The Ambivalence of Attitudes Toward Urban Green Areas: Between Proenvironmental Worldviews and Daily Residential Experience

Article

Environment and Behavior43(2) 207 –232

© 2011 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013916509354699http://eab.sagepub.com

The Ambivalence of Attitudes Toward Urban Green Areas: Between Proenvironmental Worldviews and Daily Residential Experience

Mirilia Bonnes,1 Paola Passafaro,

1

and Giuseppe Carrus2

Abstract

The ambivalence of attitudes toward urban green areas is investigated through a cross-sectional survey carried out in the city of Rome (N = 500). First, the dimensional structure, and then the personal tendency to hold ambivalent attitudes were analyzed in relation to: (a) broader human values and environmental worldviews (such as biospheric value orientations, ecocentrism vs. anthropocentrism) and (b) specific daily residential experience about urban green areas (perceived quality of neighborhood green areas and self-reported frequency of use of green areas). Results show two separate dimensions (moderately correlated) for attitudes toward urban green areas. The two dimensions are interpreted as measuring appreciation and devaluation of the presence of nature in the city, respectively. They showed different patterns of correlations with the other social-psychological factors considered. Moreover, people with more anthropocentric and apathic worldviews and with egoistic

1Sapienza University of Rome

2University of Roma, Tre

Corresponding Author:Mirilia Bonnes, Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Psychology of Social and Developmental Processes, Via dei Marsi 7800185—Roma, ItalyEmail: [email protected]

208 Environment and Behavior 43(2)

values manifested higher degrees of ambivalence in attitudes toward urban green areas, whereas a less straightforward relationship was found with daily residential experience. The implications of these results for the understanding of people’s relationship with urban green areas are discussed.

Keywords

urban green areas, ambivalent attitudes, environmental worldviews, values

Previous studies have shown how a certain degree of ambivalence tends to char-acterize people’s relationship with the urban green areas. When individuals are asked to describe their relationship to urban green spaces, contrasting arguments often tend to emerge (e.g., Bonnes, Aiello, & Bonaiuto, 1999; Burgess, Harrison, & Limb, 1988; Henwood & Pidgeon, 2001). On the one hand, a general appre-ciation for these areas is usually expressed by respondents. People often refer to positive experiences within these areas, based on the possibility of closer senso-rial contact with nature and relaxed social interactions with others (Burgess et al., 1988). Urban green areas are appreciated because they offer the possibility to touch, smell, see, and hear the basic elements of nature (the sun, the wind, the grass, the trees, etc.), to walk or run with these elements around, and to enjoy the view of the recurring seasonal changes (Burgess et al., 1988). Urban green areas constitute one of those features which slowly and recurrently change in the city landscape, thus introducing a pleasant variability among the more static features of the surrounding urban skyline. Urban green areas are also appreciated because of the opportunity for outdoor social interaction they provide for people of all ages. For everybody, they represent an occasion to engage in leisure and sport activities, meet old friends, and make new acquaintances. They can also serve as a refuge from the stressful stimulations of everyday social-life; a high restorative power is indeed generally ascribed to green areas (e.g., Berto, 2005; Hartig, 2004; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Korpela, Kytta, & Hartig, 2002; Lafortezza, Carrus, Sanesi, & Davies, 2009; Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004; 2005).

Urban green areas, on the other hand, can also cause negative reactions and considerations. One of the main aspects that has emerged across various studies is that these areas are appreciated if they are well kept by the local administra-tions and they are able to fulfill specific inhabitants’ needs within the city (e.g., Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995; Bonnes et al., 1999; Burgess et al., 1988). Urban green areas are thus par-ticularly appreciated when they are open and accessible to the public, they are well equipped (e.g., with amusement structures for children, trails for running and walking, benches for sitting), they are well maintained (regularly cleaned,

Bonnes et al. 209

grass and trees regularly pruned) and in general when they offer the opportunity of both the social and physical activities already mentioned. When one or more of these features are missing, this tends to lead to complaints and dissatisfaction with these sites. Particularly vivid impressions are fears of bad encounters and crimes in these settings. The latter are indeed frequently reported by those who describe the negative or “dark” side of the urban green (Burgess et al., 1988). With regard to this, Herzog and Flynn-Smith (2001) have shown for example how, in general, while the presence of vegetation within a given setting is able to predict high levels of environmental preference, it is also linked to high levels of fear of crimes and violence.

A Bidimensional Structure for Attitudes Toward Urban Green AreasMuch of the complexity and articulation of people’s perceptions of urban green areas is well-established. It was for example highlighted by a series of qualitative and quantitative studies carried out by Bonnes and colleagues in various Italian cities (Bonnes, Aiello, & Ardone, 1995; Bonnes, Carrus, Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Passafaro, 2004; Bonnes et al., 1999; Carrus, Passafaro, & Bonnes, 2004; Lafortezza et al., 2009). One aim of these early studies was to identify the various factors that form the basis of residents’ perception of urban green spaces. The results of one of these studies show for example how positive and negative atti-tudes toward urban green areas could coexist in people’s mind (Bonnes et al., 1999). Participants were asked to express their agreement/disagreement with around 100 statements concerning urban green areas. What struck the authors most was the fact that, rather than collapse in a unique bipolar dimension, responses to the majority of items dealing with the positive aspects of urban green areas loaded on a unipolar factor, which was distinguishable from (although slightly negatively correlated to) another unipolar dimension on which loaded mostly items expressing negative orientations. That the two dimensions expressed respectively a positive and a negative attitude toward urban green areas was evi-dent because most of the items loading on the first dimension referred to the urban green areas as: (a) a source of well-being, (b) a way to find nature in the city, (c) a way to “enrich” the self, and (d) a source of socialization. The other dimension grouped instead items referring to the various inconveniences and dangers associated with urban green areas (e.g., costs of maintenance, leaves rendering the streets more slippery, crimes occurring in the parks during evening or night). Confirmatory factor analysis, performed in a subsequent study (N = 240), confirmed that attitudes toward urban green areas can be structured according to two main subdimensions that are moderately negatively correlated,


representing a positive and a negative orientation toward urban green spaces (Carrus et al., 2004). The authors labeled these two factors as “Integration” and “Opposition” perspectives of people-urban nature relations, respectively. These results led the authors to hypothesize that in general people’s attitudes toward urban green areas could be characterized by a certain complexity or ambivalence. This latter possibility may be important as it raises many other questions, such as: Are there individual differences in the degree of ambivalence in attitudes toward these green areas? What are the implications for the way individuals use these areas, and/or for their management by the local administrations? More studies are needed to answer these questions. For example, in the above mentioned studies, neither the ambivalence hypothesis was adequately tested, nor was it theoretically explained. Various authors have instead repeatedly discussed, both theoretically and methodologically, the issue of attitude ambivalence, in relation to social psychology. This literature could be of help in understanding the reasons for the reported bidimensional and (apparently) ambivalent nature of attitudes toward urban green.

Attitude AmbivalenceMost of the definitions proposed in the literature refer to attitude ambivalence as to the simultaneous existence of positive and negative evaluations of an attitude object (Conner & Sparks, 2002; Eagly & Chaiken, 1998; Jonas, Broemer, & Diehl, 2000). “In the attitude domain, these sorts of inconsistencies between the experiences which underlie an attitude have been traditionally considered to con-tribute to error variance and treated as barriers to exact measurement” (Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995, p. 363). However, many authors have already shown that rather than being “crazy and implausible” these responses could be linked to mixed feelings, cognitions, and/or evaluations in relation to the considered object (e.g., Conner & Sparks, 2002; Jonas et al., 2000).

The importance of these inconsistencies should not be ignored. Indeed, ambivalence seems to weaken attitude-intention and attitude-behavior relations: higher levels of attitude ambivalence were associated with lower levels of atti-tude-behavior and/or attitude-intentions consistency in various attitude domains (e.g., Haenze, 2001; Thompson & Holmes, 1996), including the environment (e.g., Castro, Garridoa, Reisa, & Menezesa, 2008; Costarelli & Colloca, 2004; 2007). An issue needing further investigation refers to the psychological corre-lates and possible antecedents of attitude ambivalence. The few studies conducted in the past have focused mainly on personality factors such as Need For Cognition (NFC) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI), and on situational conditions such as the degree of experience or personal involvement in the attitude issues

Bonnes et al. 211

(e.g., Thompson et al., 1995; Thompson & Zanna, 1995). To our knowledge, there is a scarcity of studies addressing the social-psychological correlates of attitude ambivalence, and in the environmental domain in particular. The results of the studies by Bonnes and colleagues mentioned earlier suggest the plausibil-ity of such factors.

Interpreting the Structure of Attitudes Toward Urban Green AreasThe findings reported by Carrus et al. (2004) suggest that some individuals more than others express ambivalent attitudes toward urban green areas. On one hand, mean responses (and standard deviations) to the items of the two subscales in their study revealed a high shared agreement with statements highlighting the importance of green areas in the city (the people-nature integration subscale), and a certain disagreement with items remarking the various inconveniences of them (the people-nature opposition subscale). On the other hand, however, standard deviations were higher for the opposition compared to the integration subscale. This fact, combined with the results of the previously mentioned factor analysis, implies that most people do appreciate the presence of green areas in the city, and that differences between respondents emerge mostly in relation to the way they evaluate the negative aspects of these. Hence, a question to be raised refers to the correlates of the negative evaluations of urban green.

A cue for answering this question comes again from the results of Carrus et al. (2004). Here, the “opposition” factor correlated with authoritarianism and ethno-centrism, two constructs apparently conceptually distant from issues concerning green areas. Many explanations could be put forward for these results. One of them concerns the existence of symbolic meanings shared by the two apparently different domains. The idea that urban (and nonurban) green areas are often charged with symbolic meanings is indeed not new to environmental psycholo-gists. For example, it has been found that, likely because of their capability to survive over time, urban (and rural) green areas tend also to become important symbolic elements of the communities in which they are located. It has been sug-gested that trees and forests are elements capable of ensuring stability and familiarity with a place, thus contributing to the continuity of local place identity (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2001).

Green areas in general were found to convey the idea of a purer, cleaner, and healthier environment for living, thus standing for symbols of biodiversity and nature conservation (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2001). At the same time, the creation of public green spaces in urban contexts could give rise to social dilemma situa-tions (Dawes & Messick, 2000), as it frequently occurs in the case of large-scale


natural protected areas (Bonaiuto, Carrus, Martorella, & Bonnes, 2002; Carrus, Bonaiuto, & Bonnes, 2005; Stoll-Kleemann, 2001). Urban residents could in fact perceive specific initiatives of nature conservation in the city as incompatible with other kinds of personal and collective interests (e.g., building up more park-ing lots, malls). This, however, implies the agreement with specific hierarchies of interests, based upon values and worldviews, which, for example, can conceive nature conservation as of secondary importance when compared with human desires for everyday comfort. Various authors have tried to explain the different perspectives through which people observe and evaluate their relationship with nature. In the late 1970s, Dunlap and colleagues (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) introduced the idea of a New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) as a set of beliefs, spread in Western societies, about the necessity of not upsetting the human-nature balance, and the need to establish limits to the economic growth of current societies. These beliefs con-trasted with the more traditional conceptions about the human right to rule over nature (the so-called Dominant Social Paradigm, DSP).

Cultural theory also highlighted the existence of basic worldviews that people use as lenses through which they observe and judge all social and natural aspects of the world, including people-environment relations (e.g., Dake, 1991, 1992; Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Steg & Sievers, 2000; Lima & Castro, 2005). Another contribution to the literature on worldviews and broad conceptions of nature comes from Thompson and Barton (1994), who tested the idea that gen-eral attitudes toward nature could be meaningfully distinguished in three main categories: ecocentric, anthropocentric, and apathic ones. According to these authors, though apathic attitudes represent a clear indifference, a personal inter-est toward environmental issues can derive from at least two different sources of motivation. On one hand, there may be an interest for the environment and its protection based on the importance of nature for human survival and well-being (anthropocentric view); on the other hand there may be an interest based on the appreciation of nature for its own sake (ecocentric view). Therefore, there are reasons to assume that individuals’ views of human-nature relations can affect even their overall evaluations of nature within the city.

More generally, it is also arguable that the whole system of values endorsed by an individual could be linked to his or her appreciation of human-nature integration within and outside the urban context (e.g., Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1998; Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995). As general values are assumed to guide individual choices in a broad range of life domains, it is plausible that the correlation reported by Carrus et al. (2004) between attitudes toward urban green areas and ethnocentrism are due to common meanings shared by the two constructs, for example, based on general values and/or worldviews.

Bonnes et al. 213

Taking into account the literature on environmental values and world-views, it could thus be hypothesized that the two dimensions underlying people’s attitudes toward urban green areas reflect their appreciation (or devaluation) of human-nature integration in the city. An appreciation (or devaluation) may be influenced by the capacity of these areas to fulfill spe-cific individual needs in the urban context, yet also dependent on the overall system of values and worldviews endorsed by the individual. In this sense, a general appreciation for the presence of green in the city is to be expected in most people, either because of the values endorsed, or because of the func-tional importance of these areas for the resident’s life, or both.

It is also likely that a specific appreciation of nature in the city is higher for those who hold a more ecocentric view of nature and biospheric values (i.e., those who appreciate nature for its own sake). A tendency to feel the discomfort and thus remark the problematic aspects of nature in the city should instead be higher among those with a more anthropocentric view of nature (i.e., those who appreciate nature only for its contribution to the qual-ity of human life) and among those endorsing more egoistic and conservative values (see also Stern et al., 1998). Furthermore, a greater ambivalence in attitudes toward urban green areas should also be expected among the latter.

Aims and HypothesesThe study reported here is aimed at further confirming the bidimensional structure (and thus the ambivalence) underpinning attitudes toward urban green areas. Moreover, it aims at exploring the relationship of these attitudes with general proenvironmental attitudes and value endorsement, and with place-specific experience of urban green areas (e.g., perception of the qual-ity and self-reported frequency of use of urban green areas). In line with previous results, it was hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: A two-dimensional structure should emerge for attitudes toward urban green areas. It is expected that positive attitudes to-ward urban green areas represent a specific evaluative orientation which is distinguishable from, although slightly correlated with, negative attitudes. As a further demonstration of the partial inde-pendence among them it is also predicted that:

Hypothesis 2: Positive and negative attitudes toward urban green areas should show different patterns of correlation with other related constructs, such as general values and proenvironmental attitudes, perceived quality of urban green areas, daily residential experience,


and attitude ambivalence. For example, positive attitudes toward ur-ban green areas should be more related to ecocentric attitudes and proenvironmental values, whereas negative attitudes toward urban green areas should be more linked to anthropocentric attitudes, conservative values, and attitude ambivalence.

MethodParticipants

A study was carried out in Rome, during March-April 2002, on a convenience sample of 500 Rome residents, balanced for gender and age, living in Rome for at least 3 years. Participants lived in various areas of the city, differently endowed with public green areas. Participants were contacted at home or in the streets, and asked to respond to a questionnaire dealing with environmental and urban issues. Age range was 18 to 92 (M = 44.89; SD = 16.35). 50.8% of participants were males and 49.2% females. The education level was 9.4% primary school, 21.5% junior high school, 51.2% high school, and 17.9% university degree.

Measurement InstrumentA questionnaire comprising various psychometric instruments was designed to measure values, general proenvironmental attitudes, attitudes toward urban green areas, perceived quality of neighborhood green areas, self-reported frequency of use of urban and extraurban green areas, together with sociodemographic and residential aspects (i.e., gender, age, education, employment, length of residence in the city, neighborhood of residence). The variables were measured as follows (in the same order of presentation as in the questionnaire).

Values. A set of 15 items was used to measure respondents’ endorsement of a corresponding number of different human values. The items are taken from those used by Stern et al. (1998), which in turn were derived from a list of 56 human values compiled by Schwartz (1992, 1994). The brief inventory of values proposed by Stern et al. (1998, p. 984) “is suitable for use in survey research and other settings in which the longer instrument might be impracti-cal.” Considering the high number of different variables assessed in our study, this brief inventory appeared particularly suitable to our purposes. The selected list of values comprises items from all the 10 value types originally proposed by Schwartz (1992, 1994). According to Stern et al. (1998), this shorter inventory can be located within the bounds of the four larger clusters originally identified by Schwartz: Self-transcendence, Self-enhancement,

Bonnes et al. 215

Openness to change, and Conservation. In the study by Stern and colleagues, the items in the Self-transcendence dimension were grouped into Biospheric and Altruistic values. In our study, participants were asked to indicate how much each of the following values constituted a guiding principle in their life: social justice (e.g., fighting injustice), influential (e.g., having an impact on people and events), self-discipline (e.g., self-restraining and resisting to temptations), respecting the earth (e.g., living in harmony with other spe-cies), curiosity (e.g., being interested in everything, exploring), equality (e.g., ensuring equal opportunities for everybody), wealth (e.g., possessing material goods or money), family security (e.g., ensuring safety for loved ones), protecting the environment (e.g., preserving nature), a varied life (e.g., living a life filled with challenge, novelty, and change), a world at peace (e.g., living in a world free of war and conflict), authority (e.g., having the right to lead or command), honoring parents and elders (e.g., showing respect to them), unity with nature (e.g., fitting into nature), an exciting life (e.g., having stimulating experiences). A more detailed description of all these indicators can be found in Schwartz (1992, 1994). A 7-point asymmetrical scale was used for the responses, ranging from 0 = absolutely non acceptable to 6 = extremely important; point 3 was labeled as important, whereas points 1, 2, 4, and 5 were not labeled. The rationale for the use of asymmetrical response scales in the study of values can be found in Schwartz (1992). The scale was presented after a page where respondents were asked to indicate the most and least important values of their life (see Schwartz, 1992, for an explanation of the logic at the base of this choice).

General proenvironmental attitudes. General proenvironmental attitudes were assessed through Thompson and Barton’s (1994) Ecocentrism-Anthropocentrism scale. As mentioned previously, this scale assesses respondent’s levels of Ecocentrism (valuing of nature for its own sake, 11 items), Anthropocentrism (valuing nature because of the material or phys-ical benefits it can provide for human beings, 11 items), and Apathy (indifference toward environmental issues, 9 items). A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 0 = completely disagree to 4 = completely agree.

Attitudes toward urban green areas. Attitudes toward urban green areas were measured through 10 items taken from the Integration-Opposition scale by Carrus et al. (2004). As mentioned previously, the term Integration identi-fies the items reflecting a positive attitude toward urban green areas, based on the appreciation of human-nature integration in the city. The term Opposition identifies the items reflecting a negative attitude toward urban green areas, based on an antagonistic view of human-nature relations in the city. A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 0 = completely disagree to 4 = completely agree.


Perceived quality of the neighborhood green areas. This variable was mea-sured through 10 items, assessing individual perception of the quantity and quality of the neighborhood urban green, drawn from a set of Perceived Residential Quality Indicators by Bonaiuto et al. (1999; see also Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Bonnes, 2003, 2006). A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 0 = completely disagree to 4 = completely agree.

Frequency of use of green areas. Three items measured self-reported fre-quency of use of: (a) green areas in the neighborhood, (b) green areas in other neighborhoods of the city, and (c) green areas external to the city. A 5-point scale was used, ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = never, 2 = 1-2 times per year, 3 = 1-2 times per month, 4 = 1-2 times per week, and 5 = everyday). These scale points were chosen because they are more easily recalled by participants, although they are not really continuous.

Data AnalysisFactor analyses were performed (using the Principal Axis Factoring procedure, PAF) and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated separately on each scale to check for their structure and internal consistency. Pearson’s correlations were then computed to assess the relationship of the Integration-Opposition scale with the other variables, and with sociodemographic factors. A measure of ambiva-lence in attitudes toward urban green areas was computed using the so-called “Griffin” method (Thompson et al., 1995). This method computes ambivalence as the polarization of the positive (P) and negative (N) judgments, minus the absolute difference between them, or (P+N)/(2-|P–N|). In our specific case, we considered the aggregate indexes of the Integration and Opposition subscales of the attitude toward urban green areas scale, measuring positive and negative atti-tudes, respectively. An ambivalence index was thus computed, which accounts for the degree of coherence showed by each participant in expressing his or her overall attitudes toward urban green areas. This variable was then correlated with all the other constructs considered in the study.

Values. A PAF with Varimax rotation was performed on the brief inventory of values. Six items (justice, influence, authority, equality, wealth, and self- discipline) were excluded from the calculation of the final aggregates, for either low communality and/or low values on Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA). A second PAF with Varimax rotation was performed on the remaining items. A three-factor structure emerged. Factor 1 explained 20% of the variance; the three items contributing to this factor (“protecting the environment,” “unity with nature,” and “respecting the earth”) correspond to those labeled as “Biospheric values” by Stern and colleagues. Factor 2 explained 16% of the variance; the

Bonnes et al. 217

three items contributing to this factor (“a varied life,” “an exciting life,” and “curiosity”) correspond to those labeled as “Openness to change” by both Stern and colleagues and Schwartz. Factor 3 explained 14% of the variance; two out of three items contributing to this factor correspond to those labeled as “Conservation” by both Stern and colleagues and Schwartz (“Honoring parents” and “Family security”); the third item contributing to this factor (“world at peace”) was previously included in the “Self-transcendence” dimension by Schwartz and in the “altruistic values” subdimension by Stern and colleagues. Ecocentrism/Anthropocentrism scale. A PAF with Varimax rotation was per-formed on the Ecocentrism/Anthropocentrism scale. Because the initial structure that emerged was rather difficult to interpret, we decided to delete items to obtain a pattern of factor loadings compatible enough with that reported by Thompson and Barton (1994). Twelve items (corresponding to Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30 of the original scale) were therefore excluded from the calcula-tion of the final aggregates, for either low communality and/or low values on MSA. A PAF with Varimax rotation was performed on the 19 remaining items. A three-factor structure emerged. Factor 1 explained 13% of the variance; the seven items contributing most to this factor corresponded to the “Apathy” dimension (Items 3, 6, 9, 10, 18, 20, 25). Factor 2 explained 13% of the variance; the five items contributing to this factor corresponded to the “Ecocentrism” dimen-sion (Items 2, 12, 16, 21, 28). Factor 3 explained 12% of the variance; the five items contributing to this factor corresponded to the “Anthropocentrism” dimension (Items 4, 29, 13, 19, 27, 31).

Perceived quality of neighborhood green. The PAF performed on this scale showed a 1 factor structure, explaining 48% of the variance.

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and factor loadings for the items of the scales used in the study (except the Integration-Opposition scale), together with Cronbach’s alpha values.

ResultsPrincipal Axis Factoring

Integration-Opposition scale. A PAF with Oblimin rotation was performed on the items of the Integration Opposition scale. In line with previous research results, a two factor solution was detected on the basis of the scree test. The two factors explained a satisfactory amount of variance (49%), with no factor loadings lower than 0.49. On the first factor, explaining 33% of the variance, loaded all the indicators of the Integration subscale. On the second factor, explaining 16% of the variance, loaded all the indicators of the Opposition


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Factor Loadings for Values, General Proenvironmental Attitudes and Perceived Quality of Neighborhood Green Areas

Scale/Items a M SD Loading

Values Biospheric values 0.80 Protecting the environment 4.96 1.11 0.77 Respecting the earth 4.75 1.27 0.74 Unity with nature 4.57 1.23 0.71 Openness to change 0.70 A varied life 3.21 1.54 0.85 An exciting life 3.15 1.63 0.70 Curiosity 3.59 1.51 0.45 Conservative values 0.64 Honoring parents 5.13 1.18 0.73 Family security 5.25 1.08 0.60 World at peace 5.37 0.99 0.47Ecocentrism/Anthropocentrism Ecocentrism 0.78 Sometimes when I am unhappy

I find comfort in nature2.74 1.07 0.73

I can enjoy spending time in natural settings just for the sake of being out in nature

3.13 0.90 0.67

Being out in nature is a great stress reducer for me

3.18 0.88 0.65

I need time in nature to be happy 2.82 1.02 0.64 It makes me sad to see

natural environments destroyed3.55 0.77 0.42

Apathy 0.76 Too much emphasis has been

placed on conservation0.77 1.07 0.64

I do not think the problem of depletion of natural resources is as bad as many people make it out to be

1.05 1.21 0.61

It seems to me that most conservationists are pessimistic and somewhat paranoid

1.42 1.29 0.55

I’m opposed to programs to preserve wilderness, reduce pollution and conserve resources

0.59 1.11 0.53

I find hard to get too concerned about environmental issues

1.62 1.30 0.51

Environmental threats such as deforestation and ozone depletion have been exaggerated

1.66 1.56 0.51

I don’t care about environmental problems

0.63 1.06 0.46

(continued)

Bonnes et al. 219

Anthropocentrism 0.75 Continued land development is a good

idea as long as a high quality of life can be preserved

2.07 1.30 0.73

One of the most important reasons to conserve nature is to ensure a continued high standard of living

1.71 1.42 0.71

One of the most important reasons to keep lakes and rivers clean is so that people have a place to enjoy water sports

1.50 1.42 0.58

We need to preserve resources to maintain a high quality of life

2.89 1.17 0.50

Science and technology will eventually solve our problems with pollution, overpopulation and diminishing resources

2.04 1.34 0.44

The worst thing about the loss of the rain forest is that it will restrict the development of new medicines

2.08 1.22 0.44

The thing that concerns me most about deforestation is that there will not be enough lumber for future generations

1.74 1.36 0.30

Perceived quality of neighborhood green areas 0.88 In this neighborhood there are

enough green areas2.52 1.33 0.80

In this neighborhood there are green areas for relaxing

2.85 1.19 0.78

In this neighborhood if one wants to go to a park he or she has unfortunately to go to other neighborhoods of the city R

2.70 1.40 0.75

In this neighborhood the green areas are in good condition

2.04 1.32 0.71

In this neighborhood there’s a lack of parks where children can play freely R

2.41 1.57 0.70

In this neighborhood there is at least a garden or a park where people can meet

3.02 1.09 0.66

The green areas of this neighborhood are too small R

1.96 1.35 0.66

In this neighborhood many green areas are progressively disappearing R

2.21 1.32 0.61

The green areas of this neighborhood are well-equipped

1.95 1.25 0.46

In this neighborhood, most green areas are closed to the public R

2.99 1.23 0.44

Note: Items excluded from the final analyses are not reported. Value scores range between 0 = absolutely non acceptable and 6 = extremely important; all other scores range between 0 = completely disagree and 4 = completely agree. R = reverse score.

Scale/Items a M SD Loading

Table 1. (continued)


subscale. The correlation between the two factors extracted was –0.38. These results confirm our first hypothesis about the two-dimensional structure of attitudes toward urban green areas.

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics, eigenvalues, and factor loadings for the items of the Integration-Opposition scale, together with Cronbach’s alpha values.

Bivariate Correlations Table 3 reports means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among the aggregated variables with age, level of education, self-reported frequency of use of urban and nonurban green areas, perceived quality of neighborhood green areas, and ambivalence.

As expected, on average respondents agreed with an idea of nature inte-gration in the city (M = 3.23) and did not agree with an idea of opposition to nature in the city (M = 1.25). However, standard deviations are higher for the Opposition subscale than for the Integration one (0.86 and 0.67, respec-tively). Respondents also scored particularly high on biospheric values, ecocentric attitudes, and frequency of use of neighborhood green areas.

The correlation matrix revealed that nature-integration correlates posi-tively with ecocentrism (r = .60), biospheric values (r = .31), frequency of use of green areas outside the city (r = .14), and age (r = .11) while it corre-lates negatively with nature-opposition (r = –.26), apathy (r = –.28), and attitude ambivalence (r = –.32). Nature-opposition instead correlates posi-tively with anthropocentrism (r = .50), apathy (r = .38), conservative values (r = .29), age (r = .15), perceived quality of neighborhood green areas (r = .13), and attitude ambivalence (r = .93), while it correlates negatively with ecocentrism (r = –.19), biospheric values (r = –.11), openness to change values (r = –.15), frequency of use of green areas outside the neighborhood (r = –.10), and outside the city (r = –.20).

This pattern of correlations gives support to our second hypothesis: namely, that opposition and integration can be considered as distinct dimen-sions of attitudes toward urban green, because they tend to establish different relations with other relevant constructs. In particular, in three cases opposi-tion shows a significant correlation with another construct whereas integration does not: anthropocentrism, egoistic values, and frequency of use of other green areas in the city. In other cases a high correlation emerges between one of the two dimensions and a specific construct and a low correlation between the other dimension and the same construct: for example, the correlations of integration and opposition with ecocentrism.

Bonnes et al. 221

Table 2. Item Expected Dimensions, Descriptive Statistics, Factor Loadings, Eigenvalues, and Cronbach’s Alphas for the Integration-Opposition Scale of Attitudes Toward Urban Green

ItemsExpected

Dimension M SDFactors

Extracted

1 2

If one had more contact with nature in the city, he/she would feel less stress.

Integration 3.29 0.85 0.85

The presence of green in the city makes us feel more alive.


In the city people need nature for restoration.


In the city one can ease tensions just by watching a green area.


Being in a city green area can also help to improve the relationships with others.


The management of urban green areas is too expensive for citizens.

Opposition 1.48 1.32 0.72

Maintenance of a large part of urban green has unacceptably high costs for citizens.


Often, in the city, the trees block too much light to the buildings


Often, in the city, one cannot see anything from the windows because of the trees in the street.


Trees in the city often don’t bring advantages but create problems.


Eigenvalue 3.78 2.04Cronbach’s a .86 .75Note: Mean scores range between 0 = completely disagree and 4 = completely agree. Loadings lower than 0.15 are not displayed.

This pattern seems also to indicate that the integration dimension is more linked to general values and proenvironmental attitudes than to individual place-specific experience with urban green areas. In fact, integration and opposition do not correlate (or they correlate only to a minor extent) with the perceived quality and with the self-reported frequency of use of urban green areas. In addition, integration and opposition show distinct patterns of cor-relations with ecocentrism, anthropocentrism, apathy, conservative values, and biospheric values. In line with our expectations, integration is associated positively with ecocentrism and biospheric values and negatively with anthropocentrism and conservative values, whereas opposition is associated

222

Tabl

e 3.

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s an

d Bi

vari

ate

Cor

rela

tions

MSD

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

Inte

grat

ion

3.23

0.67

–.26

.60

–.28

.31

.09*

.10*

.14

–.32

Opp

ositi

on1.

250.

86—

–.19

.50

.38

–.11

*–.

15.2

9.3

8.1

5–.

10*

–.20

.13

.93

Ecoc

entr

ism

3.06

0.64

—–.

33.4

2.1

4.1

7.2

8–.

21A

nthr

opoc

entr

ism

2.14

0.71

— .2

4.1

2–.

10*

.45

–.34

.15

–.13

.17

.48

Apa

thy

1.11

0.79

—–.

25–.

14.1

3–.

29.1

8–.

25–.

13.3

2Bi

osph

eric

val

ues

4.96

0.80

—.1

4.0

9*.1

5.1

1*–.

13O

penn

ess

to c

hang

e 3.

091.

07—

.24

–.23

.17

–.13

Con

serv

ativ

e va

lues

3.25

0.81

—–.

20–.

10*

.18

.29

Leve

l of e

duca

tion

2.78

0.85

—–.

32.1

9.0

9–.

35A

ge44

.90

16.3

5—

–.09

*–.

31–.

20.1

4Fr

eq N

are

as3.

691.

08—

.26

.12

.09*

Freq

N_e

xt a

reas

2.62

1.01

— .2

2–.

10*

Freq

C_e

xt a

reas

2.27

0.86

—–.

20Pe

rc q

ual N

gre

en a

reas

2.47

0.91

—.1

6*A

mbi

vale

nce

0.18

1.32

—

Not

e: F

req

N a

reas

= fr

eque

ncy

of u

se o

f the

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d gr

een

area

s; Fr

eq N

_ext

are

as =

freq

uenc

y of

use

of g

reen

are

as o

f oth

er n

eigh

borh

oods

; Fr

eq C

_ext

are

as =

freq

uenc

y of

use

of g

reen

are

as e

xter

nal t

o th

e ci

ty; P

erc

qual

N g

reen

are

as =

per

ceiv

ed q

ualit

y of

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d gr

een

area

s; A

mbi

vale

nce

= a

mbi

vale

nce

of a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

urba

n gr

een

area

s. Le

vel o

f edu

catio

n sc

ores

wer

e co

ded

as 1

= p

rimar

y sc

hool

, 2 =

juni

or h

igh

scho

ol,

3 =

hig

h sc

hool

; 4 =

uni

vers

ity d

egre

e; fr

eque

ncy

of u

se s

core

s w

ere

code

d as

1 =

nev

er, 2

= 1

-2 ti

mes

per

yea

r, 3

= 1

-2 ti

mes

per

mon

th, 4

= 1

-2 ti

mes

per

w

eek,

and

5 =

eve

ryda

y; A

mbi

vale

nce

scor

es r

ange

bet

wee

n 2

and

4; a

ll ot

her

scor

es r

ange

bet

wee

n 0

and

4. C

orre

latio

ns m

arke

d w

ith a

n as

teri

sk a

re

sign

ifica

nt fo

r p

< .0

5; a

ll ot

her

corr

elat

ions

are

sig

nific

ant

for

p <

.01;

not

sig

nific

ant

corr

elat

ions

are

not

dis

play

ed.

Bonnes et al. 223

positively with anthropocentrism and conservative values and negatively with ecocentrism and biospheric values.

Particularly noteworthy are the correlations of attitude ambivalence with the other constructs considered. Ambivalence of attitudes toward urban green areas correlates positively with opposition (r = .93), anthropocentrism (r = .48), apathy (r = .32), conservative values (r = .29), perceived quality of urban green areas (r = .16), and age (r = .14) whereas it correlates negatively with integration (r = –.32), ecocentrism (r = –.21), biospheric values (r = –.13), openness to change values (r = –.13), level of education (r = –.35), frequency of use of green areas outside the city (r = –.20), and outside the neighborhood (r = –.10).

This pattern seems to indicate that ambivalence is scarcely related to self-reported frequency of use of neighborhood green areas and to the perception of their quality. Therefore, our findings might not entirely support the idea that the ambivalence of attitudes toward urban green areas is linked to indi-vidual place-specific residential experiences such as frequency of use and quality perception of urban green. However, our findings suggest that ambiv-alence is positively related to conservative values and anthropocentric views of people-environment relations, and negatively related with biospheric values and ecocentric views of people-environment relations.

Discussion and ConclusionThe present findings extend previous research on perceptions of green areas in the city, by shedding more light on the dimensional structure of attitudes toward urban green spaces, and by adopting a wider social-psychological perspective for explaining their structure.

The two-factor structure of attitudes toward urban green areas emerged in this study is consistent with previous research findings. The first factor reflects positive evaluations of urban green areas, based on the appreciation of human-nature integration in the city. The second factor reflects negative evaluations of urban green areas, based on an antagonistic view of human-nature relations in the city. Our findings confirm that these two dimensions are moderately related each other, and scarcely or not at all related to indi-vidual place-specific experiences with urban green. Rather, they seem more linked to the wider value system of the individual, and to more general envi-ronmental worldviews. As predicted, positive attitudes toward urban green areas were more related to ecocentric worldviews and biospheric values, whereas negative attitudes toward urban green areas were more related to anthropocentric and apathic worldviews, and to conservative values. It seems thus that differences in the perceptions and evaluations of urban green areas


could be expected for people who hold different general conceptions of human-nature relationship, and/or for people who endorse conservative versus biospheric values. Hence, while until now most of the empirical work on this topic was aimed at finding universals in people’s perceptions and preferences for the various features of the built and the natural environment, it seems that similar attention should be directed by future studies to disen-tangle the various possible social-psychological factors which could contribute to the differentiation of these perceptions. Such a research line could have important management implications, because, as general values, worldviews and attitudes can vary across subgroups living in the different areas of a city, preferences for urban green spaces can be expected to vary accordingly.

The results of the factor analyses on the Ecocentrism/Anthropocentrism scale deserve some further discussion. To obtain a pattern of factor loadings compatible with the original study by Thompson and Barton (1994), we had to drop from the final analyses more than one third of the items. One could then reasonably ask whether or not the original scale was itself problematic. Indeed, three of the five items retained in the final aggregate for the ecocen-trism dimension are about the utility of natural environments for maintaining human well-being: they are in fact about the value of nature for the individ-ual, and so not completely reflective of a real ecocentric stance (i.e., “Sometimes when I am unhappy I find comfort in nature,” “Being out in nature is a great stress reducer for me,” “I need time in nature to be happy”). Indeed these items are the same as those used by Hartig, Kaiser, and Strumse (2007) to represent the use of nature for psychological restoration, conceived as a psychological motivation for ecological concern, and behavior.

Recent studies have also questioned the possibility of a clear-cut distinc-tion between ecocentric and anthropocentric motivations for ecological behavior (Corral-Verdugo, Carrus, Bonnes, Moser, & Sinha, 2008). Cross-cultural studies seem in fact to suggest a possible integration between them: in some cultures, ecocentric and anthropocentric worldviews could be com-patible with each other. These studies showed for example that while a marked dichotomy between anthropocentric and ecocentric views was likely to emerge among U.S. participants, these two belief systems were positively related among Brazilians, Japanese, and Mexican participants (Bechtel, Corral-Verdugo, Asai, & González, 2006; Bechtel, Corral-Verdugo, & Pinheiro, 1999; Corral-Verdugo, & Armendáriz, 2000).

The constituent items of the ecocentrism subscale could then explain why the single strongest correlation detected, after that between ambivalence and opposition, is that between integration and ecocentrism. Indeed, our integra-tion measure is built in part on items concerning the value of urban green

Bonnes et al. 225

spaces for psychological restoration. The two item sets differ in that ecocen-tric items refer to beliefs about how nature serves one’s own well-being, whereas the integration items refer to beliefs about how nature in the city would be good for other people. It is likely that people would not recommend nature in the city for other’s stress reduction if they were not persuaded that they themselves could realize the same benefits. In short, one could argue that the scales of ecocentrism and integration are measuring the same con-struct. If the item set included in the final aggregate is not in fact a true measure of ecocentrism, our interpretations of the findings concerning eco-centrism could be questionable. Future studies could more thoroughly address this specific issue.

The fact that positive and negative evaluations of urban green areas tend to emerge as distinct dimensions seems also to indicate that attitudes toward urban green areas can be ambivalent, to a certain extent. This is consistent with previ-ous qualitative studies on people’s perception of urban green areas. Nonetheless, it raises questions concerning individual differences in the degree of attitude ambivalence and their possible explanations. Again, based on our results, one could hypothesize that some individuals, more than others, tend to manifest ambivalence in their attitudes toward urban green areas. This ambivalence might be associated with the endorsement of specific human values and environmental worldviews. Indeed, both individual everyday experience with urban green spaces, such as self-reported frequency of use of them, perception of their quality, and social-demographical variables, such as gender and age, are only modestly (or not at all) correlated to this attitudinal ambivalence. In our specific case, the highest (and positive) correlation was instead detected between ambivalence and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. One can then argue that these results highlight the relevance of social-cultural factors for understanding the ambivalence of these attitudes. At the same time, these findings have method-ological implications for the study of attitudes toward the environment in general. Within environmental psychology, it is well known that creating scales capable to discriminate individuals according to their proenvironmental attitudes is a complex task (e.g., Franson & Gärling, 1999; Widegren, 1998). Typically, in current Western societies, a large majority of the public acknowledges the importance of nature conservation in human affairs, and this usually leads to a generalized agreement with items remarking the importance of nature protection. An aspect deserving better investigation in future studies is then the extent to which this phenomenon hides a “social desirability” response effect (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), or rather it simply reflects the presence of items with which most people do actually agree, although for different reasons, because in princi-ple they simply do appreciate a clean and healthy environment (e.g., Thompson & Barton, 1994). Our questionnaire did not include a measure of participants’


tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner, and thus we cannot exclude its effect. In any case, in general, the fact remains that it is becoming increasingly difficult to highlight individual differences in proenvironmental attitudes using existing measurements instruments (e.g., Franson & Gärling, 1999; Widegren, 1998). However, one might intuitively guess that these differences do exist. Our results suggest a possible avenue to partly overcome this problem: for example, directing greater efforts toward differentiating subdimensions of the investigated constructs, and letting individual differences emerge from the comparisons of respondents’ scores on the subdimensions. This suggestion was already put for-ward by other authors in relation to general environmental attitudes and ecological values (e.g., Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Wiseman & Bogner, 2003).

In addition, one could point to the importance of building up attitude mea-sures through a more “place specific” approach (e.g., Bonaiuto et al., 2002; Canter, 1983), taking into greater account individual everyday experience with actual natural environments (like the city parks of our study). Our results suggest in fact that when asked to refer to everyday environments, individuals tend often to express more articulated views of the topics investigated, so that negative aspects can also be highlighted. Then, analyzing answers to items concerning the negative aspects of environmental issues might be more informative of their actual attitude and of the associations of this attitude with other social- psychological factors. This is also consistent with the social-psychological notion that negative attitudes, compared to positive ones, play a stronger role in the formation of attitudinal ambivalence (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997). It is worth mentioning this aspect, also to explain the extremely high correlation detected between ambivalence and opposition to green areas. In our case, com-paring positive and negative attitudes toward urban green areas and separately relating them to other relevant constructs allowed us to go beyond the shared perceived importance of urban green areas, highlighting individual differences.

Given the explorative nature of the study, various further research directions could be pursued to clarify the findings reported here. For example, in line with the above-mentioned place-specific approach, these findings could be replicated in countries with different social-cultural characteristics and in urban contexts different from Rome, to check the consistency of the two-dimensional structure across different cultures and geographical regions. The way urban green areas are conceived and managed can vary across geographical and cultural contexts, and individual relations to these areas might vary accordingly.

Another aspect needing further investigation is the relation of attitude toward urban green areas with individual daily behaviors. It is still not clear what kind of behaviors can be affected by these attitudes, and vice versa. Our

Bonnes et al. 227

results suggest modest or no relations between either opposition or integra-tion and self-reported frequency of use of urban green areas. However, it should be noted that our measures of frequency of use were exclusively focused on how many times the respondent visits green areas, without going further into how much time is spent in those places, or how often people look to green areas from their homes. Hence, our frequency of use measure might not have accurately captured the actual amount of usage of the urban green spaces. This might have lead to underestimation of the correlations with other constructs. Given more adequate measurement, integration could have much more to do with daily residential experience than, for example, with ecocentric attitudes.

At the same time, a large portion of our sample reported to go quite often to the green areas of their neighborhood. Only 36% of respondents reported going 1-2 times per month or less. The remaining 64% reported going 1-2 times per week, or more. Because a general positive attitude toward urban green areas also emerged among our respondents, the modest relations detected could be because of a lack of variability in the variables involved. In any case, this result can be read in various ways. On one hand, it could be said that reported frequency of use of neighborhood green areas is apparently unrelated to more general attitudes toward nature in the city. On the other hand, however, this result could also imply the existence of motivations and factors other than attitudes at the basis of the decision to spend time in the neighborhood green areas. For example, habits are well known moderators of attitude-behavior relations, and it would not be sur-prising if the choice to spend time in urban green would be part of an individual wider habitual organization of everyday activities, which have to fulfill various specific needs. Particularly important could then be the way the neighborhood green areas allow for specific activities that people find difficult to perform else-where. Among these activities there could be exercising, meeting friends, entertaining children, taking dogs out to walk, and so on. Hence, if people cannot find alternative places for these activities, they can end up choosing these areas independently of their perceived quality, especially if the quality is at least accept-able (as it was in our case). This could also explain why negative attitudes toward urban green areas (i.e., the opposition subscale) were negatively correlated to the frequency of use of green areas external to the city. The frequency of use of these green areas can indeed fulfill different needs from those fulfilled by green areas within the neighborhood and within the city. The decision to spend time in extraurban green areas could be more linked to the way individuals like to spend time in nature in general, because they generally appreciate it (which would be a more ecocentric motive), or because they judge it as a good place for doing phys-ical exercises or taking out children (which would be a more anthropocentric motive).


An apparently counterintuitive result concerns the positive (even though fairly low) correlation recorded between opposition (and ambivalence) and the perception of the quality of urban green areas. A possible reason for this finding might be that people with high scores on the opposition scale could have lower expectations in terms of the quality of the green areas in their neighborhood. Further studies should then address the question whether the parameters used to evaluate the quality of urban green areas are the same for all individuals. Although many studies have compared the evaluations of experts and laypeople (e.g., Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995), it is reasonable to expect differences also among nonexperts, for example, as a function of their particular values, attitudes, and needs.

In conclusion, our findings suggest the importance of better investigating the psychological factors explaining why people spend time in various kinds of green areas within and outside the city. This should help in better design-ing and managing these areas.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., Asai, M., & González, A. (2006). A crosscultural study of environmental belief structures. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 145-151.

Bechtel, R. B., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Pinheiro, J. Q. (1999). Environmental belief systems. United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Crosscultural Psychology, 30, 122-128.

Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.

Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimen-sional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352.

Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 631-654.

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environ-ment quality and neighbourhood attachement in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 41-52.

Bonnes et al. 229

Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2006). Perceived residential environment quality in middle and law extension italian cities. Revue Européenne de Psycholo-gie Appliquée, 56, 23-34.

Bonnes, M., Aiello, A., & Ardone, R. G. (1995). Urban resident’s representations of the natural features of the environment. In L. Graumann Kruse (Ed.), Societal dimensions of biosphere reserves: Biosphere reserves for people (pp.13-24). Bonn: MAB.

Bonnes, M., Aiello, A., & Bonaiuto, M. (1999). Les espaces verts de la ville dans les pratiques et les représentations des habitants [Urban green areas in residents’ practices and representations]. Villes en Parallèle, 28/29, 455-473.

Bonnes, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (1995). Expert and layperson evaluation of urban envi-ronmental quality: The “natural” versus the “built” environment. In Y. Guerrier, N. Alexander, J. Chase, & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Values and the environment. A social science perspective (pp. 151-163). New York: John Wiley.

Bonnes, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Passafaro, P. (2004). Inhab-itant’s environmental perceptions in the city of Rome within the framework of Urban Biosphere Reserves of the UNESCO Programme on Man and Biosphere. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1023, 175-186.

Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban studies, 25, 455-473.

Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar concep-tualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.

Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15, 659-698.

Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity and support for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior, 37, 237-257.

Carrus, G., Passafaro, P., & Bonnes, M. (2004). Ambientalismo, etnocentrismo ed auto-ritarismo: una scala di atteggiamento verso il verde urbano [Environmentalism, eth-nocentrism and authoritarianism: an attitude towards urban green scale]. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 242, 3-12.

Castro, P., Garridoa, M., Reisa, E., & Menezesa, J. (2008). Ambivalence and conser-vation behaviour: An exploratory study on the recycling of metal cans. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 24-33.

Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 37-70.

Corral-Verdugo, V., & Armendáriz, L. I. (2000). The “New Environmental Paradigm” in a Mexican community. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 25-31.

Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. (2008). Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation: Towards a New Human Interdependence Paradigm scale. Environment and Behavior, 40, 703-725.


Costarelli, S., & Colloca, P. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on proenvironmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 279-288.

Costarelli, S., & Colloca, P. (2007). The moderation of ambivalence on attitude- intention relations as mediated by attitude importance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 923-933.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of con-temporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.

Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21-38.

Dawes, R., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psy-chology, 35, 111-116.

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 3, 425-442.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). The Psychology of attitudes. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Franson, N., & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychol-ogy, 19, 369-382.

Haenze, M. (2001). Ambivalence, conflict and, decision making: Attitudes and feelings in Germany towards NATO’s military intervention in the Kosovo War. European Journal of Social psychology, 31, 693-706.

Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative environments. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 273-278). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental Conservation, 34, 291-299.

Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2001). Talk about woods and trees: Threat of urbanization, stability and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 125-147.

Herzog, T., & Flynn-Smith, J. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as a function of the curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33, 653-666.

Bonnes et al. 231

Jonas, K., Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 35-74.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspec-tive. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experiences, self-regulation and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387-398.

Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., & Davies, C. (2009). Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 97-108.

Lima, M. L., & Castro, P. (2005). Cultural theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 23-35.

Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 289-303.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-66.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 423-437.

Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2005). Restorative environments in later life. An approach to well-being from the perspective of environmental psychology. Jour-nal of Housing for the Elderly, 19, 205-228.

Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environ-mental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250-269.

Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educa-tional and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984-1001.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs, and pro-environmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1611-1636.

Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: A model explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 369-385.

Thompson, S. G. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitude toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.


Thompson, M. M., & Holmes, J. G. (1996). Ambivalence in close relationship. Con-flicted cognition as a catalyst for change. In R. M. Sorrentino & T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 497-530). New York: Guilford.

Thompson, M. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflict individual: Personality based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Per-sonality, 63, 259-288.

Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indiffer-ent about attitudinal ambivalence. In R. E. Petty, J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecendents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ-ment and Behavior, 30, 75-100.

Wiseman, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783-794.

Bios

Mirilia Bonnes is a professor of environmental psychology and director of the Center for Inter-university Research on Environmental Psychology (CIRPA), at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. She is past president of the UNESCO-MAB Italian Committee. Her research interests refer to the theory of place and to social-psycho-logical approaches to environmental issues. She coauthored with Marino Bonaiuto the chapter “Environmental psychology: From spatial-physical environment to sus-tainable development” within the Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Wiley, 2002).

Paola Passafaro, PhD, is a researcher in Social Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology of the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Her research interests and main publica-tions focus on pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, environmental education, and environmentally sustainable tourism.

Giuseppe Carrus, PhD, is a researcher in Social Psychology at the Faculty of Education of the University of Roma, Tre, Italy. His research interests and main publications focus on proenvironmental attitudes, place-identity processes, and attitude-behavior relations. He coedited with Mirilia Bonnes the Environmental Psychology Section of the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2004).

The Ambivalence of Attitudes Toward Urban Green Areas: Between Proenvironmental Worldviews and Daily Residential Experience

Documents