Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing

connectedness theory among farmers
Elizabeth Gosling, Kathryn J.H. Williams*
Department of Resource Management and Geography, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Vic., 3010, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between pro-environmental behaviour and two
Available online 25 January 2010 forms of emotional association: attachment to place and connectedness to nature. This relationship is
explored in the context of farmers’ management of native vegetation on their properties. A postal survey
Keywords: was conducted to measure the extent to which farmers felt connected to nature and to their property.
Connectedness to nature The survey also measured vegetation management behaviours and associated valued outcomes. A total of
Place attachment
141 farmers in northwest Victoria, Australia, completed the survey. Results showed that vegetation
Biodiversity protection
Landholders
protection behaviours increased with connectedness to nature (CNS), although CNS accounted for only
a modest amount of the variation in behaviour. Place attachment was not related to management
behaviours. Further analysis suggested that the relationship between CNS and management behaviour
was mediated by importance given to environmental benefits of vegetation management. The findings
lend weight to studies showing a relationship between CNS and more simple conservation behaviours
(e.g. recycling). The findings are also consistent with frameworks suggesting that emotional association
with nature leads to an expanded sense of self and greater valuing of non-human species, and so to pro-
environment behaviour. This demonstrates the importance of using a range of instrumental and more
affective strategies to promote conservation behaviours.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concerns. This study examines whether these affective connections

Native vegetation on private land has an important role in
providing regional biodiversity. Individual landholders therefore
play a critical role in managing this biodiversity (Barr & Cary, 2000;
Harrington, Lane, & Mercer, 2006). Human-environment
researchers, along with behaviour change practitioners have
consequently sought to understand the reasons why rural land-
holders do and do not protect native vegetation on their own
properties (Maybery, Crase, & Gullifer, 2005; Williams & Cary,
2002). To date, both research and practice have tended to empha-
sise instrumental and financial motivations for native vegetation
management. More recent research has shown that less tangible
motivations, including place attachment and connectedness to
nature, are important drivers of environmentally significant action
(Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). This
relationship has mainly been demonstrated for simple private
sphere behaviours such as switching off unnecessary lights and
citizenship behaviours such as petitioning for environmental
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 8344 3094.
E-mail address: kjhw@unimelb.edu.au (K.J.H. Williams).
to place and nature also help to explain farmers’ management of
native vegetation.
Research into farmer pro-environmental behaviour has tradi-
tionally focused on the importance of financial drivers (Williams,
2003). However, there is increasing recognition that economic
factors are not the only factors driving decision-making in agri-
culture (Maybery et al., 2005). A number of recent Australian
studies demonstrate the mix of economic, cultural and emotional
factors that shape vegetation management practices including tree
planting and protection of remnant native vegetation (Harrington
et al., 2006; Seabrook, McAlpine, & Fensham, 2008; Smith, 2008).
There is interest in understanding the role of emotion in environ-
mentally significant behaviour (Pooley & O’Connor, 2000) and
some exploration of the role of emotions in land management
behaviours (see for example Carr, 2002; Harrison, Burgess, & Clark,
1998). Despite this, there is scant research available to understand
how emotional attachments to place and nature may influence
native vegetation management on farms.
In other contexts, there is growing evidence that environmen-
tally significant action increases with affective attachments to and
identification with nature and place. Connectedness to nature is the
extent to which an individual feels that he or she is a part of nature

0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005
 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304
(Schultz, 2001). Kals et al., (1999) showed how affinity with nature
effectively predicted (with r2 values between .25 and .39) willing-
ness to undertake simple conservation behaviors such as taking
public transport or petitioning for environmental protection. In
testing the validity of a Connectedness to Nature Scale, Mayer and
Frantz (2004) found positive correlations with environmental
behaviour (two separate studies reported correlations of .44 and
.45). Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, and Johnson (2007) found connectivity
with nature was a significant predictor of environmental behaviour,
accounting for 10 per cent of variance in behaviour. Clayton (2003)
observed a slightly broader concept, Environmental Identity, which
incorporates both emotional association and identity with nature,
but also agreement with policies that protect nature, and extent of
interactions with nature. She demonstrated that measures of
Environmental Identity have significant positive correlations (r ¼
.64) with environmentally responsible behaviour such as turning
off lights or donating to environmental organisations. Not all
studies have reported support for this relationship, however.
Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, and Khazian (2004) used an Implicit
Association Test (IAT) to measure association with nature, and
found no significant relationships between IAT scores and
behaviour.
There is also considerable interest in the relationship between
place attachment and environmental behaviours. Place attachment
is a positive connection or emotional bond between a person and
a particular place (Williams & Vaske, 2003). Vaske and Kobrin
(2001) demonstrate that place attachment predicts environmen-
tally responsible behaviour (r2 ¼ .40), with place identity (symbolic
significance of place) mediating the relationship between place
dependence (functional reliance on place) and environmentally
responsible behaviour. Most behaviour indicators used in this study
were simple household conservation behaviours, but the measure
did include at least one place-based or land management behav-
iour: participating in a community clean up of a natural area.
Stedman (2002) surveyed American lakeside property owners and
found that respondents with higher levels of place attachment
were more willing to act in ways that protected the lake setting’s
quality, e.g. vote for laws that prevent water quality decline. Simi-
larly, Halpenny (2006) surveyed visitors to a Canadian national
park, and found that place attachment was a strong predictor (r ¼
.57) of visitors’ park-specific behaviours, e.g. picking up litter left by
other people.
Along with demonstrating more generally the relationship
between place attachment and behaviour, these studies also
provide some indication that affective ties may shape low cost
land protection behaviours such as removing litter. However, no
research has considered the role of place attachment and
connectedness to nature in higher cost land protection behaviours
such as tree planting, fencing areas of native vegetation for
protection, or setting aside areas of native vegetation from agri-
cultural production. This study will investigate how well
emotional connections to nature and to place predict these types
of behaviour.
In exploring this relationship it is important to understand the
reasons why connections to nature and place might result in
more positive environmental behaviours. Theorists have pre-
sented a relatively consistent account of the psychological basis
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the mediating role of values in the relationship between connectedness to nature or place and pro-environment behaviour.
299
of this relationship. Attachments to place and nature are thought
to expand one’s identity or self-definition (Clayton & Opotow,
2003; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz et al., 2004). As closeness to
nature or place increases, so does empathy and willingness to
help (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). A number of researchers have
shown how this relates to more traditional value-based or
cognitive hierarchy models of environmentally significant
behaviour. Researchers often distinguish between value orienta-
tions that give greatest importance to self, the wider human
community, or the biosphere (for example Stern & Dietz, 1994).
Schultz (2000) argues that the value someone places on an object
will depend on the extent to which he or she includes that object
within his or her sense of self. A person who feels interconnected
with the natural world may have an expanded sense of self that
includes other non-human living beings, leading to greater
biospheric concerns. In contrast, individuals who feel less con-
nected to nature tend to value a narrower range of objects that
reflect self-interest (Schultz, 2000).
This theory appears to suggest a mediating role for environ-
mental concern in explaining the relationship between environ-
mentally significant behaviour and connectedness to place and
nature. That is, pro-environment behaviour increases with
connectedness to nature or place, but this is brought about through
an expanded concern for things other than oneself (Fig. 1; see also
Schultz, 2002). To date there is only partial and inconsistent
evidence for this relationship. For example, Schultz et al. (2004)
demonstrates a positive relationship between biospheric concerns
and an implicit association with nature, and a negative relationship
between implicit connections with nature and egoistic concerns.
This provides evidence for the first part of this mediated relation-
ship, showing that connectedness with nature is associated with
stronger environmental concern. A small number of studies have
demonstrated that manipulation of sense of self through perspec-
tive-taking activities can also lead to stronger environmental
concern (Bragg, 1996; Schultz, 2000). This provides evidence for
a causal direction in the relationship between identity with place or
nature and behaviour, but does not clarify whether environmental
concern plays a mediating role.
Berenguer (2007) perhaps comes closest to exploring the overall
relationship. He found that students instructed to take the
perspective of a tree or bird expressed more positive attitudes
towards the environment and displayed greater helping behaviour,
allocating more of a student association’s funds to environmental
projects. He found empirical support for a model in which attitudes
towards the tree or bird mediate the relationship between behav-
iour and empathy. The attitude observed in this instance was ‘.to
what extent do you feel a moral obligation to help the [bird or
tree]?’ This appears to combine elements of personal norms for
action (Stern, 2000) and the kinds of valued objects or motivations
on which Schultz (2000) bases his observations.
This study seeks to extend the understanding of the relationship
between affective connections and pro-environment behaviour in
two ways. First, we examine whether connectedness to nature and
place partly account for behaviours to protect native vegetation.
Second, we examine whether environmental concern mediates the
relationship between behaviour and connectedness to nature and
place.
300 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304
2. Methods
A postal survey was conducted during June and July 2008 in
a rural area where over the last decade there has been a concerted
community effort to revegetate cleared land. The postal survey
measured landholders’ place attachment, connectedness to nature,
valued objects associated with vegetation management and on-
farm management of native vegetation.
2.1. Study area
The study area mainly comprised the Hindmarsh Shire – a local
government area in northwest Victoria, Australia. This is a large
area, covering around 7600 km2, that has a relatively small pop-
ulation of around 6100 people. It is a farming region with an
economy based on grain and sheep production (Hindmarsh Shire
Council, 2008). Freehold titles were first established in the area in
the 1870s (Longmire, 1985); many landholders in the region are
third or fourth generation farmers. The study area also included
properties surrounding Kaniva, a small town in the neighbouring
West Wimmera Shire. Typical of many parts of Australia, the
Hindmarsh Shire has been extensively cleared for agriculture and
there is a pressing need to protect and restore native vegetation in
the landscape. For the last 10 years a shire-wide program has
provided landholders with financial incentives to protect and
replant native vegetation on their property. Because many land-
holders have subsequently been involved in revegetation, the area
provided an opportunity to investigate the role of more emotional
motives for on-farm conservation.
2.2. Sampling and participants
Landholder names were obtained using a community directory
and the telephone directory. This produced a sampling frame of 453
property addresses with the corresponding landholder names. It is
likely that the sampling frame captured a high proportion of all
landholders in the area. A random sample of 300 landholders was
used. Nine of these landholders turned out not to be members of
the study population (e.g. the questionnaires were returned to
sender). In total 141 useable surveys were returned; a 48.5 per cent
response rate.
Of the 141 respondents 115 (82 per cent) were male and 20 (14
per cent) were female. Almost three-quarters (74.4 per cent) of
respondents were at least 45 years old. Property size ranged from
18 to 4000 ha with an average of 1092 ha (S.D. ¼ 783 ha). Their
property provided the main source of income for 85 per cent of
respondents. A comparison to Australian Bureau of Statistics
census data (www.abs.gov.au) suggests that the demographic
characteristics of respondents are similar to farmers in the study
area generally, except that female farmers were under-
represented.
Table 1
Factor loadings for items on connectedness to nature scale. Components extracted by PCA with varimax rotation.
Item
I often feel that I am a part of nature.
I often feel close to the natural world around me.
I never feel a personal bond with things in my natural surroundings like trees, wildlife or the view on the horizon.
I often feel disconnected from nature.
My own welfare is linked to the welfare of the natural world.
I recognise and appreciate the intelligence of other living things.
When I think about my place on the planet, I consider myself to be at the top of a pecking order among all living things.
2.3. Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained five sections: on-farm native
vegetation management (measuring behaviour and behavioural
intentions), valued objects associated with native vegetation
management, place attachment, connectedness to nature and
demographics.
Connectedness to nature was measured by adapting scales
developed by Mayer and Frantz (2004) and Dutcher et al. (2007).
Pre-testing identified that many items on these scales were not
suitable for a rural Australian context. Following the input from
eight farmers, some scale items were revised and others discarded.
The final scale comprised eight items designed to measure how
much farmers generally felt a part of nature (Table 1). Participants
responded on a five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly
agree).
Place attachment was measured by adapting items from scales
used by Halpenny (2006), Stedman (2002) and Vaske and Kobrin
(2001). The final scale comprised nine items designed to measure
the positive emotional bond that a landholder has with their
property (Table 2). Again, participants responded on a five-point
scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).
The measure of native vegetation management valued objects
or concerns was based on Schultz’s (2000) approach to measuring
egoistic, altruistic and biospheric concerns for environmental
protection. Respondents were asked how important each of the
items (e.g. ‘protecting native birds’, ‘increasing profit on my farm’)
were for their decision-making about how they manage native
vegetation on their property (Table 3). Respondents ranked items
on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ not important, 7 ¼ greatest
importance).
To measure native vegetation protection a list was devised of
eight actions that protect remnant vegetation, such as ‘reduce
stocking to encourage regeneration of plants’, ‘leave fallen timber
on the ground for wildlife habitat’, and ‘plant native trees and
shrubs to improve degraded areas’. These actions were based on the
survey questions of Dettmann, Hamilton, and Curtis (2000).
Respondents indicated how often they carried out each action on
a five-point scale (1 ¼ never, 5 ¼ always). Participants were asked if
they had replanted native vegetation on their farm in the past, and
if so, what the total area of this replanting was. Behavioural
intentions were also measured. Participants were asked if they
planned to replant native trees and shrubs on their property in the
future and, if so, what area of land they would replant if time and
money were not an issue. The area of both past and future
replantings was converted to a percentage of property size.
2.4. Pre-testing and survey procedure
The questionnaire was pre-tested with a small convenience
sample of eight farmers. These landholders helped identify unclear
Component
1 2
.76 .18
.73 .28
.74 .07
.64 .26
.64 .16
.61 .26
.04 .90
 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304
Table 2
Factor loadings (unrotated) for items on place attachment scale. Components
extracted by PCA.
Item Component 1
I am happiest when I’m on my farm. .83
My farm is my favourite place to be. .83
I really miss my farm when I’m away too long. .77
I feel my farm is a part of me. .76
My farm is the best place to do the things I enjoy. .73
My farm reflects the type of person I am. .69
I wouldn’t want to farm anywhere else. .65
I feel I can be myself when I’m on my farm. .62
As far as I’m concerned there are better places to .55
spend time than on my farm.
or poorly worded questions, and the questionnaire was revised
accordingly. For the main survey, questionnaires were mailed to
farmers with a cover letter and a postage paid envelope for
returning questionnaires. Two weeks later a thank you/reminder
letter was mailed to the full sample.
2.5. Data analysis
Observations for place attachment, connectedness to nature and
valued object items had very little missing data. Where only one to
two items were missing from any scale, values were imputed using
the estimation maximisation method. There were more missing
data associated with native vegetation management behaviour
items. Seven respondents had no remnant vegetation on their
property, and were unable to answer questions about management
of this vegetation. These cases were omitted from relevant analyses.
Five respondents had missing data for a single item; for these cases
data were imputed using the estimation maximisation method.
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to examine the
structure of the connectedness to nature, place attachment and
native vegetation management valued object scales.
The reliability of the initial connectedness to nature scale was
fairly low (a ¼ .68). PCA, using an orthogonal rotated solution,
identified two components, which together explained 56 per cent
of the total variance. All items loaded highly on the first component
except for: ‘when I think about my place on the planet, I consider
myself to be at the top of a pecking order among all living things’,
which loaded negatively (Table 1). This was the only item to load
highly on the second component. This item was excluded from the
connectedness to nature scale, which improved the scale’s reli-
ability (a ¼ .78).
The place attachment scale had high reliability (a ¼ .87). Inter-
pretation of the PCA suggested the scale consisted of one
Table 3
Factor loadings for items on native vegetation management valued objects scale.
Components extracted by PCA with oblimin rotation.
Scale item Component
1 2
Protecting and improving wildlife habitat .89
Protecting native birds .85
Contributing to the health of the landscape .68
Increasing the visual appeal of the district .68
Improving the natural environment .78
Looking after the land for future generations .54
Increasing the wellbeing of myself and my family .49
Providing benefits to others in my community .27
Contributing to the prosperity of the district .15
Increasing profit on my farm .16
Improving the property value of my farm .18
301
component explaining 52 per cent of the variance. Table 2 contains
the factor loadings for each item of the place attachment scale.
PCA was used to explore the structure of the native vegetation
management valued object items. A non-orthogonal rotation
method (direct oblimin method) was used to allow factors to be
correlated, consistent with Schultz (2000). Two components with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted, accounting for 63 per
cent of the total variance. The correlation between these compo-
nents was r ¼ .26. Two items: ‘increasing the wellbeing of myself
and my family’ and ‘looking after the land for future generations’,
loaded highly on both components (Table 3). Items that loaded
highly on the first component reflected concern for environmental
and landscape enhancement outcomes. Items that loaded highly on
the second component reflected concern for more anthropocentric
outcomes. We called component one ‘environmental concern’ and
component two ‘concern for human welfare’. Some analyses
reported later use sub-scales calculated from mean values of
responses to the items that loaded on each component. In these
cases items loading highly on both factors were omitted from these
scales. Other analyses use factor scores. Cronbach’s alpha provides
further evidence of the reliability of these scales (for environmental
concern a ¼ .85, and a ¼ .81 for concern for human welfare).
Although the scale did not consist of three dimensions as we had
originally intended (egoistic, altruistic and biospheric concerns),
the structure is consistent with other work that has found a two
dimensional structure to environmental concern (e.g. Gagnon
Thompson & Barton, 1994) and still allowed clear identification of
biospheric concerns.
The eight questions on management of remnant vegetation
measured a wide range of behaviours. Some of these (such as seed
collection) required much effort or skill and others (such as leaving
dead wood on the ground) very little. Unsurprisingly therefore, the
eight items were not strongly related (a ¼ .61). Three behaviours
were selected to form a single measure, hereafter called the
remnant vegetation protection score. The reliability of this scale
was acceptable (a ¼ .73). PCA suggested a single component
structure for this scale, accounting for 65% of variation. Item load-
ings on this factor were as expected: ‘reduce stocking to encourage
regeneration of plants’ (.76), ‘plant native trees and shrubs to
improve degraded areas’ (.79), ‘fence these areas to manage stock
access’ (.87).
There are several approaches to test for mediation between
variables (see Iacobucci, 2008; McKinnon, Fitzgerald, & Fritz, 2007;
and Preacher & Hayes, 2008 for reviews). While structural equation
modelling is the preferred method (Iacobucci, 2008) it requires
a large sample size – around 200 cases where data have some non-
normal characteristics and communalities are not high (Hair,
Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 2006), as was the case for the data
examined here. Traditional regression approaches to testing
mediation are also widely used and accepted (Iacobucci, 2008;
McKinnon et al., 2007). Evidence for mediation exists when there
is: (a) a significant relation between the predictor (in this study,
factor scores of connectedness to nature or place attachment items)
and the mediator (in this study, factor score of environmental
concern items); (b) a significant relation between the criterion (in
.03
this study, the remnant vegetation protection score) and the
.13 mediator; and (c) when the effect of the mediator is controlled, the
.32 relation between the criterion and the predictor becomes signifi-
.17 cantly smaller (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Iacobucci, 2008). This was
.24
tested using three regressions: (1) the criterion was regressed on
.40
.50 the predictor; (2) the mediator was regressed on the predictor; and
.58 (3) the criterion was regressed on both the mediator and the
.72 predictor. Sobel’s z test was conducted to compare the size of the
.91 relation between predictor and criterion in the presence and
.86
absence of the mediator (Iacobucci, 2008; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
302 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304

3. Results Table 5
Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients between place attachment and remnant
vegetation protection and replanting variables.
In the native vegetation management valued objects scale, the
mean response to each item was above four (the mid-point of the Place attachment P-value N
scale), indicating that all the valued objects tended to be important (factor score) (2-tailed)

to respondents (Table 4). Respondents generally placed the highest Remnant vegetation .03 .71 134
protection (factor score)
importance on ‘looking after the land for future generations’, and
Past replanting as % of .08 .35 129
the least importance on ‘contributing to the prosperity of the property size
district’. While both components within the scale rated highly, Future replanting as % of .08 .40 123
respondents generally expressed greater environmental concern property size
than concern for human welfare.
The mean score on the place attachment scale was 3.9 (out of
a maximum of five; S.D. ¼ .70), indicating that many respondents was not significant when environmental concern was also included
had a strong attachment to their property. Respondents expressed in the regression, mediation may be deemed ‘complete’ (Iacobucci,
a similar level of connectedness to nature; the mean score for this 2008).
scale was also 3.9 (S.D. ¼ .66). Regressions were also conducted to test for mediation of envi-
Place attachment did not correlate significantly with any of the ronmental concern between place attachment factor scores and
behaviour measures (Table 5). Connectedness to nature scores remnant vegetation protection factor scores. The first requirement
correlated significantly with two of the three behaviour measures. for evidence of mediation was not met. When place attachment
The strongest correlation was between connectedness to nature factor score was regressed on environmental concern, no signifi-
and remnant vegetation protection score (Table 6). There was also cant relationship was found (B ¼ .14, S.E. ¼ .08, p ¼ .09).
a modest but significant correlation between connectedness to
nature and intended replanting.
There was a moderately-strong correlation between connect- 4. Discussion
edness to nature and environmental concern (Table 7). Connect-
edness to nature and concern for human welfare did not correlate. Although the correlations are only modest, results suggest that
In contrast, place attachment displayed modest correlations with connectedness to nature does relate to how farmers manage native
both environmental concern and concern for human welfare. vegetation on their farm. This supports existing research demon-
Regressions were conducted to test mediation of environmental strating a relationship between measures of emotional association
concern between connectedness to nature factor scores and or identification with nature and other forms of pro-environment
remnant vegetation protection factor scores. All requirements for behaviour (Clayton, 2003; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2001).
evidence of mediation were met. The first requirement for evidence While the correlation between connectedness and remnant vege-
of mediation was met by the significant relation between tation protection score is comparable to correlations that Mayer
connectedness to nature score and environmental concern score (B and Frantz (2004) and Schultz (2001) reported, other correlations
¼ .51, S.E. ¼ .07, p < .001). The second requirement was met by the are smaller than those reported elsewhere. The results do not
significant coefficient between native vegetation management indicate causality in this relationship. Farmers who feel a sense of
score and environmental concern score (B ¼ .29, S.E.>¼.10, p < kinship with nature may be more motivated to care for wildlife by
.001). The third requirement was also met; when remnant vege- protecting areas of native bush on their farm. Alternatively,
tation protection score was regressed onto both environmental carrying out such actions may cause farmers to feel more connected
concern and connectedness to nature scores, the relation between to the natural world. More research is needed to establish a causal
criterion and predictor was lower (B ¼ .13, S.E. ¼ .10, p ¼ .19) than relationship between connectedness to nature and pro-environ-
the direct relationship (B ¼ .26, S.E. ¼ .09, p < .001). The z test mental behaviours in this context.
indicated that the difference between these coefficients was Results suggest that many farmers in the study area have formed
significant (Sobel z ¼ 2.73, p < .001). Since the relation between an emotional attachment to their property that goes beyond its
connectedness to nature and remnant vegetation protection score value as a place to grow crops and run livestock. This attachment,
however, did not appear to relate to the measures of on-farm pro-
Table 4 environment behaviour. This is not consistent with research on
Mean response for each item on the native vegetation management valued objects place attachment and pro-environment behaviours conducted in
scale and the two sub-scales, where 0 ¼ not important, 7 ¼ greatest importance. other settings (Halpenny, 2006; Stedman, 2002; Vaske & Kobrin,
N Mean Std. dev. 2001).
Environmental concern (sub-scale) Several factors need to be considered in interpreting these
Contributing to the health of the landscape 141 5.85 1.24 results. As noted earlier, past studies have mostly looked at the
Protecting native birds 141 5.62 1.45
Increasing the visual appeal of the district 141 5.27 1.55
Improving the natural environment 141 5.22 1.46 Table 6
Protecting and improving wildlife habitat 141 5.17 1.53 Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients between connectedness to nature factor
Sub-scale mean 141 5.43 1.14 score and remnant vegetation protection and replanting variables.
Concern for human welfare (sub-scale) Connectedness to P-value N
Improving the property value of my farm 141 4.97 1.86 nature (factor score) (2-tailed)
Increasing profit on my farm 141 4.47 2.15
Remnant vegetation protection .27** .00 131
Providing benefits to others in my community 141 4.30 1.70
(factor score)
Contributing to the prosperity of the district 141 4.25 1.82
Past replanting as % of .17 .06 127
Sub-scale mean 141 4.50 1.51
property size
Items not included in sub-scales Future replanting as % of .23* .01 121
Looking after the land for future generations 141 6.15 1.14 property size
Increasing the wellbeing of myself and my family 141 5.59 1.64
**p < .01, *p < .05.
 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304
Table 7
Correlations (Spearman’s rho) between connectedness to nature, place attachment, environmental concern and concern for human welfare (factor scores).
Connectedness to nature
Connectedness to nature 1 N ¼ 138
Place attachment .25** N ¼ 137
Environmental concern .53** N ¼ 138
Concern for human welfare .03 N ¼ 138
**p < .01, *p < .05.
relationship between identity with place or nature and general pro-
environmental behaviours, such as recycling, switching off lights in
empty rooms, and walking or cycling instead of driving. Even where
place-specific behaviours have been observed (e.g. Vaske & Kobrin,
2001), these have generally been less demanding behaviours (e.g.
voting for environmental laws, removing litter, and joining a group
to protect the place). Compared to these general behaviours, both
on-farm replanting and remnant vegetation protection are highly
constrained by contextual factors such as income, time and
equipment. Stern (2000) notes that when a behaviour is more
difficult or costly with regard to time and money, its association
with attitudinal factors (e.g. environmental concern or connect-
edness to nature) is weaker. The influence of association with
nature and place may be less apparent in the face of such contextual
constraints.
It should also be noted that some studies on place attachment
have measured behavioural intentions rather than actual behaviour
(Halpenny, 2006; Stedman, 2002). While intent to carry out an
action may be a good predictor of that behaviour, many external
factors can prevent behavioural intentions from being translated
into actual behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Therefore place
attachment is likely to correlate more strongly with behavioural
intentions than with actual behaviour.
Finally, this study measured place attachment in a different
context to overseas research. For most respondents the study
measured attachment to their workplace – the place from which
they earn their living. The need to run a profitable business
complicates the relationship between place attachment and place-
specific behaviours– especially in a region that has suffered from 10
years of below average rainfall. This was a common theme in the
additional comments section of the questionnaire, for example one
respondent wrote:
‘Profits have to come first like any other business. Costs are too
great so we have to get the most out of the land yield-wise as we
can. If we didn’t have to rely so much on money we would be
glad to help nature much more.’
An important implication is that farmers have multiple goals for
their properties and complex beliefs about what it means to care for
one’s property. The hypothesis that attachment to place should
induce a strong stewardship ethic and environmental concern,
which should in turn lead to greater protection and replanting of
native vegetation, assumes that all farmers believe that trees are
good for the land. This may not be the case. For example, some
farmers who feel strongly attached to their property and aim to
look after their land may see patches of native vegetation as
a source of pest animals. Rather than protecting or replanting trees,
they may instead express their stewardship in other ways, such as
adopting soil conservation practices or controlling weeds and pests.
Further research, observing a broader range of environmental
behaviours, is needed to examine the relationship between place
attachment and pro-environmental behaviours on farms.
The study provides evidence that environmental concern
mediates the relationship between connectedness to nature and
native vegetation management behaviour. These findings align
with the theoretical model described by numerous researchers
303
Place attachment Environment values Human values
1 N ¼ 140
.21* N ¼ 140 1 N ¼ 141
.22** N ¼ 140 .24** N ¼ 141 1 N ¼ 141
(Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz, 2002; Schultz et al., 2004). This
finding may appear to be in tension with empirical observations
reported by both Mayer and Frantz (2004) and Clayton (2003).
Clayton (2003) used partial correlations to explore the relationship
between Environmental Identity, values, attitudes and behaviour,
while Mayer and Frantz (2004) used similar analyses to examine
the relationship between connectedness to nature, scores on the
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale, and environmental
behaviour. In both cases the independent variable (Environmental
Identity or connectedness to nature) continued to predict behav-
iour, even when the mediating variable (values or NEP) was
controlled. While these findings might appear to discount a medi-
ating relationship between the independent variable and behav-
iour, Preacher and Hayes (2008) warn against using partial
correlations to test for mediation. Consistent with this, Mayer and
Frantz (2004) and Clayton (2003) conclude only that this pattern of
results demonstrates that the concepts are distinct.
The findings do not support the related proposition that envi-
ronmental concern also plays a mediating role between place
attachment and native vegetation management behaviour.
However, given the issues discussed earlier about the nature of the
place attachment measure used in this study, it is premature to
reject this theory outright. This relation needs formal testing in
other settings.
Because there are some limitations to the approach used to test
for mediation, these findings should be generalised with care.
Iacobucci (2008) notes the benefits of structural equation model-
ling approaches, which account for measurement issues and allow
simultaneous solution of regression equations. Further research is
required, with larger sample sizes, to confirm this relationship. It
would also be helpful to include more direct observation of
behaviour as well as further testing of scales measuring connect-
edness to nature and place.
5. Conclusion
The results suggest that connectedness to nature does partly
account for farmers’ attitudes about tree-planting and their
management of remnant vegetation. This confirms that more
intrinsic values and attitudes do play a role in on-farm manage-
ment of native vegetation. Respondents’ high ranking of environ-
mental concern reinforces the importance of non-financial values
and motives to farmers’ decision-making. From a practical
perspective, this study has important implications for engaging
farmers in conservation behaviours. Results highlight the need to
speak to all values and motives – including affective ties to nature –
when promoting native vegetation protection and restoration
among farmers. For example, people working with farmers to
protect and restore native vegetation on private land should
emphasise the benefits of such actions for wildlife and nature more
generally. This follows the approach advocated by Schultz and
Zelezny (2003), who argue that reframing environmental messages
to be congruent with peoples’ values is a pragmatic way to
encourage pro-environmental behaviour. Future research could
focus on developing strategies to foster or harness connectedness
304 E. Gosling, K.J.H. Williams / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 298–304
to nature among farmers to potentially increase remnant vegeta-
tion protection and replanting activities.
The findings are consistent with the broadly agreed theoretical
framework proposing that identification with nature leads to an
expanded sense of self and greater valuing of non-human species,
and so to pro-environment behaviour. Further research is needed to
test this relationship in other settings, and to further understand
causal relationships between identity with place and nature,
environmental concern and pro-environment behaviour.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barr, N., & Cary, J. (2000). Influencing improved natural resource management on
farms. Kingston: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia,
Commonwealth of Australia. ACT.
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and
behaviours. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 269–283.
Bragg, E. (1996). Towards ecological self: deep ecology meets constructionist self
theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 93–108.
Carr, A. (2002). Grass roots and green tape: Principles and practices of environmental
stewardship. Sydney: Federation Press.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: a conceptual and an operational defi-
nition. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment
(pp. 45–66). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Introduction: identity and the natural environ-
ment. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp.
1–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dettmann, P. D., Hamilton, S. D., & Curtis, A. L. (2000). Understanding landholder
values and intentions to improve remnant vegetation management in Australia:
the box-ironbark case study. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 16(3), 93–105.
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with
nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4),
474–493.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gagnon Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric atti-
tudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2),149–157.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halpenny, E. A. (2006). Environmental behaviour, place attachment and park visi-
tation: A case study of visitors to point pelee national park. PhD thesis, Ontario,
Canada: University of Waterloo.
Harrington, C., Lane, R., & Mercer, D. (2006). Learning conservation: the role of
conservation covenants in landscape redesign at project Hindmarsh, Victoria.
Australian Geographer, 37(2), 187–209.
Harrison, C. M., Burgess, J., & Clark, J. (1998). Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and
residents’ understanding of nature conservation goals and policies. Journal of
Environmental Management, 54, 305–320.
Hindmarsh Shire Council. (2008). Official website of the Hindmarsh Shire council.
viewed 01.09.08. <http://www.hindmarsh.vic.gov.au/>.
Iacobucci, D. (2008). Mediation analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as
a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2),
178–202.
Longmire, A. (1985). Nine creeks to Albacutya: A history of the shire of Dimboola.
North Melbourne: Shire of Dimboola/Hargreen Publishing Company.
Maybery, D., Crase, L., & Gullifer, C. (2005). Categorising farming values as economic,
conservation and lifestyle. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1), 59–72.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. P. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: a measure
of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24(4), 503–515.
McKinnon, D., Fairchild, A., & Fritz, M. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 593–614.
Pooley, J., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: emotion
and beliefs are what is needed. Environment & Behaviour, 32(5), 711–723.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing
mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder
(Eds.), The sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication
research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspective
taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
391–406.
Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: concern for self,
other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4),
327–339.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: understanding the psychology of
human-nature interactions. In P. Schmuck, & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), The psychology
of sustainable development (pp. 61–78). New York: Kluwer.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connec-
tions with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31–42.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be
congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 126–136.
Seabrook, L., McAlpine, C., & Fensham, R. (2008). What influences farmers to keep
trees? A case study from the Brigalow Belt, Queensland, Australia. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 84(3–4), 266–281.
Smith, F. P. (2008). Who’s planting what, where and why–and who’s paying? An
analysis of farmland revegetation in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 66–78.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior
from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior,
34(5), 561–581.
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of
Social Issues, 50, 65–84.
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally respon-
sible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: val-
idity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6),
830–840.
Williams, K. J. H. (2003). The biodiversity we want to maintain and the reasons we
want to maintain it. In J. Crosthwaite, Q. Farmer-Bowers, & C. Hollier (Eds.), Land
use change – YES! – But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of a conference at
Attwood, Victoria, August 2002. Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and
Environment (CD ROM).
Williams, K. J. H., & Cary, J. W. (2002). Landscape preference, ecological quality and
biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 258–275.