The Greater the Contact, the Closer the Threat: The Influence of Contact with Nature on the Social Perception of Biodiversity Loss and the Effectiveness of Conservation Behaviours
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Public Understanding of Biodiversity and Biodiversity Loss
1.2. The Influence of Contact with Nature
1.3. Objectives of the Present Research
- RQ1: How do past and previous contact with nature influence shared ideas about biodiversity and in the particular psychological distance of biodiversity loss? (Study 1)
- RQ2: Does psychological distance of biodiversity loss influence biodiversity conservation behaviours? Does this vary depending on past and previous contact with nature? (Study 2)
2. Study 1
2.1. Materials and Methods
2.1.1. Measures
- “Nature” (31.7%), including all general words relating to nature, e.g., “life” and “environment” and “nature” itself;
- “Fauna” (15.9%), relating to words associated with wildlife, e.g., “panda” and “animals”;
- “Flora” (10.7%), relating to words associated with vegetation, e.g., “flowers”, “plants”;
- “Scientific terms” (21.8%), concerning specific terms relating to biodiversity, e.g., “variety”, “ecosystems”, and “species”;
- “Science” (7.1%) included terms relating to scientific fields, such as “zoology”;
- “Risk” (6.9%), including words relating to biodiversity loss, such as “extinction”;
- “Preservation” (5.8%) included terms relating to biodiversity conservation, such as “saving” and “respect”.
2.1.2. Procedure
2.1.3. Participants
2.1.4. Data Analysis Plan
2.2. Results
2.2.1. MCA: Psychological Distance and Shared Ideas about Biodiversity
2.2.2. The Influence of Contact with Nature on Psychological Distance
3. Study 2
3.1. Materials and Methods
3.1.1. Measures
3.1.2. Procedure
3.1.3. Participants
3.1.4. Data Analysis Plan
3.2. Results
3.2.1. The Influence of Contact with Nature on Psychological Distance
3.2.2. The Influence of Psychological Distance on Conservation Behaviours
4. General Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dawson, T.P.; Jackson, S.T.; House, J.I.; Prentice, I.C.; Mace, G.M. Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 2011, 332, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Butchart, S.H.; Walpole, M.; Collen, B.; Van Strien, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.; Almond, R.E.; Watson, R. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328, 1164–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Naeem, S.; Chazdon, R.; Duffy, J.E.; Prager, C.; Worm, B. Biodiversity and human well-being: An essential link for sustainable development. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 283, 20162091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cooke, S.J.; Lapointe, N.W.R.; Martins, E.G.; Thiem, J.D.; Raby, G.D.; Taylor, M.K.; Cowx, I.G. Failure to engage the public in issues related to inland fishes and fisheries: Strategies for building public and political will to promote meaningful conservationa. J. Fish Biol. 2013, 83, 997–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Durant, R.; Luck, G.W.; Matthews, A. Nest-box use by arboreal mammals in a peri-urban landscape. Wildl. Res. 2009, 36, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Black, R.; Gull Laird, S.; Perez-Mujica, L. Using residents’ attitudes, knowledge and behaviours to improve biodiversity conservation in an Australian rural–urban landscape. Rural. Soc. 2017, 26, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chape, S.; Harrison, J.; Spalding, M.; Lysenko, I. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sodhi, N.S.; Bickford, D.; Diesmos, A.C.; Lee, T.M.; Koh, L.P.; Brook, B.W.; Sekercioglu, C.H.; Bradshaw, C.J. Measuring the meltdown: Drivers of global amphibian extinction and decline. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hallmann, C.A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, J.A.; Heinen, R.; Armbrecht, I.; Basset, Y.; Baxter-Gilbert, J.H.; Bezemer, T.M.; Böhm, M.; Bommarco, R.; Borges, P.A.V.; Cardoso, P.; et al. International scientists formulate a roadmap for insect conservation and recovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 174–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPBES. The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production; Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016; p. 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzoni, I.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semenza, J.C.; Hall, D.E.; Wilson, D.J.; Bontempo, B.D.; Sailor, D.J.; George, L.A. Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoll-Kleemann, S.; O’Riordan, T.; Jaeger, C.C. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prochaska, J.O.; DiClemente, C.C. The Transtheoretical Approach. In Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration, 2nd ed.; Norcross, J.C., Goldfried, M.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 147–171. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarzer, R. Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 1992, 59, 329–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witte, K.; Allen, M.A. meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav. 2000, 27, 591–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2012, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creutzig, F.; Roy, J.; Lamb, W.F.; Azevedo, I.M.; De Bruin, W.B.; Dalkmann, H.; Edelenbosch, O.Y.; Geels, F.W.; Grubler, A.; Hepburn, C.; et al. Towards demand-side solutions for mitigating climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 260–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dietz, S.; Maddison, D.J. New frontiers in the economics of climate change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 43, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jabeen, H. Adapting the built environment: The role of gender in shaping vulnerability and resilience to climate extremes in Dhaka. Environ. Urban. 2014, 26, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Sovacool, B.K.; Dietz, T. Towards a science of climate and energy choices. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, M. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian Change and the Conflicts of Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Legagneux, P.; Casajus, N.; Cazelles, K.; Chevallier, C.; Chevrinais, M.; Guéry, L.; Jacquet, C.; Jaffré, M.; Naud, M.-J.; Noisette, F.; et al. Our house is burning: Discrepancy in climate change vs. biodiversity coverage in the media as compared to scientific literature. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 5, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, A.; Bednar-Friedl, B.; Langers, F.; Dobrovodská, M.; Geamana, N.; Skogen, K.; Dumortier, M. Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.; Langers, F.; Bednar-Friedl, B.; Geamana, N.; Skogen, K. Mental representations of animal and plant species in their social contexts: Results from a survey across Europe. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levé, M.; Colléony, A.; Conversy, P.; Torres, A.C.; Truong, M.X.; Vuillot, C.; Prévot, A.C. Convergences and divergences in understanding the word biodiversity among citizens: A French case study. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 236, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skogen, K.; Helland, H.; Kaltenborn, B. Concern about climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and landscape change: Embedded in different packages of environmental concern? J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 44, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosa, C.D.; Profice, C.C.; Collado, S. Nature experiences and adults’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.; Larsen, L.; Dayer, A.; Stedman, R.; Decker, D. Are wildlife recreationists conservationists? Linking hunting, birdwatching, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Wildl. Manag. 2015, 79, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J.; Yamaura, Y.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Both direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pensini, P.; Horn, E.; Caltabiano, N.J. An exploration of the relationships between adults’ childhood and current nature exposure and their mental well-being. Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 125–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, M.W.; Gaskell, G. Social representations theory: A progressive research programme for social psychology. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 2008, 38, 335–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moscovici, S. Social Representations: Essays in Social Psychology; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Breakwell, G.M. Mental models and social representations of hazards: The significance of identity processes. J. Risk Res. 2001, 4, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, M.W.; Gaskell, G. Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 1999, 29, 163–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoldo, R.; Guignard, S.; Dias, P.; Schleyer-Lindenmann, A. Coastal inconsistencies: Living with and anticipating coastal flood risks in southern France. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 64, 102521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzoni, I.; Pidgeon, N.F.; O’Connor, R.E. Dangerous climate change: The role for risk research. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2005, 25, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spash, C.L.; Hanley, N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunter, L.M.; Brehm, J. Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Hum. Ecol. 2003, 31, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nisiforou, O.; Charalambides, A.G. Assessing undergraduate university students’ level of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour towards biodiversity: A case study in Cyprus. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1027–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şekercioğlu, Ç.H. Promoting community-based bird monitoring in the tropics: Conservation, research, environmental education, capacity-building, and local incomes. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 151, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E.; Fischer, A.; Rink, D.; Young, J.C. Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2008, 4, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Botzat, A.; Fischer, L.K.; Kowarik, I. Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakhtiari, F.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Strange, N.; Helles, F. Revealing lay people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2014, 1, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foster, W.A.; Snaddon, J.L.; Turner, E.; Fayle, T.; Cockerill, T.D.; Ellwood, M.D.F.; Broad, G.R.; Chung, A.Y.C.; Eggleton, P.; Khen, C.V.; et al. Establishing the evidence base for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in the oil palm landscapes of South East Asia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 3277–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCay, B.J.; Jones, P.J. Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 1130–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKinley, E.; Fletcher, S. Improving marine environmental health through marine citizenship: A call for debate. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 839–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonin, S.; Lucaroni, G. Understanding social knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards marine biodiversity: The case of tegnùe in Italy. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2017, 140, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, D.C.; Hobbs, R.J. Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 25, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, L.R.; Keith, S.J.; Fernandez, M.; Hallo, J.C.; Shafer, C.S.; Jennings, V. Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What’s the public’s perspective? Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyytimäki, J.; Petersen, L.K.; Normander, B.; Bezák, P. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 2008, 5, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campbell-Arvai, V. Engaging urban nature: Improving our understanding of public perceptions of the role of biodiversity in cities. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prévot, A.C.; Servais, V.; Piron, A. Scientist and non-scientists share a diversity of dimensions in their relations to urban nature. Urban Ecosyst. 2016, 19, 1787–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E.; Elands, B.H. Does expertise matter? An in-depth understanding of people’s structure of thoughts on nature and its management implications. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 168, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batel, S.; Castro, P. Reopening the dialogue between the theory of social representations and discursive psychology for examining the construction and transformation of meaning in discourse and communication. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 57, 732–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jodelet, D. Pensamiento social e historicidad. Relaciones. Estud. Hist. Soc. 2003, 24, 94–114. [Google Scholar]
- Joffe, H. Risk: From perception to social representation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 42, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Breakwell, G.M.; Cano, I. Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 6, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.; Hovardas, T.; Figari, H.; Castro, P.; Devine-Wright, P.; Fischer, A.; Selge, S. Understanding people’s ideas on natural resource management: Research on social representations of nature. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1167–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figari, H.; Skogen, K. Social representations of the wolf. Acta Sociol. 2011, 54, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selge, S.; Fischer, A.; van der Wal, R. Public and professional views on invasive non-native species–A qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 3089–3097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kals, E.; Schumacher, D.; Montada, L. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31, 178–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohr, V.I.; Pearson-Mims, C.H. Children’s active and passive interactions with plants influence their attitudes and actions toward trees and gardening as adults. HortTechnology 2005, 15, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ewert, A.; Place, G.; Sibthorp, J. Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes. Leis. Sci. 2005, 27, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, N.M.; Lekies, K.S. Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ. 2006, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Whitmarsh, L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 351–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Linden, S. On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lujala, P.; Lein, H.; Rød, J.K. Climate change, natural hazards, and risk perception: The role of proximity and personal experience. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 489–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wachinger, G.; Renn, O.; Begg, C.; Kuhlicke, C. The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 2013, 33, 1049–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gemina, D.; Andari, T.T.; Kusuma, I.C. Consumer behavior on the choice of typical regional food products based on external and internal factors, perception, attitude and consumer preference. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2013, 3, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H.; Partanen, A.; Meeusen, M. Consumer perception of bio-based products—An exploratory study in 5 European countries. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 77, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.J. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A multilevel regression approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Duarte-Davidson, R.; Fleming, L.E. Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimension | Cronbach Alpha | Inertia | % of Explained Variance |
---|---|---|---|
Close vs. distant | 0.681 | 0.194 | 19.4 |
Scientific vs. stereotypical | 0.487 | 0.130 | 13.0 |
Total | 0.32 | 32.4 |
Dimension | Mean | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||
Cat 1 nature/environment/life | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Cat 2 animals | 0.039 | 0.597 | 0.318 |
Cat 3 plants | 0.025 | 0.393 | 0.209 |
Cat 6 science/ecology/biology | 0.082 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
Cat 14 preservation | 0.050 | 0.055 | 0.053 |
CScientificTerms | 0.049 | 0.129 | 0.089 |
CRisk | 0.190 | 0.007 | 0.098 |
NatureWalk | 0.118 | 0.050 | 0.084 |
GeographicalDistance | 0.302 | 0.108 | 0.205 |
TemporalDistance | 0.613 | 0.040 | 0.327 |
SocialDistance | 0.584 | 0.017 | 0.300 |
UncertaintyDistance | 0.503 | 0.076 | 0.289 |
LivingCloseToNature | 0.114 | 0.159 | 0.136 |
GrowingUpCloseToNature | 0.050 | 0.189 | 0.120 |
Active total | 2.719 | 1.827 | 2.273 |
Block | Predictors | Geographical | Temporal | Social | Uncertainty | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | r2 = 0.007; F = 1.91 | r2 = 0.002; F = 1.31 | r2 = 0.008; F = 2.01 | r2 = 0.02; F = 3.59 | |||||
β | t | β | t | β | t | β | t | ||
Age | −0.11 | −1.77 | −0.02 | −0.23 | −0.08 | −1.25 | 0.002 | 0.03 | |
Gender | −0.03 | −0.49 | −0.09 | −1.53 | −0.08 | −1.32 | −0.16 | −2.64 * | |
2 | r2 = 0.04; F = 2.89 | r2 = 0.08; F = 5.45 | r2 = 0.07; F = 4.95 | r2 = 0.07; F = 4.68 | |||||
Age | −0.11 | −1.75 | −0.02 | −0.28 | −0.08 | −1.28 | −0.001 | −0.02 | |
Gender | −0.03 | −0.49 | −0.11 | −1.69 | −0.09 | −1.42 | −0.17 | −2.79 * | |
Living close to nature | 0.08 | 1.19 | 0.09 | 1.43 | 0.11 | 1.61 | 0.07 | 1.05 | |
Growing up close to nature | 0.05 | 0.71 | 0.14 | 2.17 * | 0.09 | 1.46 | 0.13 | 1.92 | |
Nature walk | −0.14 | −2.16 * | −0.17 | −2.73 * | −0.17 | −2.68 * | −0.13 | −2.12 * |
Block | Predictors | Geographical | Temporal | Social | Uncertainty | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | r2 = −0.008; F = 0.27 | r2 = −0.002; F = 0.81 | r2 = −0.01; F = 0.09 | r2 = −0.001; F = 0.89 | |||||
β | t | β | t | β | t | β | t | ||
2 | Age | 0.05 | 0.63 | 0.09 | 1.14 | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.09 | 1.23 |
Gender | −0.04 | −0.48 | −0.06 | −0.75 | 0.01 | 0.13 | −0.06 | −0.74 | |
r2 = 0.07; F = 3.73 | r2 = 0.11; F = 5.16 | r2 = 0.12; F = 5.68 | r2 = 0.08; F = 4.01 | ||||||
Age | 0.03 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.82 | 0.008 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.96 | |
Gender | −0.02 | −0.27 | −0.03 | −0.45 | 0.04 | 0.49 | −0.04 | −0.53 | |
Living close to nature | 0.05 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 1.28 | 0.06 | 0.76 | 0.05 | 0.61 | |
Growing up close to nature | −0.06 | −0.71 | −0.08 | −0.92 | −0.04 | −0.43 | −0.06 | −0.77 | |
Nature walk | −0.31 | −4.05 *** | −0.34 | −4.69 *** | −0.38 | −5.21 *** | −0.31 | −4.04 *** |
Block | Predictors | Limiting Disposables | Limiting Water | Buying Bio | Buying Regional | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | β | t | β | t | β | t | ||
1 | r2 = −0.004; F = 0.63 | r2 = −0.007; F = 0.39 | r2 = 0.005; F = 1.48 | r2 = −0.004; F = 0.65 | |||||
Age | −0.02 | −0.29 | −0.07 | −0.87 | 0.09 | 1.26 | 0.08 | 1.04 | |
Gender | 0.09 | 1.12 | −0.01 | −0.05 | 0.07 | 0.93 | 0.02 | 0.27 | |
2 | r2 = 0.09; F = 4.84 | r2 = 0.007; F = 1.25 | r2 = 0.06; F = 3.18 | r2 = 0.11; F = 5.13 | |||||
Age | 0.01 | 0.1 | −0.06 | −0.81 | 0.11 | 1.48 | 0.11 | 1.47 | |
Gender | 0.07 | 0.93 | −0.01 | −0.11 | 0.07 | 0.89 | −0.01 | −0.09 | |
Living close to nature | −0.07 | −0.87 | 0.05 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 0.62 | −0.14 | −1,71 | |
Growing up close to nature | 0.11 | 1.27 | −0.01 | −0.11 | 0.05 | 0.59 | 0.08 | 0.97 | |
Nature walk | 0.32 *** | 4.41 | 0.16 | 2.06 * | 0.23 | 3,02 ** | 0.34 | 4.69 *** | |
3 | r2 = 0.18; F = 5.39 | r2 = 0.21; F = 5.92 | r2 = 0.07; F = 2.48 | r2 = 0.13; F = 3.89 | |||||
Age | 0.02 | 0.32 | −0.04 | −0.53 | 0.12 | 1.54 | 0.11 | 1.46 | |
Gender | 0.06 | 0.91 | −0.02 | −0.27 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 0.002 | 0.03 | |
Living close to nature | −0.04 | −0.46 | 0.09 | 1.21 | 0.07 | 0.84 | −0.13 | −1.54 | |
Growing up close to nature | 0.08 | 1.05 | −0.05 | −0.61 | 0.04 | 0.44 | 0.07 | 0.89 | |
Nature walk | 0.21 | 2.62 * | −0.05 | −0.62 | 0.15 | 1.85 | 0.27 | 3.38 *** | |
Geographical distance | 0.01 | 0.056 | −0.18 | −2.25 * | −0.09 | −1.02 | −0.04 | −0.43 | |
Temporal distance | −0.31 | −2.83 ** | −0.15 | −1.36 | −0.14 | −1.19 | −0.07 | −0.636 | |
Social distance | −0.09 | −0.98 | −0.14 | −1.39 | −0.08 | −0.77 | −0.21 | −2.01 * | |
Uncertainty | 0.07 | 0.67 | −0.16 | −1.64 | 0.11 | 0.94 | 0.12 | 1.21 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bosone, L.; Bertoldo, R. The Greater the Contact, the Closer the Threat: The Influence of Contact with Nature on the Social Perception of Biodiversity Loss and the Effectiveness of Conservation Behaviours. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416490
Bosone L, Bertoldo R. The Greater the Contact, the Closer the Threat: The Influence of Contact with Nature on the Social Perception of Biodiversity Loss and the Effectiveness of Conservation Behaviours. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416490
Chicago/Turabian StyleBosone, Lucia, and Raquel Bertoldo. 2022. "The Greater the Contact, the Closer the Threat: The Influence of Contact with Nature on the Social Perception of Biodiversity Loss and the Effectiveness of Conservation Behaviours" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416490