Home
hamburger menu icon

Environmental Concern

To what extent do nature experiences increase environmental consciousness? In this article, we consider two hypotheses: that exposure to green space increases pro-environmental behaviors, and that pet ownership increases concern for animal welfare.

Nature Experiences

Research has shown that, while the effect is limited, exposure to natural settings helps foster a sense of environmental concern within the public.

Alcock et al. (2020) 1 conduct a survey of about 24,000 adults in England to study the relationship between access to nature and environmental attitudes. They find that a one standard deviation increase in nature visits is associated with a 0.17 standard deviation increase in environment behavior. Here, the authors consider seven behaviors that they consider to be pro-environment:

  • recycling,
  • buying eco-friendly products,
  • buying seasonal or locally grown foods,
  • walking and cycling instead of driving,
  • encouraging others to protect the environment,
  • joining an environmental or conservation organization, and
  • volunteering for environmental projects.

They also find that a standard deviation increase in nature appreciation is associated with a 0.45 standard deviation increase in pro-environmental behavior. Alcock et al. (2020) 1 control for several variables, including socioeconomic status and several variables demographic variables, that are known to be associated with environmental concern and still find the relationship to be robust.

Mackay and Schmitt (2019) 2 conduct a meta-analysis of 75 correlational studies and 17 experimental studies. The correlational studies attempt to find whether there is a correlation between nature experiences, here defined as a subjective "nature connection", and pro-environmental behavior, without addressing causation. The studies have different measures of nature connection and of pro-environmental behavior, but they nevertheless find a robust connection between the two. Publication bias is a concern, though. It might be the case that, since authors want to find a connection, they are more likely to publish the results if they find a connection than if they don’t. However, Mackay and Schmitt (2019) 2 do not find evidence of publication bias with the correlational studies.

The experimental studies go further and seek to find whether changing the number of nature experiences fosters environmental concern. Unlike correlational studies, experimental studies do provide evidence for causation. There are fewer such studies, reflecting the fact that doing experiments is harder than observing data. Unlike with correlational studies, Mackay and Schmitt (2019) 2 do find evidence of publication bias with the experimental studies. They also find that the effect is barely more than a fourth as strong with experimental studies as with correlational studies, but when unpublished results are included, the authors still find that nature experiences have an effect of pro-environmental behaviors. Whitburn, Linklater, and Abrahamse (2020) 3 is a similar meta-analysis that comes to largely the same conclusion, though they admit the limitations of the literature in the abstract.

Facilitating a stronger connection to nature may result in greater engagement in PEB and conservation, although more longitudinal studies with randomized experiments are required to demonstrate causation.

Barragan‐Jason et al. (2021) 4 is yet another meta-analysis that finds that a sense of human-nature connectedness and mindfulness are associated with pro-environmental behavior, and this association stands in experimental studies.

Finally, Wells and Lekies (2006) 5 find that exposure to nature as a child is correlated with environmental behavior as an adult. The study is based on a survey of about 2000 American adults. The time lag should mitigate the self-selection problem that holds with other correlational studies, but this one suffers from the weakness of relying of memories from decades earlier from adults, which are liable to all sorts of distortions.

Other studies have found that nature experiences, especially in childhood, have been found to foster greater environmental concern and more pro-environmental behaviors 6,7,8,9,10.

Limits to the Research

We should acknowledge that the nature experience → environmentalism hypothesis has limitations. Lin et al. (2014) 11 make the self-selection point more thoroughly. Conducting a survey in Brisbane, Australia, the authors find that higher nature orientation correlates with higher park usage, even among survey participants who have the same access to parks. They suggest that nature orientation is what causes higher park usage, rather than the other way around.

One issue that needs to be flagged explicitly is on access versus use. These are not the same things, and as Lin et al. (2014) 11 highlights, the distinction matters when considering the influence on pro-environmental behavior. Going back to Alcock et al. (2020) 1, there is a broken link between access and use of nature, and so the paper does not provide evidence that access to nature, in and of itself, improve pro-environmental behavior.

Martin et al. (2020) 12 also make the distinction. They find that nature access correlates with improved health, subjective wellbeing, psychological connectedness, and pro-environmental behaviors. However, there is no identified relationship with access to nature.

Another issue is that studies are oftentimes careless with what they mean by nature contact, and Coldwell and Evans (2017) 13 discuss this issue explicitly. They survey about 300 English residents, and they find that biodiversity knowledge and support for conservation are correlated with experience with the countryside, but not with urban parks.

One glaring problem with the nature exposure → environmental concern hypothesis is that people who live in rural areas tend to have more nature exposure, but urban dwellers are more likely to be environmentally concerned and take pro-environmental actions. Yu (2014) shows how this is true in China, and not just the Western countries with which most readers are familiar.

Animal Ambassadors

The "animal ambassador" hypothesis is that non-human animals that are close to humans, especially pets, foster interest in animal welfare.

Paul and Serpell (1993) 14 conduct a survey of 385 British university students and find that childhood pet keeping is associated with pro-animal attitudes in adulthood. This translates into ethical diets (e.g. vegetarianism) and membership in animal advocacy organizations. Miura, Bradshaw, and Tanida (2002) 15 replicate these results in the UK and in Japan, finding that childhood pet ownership, as well as other kinds of animal exposure such as visiting animal shelters and livestock farms, are associated with greater concern for animal welfare. Possidónio et al. (2021) 16 extend these results to Portugal; a survey of 376 people there found a correlation between pet ownership and concern for animal welfare, including for animals not kept as pets.

Some of the same cautions apply as in the discussion on green space. None of the studies above are experimental; they are all correlational, and that might be capturing the fact that people who are more inclined to empathy toward animals are more likely to own pets, rather than the other way. Most obviously, the vast majority of pet owners are not vegetarian, nor are they involved with any animal welfare organizations, and so whatever effect there is must be limited.

References

  1. 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". Environment International 136: 105441. March 2020. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Mackay, C.M., Schmitt, M.T. "Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis". Journal of Environmental Psychology 65:101323. October 2019. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., Abrahamse, W. "Meta‐analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior". Conservation Biology 34(1), pp. 180-193. February 2020. ↩

  4. Barragan‐Jason, G., De Mazancourt, C., Parmesan, C., Singer, M.C., Loreau, M. "Human–nature connectedness as a pathway to sustainability: A global meta‐analysis". Conservation Letters 15(1):e12852. January 2022. ↩

  5. Wells, N.M., Lekies, K.S. "Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism". Children, Youth and Environments 16(1), pp. 1-24. 2006. ↩

  6. 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". Frontiers in Psychology 9:1055. June 2018. ↩

  7. Dunlap, R. E., Hefferman, R. B. "Outdoor recreation and environmental concern: An empirical examination". Rural Sociology 40(1):18. April 1975. ↩

  8. Lawrence, E. K. "Visitation to natural areas on campus and its relation to place identity and environmentally responsible behaviors". The Journal of Environmental Education 43(2), pp. 93-106. January 2012. ↩

  9. Bjerke, T., And, C. T., Kleiven, J. "Outdoor recreation interests and environmental attitudes in Norway". Managing Leisure 11(2), pp. 116-128. February 2007. ↩

  10. Zhang W, Goodale E, Chen J. "How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China". Biological Conservation 177, pp. 109-116. September 2014. ↩

  11. Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F. "Opportunity or Orientation? Who Uses Urban Parks and Why". PLoS one 9(1): e87422. January 2014. ↩ ↩2

  12. 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". Journal of Environmental Psychology 68: 101389. April 2020. ↩

  13. Coldwell, D.F., Evans, K.L. "Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support". PLoS One 12(3): e0174376. March 2017. ↩

  14. Paul, E.S., Serpell, J.A. "Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood". Animal Welfare 2(4), pp. 321-337. November 1993. ↩

  15. Miura, A.J., Bradshaw, J.W., Tanida, H. "Childhood experiences and attitudes towards animal issues: A comparison of young adults in Japan and the UK". Animal Welfare 11(4), pp. 437-448. November 2002. ↩

  16. Possidónio, C., Piazza, J., Graça, J., Prada, M. ["From Pets to Pests: Testing the Scope of the 'Pets as Ambassadors' Hypothesis"]. Anthrozoös 34(5), pp. 707-722. September 2021. ↩