The purpose of this project was to better understand the relationship between virtual nature experiences and ecological behavior. Participants (n = 57) were gathered in three experimental groups. The first was a control group that did not participate in a nature experience and was asked to complete a survey. The second was a nature condition that participated in a self-guided hike and completed surveys before and after the experience. The third group was a virtual nature group that participated in a virtual nature experience through head-mounted displays and completed surveys before and after their experience. All three groups were asked if they would like to sign a letter to a senator that would support ecological behavior after their various experiences. Linear mixed modeling revealed that both the nature condition and the virtual nature condition had a significant effect on ecological behavior when compared with the control condition. Virtual reality of nature may be as effective as actual nature in promoting ecological behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhnS. J., BailensonJ., & ParkD. (2014). Short- and long-term effects of embodied experiences in immersive virtual environments on environmental locus of control and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 235–245.
2.
AhnS. J., BostickJ., OgleE., NowakK., McGillicuddyK., & BailensonJ. (2016). Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 399–419.
3.
AkçayırM., & AkçayırG. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.
4.
ArendtF., & MatthesJ. (2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10, 453–472.
5.
BarbaroN., & PickettS. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137–142.
6.
BerryW. (2020, March3). The agricultural crisis as a crisis of culture. US Environmentalism since 1945: A Brief History with Documents. Retrieved from https://doi.org/cbclipping-PDF:/Articles/*CBClips/Berry-Crisis of Agriculture.pdf
7.
CalogiuriG., LitleskareS., FagerheimK. A., RydgrenT. L., BrambillaE., & ThurstonM. (2018). Experiencing nature through immersive virtual environments: Environmental perceptions, physical engagement, and affective responses during a simulated nature walk. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–14.
DavisJ. L., GreenJ. D., & ReedA. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180.
10.
DieckD., DieckM. C., JungT., & MoorhouseN. (2018). Tourists' virtual reality adoption: An exploratory study from Lake District National Park. Leisure Studies, 37, 371–383.
11.
DuerdenM. D., & WittP. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 379–392.
12.
GhiţăA., & Gutiérrez-MaldonadoJ. (2018). Applications of virtual reality in individuals with alcohol misuse: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 81, 1–11.
13.
HanleyA. W., DeringerS. A., & HanleyR. T. (2017). Dispositional mindfulness may be associated with deeper connections with nature. Ecopsychology, 9, 225–231.
14.
HellevikO. (2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality & Quantity, 43, 59–74.
15.
JacksonS. A., & CsikszentmihalyiM. (1999). Flow in sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
16.
KennedyE. H., BeckleyT. M., McFarlaneB. L., & NadeauS. (2009). Why we don't “walk the talk”: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16, 151–160.
17.
KleinS. A., & HilbigB. E. (2018). How virtual nature experiences can promote pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 41–47.
18.
KollmussA., & AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.
19.
LarsonL. R., StedmanR. C., CooperC. B., & DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124.
20.
LarsonL. R., UsherL. E., & ChapmonT. (2017). Surfers as environmental stewards: Understanding place-protecting behavior at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Leisure Sciences, 40, 442–463.
21.
LeopoldA. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
LeviD., & KocherS. (1999). Virtual nature: The future effects of information technology on our relationship to nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 203–226.
23.
MayerF. S., FrantzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE., & DolliverK. (2008). Why is nature beneficial?. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
24.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
25.
MostafaA., RyuW., ChanS., TakashimaK., & KoppG. (2017). Designing NeuroSimVR: A stereoscopic virtual reality spine surgery simulator. Science, 1, 1–20.
26.
MuirJ. (1894). The mountains of California. New York, NY: The De Vinne Press.
27.
NashR. (1973). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
NewellB. R., McDonaldR. I., BrewerM., & HayesB. K. (2014). The psychology of environmental decisions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 443–467.
29.
NisbetE. K., & ZelenskiJ. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature. Psychological Science, 22, 1101–1106.
30.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). With nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
31.
OberyA., & BangertA. (2017). Exploring the Influence of nature relatedness and perceived science knowledge on proenvironmental behavior. Education Sciences, 7, 17.
32.
PrettyJ., PeacockJ., SellensM., & GriffinM. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 15, 319–337.
33.
RamirezE. J., & LaBargeS. (2018). Real moral problems in the use of virtual reality. Ethics and Information Technology, 20, 249–263.
34.
RosaC. D., ProficeC. C., & ColladoS. (2018). Nature experiences and adults' self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: The role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–10.
35.
SalamonN., GrimmJ. M., HorackJ. M., & NewtonE. K. (2018). Application of virtual reality for crew mental health in extended-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica, 146, 117–122.
36.
SaroglouV., BuxantC., & TilquinJ. (2008). Positive emotions as leading to religion and spirituality. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 165–173.
37.
SheeranP., & WebbT. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 503–518.
38.
ShultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP. & SchultzW. P. (eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39.
SmithM. D., GetchellS., & WeatherlyM. (2018). Human connectedness to nature: Comparison of natural vs. virtual experiences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11003 LNCS, 215–219.
40.
SolimanM., PeetzJ., & DavydenkoM. (2017). The impact of immersive technology on nature relatedness and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Media Psychology, 29, 8–17.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
