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey in
England. Environ. Int. 2020,136, 105441. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83.
Prati, G.; Albanesi, C.; Pietrantoni, L. The Interplay among Environmental Attitudes, pro-Environmental Behavior, Social Identity,
and pro-Environmental Institutional Climate. A Longitudinal Study. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017,23, 176–191. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 17 of 18
84.
Whitburn, J.; Linklater, W.; Abrahamse, W. Meta-Analysis of Human Connection to Nature and Proenvironmental Behavior.
Conserv. Biol. 2020,34, 180–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Wells, N.M.; Lekies, K.S. Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism.
Child. Youth Environ. 2006,16, 1–24.
86.
Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature Contact, Nature Connectedness and Associations with
Health, Wellbeing and pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020,68, 101389. [CrossRef]
87.
Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.-H. The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally
Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Environ. Manag. 2015,56, 193–208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88.
Su, L.; Huang, S.S.; Pearce, J. How Does Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behaviour?
A Destination Resident Perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2018,86, 179–189. [CrossRef]
89.
D’Amore, C.; Chawla, L. Significant Life Experiences that Connect Children with Nature: A Research Review and Applications to
a Family Nature Club. In Research Handbook on Childhoodnature: Assemblages of Childhood and Nature Research; Cutter-Mackenzie-
Knowles, A., Malone, K., Barratt Hacking, E., Eds.; Springer International Handbooks of Education; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 799–825. ISBN 978-3-319-67286-1.
90.
Stevenson, K.T.; Peterson, M.N.; Carrier, S.J.; Strnad, R.L.; Bondell, H.D.; Kirby-Hathaway, T.; Moore, S.E. Role of Significant Life
Experiences in Building Environmental Knowledge and Behavior Among Middle School Students. J. Environ. Educ.
2014
,45,
163–177. [CrossRef]
91.
Hsu, S.-J. Significant Life Experiences Affect Environmental Action: A Confirmation Study in Eastern Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res.
2009,15, 497–517. [CrossRef]
92.
Howell, R.A.; Allen, S. Significant Life Experiences, Motivations and Values of Climate Change Educators. Environ. Educ. Res.
2019,25, 813–831. [CrossRef]
93.
Broom, C. Exploring the Relations Between Childhood Experiences in Nature and Young Adults’ Environmental Attitudes and
Behaviours. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2017,33, 34–47. [CrossRef]
94. Collado, S.; Staats, H.; Corraliza, J.A. Experiencing Nature in Children’s Summer Camps: Affective, Cognitive and Behavioural
Consequences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013,33, 37–44. [CrossRef]
95.
Dorwart, C.E.; Moore, R.L.; Leung, Y.-F. Visitors’ Perceptions of a Trail Environment and Effects on Experiences: A Model for
Nature-Based Recreation Experiences. Leis. Sci. 2009,32, 33–54. [CrossRef]
96.
Okada, M.; Okamura, T.; Zushi, K. The Effects of In-Depth Outdoor Experience on Attitudes toward Nature. J. Outdoor Recreat.
Educ. Leadersh. 2013,5, 192–209. [CrossRef]
97.
Keaulana, S.; Kahili-Heede, M.; Riley, L.; Park, M.L.N.; Makua, K.L.; Vegas, J.K.; Antonio, M.C.K. A Scoping Review of Nature,
Land, and Environmental Connectedness and Relatedness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 5897. [CrossRef]
98.
Taylor, D.E. College Students and Nature: Differing Thoughts of Fear, Danger, Disconnection, and Loathing. Environ. Manag.
2019,64, 79–96. [CrossRef]
99.
Finney, C. Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors; UNC Press Books:
Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4696-1449-6.
100.
Theriault, D.; Mowatt, R. Both Sides Now: Transgression and Oppression in African Americans’ Historical Relationships with
Nature. Leis. Sci. 2020,42, 15–31. [CrossRef]
101.
Jelks, N.; Jennings, V.; Rigolon, A. Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health
2021
,
18, 907. [CrossRef]
102.
Stapleton, S. Toward Critical Environmental Education: A Standpoint Analysis of Race in the American Environmental Context.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2020,26, 155–170. [CrossRef]
103.
Marczak, M.; Sorokowski, P. Emotional Connectedness to Nature Is Meaningfully Related to Modernization. Evidence From the
Meru of Kenya. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 1789. [CrossRef]
104. Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-0-300-21453-6.
105.
Ojala, A. The Interaction between Emotional Connectedness to Nature and Leisure Activities in Predicting Ecological Worldview.
Umweltpsychologie 2009,13, 10–22.
106.
Brymer, E.; Davids, K. Ecological Dynamics as a Theoretical Framework for Development of Sustainable Behaviours towards the
Environment. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013,19, 45–63. [CrossRef]
107.
Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and Social Factors That Influence Pro-Environmental Concern and Behaviour: A Review. Int. J.
Psychol. 2014,49, 141–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Frumkin, H. The Evidence of Nature and the Nature of Evidence. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013,44, 196–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109.
Wheeler, B.W.; Lovell, R.; Higgins, S.L.; White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Osborne, N.J.; Husk, K.; Sabel, C.E.; Depledge, M.H. Beyond
Greenspace: An Ecological Study of Population General Health and Indicators of Natural Environment Type and Quality. Int. J.
Health Geogr. 2015,14, 17. [CrossRef]
110.
Giusti, M.; Svane, U.; Raymond, C.M.; Beery, T.H. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect to Nature. Front.
Psychol. 2017,8, 2283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111.
Cervinka, R.; Röderer, K.; Hefler, E. Are Nature Lovers Happy? On Various Indicators of Well-Being and Connectedness with
Nature. J. Health Psychol. 2012,17, 379–388. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,18, 7498 18 of 18
112.
Bell, S.L.; Phoenix, C.; Lovell, R.; Wheeler, B.W. Green Space, Health and Wellbeing: Making Space for Individual Agency. Health
Place 2014,30, 287–292. [CrossRef]
113.
Burns, R.; Graefe, A. Constraints to Outdoor Recreation: Exploring the Effects of Disabilities on Perceptions and Participation. J.
Leis. Res. 2007,39, 156–181. [CrossRef]
114.
Rantakokko, M.; Iwarsson, S.; Mänty, M.; Leinonen, R.; Rantanen, T. Perceived Barriers in the Outdoor Environment and
Development of Walking Difficulties in Older People. Age Ageing 2012,41, 118–121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115.
Aziz, N.F.; Said, I. The Trends and Influential Factors of Children’s Use of Outdoor Environments: A Review. Procedia–Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2012,38, 204–212. [CrossRef]
116.
Paisley, K.; Jostad, J.; Sibthorp, J.; Pohja, M.; Gookin, J.; Rajagopal-Durbin, A. Considering Students’ Experiences in Diverse
Groups: Case Studies from the National Outdoor Leadership School. J. Leis. Res. 2014,46, 329–341. [CrossRef]
117.
Gress, S.; Hall, T. Diversity in the Outdoors: National Outdoor Leadership School Students’ Attitudes About Wilderness. J. Exp.
Educ. 2017,40, 114–134. [CrossRef]
118.
Mears, M.; Brindley, P.; Maheswaran, R.; Jorgensen, A. Understanding the Socioeconomic Equity of Publicly Accessible Greenspace
Distribution: The Example of Sheffield, UK. Geoforum 2019,103, 126–137. [CrossRef]
119.
Seaman, P.J.; Jones, R.; Ellaway, A. It’s Not Just about the Park, It’s about Integration Too: Why People Choose to Use or Not Use
Urban Greenspaces. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010,7, 78. [CrossRef]
120.
Martin, C.; Czellar, S. Where Do Biospheric Values Come from? A Connectedness to Nature Perspective. J. Environ. Psychol.
2017
,
52, 56–68. [CrossRef]
121.
Berto, R.; Barbiero, G. How the Psychological Benefits Associated with Exposure to Nature Can Affect Pro-Environmental
Behavior. Ann. Cogn. Sci. 2017,1, 16–20.
122.
Joye, Y.; Bolderdijk, J.W.; Köster, M.A.F.; Piff, P.K. A Diminishment of Desire: Exposure to Nature Relative to Urban Environments
Dampens Materialism. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020,54, 126783. [CrossRef]
123.
Shiffman, S.; Stone, A.A.; Hufford, M.R. Ecological Momentary Assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.
2008
,4, 1–32. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
124.
Klain, S.C.; Olmsted, P.; Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T. Relational Values Resonate Broadly and Differently than Intrinsic or
Instrumental Values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 2017,12, e0183962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125.
Schweitzer, R.D.; Glab, H.; Brymer, E. The Human–Nature Experience: A Phenomenological-Psychoanalytic Perspective. Front.
Psychol. 2018,9, 969. [CrossRef] [PubMed]