IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support

Author

Listed:
  • Deborah F Coldwell
  • Karl L Evans

Abstract

Conservation policy frequently assumes that increasing people’s exposure to green-space enhances their knowledge of the natural world and desire to protect it. Urban development is, however, considered to be driving declining connectedness to nature. Despite this the evidence base supporting the assumption that visiting green-spaces promotes biodiversity knowledge and conservation support, and the impacts of urbanization on these relationships, is surprisingly limited. Using data from door-to-door surveys of nearly 300 residents in three pairs of small and large urban areas in England we demonstrate that people who visit green-space more regularly have higher biodiversity knowledge and support for conservation (measured using scales of pro-environmental behavior). Crucially these relationships only arise when considering visits to the countryside and not the frequency of visits to urban green-space. These patterns are robust to a suite of confounding variables including nature orientated motivations for visiting green-space, socio-economic and demographic factors, garden-use and engagement with natural history programs. Despite this the correlations that we uncover cannot unambiguously demonstrate that visiting the countryside improves biodiversity knowledge and conservation support. We consider it likely, however, that two mechanisms operate through a positive feedback loop i.e. increased visits to green-space promote an interest in and knowledge of biodiversity and support for conservation, which in turn further increase the desire to visit green-space and experience nature. The intensity of urbanization around peoples’ homes, but not city size, is negatively associated with their frequency of countryside visits and biodiversity knowledge. Designing less intensely urbanized cities with good access to the countryside, combined with conservation policies that promote access to the countryside thus seems likely to maximize urban residents’ biodiversity knowledge and support for conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Deborah F Coldwell & Karl L Evans, 2017. "Contrasting effects of visiting urban green-space and the countryside on biodiversity knowledge and conservation support," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174376
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174376
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174376&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174376?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Hobman, Elizabeth V., 2015. "Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1385-1394.
    2. Patricia A Zaradic & Oliver R W Pergams & Peter Kareiva, 2009. "The Impact of Nature Experience on Willingness to Support Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5, October.
    3. Sandifer, Paul A. & Sutton-Grier, Ariana E. & Ward, Bethney P., 2015. "Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-15.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tian Gao & Ling Zhu & Tian Zhang & Rui Song & Yuanqun Zhang & Ling Qiu, 2019. "Is an Environment with High Biodiversity the Most Attractive for Human Recreation? A Case Study in Baoji, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Tian Gao & Rui Song & Ling Zhu & Ling Qiu, 2019. "What Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Recreational Activities Do Self-Reported Stressed Individuals Like? A Case Study of Baoji, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.

    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Kaowen Grace Chang & William C. Sullivan & Ying-Hsuan Lin & Weichia Su & Chun-Yen Chang, 2016. "The Effect of Biodiversity on Green Space Users’ Wellbeing—An Empirical Investigation Using Physiological Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Jihyo Kim & Suhyeon Nam, 2021. "Do Household Time, Risk, and Social Preferences Affect Home Energy Retrofit Decisions in Korea?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Xu, Xiaojing & Chen, Chien-fei, 2019. "Energy efficiency and energy justice for U.S. low-income households: An analysis of multifaceted challenges and potential," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 763-774.
    6. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Anna Borawska & Mariusz Borawski & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska, 2022. "Effectiveness of Electricity-Saving Communication Campaigns: Neurophysiological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    8. William L. Rice & Sarah Y. Michels & Miranda Foster & Jon Graham & Peter Whitney & Jennifer M. Thomsen, 2023. "Exploring the Impacts of Protected Areas’ Attributes on Pediatric Health: The Case for Additional Research beyond Greenspace," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Manoj Sharma & Erin Largo-Wight & Amar Kanekar & Hana Kusumoto & Stephanie Hooper & Vinayak K. Nahar, 2020. "Using the Multi-Theory Model (MTM) of Health Behavior Change to Explain Intentional Outdoor Nature Contact Behavior among College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Halkos, George & Managi, Shunsuke, 2023. "New developments in the disciplines of environmental and resource economics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 513-522.
    11. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    12. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & KovaÄ , Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    14. Loi, Tian Sheng Allan & Loo, Soh Leng, 2016. "The impact of Singapore’s residential electricity conservation efforts and the way forward. Insights from the bounds testing approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 735-743.
    15. Fouladvand, Javanshir & Aranguren Rojas, Maria & Hoppe, Thomas & Ghorbani, Amineh, 2022. "Simulating thermal energy community formation: Institutional enablers outplaying technological choice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    16. Luciano Cavalcante Siebert & Alexandre Rasi Aoki & Germano Lambert-Torres & Nelson Lambert-de-Andrade & Nikolaos G. Paterakis, 2020. "An Agent-Based Approach for the Planning of Distribution Grids as a Socio-Technical System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Peta Brom & Kristine Engemann & Christina Breed & Maya Pasgaard & Titilope Onaolapo & Jens-Christian Svenning, 2023. "A Decision Support Tool for Green Infrastructure Planning in the Face of Rapid Urbanization," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
    18. Goggins, Gary & Rau, Henrike & Moran, Paul & Fahy, Frances & Goggins, Jamie, 2022. "The role of culture in advancing sustainable energy policy and practice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Suzanne M. Skevington & Richard Emsley & Svenja Dehner & Ian Walker & Stuart E. Reynolds, 2019. "Does Subjective Health Affect the Association between Biodiversity and Quality of Life? Insights from International Data," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1315-1331, November.
    20. Daminato, Claudio & Diaz-Farina, Eugenio & Filippini, Massimo & Padrón-Fumero, Noemi, 2021. "The impact of smart meters on residential water consumption: Evidence from a natural experiment in the Canary Islands," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0174376. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.