Human-nature relationships in context. Experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions that shape children’s desire to protect nature

Autoři: Matteo Giusti aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225951


What relationship with nature shapes children’s desire to protect the environment? This study crosses conventional disciplinary boundaries to explore this question. I use qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions of Human-Nature Connection (HNC) before and after children participate in a project of nature conservation. The results from the interviews (N = 25) suggest that experiential aspects of saving animals enhance children’s appreciation and understanding for animals, nature, and nature conservation. However, the analysis of children’s psychological HNC (N = 158) shows no statistical difference before and after children participate in the project. Analysing the third dimension–children’s contextual HNC–provides further insights. Including children’s contextual relations with home, nature, and city, not only improves the prediction of their desire to work for nature, but also exposes a form of Human-Nature Disconnection (HND) shaped by children’s closeness to cities that negatively influence it. Overall, combining experiential, psychological, and contextual dimensions of HNC provides rich insights to advance the conceptualisation and assessment of human-nature relationships. People’s relationship with nature is better conceived and analysed as systems of relations between mind, body, culture, and environment, which progress through complex dynamics. Future assessments of HNC and HND would benefit from short-term qualitative and long-term quantitative evaluations that explicitly acknowledge their spatial and cultural contexts. This approach would offer novel and valuable insights to promote the psychological and social determinants of resilient sustainable society.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Conservation biology – Culture – Emotions – Children – Psychometrics – Schools – Salamanders


1. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009.

2. Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, et al. Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017;26–27: 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005

3. Saunders CD, Myers OE. Exploring the Potential of Conservation Psychology. Hum Ecol Rev. 2003;10: 2–4.

4. Gifford R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65: 541–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 24050189

5. Meyfroidt P. Environmental cognitions, land change, and social–ecological feedbacks: an overview. J Land Use Sci. 2013;8: 341–367. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2012.667452

6. Lewicka M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol. 2011;31: 207–230. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001

7. Miller JR. Restoration, reconciliation, and reconnecting with nature nearby. Biol Conserv. 2006;127: 356–361. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.021

8. Simaika JP, Samways MJ. Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2010;24: 903–906. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01485.x 20337687

9. Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockström J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio. 2011;40: 719–738. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y 22338712

10. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

11. Fischer J, Gardner T a, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14: 144–149. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

12. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 2017;46: 30–39. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y 27344324

13. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014;24: 16–16. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.3.0016

14. Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20: 430–4. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 16701413

15. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14: 94–101. doi: 10.1002/fee.1225

16. Samways MJ. Rescuing the extinction of experience. Biodivers Conserv. 2007;16: 1995–1997. doi: 10.1007/s10531-006-9144-4

17. Rideout V, Foehr U, Roberts D. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2010. Available:

18. Balmford A. Why Conservationists Should Heed Pokemon. Science. 2002;295: 2367b–22367. doi: 10.1126/science.295.5564.2367b 11924673

19. Ballouard J-M, Brischoux F, Bonnet X. Children Prioritize Virtual Exotic Biodiversity over Local Biodiversity. Somers M, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e23152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023152 21829710

20. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 2002;8. doi: 10.1080/1350462022014540

21. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014; 119–143. doi: 10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3

22. Restall B, Conrad E. A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 2015;159: 264–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022 26087657

23. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999;6: 81–97.

24. Schultz PW. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J Soc Issues. 2000;56: 391–406. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00174

25. Cosquer A, Raymond R, Prevot-Julliard A-C. Observations of everyday biodiversity: A new perspective for conservation? Ecol Soc. 2012;17. doi: 10.5751/ES-04955-170402

26. Duffy S, Verges M. Forces of Nature Affect Implicit Connections With Nature. Environ Behav. 2010;42: 723–739. doi: 10.1177/0013916509338552

27. Verges M, Duffy S. Connected to Birds but Not Bees: Valence Moderates Implicit Associations With Nature. Environ Behav. 2010;42: 625–642. doi: 10.1177/0013916508330210

28. Elliot E, Ten Eycke K, Chan S, Müller U. Taking Kindergartners Outdoors: Documenting Their Explorations and Assessing the Impact on Their Ecological Awareness. Child Youth Environ. 2014;24: 102. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0102

29. RSPB. Connecting with nature. RSPB; 2013. Available:

30. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014;24: 16. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.3.0016

31. Beery T, Raymond CM, Kyttä M, Olafsson AS, Plieninger T, Sandberg M, et al. Fostering incidental experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. Ambio. 2017;46: 717–730. doi: 10.1007/s13280-017-0920-z 28444643

32. Clayton S, Colléony A, Conversy P, Maclouf E, Martin L, Torres A-C, et al. Transformation of Experience: Toward a New Relationship with Nature: New experiences of nature. Conserv Lett. 2017;10: 645–651. doi: 10.1111/conl.12337

33. Vining J, Merrick M. Environmental epiphanies: theoretical foundations and practical applications. In: Clayton S, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 485–508.

34. Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery T. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect to Nature. Front Psychol. 2018;8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283 29354088

35. Charles C, Keenleyside K, Chapple R, Kilburn B, van der Leest PS, Allen D, et al. Home to Us All: How Connecting with Nature Helps Us Care for Ourselves and the Earth. Children and Nature Network; 2018. Available:

36. Howell RA. It’s not (just) “the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Glob Environ Change. 2013;23: 281–290. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.015

37. Hedlund-de Witt A, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles. J Environ Psychol. 2014;37: 40–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.005

38. Chawla L. Significant Life Experiences Revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Environ Educ Res. 1998;4: 369–382. doi: 10.1080/1350462980040402

39. Chawla L. Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ. 1999;31: 15–26.

40. Kellert SR. Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children. In: Kellert SR, Kahn Jr PH, editors. Children and Nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002. pp. 117–151.

41. Evans GW, Brauchle G, Haq A, Stecker R, Wong K, Shapiro E. Young Children’s Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environ Behav. 2007;39: 635–658. doi: 10.1177/0013916506294252

42. Bruni CM, Winter PL, Schultz PW, Omoto AM, Tabanico JJ. Getting to know nature: evaluating the effects of the Get to Know Program on children’s connectedness with nature. Environ Educ Res. 2017;23: 43–62. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1074659

43. Gough A. Kids Don’t Like Wearing the Same Jeans as their Mums and Dads: so whose ‘life’ should be in significant life experiences research? Environ Educ Res. 1999;5: 383–394. doi: 10.1080/1350462990050404

44. Barthel S, Belton S, Raymond CM, Giusti M. Fostering Children’s Connection to Nature Through Authentic Situations: The Case of Saving Salamanders at School. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00928 29937747

45. Kiibus M. Kartläggning av och räddningsinsatser för salamanderpopulationerna i Olovslundsdammen, Bromma. 2011. Available:

46. Lundberg S, Kiibus M. Det våras för salamandrarna i Stockholm–övervakning och återintroduktion av större vattensalamander i stadsdelen Bromma. Fauna Flora. 2014;109. Available:

47. Cheng JC-H, Monroe MC. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ Behav. 2012;44: 31–49. doi: 10.1177/0013916510385082

48. Bruni CM, Schultz PW. Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30: 95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.004

49. Schultz PW. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations. Psychology of Sustainable Development. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2002. pp. 61–78. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4

50. Ernst J, Theimer S. Evaluating the effects of environmental education programming on connectedness to nature. Environ Educ Res. 2011;17: 577–598. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.565119

51. Theimer S, Ernst J. Fostering “Connectedness to Nature” through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Education and Outreach Programming: A Qualitative Evaluation. Appl Environ Educ Commun. 2012;11: 79–87. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2012.751281

52. Fägerstam E. Children and Young People’s Experience of the Natural World: Teachers’ Perceptions and Observations. Aust J Environ Educ. 2012;28: 1–16. doi: 10.1017/aee.2012.2

53. Bragg R, Wood C, Barton J, Pretty J. Measuring connection to nature in children 8–12: A robust methodology for the RSPB. 2013 pp. 1–64.

54. Kossack A, Bogner FX. How does a one-day environmental education programme support individual connectedness with nature? J Biol Educ Routledge. 2012;46: 180–187. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2011.634016

55. Sellmann D, Bogner FX. Effects of a 1-day environmental education intervention on environmental attitudes and connectedness with nature. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2013;28: 1077–1086. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0155-0

56. Brügger A, Kaiser FG, Roczen N. One for all?: Connectedness to nature, inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. Eur Psychol. 2011;16: 324–333. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000032

57. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63: 596–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

58. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K, Mertig A, Jones R. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues. 2000;56: 425–442.

59. Schultz PW, Shriver C, Tabanico JJ, Khazian AM. Implicit connections with nature. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24: 31–42. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7

60. Bruni CM, Winter PL, Schultz PW, Omoto AM, Tabanico JJ. Getting to know nature: evaluating the effects of the Get to Know Program on children’s connectedness with nature. Environ Educ Res. 2015;4622: 1–20. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1074659

61. Easthope H. A place called home. Hous Theory Soc. 2004;21: 128–138. doi: 10.1080/14036090410021360

62. Porteous JD. Home: the territorial core. Geogr Rev. 1976;66: 383–390.

63. Elmqvist T, Andersson E, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Olsson P, Gaffney O, et al. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat Sustain. 2019;2: 267. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1

64. Tuan YF. Space and place: The perspective of experience. 1977.

65. Folke C, Jansson Å, Larsson J, Costanza R. Ecosystem by Cities Appropriation. Ambio. 1997;26: 167–172.

66. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3: 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

67. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,. Vienna, Austria; 2013. Available:

68. Bangdiwala SI. Understanding Significance and P-Values. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016;6: 522–524. doi: 10.3126/nje.v6i1.14732 27152231

69. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05.” Am Stat. 2019;73: 1–19. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913

70. Awang Z. SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling. MPWS Rich Publication; 2015.

71. Chawla L, Cushing DF. Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environ Educ Res. 2007;13: 437–452. doi: 10.1080/13504620701581539

72. Stevenson RB. Schooling and environmental education: contradictions in purpose and practice. Environ Educ Res. 2007;13: 139–153. doi: 10.1080/13504620701295726

73. Meadows D. Thinking in systems. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2008.

74. Chemero A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009.

75. Altman I, Rogoff B. World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and Transactional Perspectives. In: Stokols D, Altman I, editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Volume 1). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. pp. 7–40.

76. Chapin FS, Knapp CN. Sense of place: A process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environ Sci Policy. 2015;53: 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.012

77. Masterson VA, Stedman RC, Enqvist J, Tengö M, Giusti M, Wahl D, et al. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecol Soc. 2017;22. doi: 10.5751/ES-08872-220149

78. Kyle GT, Mowen AJ, Tarrant M. Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24: 439–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001

79. Ulrich RS. Biophilia, Biophobia and Natural Landscape. In: Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 1993. pp. 73–137.

80. Kellert SR, Wilson EO. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Kellert SR, Wilson EO, editors. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 1993.

81. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ Behav. 1993;25: 322–348. doi: 10.1177/0013916593255002

82. Scannell L, Gifford R. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ Behav. 2013;45: 60–85. doi: 10.1177/0013916511421196

83. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect. J Consum Policy. 2012;35: 127–144. doi: 10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

84. Gutteling JM, Wiegman O. Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sex Roles. 1993;28: 433–447. doi: 10.1007/BF00289606

85. Blocker TJ, Lee Eckberg D. Gender and Environmentalists: Results from the 1993 General Social Survey. Soc Sci Q. 1997;78: 841–858.

86. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int J Psychol. 2014 [cited 19 Dec 2017]. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034 24821503

87. Otto S, Evans GW, Moon MJ, Kaiser FG. The development of children’s environmental attitude and behavior. Glob Environ Change. 2019;58: 101947. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101947

88. Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plan Manag. 2017; 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300

89. Aruguete MS, Gillen MM, McCutcheon LE, Bernstein MJ. Disconnection from nature and the admiration of celebrities. Appl Environ Educ Commun. 2019; 1–11. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2019.1591313

90. Kesebir S, Kesebir P. A Growing Disconnection From Nature Is Evident in Cultural Products. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12: 258–269. doi: 10.1177/1745691616662473 28346112

91. Tam KP. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. J Environ Psychol. 2013;34: 64–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004

92. Bruni CM, Chance RC, Schultz WP, Nolan JM. Natural connections: Bees Sting and Snakes Bite, but they are still nature. Environ Behav. 2012;44: 197–215. doi: 10.1177/0013916511402062

93. Bruni CM, Fraser J, Schultz PW. The Value of Zoo Experiences for Connecting People with Nature. Visit Stud. 2008;11: 139–150. doi: 10.1080/10645570802355489

94. Capaldi A. CA, Dopko L. RL, Zelenski JM. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2014;5: 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00001

95. Kormos C, Gifford R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40: 359–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003

96. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. 2011. Available:

97. Hunecke M, Blobaum a., Matthies E, Hoger R. Responsibility and Environment: Ecological Norm Orientation and External Factors in the Domain of Travel Mode Choice Behavior. Environ Behav. 2001;33: 830–852. doi: 10.1177/00139160121973269

98. Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT. Personal and contextual influences on househould energy adaptations. J Appl Psychol. 1985;70: 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.3

99. Thogersen J. Consumer behaviour and the environment: which role for information? Environment, information and consumer behaviour. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2005. pp. 51–63.

100. Nilsson A, von Borgstede C, Biel A. Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24: 267–277. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.06.002

101. Nazir J, Pedretti E. Educators’ perceptions of bringing students to environmental consciousness through engaging outdoor experiences. Environ Educ Res. 2016;22: 288–304. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.996208

102. Wals A, Dillon J. Conventional and emerging learning theories: Implications and choices for educational researchers with a planetary consciousness. International handbook of research on environmental education. 2013. pp. 253–261.

103. Kellert SR, Heerwagen JH, Mador LM. Biophilic Design. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2008.

104. Giusti M. Home for future earth lovers: foundations of nature-connecting habitats for children. 2018.

105. Marcus L, Giusti M, Barthel S. Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: contributions of space syntax and spatial cognition. J Urban Des. 2016;21: 439–452. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2016.1184565

Článok vyšiel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12