Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Beyond the ‘extinction of experience’ – Novel pathways between nature T

experience and support for nature conservation
Angela J. Deana,b,c, , Adrian G. Barnettd, Kerrie A. Wilsona,b, Gavin Turrelld,e
⁎

a
Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
b
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
c
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
d
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation & School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
e
Centre for Population Health Research, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: It is argued that loss and degradation of natural ecosystems reduce the opportunity to experience nature, and as a
Conservation support consequence, reduce concern for nature and support for nature conservation. This phenomenon is termed the
Bluespace ‘extinction of experience’. Research suggests a potential association between some nature experiences and
Greenspace conservation support. However, the influence of more typical urban nature experiences on conservation sup-
Urban nature
port—such as visiting urban parks—is not well understood. We used a longitudinal, representative dataset of
Concern
adults in Brisbane, Australia (N = 6181) and examined the effects of nature experiences on conservation support
Wellbeing
Social interactions using data from the same individuals surveyed at two time periods (2009 and 2011). Frequency of park use for
physical activity with others was associated with conservation support, but no effects were observed for
proximity to parkland or area of parkland adjacent to home. Frequency of physical activity on beaches and
proximity to waterways were both associated with stronger conservation support, but coastal proximity was
associated with lower conservation support. Mediation analysis examined how these experiences elicited support.
The influence of park use on conservation support was mediated by all three tested pathways: environmental
concern (as theorized by the extinction of experience), and two novel pathways, wellbeing, and social inter-
actions. Neither beach use nor proximity to waterways elicited their effects via environmental concern; the effect
of beach use was mediated by wellbeing and social interactions, whereas the effect of waterway proximity was
mediated by wellbeing only. To assess whether observed effects were specific to nature, we examined the in-
fluence of two contrasting experiences on conservation support: both frequency of exercise classes and weights
training elicited conservation support. Although certain urban nature experiences may elicit conservation sup-
port, results suggest that a variety of life experiences influence an individual’s capacity to support environmental
initiatives. Rather than diminishing the role of nature, we argue these findings identify diverse entry points for
broadening community support for nature conservation.

1. Introduction
1.1. Urban living reduces opportunities to experience nature
More than half the world’s population live in cities (United Nations,
2014). In many higher income countries—including the United
Kingdom, United States, Australia, and Japan—more than 80% of re-
sidents now live in urban areas (United Nations, 2014). Urbanization,
population growth, and the changes in land use and activities that ac-
company this, have led to a loss of habitat and biodiversity (McDonnell
and MacGregor-Fors, 2016; McKinney, 2002). These changes may re-
duce both the frequency and quality of opportunities for people to in-
teract with nature (Cox et al., 2018), a phenomenon which has been
described as the ‘extinction of experience’ (Miller, 2005; Pyle, 2003;
Soga and Gaston, 2016). It has been argued that experiencing nature is
necessary to generate concern and subsequent support for nature con-
servation; and conversely, reduced opportunities to experience nature
may undermine widespread support for nature conservation (Soga and

⁎
Corresponding author at: Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
E-mail address: a.dean@uq.edu.au (A.J. Dean).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.002
Received 4 October 2018; Received in revised form 17 January 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
0959-3780/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.J. Dean et al.
Gaston, 2016).
1.2. Do urban nature experiences foster conservation support?
Despite the popularity of the idea that nature experience is neces-
sary to promote support for nature conservation, few empirical studies
have tested the relationship between nature experiences and con-
servation support. A number of studies describe an association between
‘purposeful’ nature activities and conservation support. One study ex-
amining national rates of nature use, found that hiking, but not other
types of state park visits, was associated with donation rates to large
conservation groups one decade later (Zaradic et al., 2009). Cross-sec-
tional surveys suggest that individuals who participate in nature-related
activities such as citizen science, community gardening, or bird-
watching, were more likely to report pro-environmental behaviours
(Nord et al., 1998; Prévot et al., 2018). While these findings suggest a
possible association between nature experiences and conservation
support, they don’t allow us to exclude the possibility of other ex-
planations: hiking may be linked to higher income, which may lead to
higher donations (Zaradic et al., 2009), and activities such as citizen
science or birdwatching may be associated with existing conservation
values (Hobbs and White, 2012), which drives participation in both the
nature experience and pro-environmental behaviors.
Importantly, these studies do not address whether more typical
urban nature experiences, such as visiting a local park, can generate
conservation support. Two cross-sectional studies in school-aged chil-
dren suggest an association between everyday nature experiences and
support for conservation (Giusti et al., 2014; Soga et al., 2016), but this
has not been explored in adults. In addition, it is not clear whether
purposeful visits to local parks are required to elicit conservation sup-
port, or whether proximity to parks is sufficient to facilitate conserva-
tion support.
Another issue that has not been addressed by existing research is
whether use of, or proximity to, blue space may also generate con-
servation support. Blue space—‘an environment defined by the pre-
sence of water’ (Bell et al., 2015)—includes rivers, waterways, lakes,
wetlands, and coastal environments. It has been argued that blue spaces
provide a strong role as a place for leisure and connecting with nature
(White et al., 2016). One study suggests that recreational use of wa-
terways is associated with greater engagement in waterway manage-
ment issues (Dean et al., 2016b). Most of the existing research on nature
experience and conservation support has focused on use of green space,
such as national parks, state parks, and gardens. Given suggestions that
some of the benefits of green space exposure may be partly generated
by blue space experiences (White et al., 2013), it is important to ex-
amine the differential effects of different types of nature exposure.
1.3. Pathways from nature to conservation support
The extinction of experience framework postulates that experien-
cing nature can motivate conservation action because individuals be-
come aware of threats to the environment and concerned about its loss
(Pyle, 2003). A range of studies suggest that sadness about environ-
mental loss can be a key motivator for action. For example, interviews
with environmental activists indicate that negative experiences, such as
viewing habitat loss, were a strong motivation for becoming activists
(Chawla, 1999). Research on citizen scientists suggest that feeling upset
about environment threats was associated with intentions to adopt
conservation behaviors (Dean et al., 2018). However, there is limited
data about how nature experiences may influence emotions and con-
servation support in larger and more representative populations.
In addition to environmental concern, there are other pathways by
which nature exposure may lead to support for conservation initiatives.
Here we consider two novel pathways between nature experience and
conservation support: (i) emotional wellbeing and (ii) social interac-
tions. With regard to wellbeing, a large body of research indicates that
49
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
green and blue spaces may contribute to reduced stress, and improved
emotional wellbeing (Bell et al., 2015; Cleary et al., 2017; Depledge and
Bird, 2009; Hartig et al., 2014; Shanahan et al., 2016; Volker and
Kistemann, 2011). We also argue that wellbeing may also be a neces-
sary ingredient for conservation support. Cross-sectional research sug-
gests that wellbeing and nature-based restoration may be associated
with greater uptake of conservation behaviors or support for investment
in conservation (Dallimer et al., 2014b; Dean et al., 2016b; Hartig et al.,
2007). In addition, indicators of poor wellbeing, such as financial stress,
may limit an individual’s capacity to engage in more challenging issues
(Shah et al., 2012), such as those related to conservation. With regard
to the second novel pathway, research indicates that public spaces such
as urban parklands and rivers may promote social interactions
(Biedenweg et al., 2017; Kazmierczak, 2013). Social interactions can
generate social capital (Lake and Huckfeldt, 1998), which may enable
stronger civic engagement and support for environmental policies
(Biedenweg et al., 2017; Dean et al., 2016a; Jones et al., 2012).
1.4. Factors that influence use of green space
Many factors may influence how individuals use greenspace and
bluespace in urban settings. Most research in this area focuses on urban
greenspace, indicating that closer proximity to parks is strongly asso-
ciated with rates of use (Dallimer et al., 2014a; Schipperijn et al.,
2010). However, social factors also exert a strong influence on park use:
rates of park use tend to be lower in females, older people, culturally-
diverse groups, and in those with low income or related indicators of
lower socio-economic status (Boyd et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2014). In-
dividuals with health problems or poor mobility are also less likely to
use greenspaces (Boyd et al., 2018; Finlay et al., 2015). Research in-
dicates that safety and a sense of social inclusion influence perceived
accessibility and park use, where proximity to parks may not enable use
if individuals do not feel safe or feel like they do not belong (de la
Barrera et al., 2016; Gidlow and Ellis, 2011; Jones et al., 2009; Seaman
et al., 2010). As such, ‘perceived accessibility’—which may be poorer in
socially-disadvantaged groups (Jones et al., 2009; Wang et al.,
2015)—exerts a stronger influence on use than proximity alone. Col-
lectively, these findings indicate that use of greenspace may be con-
strained by a range of social factors. Another factor that influences use
of greenspace is a sense of connection to nature, also called nature re-
latedness. Individuals with a stronger sense of connection to nature may
be more likely to seek out nature-based experiences (Massingham et al.,
2019; Nisbet et al., 2008). Research indicates that nature orientation
may be more strongly associated with park use than availability of
parks (Lin et al., 2014). Individuals with stronger nature orientation
may be more willing to travel greater distances to parks with greater
vegetation cover (Shanahan et al., 2015), and more likely consider to
certain aspects of nature as important for their experience (McGinlay
et al., 2018). Such variation in patterns of greenspace use reinforce the
importance of considering these when examining the effects of nature
experiences.
1.5. The current study
The current study explores the relationship between opportunities
to experience nature and conservation support. In addition to purpo-
seful nature visits, we argue that proximity to urban green space and
blue space could also provide opportunities for incidental nature ex-
periences. No known studies, especially longitudinal studies using re-
presentative samples, have examined the differential impact of nature
use and proximity to nature on conservation support, or the differential
impact of parklands and waterways in influencing conservation sup-
port. There is also very limited understanding of the pathways involved,
and whether the potential relationship between nature experience and
conservation support is mediated by environmental concern, or by
novel pathways such as wellbeing and social interactions. The current
A.J. Dean et al.
study builds on the existing literature by using longitudinal data from
two time periods (2009 and 2011) and a representative community
sample to assess the relationship between nature experience and con-
servation support in urban settings. Because there are many factors that
may influence use of green space and blue space, it is difficult for non-
intervention studies to fully exclude the potential for reverse causality.
Nonetheless, population studies such as this do provide insights about
associations occurring at a large scale, which may not be detected in
smaller population subgroups, while controlling for the influence of
other factors such as such as age, gender, income and physical health.
Our research questions are:
i) Is exposure to nature associated with stronger support for con-
servation?
ii) Are purposeful nature visits required to generate conservation
support, or is proximity to nature sufficient?
iii) Do blue spaces and green spaces generate different types of effects
on conservation support?
iv) What factors mediate the putative relationship between nature ex-
perience and conservation support?
v) Are these effects specific to nature, or do other comparative ex-
periences also generate effects on conservation support?
2. Method
2.1. Study context
This study was conducted in Brisbane, the third largest city in
Australia, with a population approaching two million (Burton et al.,
2009). A diversity of terrestrial, aquatic, and coastal habitat types
across Brisbane support the highest biodiversity of any Australian city
(Garden et al., 2010). Brisbane is also home to extensive inland wa-
terways—including the Brisbane River, which passes through the cen-
tral business district—and is situated on a subtropical embayment, and
one of Australia’s largest estuarine systems (Gibbes et al., 2014).
This study used data from the How Areas in Brisbane Influence
healTh And acTivity (HABITAT) project. HABITAT is a longitudinal
(2007 to 2018) study of mid-aged adults (40–65 years in 2007) living in
Brisbane, Australia. Details about HABITAT’s sampling design have
been published elsewhere (Burton et al., 2009). Briefly, a multi-stage
probability sampling design was used to select a stratified random
sample (n = 200) of Census Collector’s Districts (CCD) (from a total of
n = 1625) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and from
within each CCD, a random sample of people aged 40–65 years
(n = 16,127). A total of 11,035 questionnaires with useable data were
returned (response rate of 68%). Previous analysis indicates that the
sample is broadly representative of the broader population, with some
under-representation of individuals from disadvantaged areas, blue
collar workers, and those without post-school qualifications (Turrell
et al., 2010). The HABITAT study was approved by the Human Research
Ethics Committee of the Queensland University of Technology (Ref. no.
3967 H). Based on availability of data for focal variables, data from two
time periods were used for the current analysis: 2009 (Wave 2) and
2011 (Wave 3), hereafter referred to as Time 1 and Time 2.
2.2. Survey content
2.2.1. Dependent variable – willingness to sacrifice
The indicator used to quantify conservation support was
‘Willingness to sacrifice’ for the environment. Research shows that
willingness to sacrifice is related to a range of pro-environmental be-
haviors (Oreg and Katz-Gerro, 2006). Four items, adapted from Dietz
and colleagues (Dietz et al., 1998) asked respondents to indicate their
agreement with four statements:
• “I am willing to accept cuts in standard of living for environment”
50
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
• “I am willing to bear some inconvenience to protect environment”
• “I am willing to pay higher prices in order to protect environment”
• “I am willing to pay higher taxes in order to protect the environ-
ment”
Items were rated on a 5-point scale (from 1=’strongly disagree’ to
5=‘strongly agree’). The mean of these items formed a “Willingness to
sacrifice’ score (Cronbach’s α = 0.84 at Time 1, and 0.86 at Time 2).
2.2.2. Independent variables – nature experience
The following indicators were available at both Time 1 and Time 2
to quantify different types of nature experience:
• Green space use: respondents rated how frequently they participated
in physical activity with others in a park. Responses were rated on a
6-point scale (1=Never, 2=every six months, 3=once a month,
4=every two weeks, 5=once a week, 6=more than once a week).
• Blue space use: respondents rated how frequently they participated in
physical activity with others on a beach. Responses were rated on a
6-point scale (1=Never, 2=every six months, 3=once a month,
4=every two weeks, 5=once a week, 6=more than once a week).
• Green space proximity (subjective): respondents were asked to esti-
mate the time required to walk to the nearest public park, rated on a
5-point scale (1 = 1–5 min, 2 = 6–10 min, 3 = 11–20 min,
4 = 21–30 min, 5= > 30 min, 6=Don’t know).
• Local greenspace area (objective): using a MapInfo geographic in-
formation systems (GIS) database (Burton et al., 2009), GIS calcu-
lations computed the area of parkland (parks, reserves) within 1
square km of respondent’s home.
• Proximity to river (subjective): Respondents were asked to estimate
the time required to drive to a river. Responses were rated on a 5-
point scale (1 = 1–5 min, 2 = 6–10 min, 3 = 11–20 min,
4 = 21–30 min, 5= > 30 min, 6=Don’t know).
• Proximity to coast (objective): using a MapInfo geographic informa-
tion systems (GIS) database (Burton et al., 2009), GIS calculations
computed a specific network distance, in all possible directions,
from participants' homes; the shortest distance was used. An ob-
jective indicator was used in preference to a subjective indicator
because, unlike river proximity, subjective indicators for coastal
proximity were heavily skewed.
Because the available variables quantifying use of green space and
blue space also incorporated physical activity and interaction with
others, it would be difficult to attribute any putative effect of these
variables to nature experience alone. To assess the degree to which non-
nature-based exercise may be contributing to any observed findings, we
assessed the effect of the following indicators on conservation support:
• Non-nature exercise - weights training: respondents rated how fre-
quently they participated in weight training. Responses were rated
on a 6-point scale (1=Never, 2=every six months, 3=once a
month, 4=every two weeks, 5=once a week, 6=more than once a
week).
• Non-nature exercise - exercise classes: respondents rated how fre-
quently they participated in exercise classes. Responses were rated
on a 6-point scale (1=Never, 2=every six months, 3=once a
month, 4=every two weeks, 5=once a week, 6=more than once a
week). Because this variable was heavily skewed, we computed a
binary variable (1=at least monthly, 0=never/6 monthly).
2.2.3. Mediators
The following constructs were assessed at Time 1:
• Environmental concern: respondents rated their agreement with the
following statement ‘I feel sad that my environment is changing due
to global warming’ on a 5-point scale (from 1=’Strongly disagree’ to
A.J. Dean et al.
5=‘Strongly agree’).
• Wellbeing: wellbeing was assessed using the Warwick–Edinburgh
Mental Well-Being Scale (Tennant et al., 2007). This 14-item scale
assesses both hedonic and eudemonic aspects of mental health in-
cluding positive affect (feelings of optimism, cheerfulness, and re-
laxation), satisfying interpersonal relationships and positive func-
tioning (energy, clear thinking, self-acceptance, personal
development, competence and autonomy). It demonstrates high le-
vels of internal consistency and reliability and is suitable for mea-
suring wellbeing at a population level (Tennant et al., 2007)
(Cronbach’s α = 0.93 for Time 1, HABITAT data).
• Social interactions: a single item asked respondents to rate their
agreement with the following statement: “I have little to do with
most people in my suburb”. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree), which was then reverse
scored so that higher scores reflected higher social interactions.
2.2.4. Covariates
Covariates were selected based on their potential to influence both
independent variables (nature use) and dependent variables (will-
ingness to sacrifice), and availability within the HABITAT dataset.
Much research indicates that age, gender and income are key demo-
graphic variables associated with both nature use and willingness to
sacrifice. (Dean et al., 2016b; Hartig et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2014) and
were considered the primary covariates in all models. The effect of
additional covariates were considered within an additional model.
These included education and indicators of physical health (Dean et al.,
2016b; Finlay et al., 2015). Despite the potential importance of nature
orientation as a covariate, this construct was not specifically measured
within the larger HABITAT study; to address this, we incorporated
whether respondents chose their address based on proximity to green-
space was used as a proxy indicator of nature orientation. Covariates
were assessed as follows:
• Age: continuous variable
• Sex: coded for analysis as 1=male, 0=female
• Income: respondents were asked to indicate their household income
(before tax) using eleven response options (ranging from
‘1= < $15,599/year’ through to ‘11= $130.000 or more each
year’). Additional response options were: ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Don’t
want to answer this’.
• Education: respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of
educational qualification, using 9 response options. These were re-
coded for analysis into four categories (1=school only, 2=trade
certificate, 3=diploma/associate degree, 4=university qualifica-
tion).
• Greenspace choices: as a proxy indicator of nature orientation, a
single item rated whether respondents “reasons for choosing their
address was being near to green space or bushland”. Responses were
provided on a 5-point scale (1=Not at all important, 5=Very im-
portant).
• Subjective health: a single item asked “In general, would you say your
health is…” Response options ranged from 1=Excellent to 5=Poor.
• Limited physical activity: a single item asked respondents “In the last
year, how often has health restricted you from doing physical ac-
tivity”. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale (1=None of the
time, 5=All of the time).
2.3. Statistical analysis
All variables (except for age and sex) were normalized using the
interquartile range. The first stage of analysis assessed relationships
between the types of nature experience and conservation support using
data from the same individuals surveyed at two times (Time 1 and Time
2) within longitudinal mixed-effects models (SPSS). All six indicators of
nature experience were entered as fixed effects; time (time 1 and time
51
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
2) was entered as a random effect. Two models were conducted: Model
1 controlled for age, sex, and income; Model 2 also controlled for
education, choosing greenspace, subjective health, and limited physical
activity. All findings are reported using restricted maximum likelihood
estimation (REML). All models were checked to ensure that there was
no multicolinnearity (all tolerance values > 0.70). To test whether
potential effects were specific to nature, two additional models assessed
whether two forms of exercise (exercise classes, weight training) were
associated with conservation support: Model 1 controlled for age, sex,
and income; Model 2 also controlled for education, choosing green-
space, subjective health, and limited physical activity.
Associations between experience and conservation support that
were statistically significant in the first stage of analysis were then
subjected to further mediation analysis to examine the potential path-
ways by which they exerted their effects. The framework of mediation
analysis is to test whether effect of the predictor variable on an outcome
of interest, is occurring via the effect of the predictor variable on one or
more mediators. As such, potential mediator variables must be mod-
ifiable, potentially subject to the influence of the predictor variables
(Hayes and Rockwood, 2017). We conducted multiple mediation ana-
lysis, using the SPSS macro ‘PROCESS’ Model 4 (Hayes, 2013). This
procedure estimates total, direct and indirect effects of a predictor on a
dependent variable via the effect of this predictor on one or more
mediators. We quantified the direct effect of experiences at Time 1 on
willingness to sacrifice at Time 2, and the indirect effects mediated by:
environmental concern, wellbeing and social interactions (measured at
Time 1). Bootstrapping, which repeatedly resamples the data and
generates bias-corrected confidence intervals, was used to test the sig-
nificance of indirect effects (Hayes, 2013). All mediation models con-
trolled for covariates listed in Model 1.
3. Results
3.1. Participant characteristics
Data for 6131 respondents were included in the analysis, based on
availability of data from the same participant being surveyed twice (at
both Time 1 and Time 2). Mean age was 54 years (SD = 7), and 58%
were female (3554/6131). Income data was available for 87% of these
respondents (5317/6131). Median annual household income range was
$72,800-$93,599, with 13% of respondents indicating this response.
Almost two thirds of participants (62.9%) reported completing an
educational qualification beyond high school, with one third (33.9%)
having a university qualification. Overall, just over one half of parti-
cipants reported some willingness to sacrifice for the environment, with
55% scoring above the mid-point (Table S1).
3.2. Nature exposure and conservation support
Mixed models examined the relationship between nature exposure
and willingness to sacrifice for environmental action. Only one in-
dicator of green space exposure— frequency of recreating in
parks—was associated with stronger conservation support (B = 0.04,
95%CI 0.03 to 0.05). No effect was observed for subjective distance to
parks (B = 0.00, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.02) or objective park area near
home (B = 0.01, 95%CI –0.01 to 0.02). In contrast, both blue space use
(B = 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06) and proximity to river (B= –0.06, 95%
CI –0.09 to –0.03) were associated with stronger conservation support.
These associations were all retained when controlling for education,
subjective ratings of physical health, impact of health on physical ac-
tivity, and choosing suburb because of green space (Table 1). Counter to
expectations, greater proximity to the coast was associated with lower
conservation support (B = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09, Model 1 only).
A.J. Dean et al. Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57

Table 1
Longitudinal associations between exposure to blue and green space and conservation support (higher scores indicate great support) over two time periods. Two
models were applied: Model 1 controlled for demographics (R2 = 0.02); Model 2 controlled for demographics, physical health and greenspace choices (R2 = 0.07).
(Statistically significant findings are in bold). All variables (except for age and sex) were normalized using the interquartile range.
MODEL 1 MODEL 2

B SE 95%CI p B SE 95%CI p

Frequency: Physical activity with others in park 0.04 0.01 0.03, 0.05 < 0.001 0.03 0.01 0.02, 0.04 < 0.001
Frequency: Physical activity with others on beach 0.05 0.01 0.03, 0.06 < 0.001 0.04 0.01 0.02, 0.06 < 0.001
Proximity to park (subjective)a 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.98 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.74
Area of park within 1 km2 (objective) 0.01 0.01 −0.01, 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.77
Proximity to river (subjective)a −0.06 0.01 −0.09, -0.03 < 0.001 −0.04 0.01 −0.07, -0.03 0.004
Proximity to coast (objective)a 0.06 0.01 0.03, 0.09 0.001 0.03 0.02 0.00, 0.07 0.056
Age (scaled to 10 years) −0.04 0.01 −0.06, -0.01 0.018 −0.03 0.01 −0.05, -0.01 0.082
Sex (male = 1, female = 0) −0.08 0.02 −0.12, -0.05 < 0.001 −0.06 0.02 −0.10, -0.02 0.004
Income 0.05 0.01 0.03, 0.07 < 0.001 0.02 0.01 0.00, 0.04 0.10
Education (reference group = school only)
Certificate −0.02 0.03 −0.08, 0.04 0.47
Diploma 0.09 0.03 0.03, 0.16 0.005
University 0.25 0.02 0.20, 0.30 < 0.001
Subjective health 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.87
Physical activity restricted −0.01 0.02 −0.05, 0.02 0.52
Greenspace choices 0.18 0.02 0.14, 0.21 < 0.001

a
Higher values represent greater distance.

Table 2
Results from mediation bootstrapping, highlighting the bootstrapped effect (Bboot), standard error (SEboot) and confidence interval (CIboot). Statistically significant
mediation occurs when the bootstrapped confidence interval does not cross zero (highlighted in bold).
EXPERIENCE MEDIATOR Bboot SEboot CIboot

Recreation frequency – Park Total effect 0.032 0.008 0.016, 0.048

Sadness about environment 0.019 0.008 0.004, 0.034
Wellbeing 0.006 0.002 0.003, 0.011
Social interaction 0.007 0.003 0.003, 0.013
Recreation frequency – Beach Total effect 0.016 0.006 0.005, 0.028
Sadness about environment 0.009 0.006 −0.003, 0.020
Wellbeing 0.004 0.001 0.001, 0.007
Social interaction 0.004 0.002 0.002, 0.008
Distance to river (subjective) Total effect 0.013 0.007 > 0.000, 0.027
Sadness about environment 0.018 0.007 0.006, 0.032
Wellbeing −0.005 0.002 −0.009, -0.002
Social interaction −0.001 0.001 −0.003, 0.001

3.3. Pathways between nature exposure and conservation support
Overall, mediation analysis demonstrates that the pathway from use
of greenspace at Time 1 to conservation support at Time 2 was medi-
ated by all three tested mediators: sadness about the environment
(Bboot = 0.019, CIboot = 0.004 to 0.034), wellbeing (Bboot = 0.006,
CIboot = 0.003 to 0.011) and social interactions (Bboot = 0.007,
CIboot = 0.003 to 0.013) (Table 2, Fig. 1). In contrast, sadness about the
environment did not mediate the relationship between blue space use to
conservation support (Bboot = 0.009, CIboot=-0.003 to 0.020). This re-
lationship was mediated by both wellbeing (Bboot = 0.004,
CIboot = 0.001 to 0.007) and social interactions (Bboot = 0.004,
CIboot = 0.002 to 0.008). The relationship between proximity to river
and conservation support was only positively mediated by greater
wellbeing (Bboot=-0.005, CIboot=-0.009 to -0.002). Counter to ex-
pectations, proximity to the river was associated with reduced sadness
about the environment (Bboot = 0.018, CIboot = 0.006 to 0.032), with
no role of social interactions (Bboot=-0.001, CIboot=-0.003 to 0.001)
(Table 2, Fig. 1).
3.4. Testing whether observed effects are specific to nature: the role of non-
nature exercise
Additional models to test counter explanations indicated that fre-
quency of exercise classes (B = 0.06; 95%CI 0.02 to 0.10) and weights
training (B = 0.03; 95%CI 0.01 to 0.04) were associated with con-
servation support (Table 3). Additional mediation analysis indicated
that the relationship between exercise classes and conservation support
was mediated by both wellbeing (Bboot = 0.009, CIboot = 0.004 to
0.016), and greater social interactions (Bboot = 0.007, CIboot = 0.003 to
0.014). The pathway between weight training and conservation support
was only mediated by wellbeing (Bboot = 0.004, CIboot = 0.002 to 0.07)
(Table 4, Fig. 1).
4. Discussion
This study explored the relationship between nature exposure and
support for conservation. In line with our hypotheses, we observed that
a range of different nature experiences were related to our indicator of
conservation support—willingness to sacrifice for the environment.
Experiences associated with conservation support were frequency of
physical activity in parks and beaches, and proximity to the river.
However, this effect was not specific to nature experiences, with our
counter examples (frequency of exercise) also associated with con-
servation support. The pathways between experience and conservation
support also portray a more multifaceted picture than existing research
has described. Specifically, the theorized pathway between nature ex-
posure and conservation support—sadness about environmental chan-
ge—only mediated the relationship between park use and conservation
support. Other constructs that mediated the relationship between

52
A.J. Dean et al. Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57

Fig. 1. Path coefficients for each mediation model. The sets of arrows on the left highlight the associations between independent variables (green) and mediators
(white); the arrows on the right highlight the associations between mediators (white) and dependent variable (yellow). The horizontal arrow at the base of each
model is the association between nature experience and the dependent variable not explained by the mediators. The coefficient in parentheses is the total effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable, including both direct effects and indirect effects of the mediators. Statistically significant pathways are a solid arrow;
non-significant pathways are a dotted arrow (For all models, R2 = 0.12) *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

experience and conservation support were wellbeing and social inter- than suggested by the extinction of experience theory, and that a
actions. These findings suggest that exposure to urban nature may elicit variety of life experiences, not nature alone, may influence an in-
conservation support, but that the pathways involved are more complex dividual’s capacity to support environmental initiatives.

Table 3
Test of counter explanations: relationship between two types of non-nature-based exercise and conservation support (Model 1 R2 = 0.02; Model 2 R2 = 0.07).
MODEL 1 MODEL 2

B SE 95%CI p B SE 95%CI p

Frequency: exercise classes 0.06 0.02 0.02, 0.10 0.004 0.05 0.02 0.02, 0.09 0.040
Frequency: weight training 0.03 0.01 0.01, 0.04 0.001 0.02 0.01 0.001, 0.04 0.041
Age (scaled to 10 years) −0.06 0.01 −0.09, -0.03 < 0.001 −0.06 0.02 −0.09, -0.03 < 0.001
Sex (male = 1, female = 0) −0.07 0.02 −0.11, -0.03 < 0.001 −0.06 0.02 −0.10, -0.02 0.005
Income 0.04 0.01 0.03, 0.06 < 0.001 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.71
Education (ref = school only)
Certificate −0.03 0.03 −0.09, 0.03 0.26
Diploma 0.10 0.03 0.04, 0.17 0.003
University 0.27 0.03 0.22, 0.32 < 0.001
Subjective health 0.00 0.01 −0.02, 0.02 0.96
Physical activity restricted −0.02 0.02 −0.05, 0.02 0.35
Greenspace choices 0.20 0.02 0.17, 0.23 < 0.001

53
A.J. Dean et al.
Table 4
Test of counter explanations: pathways from non-nature exercise to conservation support, highlighting the bootstrapped effect (Bboot), standard error (SEboot) and
confidence interval (CIboot). Statistically significant mediation occurs when the bootstrapped confidence interval does not cross zero (highlighted in bold).
EXPERIENCE MEDIATOR
Frequency of exercise classes Total effect
Sadness about environment
Wellbeing
Social interaction
Frequency of weight training Total effect
Sadness about environment
Wellbeing
Social interaction
There are many ways to experience nature. It has been argued that
to generate conservation support, nature experiences must be regular,
and involve both purposeful appreciation of nature and exposure to
‘sufficient’ biodiversity (Miller, 2005; Pyle, 2003). Similarly, existing
research suggests a role for more remote nature experiences (Coldwell
and Evans, 2017; Zaradic et al., 2009) or purposeful conservation-re-
lated activities (Prévot et al., 2018). Our findings—that park-based
physical activity or proximity to rivers was associated with conserva-
tion support—suggests that incidental exposure to urban nature may
also be sufficient to elicit conservation support. Typologies of nature
experiences highlight different dimensions of nature experiences, in-
formed by both nature characteristics and behavioral and social ele-
ments of the interaction (Clayton et al., 2017). Our testing of additional
explanatory models suggest that social and behavioral dimensions of an
experience, including but not limited to nature experiences, may also
exert important influences on conservation support.
The role of proximity to nature varied according to the type of
nature involved. Proximity to parks, and area of parkland close to home
were not associated with conservation support. Many benefits of urban
greenspace are indirect, not dependent on active use of the greenspace,
such as aesthetics, improvements to air quality and cooling effects
(Hartig et al., 2014). In contrast, our findings suggest that ‘passive’
exposure to green space may not be sufficient to elicit conservation
support. Proximity to waterways, but not coasts, was associated with
conservation support, highlighting the importance of examining the
role of inland waterways on a range of social outcomes. Most existing
research examining social benefits of blue space focuses on coastal
areas with research suggesting that coastal proximity may generate a
range of health and social benefits (Flack and Greenberg, 1987; White
et al., 2013). We are not able to identify why coastal proximity was
negatively associated with conservation support. The study area com-
prises diverse coastal ecosystems (beaches, seagrass beds, mangroves,
salt marshes and rocky shores), with varied levels of accessibility
(Gibbes et al., 2014; Healthy Land and Water, 2017). Accessibility,
amenity and perceived environmental quality can influence use of
coastal landscapes (Tudor and Williams, 2006). Thus, it is possible that
habitat type or accessibility influences the type of coastal experiences
available and the subsequent social benefits conferred. These diverse
findings highlight the opportunity for future research to examine how
patterns of use, accessibility, and habitat type influence benefits con-
ferred by coastal landscapes across larger spatial scales.
Sadness about environmental change mediated the relationship
between frequency of park-based activity and conservation support. It
has long been argued that witnessing environmental change is an im-
portant ingredient for fostering conservation support (Pyle, 2003; Soga
and Gaston, 2016). We are not able to identify what specific experi-
ences generated by park activities may have led to environmental
concern. In urban settings, air and noise pollution are readily detectable
by individuals (Mace et al., 2004), and may detract from the quality of
nature experiences, leading to conservation concern. Experimental
studies report that viewing pictures of urban scenes may increase
feelings of sadness (Ulrich, 1981). It is possible that simply viewing
54
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
Bboot SEboot CIboot
0.020 0.013 −0.005, 0.046
0.005 0.012 −0.019, 0.029
0.009 0.003 0.004, 0.016
0.007 0.003 0.003, 0.014
0.013 0.005 0.003, 0.022
0.008 0.005 −0.001, 0.017
0.004 0.001 0.002, 0.007
0.001 0.001 −0.001, 0.002
green spaces adjacent to urban structures may elicit a sense of contrast,
highlighting the vulnerability of nature. The lack of effects of other
experiences on environmental concern suggests that this may be a
specific effect of terrestrial nature experiences. Neither beach recrea-
tion nor proximity to waterways were associated with stronger en-
vironmental concern, and in fact, closer proximity to the river was as-
sociated with lower environmental concern. The main river within the
study area is the Brisbane River, which passes through the main urban
areas of Brisbane. It is possible that proximity to waterways within
high-density areas generates different effects to waterways in less ur-
banized settings (Ulrich, 1981). Another possible explanation for the
lack of effect of blue space on environmental concern relates to reduced
visibility of environmental threats in aquatic and coastal environments.
Research suggests that threats to rivers and oceans (such as water
pollution or loss of biodiversity) are inherently less visible than threats
to terrestrial ecosystems, and are thus less likely to garner as much
attention from communities or decision makers (Cao and Prakash,
2012; Lotze et al., 2018). Because it is more difficult to see and ex-
perience biodiversity in marine and aquatic environments, it is likely
that this makes it more difficult to experience loss in these environ-
ments. This raises the challenge of how to promote awareness about
threats to marine ecosystems in a way that meaningfully aligns with
people’s existing experience.
Our findings identify two novel pathways between experience and
conservation support, which highlight the complex social dimensions
that may be driving observed relationships between experience and
support. Enhanced wellbeing mediated all tested relationships between
three types of nature exposure and conservation support. Much re-
search suggests that use of, and proximity to, nature can generate
wellbeing and psychological restoration (Biedenweg et al., 2017; Cleary
et al., 2017; Pasanen et al., 2018; Pedersen et al., 2019). Our findings
indicate that wellbeing is an important pathway between nature ex-
periences and conservation support, and suggests that emotional well-
being may enable individuals to consider issues beyond that of their
daily needs (Tay and Diener, 2011). The potential relationship between
nature exposure, well-being and conservation support is complex. For
example, experimental research suggests that exposure to nature (via
either images or laboratory settings containing plants) may strengthen
pro-social aspirations (Weinstein et al., 2009), which may be linked to
wellbeing (Sheldon et al., 2004). This suggests that there may be
complex bi-directional effects between wellbeing and pro-social activ-
ities such as conservation support. The potential co-occurrence of
wellbeing and sadness as mediators need not be a contradiction; posi-
tive and negative emotions can co-occur (Larsen and Green, 2013). This
is also consistent with environmental research reporting that negative
emotions may lead to conservation action, co-occurring with strong
positive emotions, empowerment, and social support (Dean et al., 2018;
Massingham et al., 2019). Greater social interactions also mediated the
relationship between physical activity with others in parks or on bea-
ches, and conservation support. There are many pathways by which
social interactions can increase support for environmental initiatives.
These include opportunities for information sharing or information
A.J. Dean et al.
seeking, and activating positive norms about conservation (Dean et al.,
2016a; McMichael and Shipworth, 2013). Non-nature forms of exercise
were also associated with conservation support via enhancing well-
being and social interactions. These findings are consistent with re-
search about the many benefits of exercise for both individuals and
society (Warburton and Bredin, 2017; WHO, 2018). They also highlight
the importance of considering wide-ranging social dimensions when
promoting support for conservation. Rather than diminishing the role of
nature, identifying a broader range of experiences and pathways to
conservation support should be viewed as an opportunity to foster
conservation support across the community.
4.1. Implications for policy and practice
These findings have a range of implications for our understanding of
how to promote environmental engagement and support for conserva-
tion across communities. As stated above, purposeful nature visits or
sadness about environmental change do not appear to be necessary
ingredients for promoting conservation support. For practitioners who
aim to promote positive nature experiences, it may be suitable to focus
on physical activity, wellbeing, and social interactions. Research find-
ings indicating the benefits of nature typically result in recommenda-
tions to promote uptake of nature. While we agree with the intentions
of these recommendations, the conservation community should not be
naïve in assuming that calls to spend time in nature will be sufficient to
generate meaningful change in target outcomes. For example, research
on ‘nature prescriptions’ for children found that 13% of ‘nature pre-
scriptions’, accompanied by ticket of entry, were redeemed (Coffey and
Gauderer, 2016). There are many barriers to uptake of nature experi-
ences, including costs, poor mobility, lack of access, or fear of nature
(Finlay et al., 2015; Gidlow and Ellis, 2011; Shanahan et al., 2017; Soga
and Gaston, 2016; Wang et al., 2015), which limits the scope of benefits
conferred by these activities at a population level. This raises a number
of challenges for practice: nature experiences can contribute to health,
but individuals with poor health may be less likely to use these spaces
(Finlay et al., 2015). Similarly, nature experiences may foster connec-
tion to nature, but those with limited connection to nature may be less
likely to see out these experiences (Lin et al., 2014). It is likely that
increasing use of greenspace and bluespace—especially in certain social
groups—requires more than just provision of greenspace or messages
promoting their use. Behavioral science indicates that information is
necessary but not sufficient to promote new behaviors, and that beha-
vioral strategies—such as identifying a specific target behavior, making
it easy, providing feedback or rewards, and communicating positive
social norms—are also necessary for change (Osbaldiston and Schott,
2012; Steg and Vlek, 2009). In the specific context of urban nature use,
‘making it easy’ may involve provision of pathways or amenities; po-
sitive social modelling may include strategies that promote social in-
clusion (Boyd et al., 2018; Seaman et al., 2010). It is important to re-
cognize that the variance in conservation support explained by nature
experiences (as indicated by R2) was low. Although small statistical
effects can be associated with meaningful impact at large scales (e.g.
(Chaurand et al., 2015; Lindsay et al., 2017), this also suggests that
many other factors are likely to influence conservation support, and be
potential targets for change. Aligned with this, our findings suggest that
diverse experiences, not just intensive and purposeful nature experi-
ences, can promote potential benefits for nature and society, high-
lighting an opportunity for conservation practitioners to work colla-
boratively across sectors. Evidence for the positive effect of nature on
emotional wellbeing and other health outcomes is often cited to pro-
mote support or investment in biodiversity protection (Sandifer et al.,
2015). However, it is possible that investment in societal health and
wellbeing, rather than representing a trade-off in investing for con-
servation outcomes, may actually also generate indirect benefits for
nature.
55
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
4.2. Limitations and future research
The study was based in Brisbane (Australia), a city with high local
biodiversity and a subtropical climate that permits substantial outdoor
activities and recreation (Garden et al., 2010). Given that research
suggests that some psychological benefits of green space may be related
to biodiversity (Fuller et al., 2007), it is possible that our findings are
influenced by the context, and may not occur in a low-biodiversity
areas or in regions with different climate and weather patterns. Because
our data were sourced from an existing study, some constructs of the-
oretical interest were either unavailable or constrained in how they
were assessed. For example, concern about environmental change was
captured by a single item, pertaining to sadness related to global
warming. However, individuals may experience other responses to
changing environments, such as sadness about other types of environ-
mental change (e.g. loss of parklands) or the experience of other
emotional states (e.g. anger or positive emotions). It is possible that
assessing more complex responses to environmental change would en-
rich our findings. Similarly, data about ethnicity and values were not
available for use. Our nature use variables were “physical activity with
others”, in a park or on a beach. Due to lack of available data, we were
not able to specifically assess whether more sedentary or solitary use of
parks and beaches may also elicit conservation support, and if so, what
pathways may be most important. However, frequency of non-nature
exercise was also associated with conservation support, highlighting
that many types of experiences may influence conservation support, not
just the hypothesized experiences. This finding, that our effects were
not specific to nature, highlight the importance of interpreting positive
associations in social science cautiously, especially in the absence of a
control condition. While our data were longitudinal, most of our find-
ings (with the exception of river proximity) involved assessing the ef-
fect of experiences in those who choose to have these experiences.
Because choosing to visit local parks may be associated with stronger
nature orientation (Lin et al., 2014), we are not able eliminate the in-
fluence of reverse causality on observed pathways. It is possible that the
observed benefits may be less salient in individuals who choose not to
spend time in nature. To establish causality, it would be useful for fu-
ture research to explore the effects of nature experiences using ex-
perimental or intervention-based research designs.
5. Conclusion
Our findings indicate that urban nature experiences, such as visiting
local parks and proximity to waterways are associated with support for
conservation. While this provides some support for the ‘extinction of
experience’, our findings suggest that the relationship between nature
experience and conservation support is more complex than theorized.
Firstly, the pathways by which experience elicits effects on conserva-
tion support are diverse. The theorized pathway—sadness about en-
vironmental change—only mediated the relationship between park use
and support. We identify two novel pathways between experience and
conservation support, which highlight the complex social dimensions
that may be driving observed relationships between experience and
support. Enhanced wellbeing mediated all tested relationships between
three types of nature exposure and conservation support. Secondly, our
findings suggest that these findings may not be specific to nature, with
experiences that promote wellbeing and social interactions also having
potential to elicit conservation support. Recommendations to promote
nature experience as a pathway to conservation support may enable
this, but our findings indicate that a variety of life experiences, not
nature alone, may influence an individual’s capacity to support en-
vironmental initiatives. Rather than diminishing the role of nature, we
argue these findings highlight diverse entry points for broadening
community support for nature conservation.
A.J. Dean et al. Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57

Appendix A. Supplementary data of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environ. Conserv. 34, 291–299.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., Frumkin, H., 2014. Nature and health. Annu. Rev.
Public Health 207–228.
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02. Analysis : a Regression-based Approach. Guilford Press, New York.
002. Hayes, A.F., Rockwood, N.J., 2017. Regression-based statistical mediation and modera-
tion analysis in clinical research: observations, recommendations, and implementa-
tion. Behav. Res. Ther. 98, 39–57.
References Healthy Land & Water, 2017. South East Queensland Report Card. p. hlw.org.au/re-
portcard. .
Hobbs, S.J., White, P.C.L., 2012. Motivations and barriers in relation to community
Bell, S.L., Phoenix, C., Lovell, R., Wheeler, B.W., 2015. Seeking everyday wellbeing: the
participation in biodiversity recording. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 364–373.
coast as a therapeutic landscape. Soc. Sci. Med. 142, 56–67.
Jones, A., Hillsdon, M., Coombes, E., 2009. Greenspace access, use, and physical activity:
Biedenweg, K., Scott, R.P., Scott, T.A., 2017. How does engaging with nature relate to life
understanding the effects of area deprivation. Prev. Med. 49, 500–505.
satisfaction? Demonstrating the link between environment-specific social experiences
Jones, N., Clark, J.R., Panteli, M., Proikaki, M., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., 2012. Local social
and life satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 50, 112–124.
capital and the acceptance of Protected Area policies: an empirical study of two
Boyd, F., White, M.P., Bell, S.L., Burt, J., 2018. Who doesn’t visit natural environments for
Ramsar river delta ecosystems in northern Greece. J. Environ. Manage. 96, 55–63.
recreation and why: a population representative analysis of spatial, individual and
Kazmierczak, A., 2013. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties.
temporal factors among adults in England. Landsc. Urban Plan. 175, 102–113.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 109, 31–44.
Burton, N.W., Haynes, M., Wilson, L.A.M., Giles-Corti, B., Oldenburg, B.F., Brown, W.J.,
Lake, R.L., Huckfeldt, R., 1998. Social capital, social networks, and political participation.
Giskes, K., Turrell, G., 2009. HABITAT: a longitudinal multilevel study of physical
Polit. Psychol. 19, 567–584.
activity change in mid-aged adults. BMC Public Health 9.
Larsen, J.T., Green, J.D., 2013. Evidence for mixed feelings of happiness and sadness from
Cao, X., Prakash, A., 2012. Trade competition and environmental regulations: domestic
brief moments in time. Cogn. Emot. 27, 1469–1477.
political constraints and issue visibility. J. Polit. 74, 66–82.
Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F., 2014. Opportunity or or-
Chaurand, N., Bossart, F., Delhomme, P., 2015. A naturalistic study of the impact of
ientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS One 9 e87422.
message framing on highway speeding. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 35,
Lindsay, J., Dean, A.J., Supski, S., 2017. Responding to the Millennium drought: com-
37–44.
paring domestic water cultures in three Australian cities. Reg. Environ. Change 17,
Chawla, L., 1999. Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action. J. Environ. Educ. 31,
565–577.
15–26.
Lotze, H.K., Guest, H., O’Leary, J., Tuda, A., Wallace, D., 2018. Public perceptions of
Clayton, S., Colleony, A., Conversy, P., Maclouf, E., Martin, L., Torres, A.C., Truong, M.X.,
marine threats and protection from around the world. Ocean Coast. Manage. 152,
Prevot, A.C., 2017. Transformation of experience: toward a new relationship with
14–22.
nature. Conserv. Lett. 10, 645–651.
Mace, B.L., Bell, P.A., Loomis, R.J., 2004. Visibility and Natural Quiet in National Parks
Cleary, A., Fielding, K.S., Bell, S.L., Murray, Z., Roiko, A., 2017. Exploring potential
and Wilderness Areas:Psychological Considerations. Environ. Behav. 36, 5–31.
mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature
Massingham, E., Fuller, R.A., Dean, A.J., 2019. Pathways between contrasting ecotourism
connection. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 119–128.
experiences and conservation engagement. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.
Coffey, J.S., Gauderer, L., 2016. When pediatric primary care providers prescribe nature
1007/s10531-018-01694-4.
engagement at a State Park, do children “Fill” the prescription? Ecopsychology 8,
McDonnell, M.J., MacGregor-Fors, I., 2016. The ecological future of cities. Science 352,
207–214.
936–938.
Coldwell, D.F., Evans, K.L., 2017. Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and
McGinlay, J., Parsons, D.J., Morris, J., Graves, A., Hubatova, M., Bradbury, R.B., Bullock,
the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support. PLoS One
J.M., 2018. Leisure activities and social factors influence the generation of cultural
12, 18.
ecosystem service benefits. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 468–480.
Cox, D.T.C., Shanahan, D.F., Hudson, H.L., Fuller, R.A., Gaston, K.J., 2018. The impact of
McKinney, M.L., 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52,
urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landsc. Urban
883–890.
Plan. 179, 72–80.
McMichael, M., Shipworth, D., 2013. The value of social networks in the diffusion of
Dallimer, M., Davies, Z.G., Irvine, K.N., Maltby, L., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J.,
energy-efficiency innovations in UK households. Energy Policy 53, 159–168.
Armsworth, P.R., 2014a. What personal and environmental factors determine fre-
Miller, J.R., 2005. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends
quency of urban greenspace use? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11, 7977–7992.
Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 20, 430–434.
Dallimer, M., Tinch, D., Hanley, N., Irvine, K.N., Rouquette, J.R., Warren, P.H., Maltby,
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2008. The nature relatedness scale: linking
L., Gaston, K.J., Armsworth, P.R., 2014b. Quantifying preferences for the natural
individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ.
world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value. Conserv. Biol. 28,
Behav. 41, 715–740.
404–413.
Nord, M., Luloff, A.E., Bridger, J.C., 1998. The association of forest recreation with en-
de la Barrera, F., Reyes-Paecke, S., Harris, J., Bascuñán, D., Farías, J.M., 2016. People’s
vironmentalism. Environ. Behav. 30, 235–246.
perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated
Oreg, S., Katz-Gerro, T., 2006. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally:
neighborhoods. Urban For. Urban Green. 20, 254–264.
values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ.
Dean, A.J., Fielding, K.S., Lindsay, J., Newton, F.J., Ross, H., 2016a. How social capital
Behav. 38, 462–483.
influences community support for alternative water sources. Sustain. Cities Soc. 27,
Osbaldiston, R., Schott, J.P., 2012. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science:
457–466.
meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 44,
Dean, A.J., Lindsay, J., Fielding, K., Smith, L., 2016b. Fostering water sensitive citizenship
257–299.
– community profiles of engagement in water-related issues. Environ. Sci. Policy 55
Pasanen, T.P., Neuvonen, M., Korpela, K.M., 2018. The psychology of recent nature visits:
(Part 1), 238–247.
(how) are motives and attentional focus related to post-visit restorative experiences,
Dean, A.J., Church, E.K., Loder, J., Fielding, K.S., Wilson, K.A., 2018. How do marine and
creativity, and emotional well-being? Environ. Behav. 50, 913–944.
coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement? J. Environ.
Pedersen, E., Weisner, S.E.B., Johansson, M., 2019. Wetland areas’ direct contributions to
Manage. 213, 409–416.
residents’ well-being entitle them to high cultural ecosystem values. Sci. Total
Depledge, M.H., Bird, W.J., 2009. The Blue Gym: health and wellbeing from our coasts.
Environ. 646, 1315–1326.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 947–948.
Prévot, A.-C., Cheval, H., Raymond, R., Cosquer, A., 2018. Routine experiences of nature
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., Guagnano, G.A., 1998. Social structural and social psychological
in cities can increase personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation. Biol.
bases of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 30, 450–471.
Conserv. 226, 1–8.
Finlay, J., Franke, T., Mckay, H., Sims-Gould, J., 2015. Therapeutic landscapes and
Pyle, R.M., 2003. Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx 37, 206–214.
wellbeing in later life: impacts of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health Place
Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Ward, B.P., 2015. Exploring connections among nature,
34, 97–106.
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to
Flack, J.E., Greenberg, J., 1987. Public attitudes towards water conservation. J. Am.
enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 1–15.
Waterworks Assoc. 79 (46-), 51.
Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., Randrup, T.B., Troelsen, J., 2010. Influences on the use
Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., 2007.
of urban green space – A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 9,
Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3, 390.
25–32.
Garden, J.G., McAlpine, C.A., Possingham, H.P., 2010. Multi-scaled habitat considera-
Seaman, P.J., Jones, R., Ellaway, A., 2010. It’s not just about the park, it’s about in-
tions for conserving urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in
tegration too: why people choose to use or not use urban greenspaces. Int. J. Behav.
Brisbane, Australia. Landsc. Ecol. 25, 1013–1028.
Nutr. Phys. Act. 7, 78.
Gibbes, B., Grinham, A., Neil, D., Olds, A., Maxwell, P., Connolly, R., Weber, T., Udy, N.,
Shah, A.K., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., 2012. Some consequences of having too little.
Udy, J., 2014. Moreton Bay and its estuaries: a sub-tropical system under pressure
Science 338, 682–685.
from Rapid population growth. In: Wolanski, E. (Ed.), Estuaries of Australia in 2050
Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Bush, R., Fuller, R.A., 2015. What is the role of
and Beyond. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 203–222.
trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landsc. Ecol. 30,
Gidlow, C.J., Ellis, N.J., 2011. Neighbourhood green space in deprived urban commu-
153–165.
nities: issues and barriers to use. Local Environ. 16, 989–1002.
Shanahan, D.F., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Lin, B.B., Dean, J., Barber, E., Fuller, R.A., 2016.
Giusti, M., Barthel, S., Marcus, L., 2014. Nature routines and affinity with the biosphere: a
Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci. Rep. 6.
case study of preschool children in Stockholm. Child. Youth Environ. 24, 16–42.
Shanahan, D.F., Cox, D.T.C., Fuller, R.A., Hancock, S., Lin, B.B., Anderson, K., Bush, R.,
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F.G., Strumse, E., 2007. Psychological restoration in nature as a source
Gaston, K.J., 2017. Variation in experiences of nature across gradients of tree cover in

56
A.J. Dean et al.
compact and sprawling cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 231–238.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., Kasser, T., 2004. The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: it’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 475–486.
Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature inter-
actions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 94–101.
Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K., Hanaki, K., 2016. Both direct and vi-
carious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 12.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317.
Tay, L., Diener, E., 2011. Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the World. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 101, 354–365.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker,
J., Stewart-Brown, S., 2007. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
(WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 5, 63.
Tudor, D.T., Williams, A.T., 2006. A rationale for beach selection by the public on the
coast of Wales, UK. Area 38, 153–164.
Turrell, G., Haynes, M., Burton, N.W., Giles-Corti, B., Oldenburg, B., Wilson, L.A., Giskes,
K., Brown, W.J., 2010. Neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity: baseline
results from the HABITAT multilevel longitudinal study. Ann. Epidemiol. 20,
171–181.
Ulrich, R.S., 1981. Natural Versus Urban Scenes:Some Psychophysiological Effects.
57
Global Environmental Change 55 (2019) 48–57
Environ. Behav. 13, 523–556.
United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 Revision. United Nations
Population Division Licence CC BY-4.0.
Volker, S., Kistemann, T., 2011. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being
- Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ.
Health 214, 449–460.
Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., 2015. The physical and non-physical factors that influence
perceived access to urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 133, 53–66.
Warburton, D.E.R., Bredin, S.S.D., 2017. Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic
review of current systematic reviews. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 32, 541–556.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A.K., Ryan, R.M., 2009. Can nature make us more caring?
Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 35, 1315–1329.
White, M.P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B.W., Depledge, M.H., 2013. Coastal proximity, health
and well-being: results from a longitudinal panel survey. Health Place 23, 97–103.
White, M.P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B.W., Fleming, L.E.F., Depledge, M.H., 2016. The’ Blue
Gym’: What can blue space do for you and what can you do for blue space? J. Mar.
Biol. Assoc. U.K. 96, 5–12.
WHO, 2018. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-2030: More Active People for a
Healthier World. World Health Organization, Geneva pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
IGO.
Zaradic, P.A., Pergams, O.R.W., Kareiva, P., 2009. The impact of nature experience on
willingness to support conservation. PLoS One 4, 5.