Environmental Psychology: Humans, Psychology, and the Natural World

Introduction to Environmental Psychology

  • Environmental Psychology (Env Psy) studies the interactions between people and their environment, with an applied focus on problem-solving.
  • It is an interdisciplinary field that draws on multiple core areas of psychology, including:
    • Biological psychology: how the brain responds to different environments.
    • Clinical psychology: therapeutic benefits of nature.
    • Cognitive psychology: wayfinding, spatial navigation, and decision-making.
    • Developmental psychology: building relationships with others and nature.
    • Social psychology: behavior change and social influences on behavior.

Key Questions in Environmental Psychology:

  • What makes a building beautiful?
  • Why does nature have beneficial effects on us?
  • How can we apply this to the real world?
  • What is our relationship with the natural world?
  • Why does seeing graffiti encourage theft?
  • How do we find our way around cities?
  • What makes a house a home?
  • What drives people’s pro-environmental behavior?
  • What makes a campaign effective in changing behavior?
  • How and when can social norms be useful to promote behaviors?
  • Will a financial incentive be effective in changing behavior?
  • How can you break an unhealthy habit?

Course Overview

  • The course explores the impact of the environment on individuals, the consequences of engaging with nature, and the impact individuals have on the environment.
  • It aims to understand and promote sustainable behavior.

Session Topics

  1. Introduction + Connectedness to nature:
    • What is Environmental Psychology?
    • What is our emotional, cognitive and behavioural relationship with the natural world, and why is this important?
    • Date: Mon 24 March
  2. Environmental Restoration:
    • What are the benefits of spending time in nature to our mental health and wellbeing and cognitive performance?
    • Date: Thu 27 March
  3. Models of behavior:
    • What is “pro-environmental behaviour”?
    • Why is it important, and why do some people behave pro-environmentally and others not?
    • Date: Mon 31 March
  4. Social norms:
    • What drives our behaviour?
    • How and when do social norms play a pivotal role?
    • Date: Thu 3 April
  5. Support session:
    • How to maximise our learning?
    • How to prepare for the exam
    • Date: Mon 28 April
  6. CANCELLED
    • Time to revise
    • Date: Thu 1 May

Assessment

  • The exam is worth 50% of the module grade.
  • Format: In-person, open-book exam.
  • Students answer ONE question from 3.
  • Each option within Block B will have 1 question
  • Time: 2 hours.
  • Overall premise: Using environmental psychology theories AND empirical evidence to support your argument
  • May involve: Providing a scenario / proposed intervention / a statement
  • You will need decide if you agree or disagree with the scenario / intervention / statement
  • Use theory AND empirical evidence to defend your argument

Recommended Resources

  • Books and government reports (secondary resources for overviews).
  • Journal articles (primary resources).
  • Recordings (secondary resources for overviews).

Connection to Nature

  • What is our connection to nature?
    • The concept(s)
    • What do the terms mean?
    • How are they explained by theory?
    • How are they measured?
    • What does the evidence say? Current debates
      • Debate 1: implicit vs. explicit
      • Debate 2: trait vs. state
      • Debate 3: similarities / differences between terms
      • Debate 4: what is “nature”?
    • What influences our connection? The mechanisms
    • Why is this important? The relevance
      • Implication for the Environment
      • Implications for the Individual

Terms Related to Connection to Nature

  • Place Identity
  • Place Attachment
  • Place dependence
  • Biophilia
  • Geopiety
  • Topophilia
  • Blue Mind
  • Commitment to Nature
  • Connectedness to nature
  • Sense of Place
  • Emotional Affinity to Nature
  • Nature Relatedness
  • Inclusion of Nature
  • Environmental Identity
  • Sense of Planet
  • Environmental Citizenship
  • Rootedness
  • Green Identity
  • Ecological Self
  • Connectivity With Nature
  • Place Belongingness
  • Ecological Identity
  • Human-place bonding

Tripartite Model of Place Attachment

  • Also known as the PPP framework:
    • Place
    • Person
    • Process
  • The terms and definitions can be understood and categorised by the tripartite model of place attachment

Dimension 1: The Place

  • Place can vary according to:
    • Spatial level
    • Degree of specificity
    • Social aspects
    • Physical features

Dimension 2: The Person

Dimension 3: The Process

  • Affective
  • Cognitive
  • Behavioral

Key Definitions and Theories

Connectedness to Nature

  • Definition: “the extent to which people feel affectively connected and belonging to the natural community” (Mayer & Frantz, 2004)
  • Background / Theory: Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)
    • Innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life
    • Evolutionary
    • Prepared / counter prepared learning
    • Emotional responses
  • Measure(s): Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) = 14-item scale
    • Examples:
      • I often feel part of the web of life.
      • I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me.
      • When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of living.

Inclusion of Nature in the Self (INS)

  • Definition: “the extent to which people have a schema that includes the knowledge structure about the natural world into one’s self-concept” (Schultz, 2001)
  • Background / Theory: Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
    • States we are motivated by three innate psychological needs:
      • Autonomy
      • Competence
      • Relatedness
  • Measure(s): visual analogue

Commitment to Nature

  • Definition: “psychological attachment and long-term orientation to the natural world” (Davis et al., 2009; 2011)
  • Background / Theory: Interdependence Theory (Kelly & Thibaut, 1979)
    • Individuals will be more dependent on a relationship partner to the extent that:
      1. The partner fulfils important needs (i.e., the individual is satisfied with the partner);
      2. Those needs cannot be fulfilled without the partner (i.e., the individual is dependent on the partner).
  • Measure(s): Commitment to Nature Scale (CS) = 11-item scale
    • Example: When I make plans for myself, I take into account how my decisions may affect the environment.
    • Example: I feel committed to keeping the best interests of the environment in mind

Nature Connectedness

  • Definition: a person’s relationship with the natural world “…individual differences in cognitive, affective and experiential connection with the natural environment” (Natural England, 2020; Richardson, 2019)
  • Background / Theory: Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)
    • Innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life
  • Measure(s): Nature Connectedness Index (NCI) = 6-item scale
    • Examples:
      • I always find beauty in nature
      • I always treat nature with respect
      • Being in nature makes me very happy
      • Spending time in nature is very important to me
      • I find being in nature really amazing
      • I feel part of nature

Current Debates

  • Debate 1: implicit vs. explicit
  • Debate 2: trait vs. state
  • Debate 3: similarities / differences between terms
  • Debate 4: what is “nature”?

Debate 1: Implicit vs. Explicit

  • Some argue that this connectedness can be outside of our conscious awareness.
  • E.g., The Biophilia Hypothesis = an innate (automatic) process
  • In terms of identity, Clayton (2003) explains that the environmental identity is one of many identities that the individual has, and will be more salient depending on the context
  • Thus, there is the question of whether explicit self-reported measures are most appropriate (see Schultz et al., 2004)

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

  • Recap of procedure:
    1. Categorize into one theme
    2. Categorize into another theme
    3. Combine the two themes and categorize
    4. Switch the groupings and categorize
    5. Look at speed (and accuracy)
  • Implicit attitude = faster response time
  • Used a lot in social psychology (especially for assessing stereotypes)
  • If you have a strong bond with nature:
    • you’d respond quicker for NATURE OR ME
    • And slower for BUILT OR NOT ME

Debate 2: Trait vs. State

  • Trait Level
    • Relatively stable over time
    • Relatively stable across situations
    • Many concepts focus on the trait
    • e.g. Clayton (2003); Mayer et al. (2009); Nisbet et al. (2009)
  • State Level
    • Responsive to situational conditions
    • Depends on salience
    • e.g. Nisbet & Zelenski (2009)
  • CNS – trait-level
    • I often feel part of the web of life.
    • I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me.
    • When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of living …
  • CNS – state-level
    • Presently, I feel like I am part of the web of life.
    • Right now I’m feeling a sense of oneness with the natural world around me.
    • At the moment, I can imagine myself as part of the larger cyclical process of living…

Debate 3: Similarities & Differences Between Terms

  • They vary on which process(es) they emphasize
  • They vary on explicitness / conscious involvement
  • They vary on the temporal dimension (momentary vs. stable vs. not specified)
  • Measures
  • Some individual items may be similar…
  • But researchers argue that different measures may be correlated, but are stand-alone psychological concepts (Davis et al., 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004 Study 5; Schultz et al., 2004; 2007)

Note on correlations (Cohen 1992)

  • Small effect size = .10
  • Medium effect size = .30
  • Large effect size = .50

Debate 4: What is Nature?

  • Is all nature the same?
  • Measures have been criticized for being too terrestrial-focused (Cracknell et al., in prep)
  • Some scales have been adapted to be more inclusive of different types of nature (Nuojua et al, 2022)
  • New scales have been developed to examine connections to specific natural environments (Nuojua et al, 2022)
  • Or to compare different types of nature (Hehir et al., 2022; Hignett et al., 2018; Wyles et al., in prep)

Influences on Connection to Nature

  • Present Experience
  • Past Experience
  • Environmental Interventions

Influential Factors – Present Experience

  • CN = stronger for those who experience nature more frequently (Bragg, 1996; Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Holmes, 2003; Loughland et al., 2003; Nisbet et al., 2009)
  • Strongest predictor of CN is the time spent in nature (now) (Kals et al., 1999)
  • CN can differ depending on the type of experience (Wyles et al., 2019)
  • CN can differ depending on what you do – i.e., “appreciative outdoor recreational activities is associated with more CN (Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013)
  • CN can increase after experiencing nature (Mayer et al., 2009; Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011)
  • Wilderness experiences (e.g. Barton et al., 2016)
  • Zoo visits (e.g. Clayton et al., 2011; Schultz et al., 2001)

Wyles et al. (2019) Study

  • Sample: 4515 English residents

  • Method: questionnaire (correlational)

  • Findings:

    • People felt more connected if:
      • Walked in that environment (compared to playing or doing exercise)
      • Spent more than 30 minutes there
      • They visited a protected / designated area
    • People felt less connected if:
      • They were young (16-44) and male
      • Went to an urban park
      • Went with children

    Wyles et al. (2019), replicated in Australia Hatty et al., 2022

Barton et al (2016) Study

  • Sample: 130 adolescents (11-18yo)
  • Method: pre-post measures following a wilderness expedition (quasi-experimental)
  • CN (via State CNS)

Influential Factors – Past Experience

  • Past experiences with natural environments are seen as key
  • People who engaged more with nature during their childhood are often seen to have stronger CN in adulthood (Tam 2013)
  • Connectedness to nature is associated with:
    • Positive previous experiences (Kals et al., 1999; Windhorst & Williams, 2015)
    • Memories (Clayton, 2003; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996)
    • Special relationships with nature as children (Chawla, 1998; Ward Thompson et al., 2008; Wells & Lekies, 2007)
  • People are spending less time in nature than before
    • Living in urban areas
    • Sedentary past-times
    • Sedentary work
    • E.g. in England, 3% of the adult population state they have not spent time in nature for more than 12 months (Natural England, 2020) ≈ 3 million adults

Cleary et al. (2020) Study

  • Sample: 985 Brisbane residents (18-90yo)
  • Method: Questionnaire (correlational)
  • CN (via NRS)
  • Findings:
    • Nature experience as an adult
    • CN (CNS)
    • Nature experience as a child

Relevance of Connection to Nature

  • Implication for the Environment
  • Implications for the Individual

Pro-environmental behavior

  • Different measures of CN = positively correlated with numerous pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Clayton, 2003; Dutcher et al., 2007; Hehir et al., 2022; Kals et al., 1999; Nisbet et al., 2009; Schultz et al., 2004)
  • Also associated with popular pre-determinants of behavior (e.g., Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009; Raymond et al., 2011; Schultz et al., 2004)
  • Can be seen as a stronger predictor than other variables and/or strengthen behavior change models
    • E.g. CNS; INS; & Commitment to Nature was a stronger predictor than NEP (Cook et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2009; 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010)
  • CN can act as a moderator or mediator

Nisbet et al. (2009) Study

  • Sample: 931 students
  • Method: Questionnaire survey (correlational)
  • CN (via Nature Relatedness scale)
  • CN predicted: Behaviours predicted by CN

Martin et al. (2020) Study

  • Sample: 4960 England residents
  • Method: national survey (correlational)
    • Nature contact (incidental / intentional / indirect)
    • CN (NCI)
    • Outcome – Health & wellbeing; Pro-environmental behaviours (PEB)
  • Findings:
    • Incidental contact PEB
    • Intentional contact PEB CN
    • Indirect contact PEB CN
    • people that have higher CN and visit nature at least once a week do more conservation behaviours
    • Nature documentaries only had an impact on conservation behaviours IF the individual had high CN

Moderator = it influences the strength of the relationship between the IV and DV

Hehir et al. (2022) Study

  • Sample: 924 international tourists
  • Method: Online survey (correlational)
  • The role of CN (INS) on philanthropy (££)
  • Findings
    • Visiting a “last chance” destination
    • Philanthropy (donations)
    • INS (with that environment)

Mediator = it is the reason for the relationship between the IV and DV

Devine-Wright et al. (2015) Study

  • Sample: 1147 Australian residents (March 2013)
  • Method: Online study (correlational)
  • Place attachment X climate change beliefs
  • Findings:
    • To what extent do you feel a weak or a strong sense of belonging to the following areas?
      • The neighborhood where you live
      • The city where you live
      • The state or territory where you live
      • The country where you live
      • The Earth/The whole world
      • 1 = no sense of belong – 5 = very strong sense of belonging
    • Environmental Attitudes X Spatial Level

Health & Well-being Implications

  • The Theory According to the Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984)
  • Experiencing nature has numerous health and well-being benefits
  • CN is associated with general health and well-being measures (see Capaldi et al., 2014)
    • Hedonic measures e.g. life satisfaction (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2011)
    • Eudaimonic measures e.g. personal growth (Nisbet et al., 2011)
  • It’s also been linked to well-being outcomes of visits to nature
  • Greater CN = associated with greater satisfaction with the environment (Davis et al., 2011)

Mayer et al. (2009) Study

  • Sample: 76 students
  • Method: experimental field study
  • Findings:
    • Nature Experience Mediator = it is the reason for the relationship between the IV and DV

Nisbet et al (2011) Study

  • Sample: 150 students
  • Method: experimental laboratory study
  • Findings:

Wyles et al. (2019) Study

  • Sample: 4515 English residents
  • Method: questionnaire (correlational) - environment type - psychological restoration - state connectedness to nature
  • Findings:

Key Questions

  • Do people receive more health and well-being because of their CN?
  • Do they form a stronger bond with nature because of the benefits they get from time in nature?
  • Are they one and the same? Nature Experience Well-Being CN