Climate change is causing increasingly damaging effects to the environment humans rely on for survival. Efforts are underway to reverse the effects of climate change on multiple levels of society including at a personal level. Currently, there are gaps in understanding the predictors of personal climate activism. Personal climate activism can include actions such as taking public transportation, going vegan, and recycling. In seeking to understand the role of nature connection in predicting climate activism, 547 participants completed a questionnaire, 15 of whom completed optional follow-up interviews in which they elaborated on their relationship to the environment and their questionnaire answers. Findings in this study show that participants who reported past climate activism were more connected to nature. Also, participants were 26 percent more likely to participate in climate activism for each increase of one point on their nature connectedness score. A higher level of nature connectedness is indicative of future climate activism. Object relations theory and actor network theory can help explain why nature-connected individuals partake in climate activism. Understanding predictors of pro-environmental behaviors can inform efforts to educate people on the value of connecting with nature and the impact this connection has on ecological sustainability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BačėninaitėD., DžermeikaitėK., & AntanaitisR. (2022). Global warming and dairy cattle: How to control and reduce methane emission. Animals, 12(19), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192687
BartholomewE., RoemerA., & MedvedevO. N. (2022). Validation and enhancement of the 6-item nature-relatedness scale using Rasch analysis. Ecopsychology, 15(1), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0031
4.
BeakY., KimK., MaengK., & ChoY. (2020). Is the environment-friendly factor attractive to customers when purchasing electric vehicles? Evidence from South Korea. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 996–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2412
5.
BodnarS., AljovinP., O'NeillP., AlaviS., GamoranJ., et al. (2022). The environment as an object relationship: A two-part study. Ecopsychology, 15(2), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0070
6.
BunyavanichS., LandriganC. P., McMichaelA. J., & EpsteinP. R. (2003). The impact of climate change on child health. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 3(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1367/1539-4409(2003)003<0044:TIOCCO >2.0.CO;2
7.
CapaldiC. A., PassmoreH.-A., NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & DopkoR. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449
8.
ChawlaL. (2020). Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: A review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People and Nature, 2(3), 619–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10128
9.
ClaytonS., LuebkeJ., SaundersC., MatiasekJ., & GrajalA. (2014). 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
10.
ClearyA., FieldingK. S., BellS. L., MurrayZ., & RoikoA. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003
11.
CostelloA., AbbasM., AllenA., BallS., BellS., et al. (2009). Managing the health effects of climate change: Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission. The Lancet, 373(9676), 1693–1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1
12.
CoxD., HuntJ., MasonP., WheaterH., WolfP., & PoffN. L. (2002). Ecological response to and management of increased flooding caused by climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1796), 1497–1510. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1012
13.
DaytonL., BalabanA., ScherkoskeM., & LatkinC. (2022). Family communication about climate change in the United States. Journal of Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-022-00712-0
14.
de Burgh-WoodmanH., & KingD. (2013). Sustainability and the human/nature connection: A critical discourse analysis of being “symbolically” sustainable. Consumption Markets & Culture, 16(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2012.662834
15.
DeanJ., ShanahanD., BushR., GastonK., LinB., et al. (2018). Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071371
16.
Dillman-HassoN. (2021). The nature buffer: The missing link in climate change and mental health research. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11(4), 696–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00669-2
17.
HainesA., & PatzJ. A. (2004). Health effects of climate change. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.1.99
18.
HaoH., ChengX., LiuZ., & ZhaoF. (2017). Electric vehicles for greenhouse gas reduction in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 56, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.025
19.
HaugestadC. A. P., SkaugeA. D., KunstJ. R., & PowerS. A. (2021). Why do youth participate in climate activism? A mixed-methods investigation of the #FridaysForFuture climate protests. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101647
20.
HolifieldR. (2009). Actor-network theory as a critical approach to environmental justice: A case against synthesis with urban political ecology. Antipode, 41(4), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00692.x
21.
HsuS. (2009). Significant life experiences affect environmental action: A confirmation study in eastern Taiwan. Environmental Education Research, 15(4), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903076973
22.
JamesJ. J., BixlerR. D., & VadalaC. E. (2010). From play in nature, to recreation then vocation: A developmental model for natural history-oriented environmental professionals. Children, Youth and Environments, 20(1), 231–256.
23.
KellertS. R. (2012). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island Press.
24.
KhanS. A. R., SharifA., GolpîraH., & KumarA. (2019). A green ideology in Asian emerging economies: From environmental policy and sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 27(6), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1958
25.
KollmussA., & AgyemanJ. (2010). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
26.
KorpelaK., & KinnunenU. (2010). How is leisure time interacting with nature related to the need for recovery from work demands? Testing multiple mediators. Leisure Sciences, 33(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2011.533103
27.
LaidleyT. (2013). Climate, class and culture: Political issues as cultural signifiers in the US. The Sociological Review, 61(1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12008
28.
LangeF., & DewitteS. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
29.
LatkinC., DaytonL., BonneauH., BhaktaramA., RossJ., et al. (2022). Perceived barriers to climate change activism behaviors in the United States among individuals highly concerned about climate change. Journal of Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-022-00704-0
30.
McCrightA. M., & DunlapR. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2022). Global climate change: Vital signs of the planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/
33.
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(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
RommJ. (2022). Climate change: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
38.
SabherwalA., BallewM. T., van der LindenS., GustafsonA., GoldbergM. H., et al. (2021). The Greta Thunberg effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts intentions to engage in climate activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12737
39.
SearleK., & GowK. (2010). Do concerns about climate change lead to distress?. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(4), 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691011089891
40.
SiakwahP. (2017). Actor network theory, globalised assemblages and the impact of oil on agriculture and industry in Ghana. The Extractive Industries and Society, 4(3), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2017.04.007
41.
SmithC. J., DupréK. E., McEvoyA., & KennyS. (2021). Community perceptions and pro-environmental behavior: The mediating roles of social norms and climate change risk. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 53(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000229
42.
SmithJ. A. (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. SAGE.
43.
SpringmannM., GodfrayH. C. J., RaynerM., & ScarboroughP. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
44.
TamarM., WirawanH., ArfahT., & PutriR. P. S. (2020). Predicting pro-environmental behaviours: The role of environmental values, attitudes and knowledge. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(2), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0264
45.
The Core WritingTeam, PachauriR. K., & MeyerL. A.(Eds.). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
46.
TsengY.-C., & WangS.-M. (2020). Understanding Taiwanese adolescents' connections with nature: Rethinking conventional definitions and scales for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1668354
47.
WangJ., & ChameidesB. (2007). Are humans responsible for global warming? A review of the facts. Environmental Defense.
48.
WerfelS. H. (2017). Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nature Climate Change, 7(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3316
WilsonE. O. (1986). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
51.
WynesS., & NicholasK. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
52.
ZabkarV., & HostaM. (2013). Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: Can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap?. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(3), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01134.x
