IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i12p1293-d687578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beliefs about Human-Nature Relationships and Implications for Investment and Stewardship Surrounding Land-Water System Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Coley

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA)

  • Nicole Betz

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA)

  • Brian Helmuth

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Nahant, MA 01908, USA
    School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Nahant, MA 01908, USA)

  • Keith Ellenbogen

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Department of Photography, SUNY The Fashion Institute of Technology, New York, NY 10001, USA)

  • Steven B. Scyphers

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Nahant, MA 01908, USA)

  • Daniel Adams

    (Cognitive Laboratory of Environmental and Arts Research (CLEAR), Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    School of Architecture, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA)

Abstract

When engaging stakeholders in environmental conservation, it is critical to understand not only their group-level needs, but also the individually held beliefs that contribute to each person’s decisions to endorse or reject policies. To this end, we examined the extent to which people conceptualize the interconnected relationship between humans and nature in the context of a hypothetical urban waterway, and the implications thereof for environmental investment and stewardship. We also explored how these beliefs varied based on describing the waterway as having either local or global impacts, and as originating either naturally or through artificial processes. Three hundred and seventy-nine adults from the United States read vignettes about a polluted urban waterway and thereafter reported their investment in river clean-up, their stewardship of the river, and their beliefs surrounding human-nature relationships. Results revealed a common belief pattern whereby humans were believed to impact the urban river disproportionately more than the river impacts humans, suggesting that lay adults often weigh the impacts of humans on the natural world disproportionally. Critically, this disproportionate pattern of thinking inversely predicted investment of time and money in river clean-up. Results also revealed a potential solution to this psychological bias: highlighting local benefits of the waterway decreased the asymmetry of the human-nature relationship. We discuss the psychological factors contributing to this cognitive bias, and the implications of these findings on stakeholder engagement.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Coley & Nicole Betz & Brian Helmuth & Keith Ellenbogen & Steven B. Scyphers & Daniel Adams, 2021. "Beliefs about Human-Nature Relationships and Implications for Investment and Stewardship Surrounding Land-Water System Conservation," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1293-:d:687578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1293/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1293/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asah, Stanley T. & Guerry, Anne D. & Blahna, Dale J. & Lawler, Joshua J., 2014. "Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 180-186.
    2. Tien Ming Lee & Ezra M. Markowitz & Peter D. Howe & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2015. "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1014-1020, November.
    3. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    4. Steffen, Will & Young, Oran R. & Grove, J. Morgan & Kofinas, Gary P. & Carpenter, Stephen R. & Folke, Carl & Abel, Nick & Olsson, Per & Smith, D. Mark Stafford & Walker, Brian & Berkes, Fikret & Biggs, 2010. "Ecosystem Stewardship: Sustainability Strategies for a Rapidly Changing Planet," Scholarly Articles 9774650, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Morgan Gray & Elisabeth Micheli & Tosha Comendant & Adina Merenlender, 2020. "Climate-Wise Habitat Connectivity Takes Sustained Stakeholder Engagement," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. Adrian Brügger & Suraje Dessai & Patrick Devine-Wright & Thomas A. Morton & Nicholas F. Pidgeon, 2015. "Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(12), pages 1031-1037, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Amanda Kennard, 2021. "My Brother’s Keeper: Other-regarding preferences and concern for global climate change," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 345-376, April.
    3. Adrian Brügger & Moritz Gubler & Katharine Steentjes & Stuart B. Capstick, 2020. "Social Identity and Risk Perception Explain Participation in the Swiss Youth Climate Strikes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    5. Iddrisu Amadu & Charles Atanga Adongo, 2022. "Climate Action (Goal 13): The role of climate beliefs, health security and tourism prioritisation in 30 Sub-Saharan African countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Cécile Bazart & Raphaël Trouillet & Hélène Rey-Valette & Nicole Lautrédou-Audouy, 2020. "Improving relocation acceptability by improving information and governance quality/results from a survey conducted in France," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 157-177, May.
    7. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    8. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    10. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    11. Yannick Vandenplas & Steven Simoens & Florian Turk & Arnold G. Vulto & Isabelle Huys, 2022. "Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 803-817, November.
    12. Guglielmo Zappalà, 2023. "Drought Exposure and Accuracy: Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Beliefs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 649-672, August.
    13. A. K. Enamul Haque & Heman D. Lohano & Pranab Mukhopadhyay & Mani Nepal & Fathimath Shafeeqa & Shamen P. Vidanage, 2019. "NDC pledges of South Asia: are the stakeholders onboard?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 237-244, July.
    14. Sebastian Brumann & Ulrike Ohl & Johannes Schulz, 2022. "Inquiry-Based Learning on Climate Change in Upper Secondary Education: A Design-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Alejandra Orozco-Quintero & Leslie King & Rosaline Canessa, 2020. "Interplay and Cooperation in Environmental Conservation: Building Capacity and Responsive Institutions Within and Beyond the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    16. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    17. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    19. Anna Fielder & Riina Vuorikari & Nuria Rodriguez-Priego & Yves Punie, 2016. "Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature," JRC Research Reports JRC103332, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Can Askan Mavi & Nicolas Quérou, 2020. "Common pool resource management and risk perceptions," DEM Discussion Paper Series 20-25, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1293-:d:687578. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.