There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation

Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation Anne Marike Lokhorst a,∗ , Céline Hoon a , Rob le Rutte b , Geert de Snoo c,d a

Communication, Philosophy and Technology: Centre for Integrative Development, Wageningen University, The Netherlands The Government Service for Land and Water Management, The Netherlands Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands d Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 May 2013 Received in revised form 31 January 2014 Accepted 12 March 2014 Keywords: Nature conservation Motivation Determinants Connectedness to nature Self-identity Theory of planned behavior

a b s t r a c t In this paper we analyze the social-psychological determinants of private nature conservation. As a theoretical framework we use the Theory of Planned Behavior, to which the concepts connectedness to nature, self-identity, and place attachment were added. 94 landowners participated in our survey. Results of this pilot study show that perceived behavioral control, self-identity and connectedness to nature are the key factors influencing the intention to conserve. The more farmers feel that they are capable of conserving nature on their farm, the more they see themselves as conservationists, and the more they feel connected to nature, the more likely they are to intend to conserve. An important finding is that self-identity mediates the relation between CNS and conservation intentions. This implies that with an increased connectedness to nature, people come to see themselves as conservationists and this in turn influences their intentions. Of course, these results need to be replicated and validated across different contexts. We discuss the implications of this study for future research and policy. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Current human practices are exhausting the earth’s natural capital (MEA, 2005) and this has large consequences for ecosystems all around the world. One of those environmental impacts has been a severe decrease in biodiversity (Turner et al., 2007). Biodiversity can be defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part” (MEA, 2005). Scientists and policy makers are searching for ways to protect and enhance biodiversity. Europe has set itself the goal of a complete stop of biodiversity loss by 2020. Worldwide, the decline in the surface of nature areas is seen as one of the main causes of a loss of biodiversity (European Commission, 2011). In order to protect European biodiversity it is therefore of high importance to assign new natural areas and protect existing ones. The European Union approach for nature conservation consists of 2 strategies. The first is the use of agri-environmental schemes (AES): subsidy programs that reward farmers for conservation activities. The second is Natura 2000: a network of protected nature areas spread all over Europe. It is aimed

∗ Corresponding author at: Wageningen University, Communication Strategies, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 317484429. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Lokhorst). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.005 0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

at protecting Europe’s most vulnerable species and habitats. The Natura 2000 guidelines require every EU member to assign these protected natural areas. In the Netherlands 162 areas have been assigned and almost all of these are part of the Ecological Main Structure (EMS1 ). This structure was developed in 1990 and is a network consisting of high quality natural areas. Its main objective is to expand and connect those areas. The EMS should be realized in 2021 and eventually should cover 600,000 ha of natural areas and 6.3 million ha of water areas. A substantial part of the EMS consists of natural areas that already existed in 1990. The challenge lies in realizing the remaining 150,000 ha of natural area. One way to do so is by focusing on private nature conservation. Private nature conservation means rural land owners – typically farmers – dedicate part of their agricultural land to nature conservation. This implies the land is zoned differently; instead of agricultural land it will be allocated as ‘nature’. In exchange for this farmers receive a one-off monetary compensation for the devaluation of their land as well as an annual subsidy for measures to optimize the land for nature conservation. The difference between AES and private nature conservation is that in the first, the main

1

In June 2013, the EMS was renamed Nature Network.

122

A.M. Lokhorst et al. / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

function of the land is still agriculture; while in the latter, the allocation changes to nature. Growth of the EMS by buying farmland and transforming it into a nature reserve has been stagnating and will not be sufficient to meet the 2021 goal. If the current trend is to be continued, only 60% of the EMS will be realized in 2018 (PBL, 2009). The question therefore is how land owners can be persuaded to engage in private nature conservation on their property. Therefore, it is vital that we learn about the factors driving these decisions. In the current paper, we analyze the social-psychological determinants of private nature conservation. Recently, several studies have looked at farmer decision making and behavior from a social psychological perspective, identifying important individual and social variables that underpin decisions concerning land use and biodiversity. For instance, a study by Poppenborg and Koellner (2013) showed that farmers’ attitudes – their evaluations of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991) – influenced their conservation efforts. Fielding et al. (2008) studied farmers’ engagement in riparian zone management (a sustainable agricultural practice) and found that farmers’ attitudes and experienced norms influenced their intention to carry out such behavior (see also Fielding et al., 2005). Such norms reflect the perceived standards for acceptable behavior within one’s peer group (Terry and Hogg, 1996). A study by Lokhorst et al. (2011) focused on the psychological drivers of agricultural conservation practices, and found that, next to attitudes and norms, self-identity played an important role. Self-identity refers to the extent to which a certain behavior is considered part of the self (Terry et al., 1999). In the study reported by Lokhorst et al. (2011), the more farmers saw themselves as conservationists and the more they perceived nature conservation as something that was typical for them, the more likely they were to engage in conservation (see also de Snoo et al., 2013). These studies all used the same basic theoretical framework, namely the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). The TPB presumes that the most proximal predictor of any given behavior is the intention to perform that behavior. This intention can be predicted by the three other components of the model: the attitude toward the behavior, the subjective norm and the perceived behavioral control (PBC). Attitude is described as an individual’s evaluation of the specific behavior: it is a personal evaluation of whether the behavior is positive or negative (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Subjective norm is the perceived social pressure to perform a certain behavior. It reflects the extent to which a person thinks relevant others believe the actor should perform the behavior. Finally, PBC reflects how easy or difficult the individual thinks it will be to perform the behavior. The TPB has an excellent track record in predicting and explaining environmental behaviors and intentions (see for instance Staats, 2003; Bamberg and Moser, 2007; Eriksson and Forward, 2011; Litvine and Wustenhagen, 2011), and seems particularly suited for explaining behavior that comes with high behavioral costs (Steg and Vlek, 2009). With regards to conservation behavior specifically, the TPB appears very well equipped (Kaiser et al., 2005). One of the criticisms against the TPB has been that the model overlooks affective processes and how they relate to intentions (Manstead, 2011). Some authors have argued that the model places too much emphasis on the rational part of decision making and the accompanying cognitive processes, and less on emotional considerations that might underlie behavioral intentions (Kals and Maes, 2002). According to Kals et al. (1999), this might hold particularly true for nature conservation, as they argue that ecological behavior can never be the result of rational decision making only. These authors developed the concept of ‘affinity with nature’, which according to them entails ‘a positive feeling of inclination by a set of cognitive appraisals and attributions’ and possesses different aspects such as love of nature, feeling good or safe in nature,

and experiencing feeling one with nature. Indeed, they found that this affinity with nature was positively associated with different simple conservation behaviors such as installing solar panels and water-saving devices, and choosing public transport over car use. Other authors have further refined and tested the concept of connectedness to nature (CNS). In this development CNS has been defined as the extent to which an individual feels that he or she is part of nature (Schultz, 2001, 2002). Mayer and Frantz (2004) report 5 studies in which they found positive correlations between CNS and different pro-environmental behaviors. Dutcher et al. (2007) found that the related concept of connectivity with nature was significantly associated with pro-environmental behavior. Finally, Davis et al. (2009) showed that people’s perceptions of interconnectedness with their natural environment predict pro-environmental behavior. So, within the context of general pro-environmental behavior, evidence is growing that CNS is an important factor driving behavior and decision making (see also Brügger et al., 2011, for a discussion on operationalizations). In a recent study, Gosling and Williams (2010) investigated the relation between CNS, place attachment and farmers’ vegetation management. Place attachment is usually defined as a positive connection or emotional bond between a person and a particular place, and is often thought of as a two-dimensional model, consisting of place identity and place dependence. The first refers to the symbolic importance of a place as a repository for emotions and relations that give meaning to life. The latter reflects the importance of a place in providing conditions that facilitate people’s goals (Williams and Vaske, 2003). Together these two dimensions form the concept of place attachment, and this is thought to inflict feelings of stewardship, resulting in increased conservation efforts (for a more detailed discussion on the operationalization of place attachment, see Raymond et al., 2010). Gosling and Williams (2010) results showed that while vegetation protection behaviors increased with CNS, place attachment was not associated with behavior. These authors argue that their 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 proenvironment behavior”. Other researchers have also studied the relations between place attachment and behavior. Raymond et al. (2011) show that place attachment is positively associated with the planting of native vegetation by farmers. Ramkissoon et al. (2013) found that place attachment contributed to proenvironmental behavioral intentions of park visitors. Likewise, Vaske and Kobrin (2001) were able to show that place attachment positively influences environmentally responsible behaviors such as sorting recyclable trash (for more studies on place attachment and conservation, see for instance Seabrook et al., 2008; Bohnet, 2008). How should these concepts of CNS and place attachment be integrated in the Theory of Planned Behavior? Are they likely to directly impact conservation behavior, or should we think of their influence as indirect, through one or more of the behavioral determinants? With regards to place attachment, Stedman (2002) was able to show that this concept is directly related to behavioral intentions, whereas Raymond et al. (2011) found it to be related with antecedents of intentions. Kals et al. (1999) showed that ‘affinity with nature’ was directly associated with behavioral decisions concerning conservation. In the Mayer and Frantz (2004) work it was reported that CNS was directly associated with a set of different ecological behaviors. Dutcher et al. (2007) also relate connectivity to environmental behavior directly; and the same can be said about Davis et al. (2009). However, it should be noted that these studies did not explicitly use the TPB, and therefore no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the place of CNS and place attachment in the model. One of the goals of the current paper is to investigate how CNS and place attachment relate to conservation behavior. Based

A.M. Lokhorst et al. / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

on the research described, we propose that both concepts directly influence intentions. To summarize, there now is a growing body of literature that suggests that feeling connected to nature and experiencing attachment to a place is associated with environmental behaviors in general and with conservation practices in particular. Likely, experiencing an emotional bond with nature changes the self-concept in such a way that it encompasses an individual’s natural environment and this change in self-identity subsequently leads to behavior change. In the current study we aim to take a closer look at the relations between CNS, place attachment, self-identity and conservation. We will test these relations in the context of farmers’ decision making concerning private nature conservation. The current study: aims and hypotheses Based on the above, our first objective was to investigate the social-psychological determinants of private nature conservation using the TPB, including self-identity. Next, we were interested in connectedness to nature and place attachment and if and how these variables would influence conservation intentions. The second aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether feeling connected to nature and place increases the intention to conserve. More specifically, we hypothesized that: the TPB constructs attitude, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm would significantly predict the intention to carry out private nature conservation (Hypothesis 1). Next, based on previous research, we expected that self-identity would significantly predict the intention to carry out private nature conservation (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, we were interested in the role played by connectedness to nature. We expected a heightened sense of connectedness to nature to be associated with an increased intention to conserve, independently of the other predictors. (Hypothesis 3). Finally, we hypothesized that place attachment would be significantly associated with conservation intentions (Hypothesis 4). Method Procedure and participants For this study our population consisted of owners of agricultural land located in the Ecological Main Structure (EMS) in the Netherlands. The EMS is a network of existing and planned nature areas connected by ecological linkage zones, intended to preserve biodiversity. We were given contact information of 480 land owners in this region by the Dienst Landelijk Gebied (DLG). This Dutch government agency is the central executive organ responsible for the acquisition of new nature areas for the EMS. These 480 landowners were initially contacted in December 2011. They received a letter inviting them to participate in the study by filling out a questionnaire online. As an incentive for cooperation they were promised a book on farmers and private nature conservation. Also, they could indicate whether or not they wanted to be informed about the results of the study. If respondents were for some reason unable to fill out the questionnaire online, they could request a paper copy being sent to them by mail. Four invitation letters were returned, because the addressee had moved or the letter was undeliverable. All the other farmers who had not filled out the questionnaire by January 4th, 2012 (455) were contacted by telephone between January 4th and January 16th 2012. They were asked whether they had received the initial invitation to participate, and if so, they were reminded to fill out the questionnaire. If they indicated they had not received the invitation, they were asked whether they still wanted to participate and were given a short explanation about the research. In that case, the farmers were

123

sent an email with a link to the survey, as well as their password and registration number. Also when the participants indicated they had lost or thrown away their initial invitation, but still wanted to participate, they received their password and registration number either by phone or On January 27th, 2012, the survey was closed. In total 94 participants completed the questionnaire, making the response rate 19.6%. Measures All items were measured using a 5-Point Likert scale and most scales ranged from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’. Exceptions are mentioned below. Attitude was measured using the items “I think that private nature conservation is: negative-positive”, “I think that private nature conservation is: useless – useful”, and “I think that private nature conservation is: unimportant – important” (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). This scale yielded a sufficiently high reliability, ˛ = .94. Perceived behavioral control was measured using the scale of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980). The item “I am well capable of carrying out private nature conservation” was scored on a scale ranging from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’. The item “Is it easy or difficult for you to carry out private nature conservation?” was scored on a scale ranging from ‘very difficult’ to ‘very easy’ (˛ = .61). Subjective norm was measured using the items “Most people that are important for me think it is important that I carry out private nature conservation” and “Most people that are important for me carry out private nature conservation themselves” (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; ˛ = .79). Connectedness to nature was measured using 6 items from Gosling and Williams (2010). This scale yielded insufficient reliability (˛ = .52), and upon inspection of the item-total statistics, 2 items were removed. The 4 remaining items were “I often feel that I am a part of nature”, “I often feel close to the natural world around me”, “My own welfare is linked to the welfare of the natural world”, and “I recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other living things” (˛ = .80). Self-identity was measured with 2 items derived from Terry et al. (1999): “Private nature conservation is part of who I am” and “Private nature conservation is something for that is typical for me”. These items were combined and averaged. Cronbach’s ˛ for this scale was .86. Place attachment was measured using the scale from Gosling and Williams (2010). Example items are “I am happiest when I am on my farm” and “My farm is my favorite place to be” (˛ = 0.85). Intention was measured with 4 items: “I plan to carry out private nature conservation in the next two years”, “I intend to carry out private nature conservation in the future”, “I’d like to conserve more nature in the future” and “I’d like to expand my current nature conservation”. These items were combined and averaged to form a reliable scale. (˛ = .93). Results Demographics Most respondents were farmers, and most of them (66%) cattle farmers. The majority (91.8%) practiced conventional (non-organic) agriculture. Mean age was 35.17 years (SD = 10.16), and 88.7% was male. Correlations The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables are listed in Table 1. All variables were standardized before

124

A.M. Lokhorst et al. / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

Table 1 Means, Standard deviations and Correlations.

1. Sex 2. Age 3. Education 4. Attitude 5. PBC 6. Subjective norm 7. Self-identity 8. CNS 9. Place attachment 10. Intention * **

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

n.a. 35.17 n.a. 3.75 3.53 2.01 3.01 4.02 4.18 2.94

n.a. 10.16 n.a. .84 .94 1.06 1.27 .69 .63 1.16

−.11 −.10 −.04 .13 .10 −.04 −.21* .04 −.08

−.26* .28** .22* .33** .29** .10 .01 .16

.03 −.02 .01 −.06 −.06 −.15 .01

.50** .44** .62** .36** −.05 .59**

.42** .56** .16 −.12 .61**

.60** .22* −.07 .49**

.33** −.06 .79**

.30** .38**

−.07

p < .05. p < .01.

analysis. Because of the significant intercorrelations among some of the variables, one could suspect a multicollinearity problem. Therefore, we inspected the variance inflation factors and the tolerance values. All variance inflation factors were well below the critical value of 10. All tolerance values were well above the threshold of 0.2, indicating no potential problems (Menard, 1995). What we can tell from inspecting the correlations is that none of the demographic variables seem to be associated with the intention to conserve. However, all three TPB predictors, as well as self-identity and CNS, showed significant positive correlations with intention, and with each other. Place attachment appeared to be unrelated to the intention to conserve. Predicting intention from TPB, self-identity and connectedness to nature To test our hypotheses, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis with intention to carry out nature conservation as the dependent variable. To check whether demographic variables influenced intention, they were entered into the regression in the first step. Age turned out to be associated with intention, (ˇ = 0.28, p = .02), meaning that older farmers showed a greater intention to conserve nature. Together, the demographic variables explained 3.5% of the variance in intention. However, when the TPB variables attitude, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm were added in the second step, age was no longer significantly associated with intention. Instead, attitude, (ˇ = 0.25, p = .02), perceived behavioral control, (ˇ = 0.39, p < .001), and subjective norm, (ˇ = 0.26, p = .01) predicted intention. Together, these variables accounted for 46.7% of the variance in intention. Adding them thus explained significant additional portions of the variance in intention (R2 = 43.6%), Fchange(3, 68) = 20.210, p < .001. In the third step, we added CNS as a predictor, and found that it was marginally associated with intention (ˇ = 0.16, p = .09). Adding CNS to our model increased the explained variance in intention with 2.1%, Fchange(1, 67) = 3.006, p = .09. In the fourth step, we added self-identity. The relation between self-identity and intention appeared significant, ˇ = 0.67, p < .001, while CNS was no longer associated with intention, ˇ = 0.10, p = .20. Finally, we added PA, and this factor appeared unrelated to intention, ˇ = −0.01, p = .93. In this final model, only perceived behavioral control (ˇ = 0.20, p = .04) and self-identity (ˇ = 0.63, p < .001) appeared to be significantly associated with intention to conserve. Adding PA in the final step resulted in a total of 62.3% of the variance in intention explained, R2 = 0.0%, Fchange(1, 65) = 0.008, p = .93 for the final step. The test statistics of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2. This specific data patterns suggests suppression: CNS appeared to be related to intention to conserve, but drops in significance when self-identity is taken into account. We therefore decided to perform a mediation analysis, in which we followed the procedures as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). From the previous analyses it becomes clear that CNS is related to intention (ˇ = 0.16,

p = .09). When self-identity was added as a predictor, the relation between CNS and intention became non-significant (ˇ = 0.10, p = .20), while self-identity did predict intention (ˇ = 0.67, p < .001). Using a bootstrapping analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2004), we found that the bias corrected bootstrap estimate of the indirect effect of CNS had a 95% confidence interval of .1113 to .4294. As this confidence interval does not cross zero, this suggests a significant pattern of mediation on intention to conserve via self-identity. Summary and Conclusion In this study we identified the social psychological underpinnings of private nature conservation. We found that perceived behavioral control, self-identity and connectedness to nature are the key factors influencing the intention to conserve. The more farmers feel that they are capable of conserving nature on their farm, the more they see themselves as conservationists, and the more they feel that they themselves are connected to nature, the more likely they are to want to conserve nature. An important finding was that self-identity mediates the relation between CNS and intention to conserve. This implies that with an increased connectedness to nature, people come to see themselves as conservationists and this in turn influences their intention to conserve. Place attachment was not associated with conservation intentions. General discussion The current study corroborates and extends earlier work in this area by alluding to the importance of self-identity as a predictor of the intention to conserve. People are motivated to behave in line with how they view themselves; if being a conservationist is a central part of their identity, they are more likely to decide to invest in nature conservation. A new finding is that seeing oneself as a conservationist can be brought about by a heightened sense of connectedness to nature. Of course, this likely is but one of many different factors and experiences to influence self-identity, but a relevant factor indeed. While we are, to the best our knowledge, the first to test and report this specific mediation pathway, the data pattern fits well within theoretical accounts of how connectedness to nature might influence conservation. As Gosling and Williams (2010) put it, attachments to place and nature are thought to expand one’s self-identity (Clayton and Opotow, 2003; Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Schultz et al., 2004). Feeling connected to nature entails that nature and conservation eventually become perceived as part of the self; and this in turn leads to the intention to conserve. This process has been labeled ‘inclusion theory’ (Schultz, 2001) and similar data patterns have been reported by Raymond et al. (2011). Place attachment was not correlated with conservation intentions. This finding aligns with the results reported by Gosling and Williams (2010). One explanation they offer for this lack of a relation is that the place that we are measuring attachment with is a

A.M. Lokhorst et al. / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

125

Table 2 Results of regression analysis with intention as the dependent variable.

Predictors Sex Age Education Attitude PBC Subjective Norm CNS Self-identity PA R2 R2 F

Step 1 ˇ’s

Step 2 ˇ’s

Step 3 ˇ’s

Step 4 ˇ’s

Step 5 ˇ’s

−.03 .28** .08

−.14 −.01 −.01 .25** .39*** .26**

−.11 −.02 .02 .21* .40*** .23** .16*

−.05 −.04 .06 .07 .20** −.03 .10 .63***

.04

.47 .44*** 11.821***

.48 .02* 10.860*

.63 .14*** 16.692***

−.05 −.04 .06 .07 .20** −.03 .11 .63*** −.01 .62 .00 14.615

1.894

Standardized regression coefficients are reported. * p < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .001.

complicated concept for farmers. It is their home, their most proximal environment, but also their business and livelihood. Different goals and beliefs about how to reach these goals are likely to complicate the relation between place attachment and behavior: being attached to their farm can prompt farmers to conservation but also to protecting their business. The current dataset offers no insight in these possibly contradicting considerations. In our sample we found that roughly half of the farmers (53.3%) intended to engage in private nature conservation. The other half (46.7%) indicated they had no plans in that direction. This means that there is a target group of farmers who is at least willing to conserve. If our goal is to maximize private nature conservation then we need to understand and recognize that such change is complicated and costly. Farmers are likely to perceive many barriers to implementing nature conservation that prevent them from following through on their intentions. Several authors (see for instance Riley, 2011; Burton et al., 2008) have described and categorized such barriers, which range from a lack of opportunity to develop or demonstrate conservation skills to difficulties integrating conservation practices into the farm’s workflow. From a policy perspective it makes sense to focus on this group of farmers and help them overcome such barriers. How can the other group of farmers, consisting of those who currently lack the intention to engage in private nature conservation, be reached? Our results indicate that a successful route might be through their connectedness to nature and self-identity. As for the first, earlier studies (Mayer et al., 2009) have shown that being exposed to nature increases people’s connectedness to it. It seems likely that in general, connectedness to nature is based on having positive experiences in nature, allowing people to bond with their environment. Environmental education (EE) programs are often designed to foster CNS and might be of interest in this regard – though Ernst and Theimer (2011) raise concerns about the effectiveness of such programs, and argue that more critical research in this area is needed. A recent study by Lieflander et al. (2013) suggests that strengthening connectedness to nature is more sustainable before the age of 11. As far as targeting farmers’ self-identity as conservationists, a potentially useful technique is that of commitment making, whereby an individual makes a pledge or a promise to change their behavior. Recent meta-analyses (Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012; Lokhorst et al., 2013) have shown that this is an effective instrument for changing a wide range of general pro-environmental behaviors. In the context of nature conservation specifically, Lokhorst et al. (2010) report positive results of an intervention that combined commitment making with feedback or benchmarking: farmers in

this treatment group expressed stronger intentions to conserve and reported to spend more time on conservation than those in the control condition. One explanation for the effect of commitment making on behavior is that making a commitment changes how people see themselves: they come to see themselves as the kind of person for whom the behavior at stake is important. The behavior thus becomes part of the self-identity or self-concept; and since people are usually motivated to behave in line with how they view themselves, they adjust their behavior accordingly (Lokhorst et al., 2013). Therefore, we recommend that interventions be developed that contain commitment making. Combined with benchmarking (de Snoo et al., 2010), this technique can fairly easily be implemented in focus groups that allow farmers to discuss conservation options, compare themselves to relevant others and commit to changing their behavior. The discussed relation between connectedness to nature and intention to conserve has an important limitation that needs to be addressed. The reported data pattern fits well with our theoretical explanation of connectedness to nature changing self-identity, which in turn leads in stronger conservation intentions. Our data set, however, is cross-sectional, and the analyses reported are based on correlations. This means that with respect to causality, no conclusions van be drawn. This is especially important since it seems likely that positive experiences with and in nature have a positive influence on connectedness to nature. It might be that farmers who engage in conservation report higher levels of connectedness to nature instead of the other way around. In reality, we suspect there to be a mutual influence. Farmers who feel connected to nature spend more energy on nature conservation, and these experiences further strengthen their bond with nature. A related limitation of the current study is the size of the sample used. 94 is not an impressive number, and we need to be cautious not to draw too firm conclusions from the data reported here. Instead, we should see this as a pilot study and regard the results as exploratory, in need of further replication and validation using larger samples and different contexts. A third possible limitation is the use of the Gosling and Williams (2010) scale to measure connectedness with nature. We chose this scale specifically because it was adapted from the more traditional Mayer and Frantz (2004) scale to be applicable to farmers. However, this adaptation has not been validated in multiple settings, and therefore we cannot guarantee its reliability or validity. The same holds for their place attachment scale (Gosling and Williams, 2010). We recommend that future studies use multiple measures of CNS and place attachment to further validate these scales.

126

A.M. Lokhorst et al. / Land Use Policy 39 (2014) 121–126

What are the next steps to be taken? In terms of designing and testing intervention we suggest that researchers focus on the psychological underpinnings that were revealed in this study: self-identity and connectedness to nature. We have suggested environmental education, benchmarking and commitment making as intervention tools, but other suggestions are welcome and needed. These interventions should then be tested in large field studies, using an experimental design, allowing to test for the effectiveness of such tools and to draw conclusions concerning causality. In terms of reaching biodiversity goals, we believe that there is currently a gap between what our scientific endeavors produce and what policy makers (can) use in steering people’s decision making and behavior. The answers we come up with in response to policy makers’ questions are too abstract for them to implement. The challenge for scientists is to further refine our work by testing it in different contexts and applications, so that instead of talking about concepts and methods we can give policy makers actual evidence-based tools that they can implement and use to reach their goals. We hope to have added to this development by connecting theoretical concepts like self-identity and connectedness to nature to concrete interventions and policy tools such as environmental education, benchmarking and commitment making. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bamberg, S., Moser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25. Bohnet, I., 2008. Assessing retrospective and prospective landscape change through the development of social profiles of landholders: a tool for improving land use planning and policy formulation. Landscape Urban Plan. 88, 1–11. Brügger, A., Kaiser, F.G., Roczen, N., 2011. Environmental identity, and implicit association with nature. Eur. Psychol. 16, 324–333. Burton, R.J.F., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G., 2008. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol. Ruralis 48, 16–37. Clayton, S., Opotow, S., 2003. Introduction: identity and the natural environment. In: Clayton, S., Opotow, S. (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–24. Davis, J.L., Green, J.D., Reed, A., 2009. Interdependence with the environment: commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 173–180. de Snoo, G.R., Herzon, I., Staats, H., Burton, R.J.F., Schindler, S., van Dijk, J., Lokhorst, A.M., Bullock, J., Lobley, M., Wrbka, T., Schwarz, G., Musters, C.J.M., 2013. Towards effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conserv. Lett. 6, 66–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00296.x. de Snoo, G.R., Lokhorst, A.M., van Dijk, J., Staats, H., Musters, C.J.M., 2010. Benchmarking biodiversity performances of farmers. Aspects Appl. Biol. 100, 2010. Dutcher, D.D., Finley, J.C., Luloff, A.E., Johnson, J.B., 2007. Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ. Behav. 39, 474–493. Eriksson, L., Forward, S.E., 2011. Is the intention to travel in a pro-environmental manner and the intention to use the car determined by different factors? Transport. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 16, 372–376. Ernst, A., Theimer, S., 2011. Evaluating the effects of environmental education programming on connectedness to nature. Environ. Educ. Res. 17, 577–598. European Commission, 2011. Council Conclusions on the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ comm2006/2020.htm Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M., Bordia, P., Hogg, M.A., 2005. Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: the role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. J. Environ. Manage. 77, 12–21. Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M., Hogg, M.A., 2008. Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in nature conservation practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 23–48. Gosling, E., Williams, K.J.H., 2010. Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: testing connectedness theory among farmers. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 298–304. Kaiser, F.G., Hübner, G., Bogner, F.X., 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 2150–2170.

Kals, E., Maes, J., 2002. Sustainable development and emotions. In: Smuck, P., Schultz, W.P. (Eds.), Psychology of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp. 97–122. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., Montada, L., 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 31, 178–202. Lieflander, A.K., Frohlich, G., Bogner, F.X., Schultz, P.W., 2013. Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 19, 370–384. Litvine, D., Wustenhagen, R., 2011. Helping light green consumers walk the talk: results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecol. Econ. 70, 462–474. Lokhorst, A.M., Werner, C.M., Staats, H., van Dijk, E., Gale, J., 2013. Commitment and behavior change: a meta-analysis and critical review of commitment making strategies in environmental research. Environ. Behav. 45, 3–34. Lokhorst, A.M., Staats, H., van Dijk, J., van Dijk, E., de Snoo, G.R., 2011. What’s in it for me? Motivational differences between farmers’ voluntary and subsidized nature conservation practices. Appl. Psychol: Int. Rev. 60, 337–353. Lokhorst, A.M., van Dijk, J., Staats, H., van Dijk, E., de Snoo, G.R., 2010. Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: an example from the Netherlands. Hum. Ecol. 38, 113–122. Manstead, A.S.R., 2011. The benefits of a critical stance: a reflection on past papers on the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 363–373. Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M.P., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 503–515. Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M.P., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Dolliver, K., 2009. Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environ. Behav. 41, 607–643. MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Biodiversity Synthesis. Millenium Ecosystems Assessment, Washington, DC. Menard, S., 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis: Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Osbaldiston, R., Schott, J.P., 2012. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environ. Behav. 44., 257–299. PBL, 2009. Natuurbalans 2009 (in Dutch). Poppenborg, P., Koellner, T., 2013. Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers’ decision-making in a South Korean watershed. Land Use Policy 31, 422–429. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for stimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Meth Ins C 36, 717–731, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553. Ramkissoon, H., Graham Smith, L.D., Weiler, B., 2013. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment ad its relationships with place satisfaction and proenvironmental behaviours: a structural equation modelling approach. Tour. Manage. 36, 552–566. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., Robinson, G.M., 2011. The influence of place attachment, and moral and normative concerns on conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioural models. J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 323–335. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., Weber, D., 2010. The measurement of place attachment: personal, community and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 422–434. Riley, M., 2011. Turning farmers into conservationists? Progress and prospects. Geogr. Compass 5/6, 369–389. Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 327–339. Schultz, P.W., 2002. Inclusion with nature: understanding the psychology of humannature interactions. In: Schmuck, P., Schultz, P.W. (Eds.), The Psychology of Sustainable Development. Kluwer, New York, pp. 61–78. Schultz, P.W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J.J., Khazian, A.M., 2004. Implicit connections with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 31–42. Seabrook, L., McAlpine, C., Fensham, R., 2008. What influences farmers to keep trees? A case study from the Brigalow Belt, Queensland, Australia. Landscape Urban Plan. 84, 266–281. Staats, H., 2003. Understanding pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. An analysis and review of research based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M. (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 171–201. Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 309–317. Stedman, R., 2002. Towards a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environ. Behav. 34, 561–581. Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., 1996. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: a role for group identification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22, 776–793. Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., White, K.M., 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: selfidentity, social identity and group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 225–244. Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Costanza, R., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Portela, R., 2007. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 57, 868–873. Vaske, J.J., Kobrin, K., 2001. Place attachment and environmentally responsible behaviour. J. Environ. Educ. 32, 116–121. Williams, D.R., Vaske, J.J., 2003. The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Sci. 49, 830–840.