Previous research indicates that people tend to prefer natural over built environments. However, little research has examined or attempted to measure individual differences in the degree to which natural environments are preferred over their built counterparts. To address this limitation, the current research details the development of the Preferences for Nature Questionnaire (PNQ), a short self-report instrument assessing individual differences in preferences for natural versus built environments. Study 1 examined the psychometric properties of the PNQ in a large sample of undergraduate students, and Study 2 attempted to replicate the findings of Study 1 using a group of nonstudent adults sampled from across the United States. Across both studies, findings indicated that the PNQ achieved acceptable levels of reliability and validity, and scores on the PNQ predicted relevant environmentally oriented attitudes and behaviors, such as frequency of visits to natural environments and support for preservation/conservation of natural environments. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that the PNQ is a valid and useful measure of environmental preference. Key Words: Environmental preference—Natural environments—Scale development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmburgeyJ. W., & ThomanD. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the New Ecological Paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44, 235–256.
2.
BallingJ. D., & FalkJ. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5–28.
3.
BeuteF., & de KortY. W. (2013). Let the sun shine! Measuring explicit and implicit preference for environments differing in naturalness, weather type and brightness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 162–178.
4.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
5.
CapaldiC. A., DopkoR. L., & ZelenskiJ. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
6.
CrowneD. P., & MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
7.
DohertyT. J. (2009). The rediscovery of ecopsychology. Ecopsychology, 1, 105–111.
8.
DunlapR. E., Van LiereK. D., MertigA. G., & Emmet JonesR. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.
9.
FalkJ. H., & BallingJ. D. (2010). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 42, 479–493.
10.
GreiderT., & GarkovichL. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59, doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x
11.
HartigT., & EvansG. W. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. In GärlingT. & GolledgeR. G. (Eds.), Behavior and environment: Psychological and geographical approaches (pp. 427–457). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
12.
HerzogT. R., HerbertE. J., KaplanR., & CrooksC. L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323–346.
13.
JöreskogK., & SörbomD. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
KahnP. H.Jr. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
KahnP. H.Jr. (2011). Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of human life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
KaplanS. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32.
18.
KellertS. R., & WilsonE. O. (Eds.). (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
19.
KorpelaK., KyttäM., & HartigT. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children's place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387–398.
20.
KorpelaK. M., HartigT., KaiserF. G., & FuhrerU. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589.
21.
KorpelaK. M., KlemettiläT., & HietanenJ. K. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34, 634–650.
22.
LichtensteinS., & SlovicP. (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
LouvR. (2006). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
24.
MayerF., & FrantzC. (2004). The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
25.
McConochieW. A. (2011). Psychological correlates of pro-environmental attitudes. Ecopsychology, 3, 115–123.
26.
McMahanE. A., & EstesD. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507–519.
27.
NewellP. B. (1997). A cross-cultural examination of favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 29, 495–514.
28.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
29.
O'GradyK. E. (1988). The Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards Social Desirability scales: A psychometric perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 87–101.
30.
OriansG. H., & HeerwagenJ. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In BarkowJ. H., CosmidesL., & ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555–579). New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
PetersE. (2006). The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. In LichtensteinS. & SlovicP. (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 454–463). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.
33.
SampsonS. D. (2012). The topophilia hypothesis: Ecopsychology meets evolutionary psychology. In KahnP. J.Jr., & HasbachP. H. (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Science, totems, and the technological species (pp. 23–53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
TamK. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
36.
UlrichR. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In KellertS. R. & WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington, DC: Island Press.
van den BergA. E., KooleS. L., & van der WulpN. Y. (2003). Environment preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135–146.
39.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, doi:10.1037/h002584
41.
ZajoncR. B., & MarkusH. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 123–131.
