INCREASING PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR THROUGH

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCES IN NATURE

By
Abigail Parker

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Wilkes

Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts
in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a
Concentration in Behavioral Neuroscience

Wilkes Honors College of

Florida Atlantic University
Jupiter, Florida
December 2019
 INCREASING PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCES IN NATURE

By
Abigail Parker

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Laura
Vernon, and has been approved by the members of her/his supervisory committee. It was
submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

____________________________
Dr. Laura Vernon

____________________________
Dr. William O’Brien

________________________________________
Dean Timothy Steigenga, Wilkes Honors College

____________
Date

ii
 ABSTRACT
Author: Abigail Parker
Title: Increasing Pro-environmental Behavior Through
Environmental Education and Experience with Nature
Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Laura Vernon
Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences
Concentration: Behavioral Neuroscience
Year: 2019

One of the primary goals of research in conservation psychology is to analyze

how humans behave towards nature and how to change that behavior in a pro-

environmental direction. Through a comprehensive literature review, this study focuses

on empirically supported ways to increase individual pro-environmental behavior (PEB).

We found environmental education (EE) is a useful approach to this, particularly when

we implement it younger and for longer periods of time. Informal EE is another prime

focus as it shows more success than formal EE alone. Connection to nature (CN) is

shown to predict PEB as well. Since this study focuses on ways to change behavior, we

looked at how to increase CN. Research suggests that increasing experiences with nature

increases CN and, subsequently, PEB. Again, this is particularly useful when

implemented during childhood. This review suggests more research attention should be

placed on these methods in supporting environmental behavior.

iii
 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….........1
Environmental Education (EE)…………………………………………………………...2
What Increases the Effectiveness of EE? ………………………………………...3
Potency of EE and Effectiveness…………………………………............4
EE Effectiveness and Age of Onset............................................................5
Intergenerational Effects.........................................................................................8
Informal EE and Experience Based Learning.......................................................11
EE Discussion.......................................................................................................14
Connection to Nature (CN)…...........................................................................................15
Increasing CN.......................................................................................................20
Experiences in Nature in Adulthood.........................................................20
Experiences in Nature in Childhood.........................................................22
Experiences in Nature in Childhood Carrying into Adulthood................25
CN Discussion......................................................................................................27
Conclusion........................................................................................................................28
References.........................................................................................................................31

iv
 Introduction
Conservation psychology is concerned with the relationship between humans and

nature. By revealing the complicated inner workings of people and why they do the

things that they do, the discipline predicts causality for conservation efforts. This

understanding is imperative if we want to change behavior, and changing behavior is a

primary goal of conservation science. Behavior is influenced by a web of interrelated

factors. Attitudes, values, convenience, social influence, cost-benefit analysis,

accessibility, knowledge of the effects on behavior, felt responsibility, self-efficacy, and

more all impact behavior. Due to this muddled nature of human behavior, we will be

doing a comprehensive review of the literature focusing on empirically supported effects

on individual environmental behavior as opposed to breaking down its constituents.

The many variables that impact whether a person acts pro-environmentally have

been thoroughly studied. They are intertwined, overlapping, and often inconsistent. This

study will instead focus on things that appear to increase pro-environmental behavior

(PEB) in individuals and can be implemented fairly easily. Environmental education (EE)

is something long looked at as a way to increase PEB. Traditional EE has insignificant

effects on PEB, but when you look at the age someone begins learning through EE,

results emerge. Another component is the form of EE. Learning in an informal setting,

outside of classic learning environments, and incorporating experience with learning has

notable implications. Experiences with nature reveal another way to impact PEB via

increasing connectedness to nature (CN). This also shows more significant results for

youth. Children are a necessary focus for successfully changing behavior on a societal

level. Focusing on them will have more effective results and a prolonged impact. This is

1
not getting the attention it deserves (Wray-Lake, Flanagan & Osgood, 2010). These are

practical ways to increase PEB with a plethora of empirical support.

Environmental Education (EE)

Ninety-five percent of the public supports EE in schools and 85 percent agree that

the government should support EE programs (Coyle, 2005). Yet, only 12 percent of adult

Americans can pass a basic quiz on awareness of energy topics and 80 percent of adult

Americans are heavily influenced by incorrect or outdated environmental myths (Coyle,

2005). There is a gap between recognizing there are environmental problems and caring

about those problems and acting pro-environmentally. A large part of this gap is due to

not enough people being correctly educated about the issues. Most adults accumulate

environmental information from talking to others (Coyle, 2005). This leads to people

having a repertoire of both true and false facts without any meaningful understanding of

the science behind them or how to change behavior to be more environmentally friendly

(Coyle, 2005). This is why environmental education is a necessity. People need to

understand why the health of the environment is woven tightly with human behavior and

the specific problems the environment is facing and why. Next, they need to know what

actions contribute to these problems and how to live more sustainably with the resources

available to them. Including the latter provides a feeling of responsibility in how one’s

habits can affect the environment.

Environmental education (EE), education for sustainable development (ESD), and

education for sustainability (ES) are necessary first steps towards long term behavioral

change. Environmental knowledge is the basis for action (Roczen, Kaiser, Bogner &

Wilson, 2014). This is not to say that environmental education will change behavior in

2
and of itself. This change towards a more ecological way of life is dependent on a

multitude of factors. This section focuses on the duration of EE, the age one is immersed

into EE, the intergenerational effects it has on adults, and, lastly, the effectiveness of

informal EE as opposed to formal EE.

What Increases the Effectiveness of EE?

There is little empirical research on the effectiveness of EE and knowledge

leading to pro-environmental behavior in adults. This makes sense as adults are not

usually involved with organized educational programs and have to actively seek out

experiences and information. Children have been seen with hopeful eyes as our

mechanism towards social change for a long time and environmental behavior is no

different. There is far more research on the effectiveness of EE for children through

university age.

A study done by Hsu in 2004 also looked at university students. The participants

were 64 students enrolled in a 16-week EE program and 57 students in a non-EE

program, used as the control. There is a threat to generalizability because those in the

program voluntarily registered for the program and so likely had a preexisting interest in

the environment, similar to the last study. They used a pretest, posttest approach, and

delayed posttest to measure behavior. The two groups were equal at pretest. They found a

statistically significant effect on PEB at posttest (Hsu, 2004). Two months after the

course ended, they got similar results to the first posttest (Hsu, 2004). The increase in

PEB after the program ended remained two months later. There was a lasting effect of the

course on behavior, which is the ultimate goal of EE.

3
 Likewise, a longitudinal study in a middle school in Mexico looked at a group of

15 students from 2004 to 2005 and another 23 from 2006 to 2007 enrolled in an

environmental course. They used pretests, posttests and questionnaires. They found that

during and immediately following the environmental course the students exhibited

increased environmental awareness and behavior (Schneller, 2008). They found the same

results two years later, showing a sustained effect of this course. These two studies

represent the effectiveness of EE on changing behavior. This precipitates an extended

hypothesis about the duration of EE and how the more encounters one has with EE, the

larger the influence on PEB.

Potency of EE and effectiveness. Zsoka, Szereyi, Szechy, and Kocsis (2012)

found how the amount of EE affects behavior. They used a survey to find out where

students were getting their environmental knowledge and behavior. Their participants

were 2998 university students (ages 18 to 24) and 770 high school students (ages 14 to

18) in Hungary. Using multidimensional scaling (MDS), they found a significant

correlation between amount of EE and level of environmental knowledge and behavior

(Zsoka et al., 2012). This paper looked at all sources of EE and not solely organized

programs. Much of the EE they reported, the survey takers sought out independently. The

results showed that the more EE a person receives, the more environmental knowledge

and the more of an effect there will be on behavior (Zsoka et al., 2012). These results

reveal the importance of EE in general and strengthen the argument by providing

variability in the amount of EE received.

Kruse and Card (2004) varied intensity of EE as opposed to duration. They looked

at how a conservation education camp program in Florida at a zoo affected behavior.

4
They used a pretest, posttest, and a delayed posttest one month later. There were 383

campers (ages 10 to 18), broken up into different camps by age with different curricula.

They found an increase in behavior, attitude, and knowledge across age groups on both

posttests (Kruse & Card, 2004). However, they found a larger increase in PEB and

knowledge in older groups (Kruse & Card, 2004). The reason for this is not age. The

older the kids were, the more animal husbandry and depth of EE they were including.

They were testing for the effect on difference of program rather than age. In order to look

at age, they would have had to make the program the same for a 10-year-old and an 18-

year-old, not likely stimulating for the 18-year-old. The important finding is the increase

in PEB and, additionally, the more intense the EE, the better the result is for PEB.

These two studies support what would be expected. Increasing the potency of EE

via intensity of the program or duration of EE enlarges it’s effect on behavior. Less

predictable is how the age of the child receiving EE relates to the effectiveness of it on

PEB.

EE effectiveness and age of onset. As children, we are still highly

impressionable. It is much easier to create good behaviors as youth than as adults with

already established habits and values. Our attitudes and behaviors become more solidified

as we age. Youth have a unique opportunity to learn about the environment in an

organized setting and provide environmental educators the opportunity to mold their

attitudes and behaviors for adulthood. Children can be the agents of change (Sibbel,

2009). They make up what is our future society and seeing them as such can help us

focus our efforts in encouraging pro-environmental behavior (Gilliam & Gullov, 2019).

5
 Shephard, Harraway, Jowett, Lovelock, Skeaff, and Slooten (2014) did a

longitudinal study, which is one of the few done in this area of research. They surveyed

512 university students in two different cohorts. One cohort began its university

education in 2009 and the other in 2010 in three different programs of study, human

nutrition, surveying, and zoology. They were surveyed on environmental attitudes over

four years. They expected zoology to have the highest scores and for scores to increase

over time (Shephard et al., 2014). While they did not find significant change over the four

years, they did find zoology to have higher scores (Shephard et al., 2014). This suggests

there is a preexisting orientation towards environmental topics prior to coming into

university (Shephard et al., 2014). The zoology students already interested in nature and

the environment, had selected zoology for a major, and subsequently scored higher on the

assessment. Further, they concluded that only seeing the slight improvement they did see

implies a need for EE to be implemented for a longer time period than this study

evaluated, four years (Shephard et al., 2014). These results combined may suggest that

implementing EE at a younger age will have a larger impact than implementing it in

university and that the more one experiences EE, the better environmental attitude they

will develop.

Another paper by Lieflander and Bogner (2014) looked at children’s age and

effectiveness of EE on knowledge. They created their own week-long curriculum for

students to attend prior to school starting and were therefore able to make it equal among

participants. They surveyed 15 classes in German schools. Eleven attended their program

and the other four were used as the control and had no such EE. They compared the

response in two different grades, fourth grade (ages nine to 10) and sixth (ages 11 to 13).

6
They found there was a stronger impact of the program for the younger students

(Lieflander & Bogner, 2014). This study shows that implementing EE at a younger age,

long before university, had a stronger impact.

Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson, and Berglund (2015) evaluated the

effectiveness of ESD. Participants included 2,413 children in grade six (ages 12 to 13),

grade nine (ages 15 to 16), and grade 12 (ages 18 to 19) from 51 schools in Sweden.

Twenty-six were certified for including ESD in their curriculum and the other twenty-five

without ESD were used for the control. First, they found positive effects of ESD on

knowledge and PEB (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). They also found the younger students,

in grade six, picked up sustainable behaviors faster than did grade nine or 12 (Boeve-de

Pauw et al., 2015). This further illustrates the effect of EE on behavior and how the

younger the person is, the better. Further research is needed to establish the minimum age

EE is useful.

Stevenson, Peterson, Bondell, Mertig, and Moore (2013) evaluated the

effectiveness of EE curricula for sixth graders and eighth graders. They tested 324

students from schools registered with the North Carolina Office of Environmental

Education for incorporating EE into their curriculum and another 415 from other schools

to use as the control. The students were tested in January 2012 and again in April, May,

or June. They found there was improvement in PEB in the EE students and that

improvement was more profound for the younger students (Stevenson et al., 2013). Not

only does EE have more of an impact and a longer impact in younger children, but

correspondingly, this study shows the information is picked up faster by younger

children.

7
 These studies represent the porous quality of children’s learning and suggest that

the earlier one is exposed to EE, the more is absorbed and the larger the effect is on

behavior. This research underpins the idea that imposing EE during childhood, and

especially young childhood, can modify the behavior of future generations, but what

about adults who do not currently act ecologically?

Intergenerational Effects

Children add accountability to our lives. This has useful implications for the

possibility of pro-environmental behavior change in adults. EE for children can have an

indirect influence on the adults around them.

A study by Ballantyne, Fien, and Packer (2001) had 284 students from nine

schools with EE programs complete questionnaires. One hundred and seventy-seven

parents of those students also completed questionnaires and 117 of those parents

completed follow-up interviews. The EE programs resulted in increased pro-

environmental behavior at home on the part of the students (Ballantyne et al., 2001). The

parents reported getting environmental knowledge from their children and, while they did

not look at the effect on parent behavior, the passing of environmental knowledge from

child to parent is important to note (Ballantyne et al., 2001).

Eilam and Trop (2012) did a study in Israel in 2009 through 2010. Ninety-five

adults completed questionnaires. Sixty-seven were parents of students in environmental

programs and 28 were parents of students from non-environmental programs. Enrollment

in the environmental schools was based on vicinity so there was no preexisting pro-

environmental bias in the parents of the students attending that program. There was a

8
significant impact of the EE program for the students on their parents. The largest

influences parents reported on their environmental behaviors and attitudes were the

environmental schools directly involving them in programs and the environmental

knowledge and behaviors their kids brought home (Eilam & Trop, 2012). There was also

a larger effect on behavior than on attitude (Eilam & Trop, 2012). This difference could

be due to the accountability effect. It may not be changing parent’s attitudes persay, but

they may feel pressure to change their behavior. While we would ideally be changing

attitudes as well, behavioral change is more important for the health of the environment.

In Mahe Island in the Republic of Seychelles, Damerell, Howe, and Milner-

Gulland (2013) found similar results when they looked at 137 students in wildlife clubs

teaching EE, specifically about wetlands, and their parents. Sixty of the students

participated in activities on wetlands and the other 77 worked on other projects. Using

questionnaires, they found that the program with EE affected change on the student’s

water use behavior (Damerell et al., 2013). They also found knowledge transfer to their

parents. Parents of those in the program knew more about wetland conservation than

those that did not (Damerell et al., 2013). More importantly, the parents water use

behavior also changed with their children’s (Damerell et al., 2013).

Another study found a positive effect on parent behavior. Boudet, Ardoin, Flora,

Armel, Desai and Robinson (2016) looked at the Girls Learning Environment and Energy

(GLEE) program in Girl Scout Troops in Northern California. Three hundred and thirteen

members from 30 different troops and 303 parents of those children participated. The

children were all in fourth and fifth grade. The program was divided into intervention

subtypes, residential energy use (RE) and food and transportation energy use (FTE). They

9
measured behavior with questionnaires at baseline, after program completion, and a few

months later as a delayed posttest, all three for both children and parents. They used each

group as a control for the other as each program focuses on different behaviors.

Both children and parents in the RE group significantly increased in RE behavior

compared to FTE and vice versa showing the success of their manipulation (Boudet et al.,

2016). The children and parents in the RE group exhibited an increase in residential

energy use behavior, that is a decrease in residential energy use, from pretest to posttest

and these results continued into the delayed posttest (Boudet et al., 2016). These results

were not mimicked in the FTE group for food and transportation energy use behavior.

They hypothesized that this was due to food and transportation energy use to be the

responsibility of the parents (Boudet et al., 2016). The children would then not be able to

enact change in behavior to begin with or have a secondary effect on their parents. This

study represents a limitation to this research. The behaviors that are not up to the children

are much more difficult to change when dependent on adults; however, they could still

carry those behaviors into adulthood when they are in control. There is further research in

the field regarding increasing empowerment among children. Improving this research

would help eliminate this drawback.

These studies provide evidence for the utility of EE in increasing pro

environmental behavior for children (future society) and these children then helping to

increase environmental behavior in their parents (present society). This approach would

help the environment in the present and in the future. So far, this section has established

the usefulness of EE and elaborates on when it is most useful. In conjunction, this

10
research further prompts a discussion on how we can alter the format of EE to increase

the impact on behavior.

Informal EE and Experience Based Learning

Decades have been spent finding how to improve the reception of education.

Education is then constantly evolving in response to the resulting research. In the last few

decades, more energy has been spent towards EE and how to make it more palatable.

While some parts of the country have evolved their way of teaching about the

environment, most places are still teaching via formal EE. Informal EE is education that

happens outside of the classroom lecture format and is less structured. Many of the

studies already mentioned incorporated informal EE as opposed to formal EE. Much

research has found that informal EE and experience-based learning have a bigger impact

on attitude and behavior.

In 2010, Siemer and Knuth did a study using 619 participants in grades 6th

through 8th enrolled in a program called “Hooked on Fishing - Not on Drugs”. They were

looking at the difference between those who did not do the program, those who

completed the classroom portion of the program only, and those who did both the

classroom portion and the fishing portion. They did not look at behavior but, looked at

antecedents for PEB. Those in the group without fishing but with the lecture component

had more knowledge of human impact on fish, had more desire to go out in nature, cared

more for local habitats, and thought more about how they personally affected the plants

and animals in their local ecosystem (Siemer & Knuth, 2010). These differences were

even more dramatic when looking at the group that had the experience of fishing in their

program (Siemer & Knuth, 2010). The group that experienced fishing alongside their EE

11
had the largest improvement on all measures compared to the group with only formal EE.

This study teased apart the increase in effectiveness for incorporating experience into EE.

Another study replicated this finding when studying the effects of a Global

Explorers program on middle school and high schoolers. This program began with a

formal preparatory program, followed by a field project in nature abroad, and then a local

service project. Duerden and Witt (2010) hypothesized that the lecture component in the

preparatory program would have the larger effect on knowledge and that the field project

in nature would have the larger effect on attitude and behavior. There were 108

participants with an average age of 14.5 and a nonequivalent control. They used

questionnaires at pretest, post preparatory program (the lecture portion), and upon

program completion. They found a significant impact on environmental knowledge,

attitude, and behavior for the overall program compared to the control, showing it’s

effectiveness (Duerden & Witt, 2010). Environmental knowledge increased specifically

after the lecture portion (Duerden & Witt, 2010). They also found, in support of their

hypothesis, PEB increased after the field experience in nature and not after the

preparatory program (Duerden & Witt, 2010). Experience based learning had a larger

impact on behavior.

Bexell, Jarrett, and Ping (2013) conducted a study in Chengdu, China at two

different camps. Both were five-day residential camps incorporating informal EE. Sixty

campers participated, aged eight to 12. They were surveyed on their first and last days of

camp and observers were collecting data throughout the camp experience. The

researchers were looking at environmental knowledge, self-reported care for the

environment, and desire to take action. They found that in both camps, knowledge

12
increased (Bexell et al., 2013). Self-reported care and increased desire to take action were

confirmed by observations (Bexell et al., 2013). The children were significantly more

conscious of their impact on the environment by the end of camp. This was represented

by the decrease in negative environmental behaviors such as littering and picking plants

(Bexell et al., 2013). Behavior changed as the camp progressed.

In Pennsylvania, San Jose and Nelson (2017) studied the effectiveness of a

residential nature camp experience on children’s connection to nature, environmental

knowledge, and PEB. Their participants were 177 fifth graders, aged nine to 11, who

completed the program in the fall of their school year. They filled out pretest and posttest

questionnaires. They found that all three variables increased (San Jose & Nelson, 2017).

Erdogan (2011) studied elementary school students enrolled in a summer EE outdoor

immersion program in Turkey. The 64 participants took a pretest and posttest to measure

knowledge, affect, and behavior. Different from the previous study, they found a

significant change in PEB before and after the program but, did not find this significance

for knowledge and affect (Erdogan, 2011). The program in Pennsylvania was done to

replace school for that part of the year and had a heavier lecture component than the

study in Turkey. This potentially explains the difference. The association between the

experience-based learning and change in behavior is the most important finding.

At Melbourne Zoo in Australia, Pearson, Lowry, Dorrian, and Litchfield (2014)

looked at the effectiveness of a year long “Don’t Palm Us Off” campaign for orangutan

conservation, an example of informal EE. They asked people who were at the orangutan

exhibit to complete surveys at multiple time points. Six months prior to the campaign,

they had 92 participants. Six months into it, they had 103 participants. Twelve months

13
into it, they had 100 participants. Six months after it ending, they had 108 participants.

They found knowledge and attitude increased progressively and remained six months

after the termination of the campaign (Pearson et al., 2014). When looking at behavior,

they found PEB increased. More people voted on mandatory labeling of palm oil during

and after the campaign than before and reported that what they learned would influence

their future purchases (Pearson et al., 2014). This study stands out because it shows the

effectiveness of informal EE for adults.

There were mixed findings for how informal and formal EE affected

environmental knowledge, but the results are clear for behavior. Informal EE increased

PEB more than formal EE. Taken together, these studies reveal an advantageous

approach to EE that should be applied to current EE programs and considered for future

EE programs.

EE Discussion

EE has an influence on behavior, rather mildly on its own. There are ways to

increase the behavioral impact. We can focus on younger children as the target audience

as the younger the children are, the better the PEB is as result (Shephard et al., 2014;

Lieflander & Bogner, 2014; Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015). The younger children learn

faster as well (Stevenson et al., 2013). Once it is implemented in their education, it

should be maintained in school curricula through high school and possibly into higher

education because the length of EE effects PEB (Zsoka et al., 2012, Shephard et al.,

2014; Kruse & Card, 2004).

14
 There are some environmental behaviors that children have no control over such

as food and transportation choices (Boudet et al., 2016). They are highly dependent on

their parents lifestyles. Looking towards children helps the planet in the future, but the

present adults who do not act ecologically should not be disregarded. Damage to the

planet continues and we need to find any way we can to at the very least, slow the human

damage to the environment. An indirect effect of children learning EE, gaining

environmental attitudes, and developing environmental behaviors, is their parents change

their behaviors also (Damerell et al., 2013; Eilam & Trop, 2012; Boudet et al., 2016).

They don’t necessarily change their attitudes, but attitudes are convoluted. Changing

behavior is the primary concern and the research supports the efficacy of this strategy.

Teaching children is a roundabout way to impact adult behavior.

Another quandary for environmental educators is finding the proper way to

divulge the information so that it is understood and appreciated enough to enact change

on behavior. Informal EE and experience-based learning have a significantly larger effect

than formal EE on PEB (Bexell et al., 2013; Duerden & Witt, 2010; Siemer & Knuth,

2010; Pearson et al., 2014). Applied learning and including experiences with nature can

be extremely useful in environmental educators reaching their goal. It shows children the

real-world impact of their behaviors and shows them what we are teaching them to

protect. By altering these variables within EE, we can increase the resulting PEB.

Connectedness to Nature (CN)

Connection to nature (CN) is an idea variably defined as nature being

incorporated into one’s identity, recognizing the human to nature relationship, and feeling

that we are not separate from nature. It would presumably predict PEB because people

15
who connect to nature would want to protect that nature from damage or degradation, but

there are numerous studies that support this empirically. Hoot and Friedman (2011)

handed out surveys to adults at a farmer’s market to look at CN, PEB, and consideration

of future consequences of their PEB. One hundred and ninety-five people completed the

survey. They found a high correlation between the three (Hoot & Friedman, 2011). These

findings are repeated in much of the research.

Clayton, Luebke, Saunders, Matiasek, and Grajal (2013) looked for correlations

between CN, PEB, self-efficacy, felt responsibility, and beliefs about climate change.

Their participants were 7,182 adults who visited one of 10 zoos and five aquariums. They

completed questionnaires. They found that CN correlated with increased frequency of

visits, stronger cognitive and emotional response to climate change, and felt

responsibility of individuals to act. Most importantly, CN was a predictor of self-efficacy

and PEB.

Davis, Green, and Reed (2008) used surveys in non-environmental classes at Soka

University in California to study this relationship between CN and PEB. With 71

participants, they found a significant correlation between PEB and commitment to the

environment (the behavioral component of CN) (Davis et al., 2008). They then used

another university to determine causality of this correlation. Seventy undergraduates,

again in non-environmental classes, at Virginia Commonwealth University participated.

They used a priming survey on commitment to the environment with two groups. The

participants were told the priming survey and the survey for assessment were two

different studies. Each group either had a priming survey with free response with high

commitment to the environment focused questions or low. An example would be “what

16
are some ways the environment does something positive for you” versus “Most things we

do each day do not impact the environment, list examples of what you do each day that

has no impact on the environment” (Davis et al., 2008). The group that had the high

commitment priming survey with resulting higher CN scored higher on PEB and, further,

were more likely to sign up for river clean up participation (Davis et al., 2008). This

study used the typical PEB questionnaires, but also used an applied measure of behavior

with the river clean up sign up. The results showed a significant correlation between CN

and PEB.

In 2018, Yang, Hu, Jing, and Nguyen induced awe in response to nature related

stimuli then did a survey on PEB. Their participants were 146 college students in

Shanghai. They induced awe and had a neutral control group using a narrative recall task

prior to the survey. They checked that their manipulation worked using a survey and then

gave another on PEB. Those in the natural stimuli group scored significantly higher on

PEB than the neutral group (Yang et al., 2018). Unique to this study, they then looked at

awe induced by non-natural stimuli, a great person, then measured PEB and CN to see if

the change in PEB was due to the feeling of awe regardless of the specific stimuli. One

hundred and fifty-eight students participated. Oddly, they found those who felt awe in

response to the non-natural stimuli had high scores on both PEB and CN (Yang et al.,

2018). This was counter to what is expected and shows a possible confounding variable

was present in their first experiment.

To elucidate the relationship between these variables, they did another study with

238 students looking to see if CN is mediating this correlation between awe and PEB.

They used videos to induce awe in response to nature, amusement, or neutral stimuli,

17
again checking their manipulation after the stimuli were presented. The awe in response

to nature group had higher scores in CN and PEB (Yang et al., 2018). Furthermore, their

bootstrap mediation analysis showed a significant influence of awe on PEB mediated by

CN (Yang et al., 2018). This study was one of a kind in that it manipulated CN using the

emotion of awe and found it predicted PEB.

In line with the previous section, Otto and Pensini (2017) looked at the effects on

PEB from increasing CN using direct experience in nature in conjunction with EE. The

participants were 255 fourth, fifth, and sixth graders in Berlin. They were administered

questionnaires about how many times they had visited nature-based education centers,

their CN, their environmental knowledge, and their PEB. The more the students had

visited nature centers, the higher they scored on CN, environmental knowledge, and PEB

(Otto & Pensini, 2017). They also found that CN was a more powerful predictor of PEB

than environmental knowledge (Otto & Pensini, 2017). This study further supports the

larger impact of informal EE over formal EE and found the mediating variable to be CN.

This makes sense in that CN would be unlikely to increase nearly as much in students

learning in a classroom.

Another study looking at CN looked at PEB, time spent outdoors and concern for

the environment. Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2008) used an online questionnaire that

was sent out to employees in the federal government and the private sector via email.

They received 145 responses. They found that those with high scores on CN spent more

time outdoors, had higher scores in PEB, and had an increased concern for the

environment (Nisbet et al., 2008). There is concern for bias on the part of the participant

18
because those who agreed to complete the questionnaire likely had interest in the topic,

Regardless, the results are in line with other research.

Arendt and Matthes (2016) conducted one of the few studies in this area of

research where they were manipulating a variable in a controlled lab setting. They wanted

to see whether watching a nature documentary affects CN or PEB. They used a survey

and an Implicit Association Test (IAT). It consists of two categories on the screen, “me”

and “other” (Bruni, Fraser, and Schultz, 2008). Words pop up on the screen and the

participant places the word into the category they believe best fits. CN is measured using

reaction time in word placement. This way they are able to see preference for certain

word blocks based on speed of placement and measure the association between self and

nature. After the test, they measured behavior by telling the participant that they were

going to donate one euro per participant to a cause and the participant got to decide which

cause. They had 175 participants. One group watched the nature documentary and the

other watched a video on Einstein’s theory of relativity.

They did not find a significant difference in CN in the groups, but they did find

that PEB was significantly correlated to the nature documentary group when mediated by

CN (Arendt & Matthes, 2016). The fact that they did not find a significant difference in

CN in the groups could be due to the reduced effectiveness of indirect experiences with

nature, such as watching a documentary. The compelling finding is the connection

between CN and PEB.

There is significant evidence for the influence of CN on PEB. These same studies

briefly touched on inducing emotion in response to nature, more time spent outdoors,

visitation to nature centers and how they relate to CN. These types of activities seem to

19
connect people to nature. If we can find ways to increase CN using these methods, then

we can indirectly impact PEB.

Increasing CN

Experiences in nature in adulthood. Snell and Simmonds (2015) had a unique

approach to this topic. They wanted to see if a mystical experience in nature would relate

to PEB. Mystical experience was defined as a spiritual experience, not necessarily

religious (Snell & Simmonds, 2015). Many people report experiences with nature as

spiritual or feeling connected to something larger than themselves. They had 305

participants in Australia who completed an online questionnaire. To make clear the effect

of mystical experience in nature as opposed to mystical experience in general, they asked

about these experiences in natural or human built environments. They found that mystical

experiences in natural environments predicted PEB while built environments did not have

the same effect (Snell & Simmonds, 2015).

At three zoos, Bronx Zoo, Central Park Zoo, and Prospect Park Zoo, 242 visitors

completed surveys and a digital assessment of CN, a version of the Implicit Association

Test (IAT). The survey measured explicit CN like most of these studies and the IAT

measured implicit CN described earlier in the paper. The IAT is a unique way to

eliminate self-report bias in this field of research (Bruni et al., 2008). They found that

upon exiting the zoos compared to when first entering, there was no difference in explicit

CN. There was, however, an increase in implicit CN as result of the zoo experiences

(Bruni et al., 2008). This could have been because the explicit measure is highly

dependent on self-report. Participants could have not thought their CN increased after the

20
zoo experience. The implicit CN increasing is a more profound result because we do not

have to worry as much about self-report bias.

Schultz and Tabanico (2007) conducted multiple studies using the IAT as well.

Two were done at San Diego Wild Animal Park, which aims to connect people to animals

and conservation (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). There are animals roaming around in

nature, not forced into enclosures, and people are allowed to walk amongst them. First,

they used independent samples upon entering (n=75) and exiting (n=56) the park. They

used a questionnaire to measure explicit environmental concern and attitudes, explicit CN

and then implicit CN with a version of the IAT on a portable device. The participants

exiting the park scored higher on CN (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). This is telling, but a

limitation here is the independent samples (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). They were

surveying different people upon entry and exit.

They followed up this study correcting that limitation. Thirty-two participants

took the questionnaires, like the first study but upon entering and exiting. They took the

IAT at those times also, but also agreed to carry the portable devices around the park and

complete the test when the alarm beeped at three different time points so they could see

how the scores changed as more time was spent in the park. They found both explicit and

implicit CN increased significantly from entry to exit (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). The

change in explicit CN could easily be due to demand characteristics, another limitation.

The design of the study would make it difficult for the participants to remain oblivious to

the question the study was addressing.

Their next experiment incorporated people visiting six different locations. Three

were natural environments and three were built environments. They also wanted a built

21
environment that would attract environmentally friendly people (rock climbing facility)

and a natural environment that would attract less environmentally friendly people (golf

course) as a way to control for environment when completed the measures. They wanted

to know that the environment the participants were in could be attributed to the

differences in the results on CN. Their other locations were a gym, a library, a beach, and

a hiking trail. They had 334 participants that took the same questionnaire and completed

the IAT. They found no difference in CN on people entering or exiting the human built

environments, but people leaving the beach and the hiking trail scored higher on CN than

those entering (Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). This clearly showed the experiences in

nature impacted CN.

Experiences in nature in childhood. Parallel to EE’s effectiveness in changing

behavior, developing CN is significantly more difficult after one has already become an

adult. This is another area where focusing attention on youth is more impactful for

behavior and the environment. Researchers collected data from North Cascades

Institute’s Mountain School, with a three-day camping experience for fifth graders, and

Teton Science Schools, with two different three-day camping experiences for fifth and

seventh graders. The camps consisted of informal EE and things like field experience,

experiences in nature and caring for animals. Five years after the camp experiences

ended, Liddicoat and Krasny (2014) interviewed 54 campers, now high schoolers. They

found the campers had a self-reported increased desire to go into nature more since the

camp experience and increased environmental concern (Liddicoat & Krasny, 2014).

Many of them also stated that the environmentally responsible behaviors they learned

have remained (Liddicoat & Krasny, 2014). This was not a longitudinal study, but the

22
kids who had attended the program reported a change in their reaction and view of the

environment after the program.

In Spain, Collado and Corraliza (2015) administered questionnaires to 832

children, ranging from six to 12 years old. Five hundred and fifteen students were in

medium to high ‘amount of nature’ schools. These schools placed high importance on

incorporating nature and activities in nature into the school. The other 317 were in

nonnatural schools. They found those in the nature schools had higher reported

experience in nature and higher CN (Collado & Corraliza, 2015). Including nature in the

school predicted PEB (Collado & Corraliza, 2015). This reveals a way to increased CN

and PEB in formal education settings.

Another study looked at how time spent outdoors as children increased PEB,

without mentioning CN. The results were still significant. Evans, Otto, and Kaiser (2018)

did a longitudinal study surveying students and their mothers in first or second grade and

again as seniors in high school. First, they found mothers with more positive

environmental attitudes and PEB predicted PEB in their children up through their senior

year, as expected (Evans et al., 2018). The reason this is not our present interest is

because we cannot be dependent on the inheritance of PEB so to speak, especially when

it is so difficult to change adult behaviors. This finding is still useful. It would lessen the

workload of environmental educators if positive parental environmental attitude is

establishing the same positive attitude in children. They also found that more time spent

outdoors during youth predicted increased PEB (Evans et al., 2018). Other studies cited

support CN being the mediating factor between experiences in nature and impact on

behavior.

23
 Another study did not look at CN, specifically, but looked at experiences with

nature and pro-environmental factors. In Japan, Soga, Gaston, Yamaura, Kurisu and

Hanaki (2016) gave questionnaires for students in grades third, fourth, fifth, and sixth,

aged nine to 12. They were looking at how direct and indirect experiences in nature affect

environmental attitude and willingness to behave environmentally. Indirect experiences

with nature were experiences with things like books or television. Those with either

direct or indirect experience had better environmental attitude and willingness to behave

environmentally than those without anyt (Soga et al., 2016). This result was most

profound in those with direct experiences with nature (Soga et al., 2016).

A study done in Spain looked at four different sleepover camps: One took place in

a city with no EE or experiences in nature, the other three incorporated spending time

outdoors in nature and one of those three incorporated only minimal EE. Three hundred

and ninety-seven campers participated. They completed questionnaires on the first and

last days of camp. The researchers were looking at emotional affinity towards nature,

their view on environmental problems, their willingness for PEB, and whether they

would share their information with others (environmental stewardship). Environmental

stewardship is less studied, but very important for the future of environmental behavior as

it is not sensible to assume we can make this change on a global scale, training everyone.

If we create environmental stewards, we teach the man how to fish, so to speak, and

hopefully have a domino effect on others. In the three camps that incorporated

experiences with nature, all measures increased from the first day to the last day, though

the stewardship measure was based on intent to spread information (Collado, Staats, and

Corraliza, 2013). Nature programs were a significant predictor of PEB (Collado et al.,

24
2013). They did not explicitly mention CN, but, again, much other research cited has

found connections between experiences in nature and CN.

Collado, Corraliza, Staats, and Ruiz (2015) look at experiences in nature and

PEB. They looked at three different types of experiences with nature, work related

experience in nature (farming), non-work related in rural areas (mountain leisure

activities), and non-work related in urban areas (parks). Their participants were 832

children in Spain. The age range was six to 12 years old. They surveyed them and found

that the non-work-related experiences in nature in rural areas had the highest correlations

to frequency of visiting nature, environmental attitude and PEB (Collado et al., 2015).

These would include activities like camping, hiking, and climbing, corresponding to

many other findings.

Braun and Dierkes (2016) studied how an outdoor EE programs affected CN.

They varied intensity, either one day or five days, and also showed the difference

between formal EE and experience-based learning. They had 601 participants in

Singapore, aged 7 to 18. They were broken up into three groups. One hundred and ninety-

four were in a five-day residential program. One hundred and eighty-two were in a one-

day outdoor program. The other 225 did not do either but learned the same information in

the classroom for either one day or five days. With a pretest posttest design looked at CN,

they found a significant difference in the group in the outdoor EE program and the

classroom group (Braun & Dierkes, 2016). They also found the intensity of the program

had an effect, the group in the five-day program had higher scores in CN (Braun &

Dierkes, 2016). This further proves the results are due to the difference in program. They

also found that the younger the children, the higher their CN posttest (Braun & Dierkes,

25
2016). These results suggest that the more children are exposed to nature, the larger the

impact will be on CN and so PEB. Informal EE would be a feasible way to accomplish

this.

Experiences in nature in childhood carrying into adulthood. Rosa, Profice,

and Collado (2018) looked at 224 young adults at the University of Northeastern Brazil

enrolled in multiple courses. The participants completed an online questionnaire. They

found more experience in nature during childhood correlated to contact with nature as an

adult, CN, and PEB (Rosa et al., 2018). When establishing this in youth, there is a

maintenance of connection to nature as an adult. This leads to a positive feedback loop. If

CN is established in youth then people continue seeking out experiences outdoors which

increases and further maintains CN, increasing PEB. These results attest to the positive

feedback loop via childhood experience in nature, subsequently seeking nature out in

adulthood, and increasing PEB.

Broom (2017) studied University students in Canada, aged between 18 and 25.

Fifty participants were randomly selected from passerby in an area on campus. They used

a survey to look at attitudes towards nature, time spent outdoors, a checklist about

whether those experiences were positive or negative, a 5-point likert scale for how they

prioritize caring for the environment, and a checklist of what they things did for the

environment as well as a free response section for anything not in the list. They found a

significant correlation between positive nature experiences as a child and their love for

nature as an adult. The more positive the experience, the more they loved nature (Broom,

2017). A particularly significant finding is that if they did not have experiences in nature

as a child, they had a neutral view of nature (Broom, 2017). They also found a high

26
correlation between taking care of nature as a priority and loving nature (Broom, 2017).

They found only a small correlation between childhood experience in nature and PEB

(Broom, 2017). This could be due to the measure they used for PEB. All of the other

studies use a proven valid and reliable measure of PEB rather than a checklist and free

response. The takeaway is the impact of experiences in nature in youth on adult love for,

care for, and view of nature.

Wells and Lekies (2006) interviewed adults from all over the US about their

childhood experiences and adult attitude and behavior. Using phone lists from multiple

databases and random digit calling, they found 2,004 participants. Childhood experience

was divided into two categories to differentiate between “domesticated” nature

experience and “wild” nature experience. “Domesticated” nature was defined as things

like harvesting flowers or seeds, caring for plants, playing with pets (Wells & Lekies,

2006). “Wild” nature was defined as playing in natural areas, camping, hunting, and

fishing (Wells & Lekies, 2006). “Wild” nature experiences predicted environmental

attitude and PEB significantly more than “domesticated” (Wells & Lekies, 2006). This

further clarifies the type of experiences that will have the best impact in youth on PEB.

Thompson, Aspinall, and Montarzino (2007) looked at how often adults visit

green places, their environmental attitudes, and how often they visited green places as

children. They approached adults in public in Scotland and England. They had 339

participants in Scotland and 459 in England. In both samples, they found that the more

often they visited nature as children, the significantly more they did as adults and the

better environmental attitude they had as adults (Thompson et al., 2007). They also found

27
that the less they experienced nature as children, the less likely they did as adults

(Thompson et al., 2007).

CN Discussion

CN clearly predicts PEB and one way we can affect PEB is by increasing CN

(Yang et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2008; Arendt & Matthes, 2016). Experiences in and with

nature increase CN. This is effective for adults to some extent (Nisbet et al., 2008;

Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; Bruni et al., 2008). Transcendent experiences in nature can

also increase PEB in adults (Snell & Simmonds, 2015) The autonomy of adults limits this

prospect though. The immediate impact on CN and PEB for experiences in nature during

youth is extensively supported (Liddicoat & Krasny, 2014; Evans et al., 2018; Collado et

al., 2013; Braun & Dierkes, 2016). Adults, however, have to voluntarily seek out

experiences in nature. They have to have a preestablished appreciation for it. Doing this

during youth, increases the likelihood of experiencing nature as an adult and, as result,

affecting behavior (Rosa et al., 2018; Broom, 2017; Wells & Lekies, 2006; Thompson et

al., 2007).

Successfully increasing CN through experiences with nature in youth is largely

dependent upon children’s education and their families. Parents would have to seek these

experiences out for their children, as children are dependent on their parents for

transportation and where they go in their free time. Since this would depend on parents’

existing enjoyment in nature, the primary goal should be students receiving these

experiences through their education, schools would have to implement more outdoor

experiences, field trips, and informal EE into their curriculum and school setting (Collado

28
& Corraliza, 2015). These studies taken together reveal an important focus for pedagogy

that should be more widely implemented.

Conclusion

This study focused on things that can be changed in people’s lives to increase

PEB. The existing research in the field more often looks at effects on environmental

knowledge and attitudes. Knowledge of problems for the environment and having an

environmental attitude does not necessarily lead to PEB. Behavior is puzzling. That is

why this study focused on empirical data showing correlations between different

variables and increased PEB. Experiences in youth were of primary concern also because

it is significantly easier to implement PEB prior to adulthood. Doing this through

education and experiences are the most practical way to do this because those two factors

of their childhood are largely controlled by others.

Examinations of behavior in this area of research are primarily based upon self-

report. We often must rely on this type of research. Problems with this are social

desirability bias, demand characteristics, and accuracy of self-evaluations. One way to

make these results stronger is more longitudinal studies and putting in more effort to find

equivalent control groups for comparison but there are understandably obstacles for

these. Another particularly helpful strategy for reducing bias is the use of implicit

measures like the IAT for CN (Bruni et al., 2008; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). I found

very few studies that utilized implicit measures. Additionally, incorporating observation

in these settings, especially for children would be useful in strengthening the results

(Bexell et al., 2013). Children care less about being watched and are less likely to act

how they think they are supposed to act. Even with these limitations, the results found

29
were staggering and provide enough evidence to support more efforts in implementing

informal EE and experiences with nature at younger ages. In the absence of informal EE,

there are also ways to increase direct and indirect experiences with nature in formal EE

(Collado & Corraliza, 2015). That being said, the more direct the experience and the

more “wild” the experience, the larger the impact is on CN and on PEB (Wells & Lekies,

2006, Soga et al., 2016; Collado et al., 2015).

Future research should compare implementing an EE program at all grades and

doing a longitudinal study. This way they could clarify when the programs should be

implemented. Future research should also compare programs with both informal EE and

formal EE, only one or the other, and neither. This would elucidate how they can be used

in conjunction with one another. The effectiveness of informal EE is feasibly fully

mediated by CN (Otto & Pensini, 2017). This would be a useful focus for future research

as CN may be the most important factor in changing behavior. By increasing CN through

informal EE and increasing experience in nature, specifically during youth, we can create

environmental stewardship that remains through adulthood and impact present society

through their parents.

30
 References
Ali, A. R., Toriman, M. E., Gasim, M. B. & Juahir, H. (2015). The effectiveness of

young environmental scientist program among secondary school students in

terengganu, Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(3), 72-

77. DOI: 10.9790/0837-20377277

Arendt, F. & Matthes, J. (2014). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro

environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10(4), 453-472.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415

Ballantyne, R., Fien, J. & Packer, J. (2001). Program effectiveness in facilitating

intergenerational influence in environmental education: lessons from the field.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8-15. DOI:

10.1080/00958960109598657

Bexell, S. M., Jarret, O. S. & Ping, X. (2013). The effects of a summer camp program in

China on children’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward animals: a model

of conservation education. Visitor Studies, 16(1), 59-81. DOI:

10.1080/10645578.2013.768072

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D. & Berglund, T. (2015). The effectiveness of

education for sustainable development, 7, 15693-15717. DOI:

10.3390/su71115693

Boudet, H., Ardoin, N. M., Flora, J. A., Armel, K. C., Desai, M. & Robinson, T. N.

(2016). Effects of a behaviour change intervention for Girl Scouts on child and

31
 parent energy-saving behaviours. Nature Energy, 1.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.91

Braun, T. & Dierkes, P. (2016). Connecting students to nature - how intensity of nature

experience and student age influence the success of outdoor education programs.

Environmental Education Research, 23(7), 937-949.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866

Broom, C. (2017). Exploring the relations between childhood experiences in nature and

young adults’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. Australian Journal of

Environmental Education, 33(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2017.1

Bruni, C. M., Fraser, J. & Schultz, P. W. (2008). The value of zoo experiences for

connecting people with nature. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 139-150.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355489

Clayton, S., Fraser, J. & Burgess, C. (2011). The role of zoos in fostering environmental

identity. Ecopsychology, 3(2), 87-96. DOI: 10.1089/eco.2010.0079

Clayton, S., Luebke, J., Saunders, C., Matiasek, J. & Grajal, A. (2013). Connecting to

nature at the zoo: implications for responding to climate change. Environmental

Education Research, 20(4), 460-475.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.816267

Collado, S. & Corraliza, J. A. (2015). Children’s restorative experiences and self-reported

environmental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 38-56. DOI:

10.1177/0013916513492417

32
Collado, S., Corraliza, J. A., Staats, H. & Ruiz, M. (2015). Effect of frequency and mode

of contact with nature on children’s self reported ecological behaviors. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 41, 65-73.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.001

Collado, S., Staats, H. & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children’s

summer camps: affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 33, 37-44.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.002

Coyle, Kevin. Environmental Literacy in America What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper

Research and Related Studies Say about Environmental Literacy in the U.S.

Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 2005.

Damerell, P., Howe, C. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Child-orientated environmental

education influences adult knowledge and household behaviour. Environmental

Research Letters, 8(1). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015016

Davis, J. L., Green, J. D. & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment:

commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 173-180.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001

Duerden, M. D. & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on

the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-392.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.007

33
Eilam, E. & Trop, T. (2012). Factors influencing adults’ environmental attitudes and

behaviors and the role of environmental schools in influencing their communities.

Education and Urban Society, 46(2), 234-263. DOI: 10.1177/0013124512447100

Erdogan, M. (2011). Experience in nature: The effects of ecology-based summer nature

education program on primary school students’ environmental knowledge,

environmental affect and responsible environmental behavior. Educational

Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(4), 2233-2237. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b032/e2fdce5f63fa5f3d2fda5d513592d2b17472.p

df?_ga=2.217377618.550510904.1575561970-427336582.1568656876

Evans, G. W., Otto, S. & Kaiser, F. G. (2018). Childhood origins of young adult

environmental behavior. Psychological Science, 29(5), 679-687. DOI:

10.1177/0956797617741894

Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G. & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation

behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample.

Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597-1613.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015

Gilliam, L. & Gullov, E. (2019). Children as potential - a window to cultural ideals,

anxieties, and conflicts. Children’s Geographies. DOI:

10.1080/14733285.2019.1648760

Hoot, R. E. & Friedman, H. (2011). Connectedness and environmental behavior: sense of

interconnectedness and pro environmental behavior. International Journal of

34
 Transpersonal Studies, 30(1), 89-100. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol30/iss1/10

Hsu, S. (2010). The effects of an environmental education program on responsible

environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in

taiwanese college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 37-

48. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.35.2.37-48

Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through

environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21 (3), 8-21.

DOI: 10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743

Kruse, C. K. & Card, J. A. (2010). Effects of a conservation education camp program on

campers' self-reported knowledge, attitude, and behavior. Journal of

Environmental Education, 35(4), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.35.4.33-45

Liddicoat, K. R. & Krasny, M. E. (2014). Memories as useful outcomes of residential

outdoor environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education,

45(3), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2014.905431

Lieflander, A. K. & Bogner, F. X. (2014). The effects on children’s age and sex on

acquiring pro environmental attitudes through environmental education. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 45(2), 105-117. DOI:

10.1080/00958964.2013.875511

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. (2008). The nature relatedness scale:

linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and

35
 behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740. DOI:

10.1177/0013916508318748

Otto, S. & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature Based environmental education of children:

environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to

ecological behavior. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88-94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009

Pearson, E. L., Lowry, R., Dorrian, J. & Litchfield, C. A. (2014). Evaluating the

conservation impact of an innovative zoo-based educational campaign: ‘don’t

palm us off’ for orang-utan conservation. Zoo Biology, 33(3), 184-196. DOI:

10.1002/zoo.21120

Roczen, N., Kaiser, F. G., Bogner, F. X. & Wilson, M. (2014). A competence model for

environmental education. Environment and Behavior, 46 (8), 972-992. DOI:

10.1177/0013916513492416

Rosa, C. D., Profice, C. C. & Collado, S. (2018). Nature experiences and adult’ self

reported pro-environmental behaviors: the role of connectedness to nature and

childhood nature experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. DOI:

10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01055

San Jose, A. L. & Nelson, K. E. (2017). Increasing children’s positive connection to,

orientation toward, and knowledge of nature through nature camp experiences.

International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(5), 933-944.

Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1145589.pdf

36
Schneller, A. J. (2008). Environmental service learning: outcomes of innovative

pedagogy in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Environmental Education Research,

14(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802192418

Schultz, P. W. & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment:

exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

37(6), 1219-1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x

Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Jowett, T., Lovelock, B., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., Strack, M.

& Furnari, M. (2014). Longitudinal analysis of the environmental attitudes of

university students. Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 805-820.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.913126

Sibbel, A. (2008). Pathways towards sustainability through higher education.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(1), 68-82. DOI:

10.1108/14676370910925262

Siemer, W. F. & Knuth, B. A. (2010). Effects of fishing education programs on

antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental

Education, 32(4), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109598659

Snell, T. L. & Simmonds, J. G. (2015). Mystical experiences in nature: comparing

outcomes for psychological well-being and environmental behavior. Archive for

the Psychology of Religion, 169-184. DOI: 10.1163/15736121-12341303

Soga, M., Gaston, K. J., Yamaura, Y., Kurisu, K. & Hanaki, K. (2016). Both direct and

vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve

37
 biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

13(6). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13060529

Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Bondell, H. D., Mertig, A. G. & Moore, S. E. (2013).

Environmental, institutional, and demographic predictors of environmental

literacy among middle school children. PLoS ONE, 8(3).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059519

Thompson, C. W., Aspinall, P. & Montarzino, A. (2007). The childhood factor: adult

visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience. Environment

and Behavior, 40, 111-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507300119

Wells, N. M. & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the Life Course: pathways from

childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth, and

Environments, 16(1), 1-24. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001

Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A. & Osgood, W. (2009). Examining trends in adolescent

environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment

and Behavior, 42(1), 61-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509335163

Yan, Y., Hu, J., Jing, F. & Nguyen, B. (2018). From awe to ecological behavior: the

mediating role of connectedness to nature. Sustainability, 10(7). DOI:

10.3390/su10072477

Zsoka, A., Szerenyi, Z. M., Szechy, A. & Kocsis, T. (2013). Greening due to

environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer

behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and

38
university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 126-138.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030

39