NE1962: Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Other Green Environments: Understanding Human and Community Benefits and Mechanisms
(Multistate Research Project)
NE1962: Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Other Green Environments: Understanding Human and Community Benefits and Mechanisms
Duration: 10/01/2017 to 09/30/2022
Statement of Issues and Justification
Statement of Issues and Justification:
Research reveals that outdoor recreation, parks and other green environments improve quality of life, promote environmental stewardship and enhance community well-being. However, there are important research and educational gaps in understanding about the extent of and means by which these human-nature outcomes occur. Similar voids exist in knowledge of the dynamics that motivate, constrain, and sustain outdoor recreation activity among various population groups. Furthermore, the role of outdoor recreation, parks and other green environments need additional examination in the context of the socio-ecological systems in which they are embedded. Equally as important, implications of existing research have not permeated the policy arena, community planning or professional training programs.
Quality of life is highly dependent on good health, yet Americans are less physically active today than in the past, a trend that is related to the obesity epidemic. In a 2009 literature review, Godbey found that only a quarter of adults in the United States engaged in recommended physical activity levels and 29% reported no regular physical activity during leisure time. Only half of those aged 12-21 said they regularly participated in vigorous physical activity, and 25% reported no vigorous physical activity at all. The challenge is particularly acute among US youth as one third of US children are overweight and one sixth are obese (Accessed May 14, 2012 from http://prevention.nih.gov/healthtopic_obesity.aspx). Obese children have 2-3 times more risk of being hospitalized. Recent scientific research suggests that the mere act of being outdoors can lead to healthier, active lifestyles for people of all ages. Being outdoors decreases the health effects of pollution from indoor spaces, reduces the chance of overeating, increases physical activity and lowers stress. Studies document that physical activity increases among families that have access to parks, trails and other green environments (e.g., Sallis & Bauman, 1998; Sallis, Hovell, & Hofstetter, 1990, Giles-Corti et al., 2005).
Intuitively, increased outdoor recreation and contact with nature improves environmental literacy. Conversely, a widespread assumption is that contact with nature, particularly among youth, is declining and, in turn causing environmental literacy to decline. While some research exists to support this supposition, the results are scarce, contradictory and mostly correlational. Nonetheless, governments are committing hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriated funds as if the assumption of a cause-effect relationship between outdoor recreation and environmental literacy was supported by empirical evidence. There are few guidelines directing the expenditure of these funds into nature-based recreational programs and infrastructure that bolster environmental literacy, particularly among youth. Early childhood experiences with nature are associated with environmental awareness, advocacy and entry of young people into natural resource careers. If contact between youth and nature is on the decline, it is important to know the consequences related to concern for the environment at a time when global climate change is impacting human systems. A rising research area is focusing attention on the interrelationships among environmental education, environmental conditions, environmental literacy and citizen science group dynamics. One aim of this emerging research effort is the development of effective climate change policies and environmentally responsible behaviors.
Beyond improved individual health and increased environmental literacy, outdoor recreation spaces contribute to community vibrancy and resilience. Natural amenities promote vibrant communities by attracting visitors, new residents and businesses, as natural amenities are correlated with population growth, augmented property values and increased economic prosperity in these communities (Crompton, 2000; Wainger & Price, 2004; Crompton, 2007). The resilience of human communities is linked to the health of ecological systems. Population growth and adverse environmental impacts can affect the qualities (i.e., natural amenities) that attracted new residents and businesses. Understanding of the role of outdoor recreation, parks and other green spaces in developing and sustaining vibrant and resilient communities is still in its nascent stages.
According to the United Nations population division, Homo sapiens became an urban species in 2008. By 2030, around 70% of humans will live in urban settings, most of which are becoming less influenced by natural features and increasingly marked by human objects and human-made climate. Little is known about the negative consequences associated with diminished contact with nature. Even less is known about the mechanisms by which positive effects occur. The purpose of this Multi-State project is to facilitate collaboration that can stimulate new research that augments understanding of the extent and means by which outdoor recreation, parks and other green environments connect individuals to nature and lead to healthier people, natural resources, and communities.
Importance and Consequences if Work is Not Accomplished:
Research that stems from this project will lead to improved understanding of the links between parks and green spaces, outdoor recreation, health, environmental literacy and community vitality. Knowledge from this research will provide the basis for evidence-based practices and policies at national, state and local levels. Such policies will result in lower healthcare costs by providing preventative methods and infrastructure. A 2012 study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) projects that the proportion of Americans who are obese will rise from 35% to 42% by 2030, resulting in $550 billion in obesity-related health care costs. According to CDC studies, childhood obesity, also on the rise, is strongly related to adult obesity. One of CDC's recommended remedies is to improve access to parks and playgrounds. An outcome of the proposed research is decreased national health care costs related to obesity and allied illnesses. Further, promoting active and healthy lifestyles among children will improve future generations' quality of life. Studies show that children who spend time outdoors are more physically active than their indoor counterparts, but little research addresses children's outdoor play time as it relates specifically to health outcomes and environmental literacy. This project will attempt to fill the research void by examining the extent to which diminished contact with nature contributes to increases in childhood obesity and allied illnesses, and decreases in environmental literacy.
Quality of life will also be promoted from this research by enabling professionals to design outdoor recreation opportunities where green infrastructure serves to not only retain and sustain ecosystems but also provides ecological services upon which human health is dependent (Smith, Case, Smith, Harwell, & Summers, 2013). Furthermore, green infrastructure promotes vibrant and resilient communities by attracting young families and tourism businesses. Third, advancing new, participatory approaches to environmental literacy will meet the long-term goal of public adoption of behaviors that will help address environmental challenges, such as climate change. Increasing environmental literacy will also increase citizens' and policy makers' ability to make responsible informed decisions about the environmental future.
Executive Order in 2002 (Exec. Order No. 13266) mandated land management agencies to promote the use of outdoor recreation areas for improved health. Since then, federal land management agencies have moved forward in a variety of ways to address health issues. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) established a “Health and Wellness Steering Committee” to explore the role of national parks in promoting health and implement health-related initiatives (US Department of Interior, National Park Service, 2010.). Since, the NPS added national initiatives that link parks to public health, such as, “Healthy Parks, Healthy People” (HPHP), “Parks Prescriptions” (ParkRx), and “Every Kid in a Park” (O’Dell, 2016). In addition, the USDA Forest Service has estimated the caloric expenditures of recreation activities on Forest Service lands (Kline, Rosenberger & White, 2011). The role of outdoor recreation for a healthier US is recognized as an important study area in the Outdoor Recreation Research and Education strategic plan (USDA CSREES, 2007). More generically, this project addresses a McIntire-Stennis strategic plan (NAUFRP, 2010) priority to understand human behavior and attitudes related to natural resources.
By integrating extension specialists and field educators, the project will guide the next generation of park planners and recreation practitioners via curricular changes and enhancements, trained undergraduate and graduate students, and practitioner outreach.
Technical Feasibility of the Research.
There is a cadre of qualified researchers at land-grant institutions, other public and private institutions, federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations contributing to research efforts related to the scope of this project. There are few technical limitations in outdoor recreation research. The broad approach to this project allows and promotes the recruitment of researchers with a diverse set of skills to practice advanced study designs utilizing such systems and procedures as GIS, photo elicitation, psychometric scaling, modeling, behavioral and physiological monitoring devices, cognitive concentration tests, experimental designs and qualitative and mixed methods techniques. The challenge and opportunity is coordinating across states and projects to effectively share projects, methods and results to achieve the intended outcomes and impacts, and that is a primary benefit of this multi-state project. Specifically, the standardization of methods, assessing reliability across populations and strong leadership will enhance success project outcomes. The collaboration of this project will also allow for the advancement of current methods, e.g., utilizing control groups, adopting measures used in the medical field, and refining survey instruments. Coordinated research that establishes common metrics will enable replication and expand the generalizability, thereby advancing recreational research and creating synergies not yet realized.
Value of a Multi-State Approach.
A Multi-State effort, will allow (a) the assessment of many more settings, which will reveal patterns in outdoor physical activity, literacy and community resilience according to geographic region, place characteristics and demographic groupings, (b) replication in different environments to assess the robustness of results, (c) establishment of baseline data for the tracking of trends, (d) multidisciplinary research, including the fields of health, public health, nutrition and geography and (e) understanding of the extent to which outcomes generalize to broad classes of mechanisms and experiences.
A Multi-State initiative will allow assessment of many more physical activities and outdoor recreation areas at a wider geographic scope (local, state and national) than could be obtained by an investigator in one state. The utility of the research is directly proportional to the number of observations, and since much outdoor recreation activity is concentrated during specific seasons when recreation activities occur, the number of observations that can be made by any one research team is limited. Also, a Multi-State effort will foster the study of more types of possible mechanisms (immune system functioning, physical activity, etc.) by which contact with nature impacts human health.
Research on the relationships between environmental education, childhood and adult experiences with nature and environmental literacy has been largely sporadic and piecemeal. There has been no coordinated effort directed at refuting or substantiating causal connections. As environmental education efforts, requirements and integration with learning standards vary between states, a Multi-State project will allow assessment of environmental literacy that can determine causal links between contact with nature, environmental literacy, and pro-environmental behaviors. Cross comparison between states will help in identifying critical exposure time frames, optimal contact settings, and the most fundamental environmental knowledge. A coordinated effort will also enable replication across environmental settings to assess the robustness of environmental literacy determinants, as well as the long-term implications of nature contact and environmental literacy.
Given the multiple recreation-related indicators of community vibrancy and resilience, there is a need for a coordinated effort to solidify the role of parks and other green spaces on community-level outcomes. In other words, a Multi-State effort would enable more quantitative assessments to identify the influences that park and recreation services have on promoting community vibrancy and resilience. To complete such a complex task, a coordinated effort is needed to develop, refine and employ instruments that can consistently measure the role of parks, green space, and recreation services on community vibrancy and resilience. Once key measures of community vibrancy and resilience are determined, a Multi-State project will further enable replication to determine the robustness of the measures.
This research will be coupled with extension efforts in each state that will disseminate results to recreation, health, educational and community professionals through workshops, presentations, and publications. Results will be widely disseminated through synthesis articles, centers and institutes, land grant outlets at colleges and universities, professional organizations (NRPA, SAF, IANSR, etc.), and Cooperative Extension. A coordinated approach will facilitate the incorporation of extension efforts during research design, data collection and generation, and interpretation of results. This will facilitate the practical application of the Multi-State effort.
We expect this work to lead to improvements in the health of Americans, which will in turn decrease national health care costs due to the prevention of illnesses known to be associated with obesity, lack of physical activity and diminished contacts with nature. Promoting active and healthy lifestyles and environmental literacy among youth will improve future generations' quality of life. Quality of life will also be promoted from this research by supporting vibrant and resilient communities, in which outdoor recreation opportunities and green infrastructure serve not only to protect and sustain ecosystems but also to provide ecological, economic, social, physical and psychological services upon which human health depends. We expect this work to have broad positive effects on human, community and ecological health.
Related, Current and Previous Work
Recreation and Health.
Research on outdoor recreation-associated health benefits has been increasing but typically focuses on specific risk factors (e.g. physical inactivity) rather than preventative measures and outcomes (e.g. healthy weight), and most of the previous research in this area has focused on physical health. Kaczynski and Henderson's (2007) review of 50 empirical studies examining associations between physical activity and park and recreation services found mixed results: 20 studies positive, 20 mixed, 9 no significant associations and one negative. Still, research asserts the positive association between proximity to parks and trails and physical activity across age groups (Boone-Heinonen, Casanova, Richardson, & Gordon-Larsen, 2010; Cohen et al., 2007; Frank, Kerr, Chapman, & Sallis, 2007; Roemmich, et al., 2006).
In terms of health outcomes (beyond specific risk factors), the limited research reveals no statistical association between indicators of recreation opportunity and healthy weight among youth (Potwarka, Kaczynski, & Flack, 2008) or between a neighborhood's access to open space and Body Mass Index (Witten, Hiscock, Pearce, & Blakely, 2008). However, Bell, Wilson, and Liu (2008) reported that greenness was generally associated with a reduction in body mass index in children. Healthy weight and BMI are two physical health outcomes. The 2014 report card on physical activity for U.S. children and youth indicates overall low physical activity indicators with grades of C- to F. The exception was a B- grade for 84.6% of children and youth (aged 6-17) living in neighborhoods with the presence of at least one park or playground. Disparities exist however by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sidewalk and bike path accessibility, usage, perceived neighborhood safety and the parks availability of quality programming (Dentro, Beals, Crouter, Eisenmann, McKenzie, Pate,... & Katzmarzyk, 2014).
Physical health is just one aspect of health, however, and a growing body of research is beginning to explore connections between parks, green space, and other components of health (Hartig et al., 2014; Larson et al., 2016), including the contributions of ecosystem services to multiple aspects of health and well-being (Jennings et al., 2016). For example, Larson et al. (2016) used a holistic measure of subjective well-being that included physical, mental, and social components to demonstrate significant associations between parks and health outcomes in over 40 U.S. cities. In a recent literature review focused on parks and other green environments, Kuo (2010) summarizes rigorous, interdisciplinary and global evidence that persons living in greener neighborhoods have better social, psychological and physical health outcomes that those who do not, even when controlling for socioeconomic and other possibly competing variables. Of particular relevance to this project, contact with nature has been shown to reduce ADHD in children (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2009). Kuo concludes that nearby spectacular scenery and/or physical activity alone are not necessary for achieving positive health effects. Healthy human functioning is sustained as well by the sensory experience stimulated by views of trees and vegetation and/or a walk in a green setting. Other research supports positive links between green space and psychological health (Beyer et al., 2014; Bratman et al., 2012; Cohen-Cline et al., 2015), cognitive functioning (Dadvand et al., 2015), and social development and interactions (Holtan et al., 2015; Zelenski et al., 2015), suggesting that benefits associated with green space and time in nature transcends extend well beyond physical activity promotion.
Studies involving self-reports tend to be in the positive direction regarding park access and health benefits. Local park and recreation users studied by Godbey et al. (1998) reported fewer visits to a physician for purposes other than check-ups than did non-park users, and active park users had better self-reported health and other indicators of good health than did passive users and non-park users. More recent literature reviews confirm these findings (Ho, Payne, Orsega-Smith, & Godbey, 2003; Maller, Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St. Ledger, 2005). The majority of outdoor recreation and health research focuses on communities or neighborhoods. When examined at a larger geographic scale, research related to park proximity and health beyond is similarly inconsistent as found in Kaczynski and Henderson's (2007) review. The four published studies at the macro-level reveal stronger connections exist between state level outdoor recreation opportunities and physical activity than between outdoor recreation opportunities and obesity (Edwards et al., 2011; Rosenberger et al., 2005; Rosenberger et al., 2009; West et al., 2012). Larson, Jennings & Cloutier’s (2016) recent study on urban parks quality, quantity and accessibility as a predictor of five elements of human well-being provide insights in parks contribution to public health.
Much work has focused on urban parks, however Kline, Rosenberger, and White (2011) found that national forest lands significantly contribute to physical activity among the U.S. American public. Children with closer access to recreational facilities and programs have been shown to be more active (e.g. Cohen et al., 2007). However, studies reveal as many as half of park users are sedentary (Floyd, Spengler, Maddock, Gobster, & Suau, 2008; Shores & West, 2008).
Regardless of proximity or access, constraints to outdoor recreation intervene to prevent interest, participation and subsequent benefit attainment (Jackson & Scott, 1999). Initially, Crawford and Godbey (1987) identified three types of constraints: intrapersonal constraints (e.g., perceived lack of skill), interpersonal constraints (e.g., no one to go with), and structural constraints (e.g., lack of time/money). The latest evolution of constraints research differentiates structural constraints into four sub-categories: natural environment, social environment, territorial, and institutional (Walker & Virden, 2005). Structural constraints are of primary interest as they appear the most manageable. Understanding how and to what extend different populations enjoy the health benefits associated with green space is a central component of this project.
Recreation and Environmental Literacy.
Finding strong associations between various components of environmental literacy (e.g., knowledge and awareness) and behavior has proven to be elusive. The oldest and simplest models of pro-environmental behavior proposed the following relationship, which was shown to be wrong (Bruyere, 2008; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002): Environmental knowledge à Environmental attitude à Pro-environmental behavior. Simply put, increases in knowledge and positive attitudes were found not to lead to pro-environmental behavior. More advanced theories, models and methodologies have been proposed to clarify the complex relationship between attitude and behavior measurement (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Hines, Hungerford & Tomera, 1986; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Stern, Dietz & Karlof, 1993; Hsu, 2004; Wells & Lekies, 2006). However, discovering a single framework or model that captures the complexity of the forces that shape environmental behavior has also proven to be elusive (Goodwin, 2016; Mcbride, Brewer, Berkowitz, & Borrie, 2013).
Instead of trying to find the all-encompassing framework, some researchers have focused their attention on the factors that are thought to influence pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Gender and years of education are consistently linked to environmental attitude, knowledge and willingness to change. Age and income have also been studied, but results are mixed and context-specific (Barr, 2003; Cottrell, 2003; Larson et al., 2011). Consistent with previous studies, most researchers find that environmental knowledge accounts for only small amounts of variation in pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Kempton et al., 1995; Maitney, 2002; Morrone et al., 2001; Siemer & Knuth, 2001; Stables and Bishop, 2001). Early childhood experience was not studied to any systematic extent prior to 2002, but recent evidence is reviewed below. Direct links between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior have yielded mixed results, with level of association increasing as the specificity of the attitude matches the specificity of the targeted behavior. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) conclude their review of various models and factors by arguing that establishing new behavior requires practice and enough persistence until it becomes a habit.
Maitney's (2002) research provides evidence for the centrality of emotional involvement and direct experience in sustaining pro-environmental values and behavior. In congruence with Maitney, Siemer and Knuth (2001) found that fishing programs with direct fishing experience, the teaching of fishing skills and mentoring were more likely to influence antecedents of responsible behaviors in 12-14 year olds than fishing education programs without these elements. Other researchers have found an association between (a) outdoor recreation participation and environmental sensitivity (Palmer, 1993; Tanner, 1980) and (b) outdoor recreation and environmental knowledge and concern (Kellert, 1985).
Morrone, Mancl and Carr (2001) argue that ecological knowledge is a necessary, but insufficient, component of environmental literacy. Through a review of the literature and the use of experts, Morrone et al. (2001) developed an instrument that measured eight critical dimensions of ecological knowledge. In a study of Ohio residents, they found their instrument to be compatible with the theoretical literature and capable of discerning important group differences and similarities, including minority and nonminority variation.
Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009) proposed a nature relatedness construct to describe the connectedness individuals experience with the natural world. This construct encompasses an individual's feelings for and appreciation of nature, as well as an understanding of the importance of nature. Findings suggest that individuals with higher nature relatedness spent more time outdoors participating in nature-related activities, were more often involved in environmental groups and pro-environmental behaviors such as sustainable consumption, and had stronger views about ecological problems.
The concept of action competence may also be related to the idea of environmental literacy. According to Jensen and Schnack (2006), action competence comprises both the analysis of environmental problems and the ability to envision and act on alternate environmental developments. Gooch et al. (2008) found that the development of "action-oriented" unit lesson plans could be effective in empowering students to act environmentally. Chawla and Cushing (2007), in their review of the findings of studies on action competence, found multiple factors to influence pro-environmental behaviors, including: experiencing nature as a child, having role models, participation in environmental organizations, and the development of action skills.
Research based on place-based learning likewise offers potential in expanding knowledge of environmental literacy (Johnson, Duffin, & Murphy, 2012). Kudryavtsev, Krasny and Stedman (2012) found that programs involving youth in environmental stewardship, recreation, environmental skills development, and environmental monitoring increased ecological place meaning, but did not strengthen students' place attachment.
In terms of research on youth and lifespan development, Wells and Lekies (2006) provide a review of the scholarship in three areas: outcomes of outdoor play and access to nature, environmental education program efficacy, and role of significant life experiences in adult environmental commitment. As to outdoor play and access to nature, studies have found evidence of short term links between contact with nature and children's emotional and cognitive well-being (Faber Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Faber, Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2002; Kellert, 2002; Wells, 2000; Wells & Evans, 2003. A few studies have examined longer term associations with a variety of dependent variables. Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt (2002) found support for the influence of childhood play outdoors on adolescent environmental preferences, outdoor recreation participation and outdoor occupations. Lohr and Pearson-Mims (2005) learned that childhood activities connected to plants (growing up next to a garden, picking vegetables, planting trees, etc.) and time spent outdoors with trees or in parks predicted adulthood beliefs about plants and the propensity to complete a gardening class.
Environmental education research has focused on the extent to which such programs result in knowledge, attitude or behavior change and typically utilize pre- and post-program measures over relatively short time spans (e.g., Armstrong & Impara, 1991; Kellert, 1985; Pooley & O'Connor, 2000; Ramsey & Hungerford, 1989). Significant life experiences research explores the association between childhood nature experiences and adult environmental commitment primarily among environmental professionals or activists. A major finding is that childhood experiences with nature create a pathway to environmentalism among the groups studied (Chawla, 1999; Corcoran, 1999; Sward, 1999). However, Wells and Lekies (2006) surmise that the generalizabililty of such findings are limited due to the almost exclusive focus on environmental activists or professionals. Wells and Lekies conclude that long-term effects of early childhood unstructured play outdoors on older adult environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors have not been substantiated.
In an attempt to fill this research void, Wells and Lekies (2006) employed a long-term, life course perspective and structural equation modeling based on results from a large representative sample of 2,000 individuals, aged 18-90, who were also urban dwellers. Controlling for age, race, gender, income and education, they found evidence for a significant, positive association between childhood nature experiences and adult environmental attitudes and behaviors.
Recreation and Community Resiliency and Vibrancy.
According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), vibrant public spaces encourage interpersonal interaction, collective engagement in community events and civic participation (AIA, 2007). In the outdoor recreation field, the vibrancy construct is not well developed but it is thought to foster resilience and promote sustainable communities (McManus et al., 2012). Resilience is a reflection of a system's overall health and sustainability (Cumming et al., 2005). In the context of coupled social-ecological systems, resilience has been defined as, the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Forbes et al., 2009, p. 22041). The idea of resilience in a coupled social-ecological system is associated with adaptive renewal and sustainability rather than stability or a static, unchanging system (Gunderson and Holling, 2002).
Magis (2010) synthesized literature and convened a roundtable process with 60 natural resource and community development professionals to develop a definition of community resilience. They identified seven characteristics of community resilience (e.g., community resources, collective action, strategic action) and offered the following definition of community resilience.
“…The existence, development, and engagement of community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members of resilient communities intentionally develop personal and collective capacity that they engage to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community, and to develop new trajectories for the communities’ future.” (Magis, 2010, p. 402).
Community resilience is a process that occurs as individuals, communities, and institutions interact across natural and built environments. Based on a synthesis of literature defining the resilience concept, Burkes and Ross (2013) identified 9 community characteristics (i.e., knowledge, skills and learning; leadership; values and beliefs; social networks, engaged governance; positive outlook; community infrastructure; diverse and innovative economy, and people-place connections) that are “drawn into combined influence” (page 14) through community agency and self-organization, to create community resilience. They also note that, “the resilience of individuals and households is linked to that of the community” (Berkes and Ross, 2013, p. 15). They suggest that community service projects, which community members select and design themselves, can be considered as resilience-building strategies. Participating in such projects “… empower the group or community through a series of small successes and learning experiences. Such processes build cohesion and a sense of community while achieving tangible outcomes such as infrastructure improvements and economic diversification …” (Berkes & Ross, 2013, p. 16). Thus, measuring the degree to which outdoor recreationists become involved in their communities may be a useful index of whether involvement in outdoor recreation is contributing to future community resilience.
Current work and previous work related to vibrancy and resilience in a few key areas are highlighted in the following subsections.
Communities and change.
A community's growth trajectory may change dependent upon unplanned (e.g., natural disasters) or planned events (e.g., policy change). Growth of a community or its ability to respond to change without negatively altering a desired growth pattern is at the heart of a vibrant community's resilience and ultimate survival and prosperity. The 21st century has illuminated that many natural resources are not renewable and can easily be compromised, placing the health and vibrancy of a community in jeopardy.
After examining U.S. rural counties, (Reeder & Brown, 2005) concluded that areas dependent on recreation and tourism fared better than other rural counties on key social-economic indicators. Counties located near metropolitan areas or significant natural resources heightened most impacts in a positive direction. Reeder and Brown, and others who study amenity rich communities, attribute population and economic growth to natural resources for recreation, tourism, and housing choices. Gateway communities or towns and cities in the wildland-urban interface enjoy many benefits attributed to the natural resources nearby. A growing society of retirees and more professions that enable off-corporate or campus work environments is piquing the interest of urban dwellers to live where the natural resources are plentiful and of high quality, thereby offering outdoor recreation activities and lifestyles (Crompton, 2007).
Economic vitality is a key component of change that is bolstered by green space. The distribution of urban green space can vary across neighborhoods and provides a reasonable proxy for a community’s socio-economic status (Bruton & Floyd, 2014; Vaughan et al., 2013). For example, green space projects can revitalize communities by creating green jobs, increasing property values, and improving public health (Branas et al., 2011; Kondo et al., 2015; Schilling & Logan, 2008). A study in Philadelphia found that views of local greened lots significantly decreased heart rates when compared to non-green lots, implying that reducing neighborhood blight can minimize stress and enhance human health (Kondo et al., 2015). Local property values also illustrate the economic impact of urban green spaces (Cho et al., 2006; Kovacs, 2012). In as study of property values in northern Los Angeles, Conway et al. (2010) observed that home prices in older urban communities were higher in neighborhoods with greening programs. They also recommend that future studies expand their analysis to include more attributes and values of green space—not just those centered on housing prices. A similar study in New York City compared neighborhood property values within multiple distances of community gardens. They found that gardens have significant positive effects on property values, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Voicu & Been, 2008). These studies suggest that economic stability is closely associated with green space and outdoor recreation opportunities, cultivating a relationship that can lead to better community health outcomes.
Communities that recognize and plan for change are more likely to be resilient. Scientists and community outreach specialists, however, need to identify case studies and indicators that describe the substance of communities. They also need to model the processes by which change was managed and vibrancy and resilience were achieved (Bosselman, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1999).
Civic ecology and conservation recreation.
As noted by Leopold (1938) and others (e.g., Scott, 1958), participation in outdoor recreation in and of itself is no guarantee that conservation will be accomplished, and could instead result in ecological damage and even loss of social capital through exclusion of some potential participants. Tidball and Krasny (2010) defined conservation activities that include a civic purpose as civic ecology practices (p. 1). They noted that, although often viewed as initiatives to improve a degraded environment, [these practices] also foster social attributes of resilient social-ecological systems, including volunteer engagement and social connectedness (Tidball & Krasny, 2010, p. 1). Civic ecology practices such as tree planning, habitat restoration and community gardening can occur across the rural-urban continuum (Krasny & Tidball, 2010, 2015; Krasny et al., 2014). Within the universe of civic ecology practices is a subset of nature-based activities that might be defined as conservation recreation activities.
Conservation recreation occurs when participation in nature-based recreation activities foster broader outcomes purported to arise from civic ecology practices, including individual, community and ecological well-being. Cooper et al. (2015) highlight connections between nature-based recreation and one of these broader outcomes – participation in pro-environmental or conservation-oriented behavior. They found that individuals who engage in wildlife-dependent recreation activities were significantly more likely to engage in various forms of pro-environmental behavior, including supporting conservation policies, donating to conservation causes, enhancing wildlife habitat on public lands, and participating in environmental groups. Similar patterns have been observed in other studies (Larson et al., 2011; Teisl & O’Brien, 2003), highlighting the growing need for research that examines why these connections exist and how they can be promoted and leveraged to support healthy and sustainable communities.
Sense of place.
The phrase “sense of place” encompasses a group of cognitions and affective sentiments people hold regarding a particular geographic locale (Farnum, Hall, & Kruger, 2005; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001, 2006). A conceptual framework integrating place-based concepts is emerging from the literature (Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2014). Two key components of sense of place are place meanings and place attachment. Place meanings are cognitive, descriptive, or symbolic statements about what kind of a place a setting represents. Place meanings can be derived from a variety of sources including interaction with the environment and the interconnectedness of environmental features, psychological developments, and sociocultural processes. Place attachment as the psychological, affective bond that an individual forms with a particular setting (Kudryavtsev et al. 2012b). These bonds are influenced by the values people ascribe to a place (i.e., place meanings). Anecdotal information suggests that outdoor recreation in a specific place can contribute to place meanings and subsequent place attachment. Quantitative research is needed to confirm the veracity of this belief in various context for outdoor recreation.
Having urban community open spaces has been associated with reports of a strong sense of community, or perceptions of a healthier community among community residents (DeGraaf & Jordan, 2003; Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Kesebir & Deiner, 2008; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998; Peters, Elands, & Buijs, 2010; Francis, Giles-Corti, Wood, & Knuiman, 2012). There is evidence to suggest that people tend to prefer green spaces over paved spaces (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997), but the reasons for those preferences are not well understood. Research is needed to document the full range of benefits that neighborhood parks and natural areas provide, both as catalysts of social cohesion, and as providers of ecosystem services.
Parks, natural areas, and other types of open space have the potential to create a sense of place that yields psychological and environmental stewardship benefits. Several studies have found a positive association between sense of place and pro-environmental behaviors (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Stedman, 2002; Walker & Chapman, 2003; Ryan, 2005; Halpenny, 2010; Hernandez et al., 2010; Scannell & Gifford 2010), leading to the research hypothesis that pro-environmental behaviors can be encouraged by getting people engaged in activities that elevate sense of place and place attachment (Walker & Chapman, 2003).
Repurposing outdoor spaces.
Through the community change process, many remnants or overused parcels of land fall into disuse and may be left aside with diminished value. Community planners and park and recreation professionals are viewing sites formerly developed as housing, military installations, industrial corridors, landfills, or transportation lines as opportunities for redevelopment and the creation of new places for outdoor recreation and tourism. These redevelopment sites have been shown to revitalize natural habitats, sometimes with the original species, and mitigate urban sprawl by infilling in the core of a community rather than the edges. Repurposing of natural resources may be one of the prime examples of sustainable development and systems thinking.
Johnson, Glover, & William (2009) studied a landfill-to-park redevelopment through the views of a nearby neighborhood. The research illustrates that community planning is necessary to create sense of place in an abandoned site that is a threat to human health and quality of life. Klenosky, LeBlanc, Vogt and Schroeder (2008), along with Forest Service scientists and park managers, have studied several repurposing brownfields in Midwest and Eastern cities. These spaces integrate nature's resiliency with the human desire to recreate in a variety of outdoor spaces. Rail corridors converted into bike and walking trails is another example of repurposing industrial landscapes. Research has profiled the nature and level of use, as well as the importance of rail-trails to foster active transportation and physical exercise for residents and tourists of all ages.
Scholars also are beginning to investigate how outdoor spaces undergo spontaneous, unplanned repurposing, and what those changes imply for land stewardship and community vibrancy and resilience. Creation of outdoor spaces and sacred places (OSSP) is often the result of spontaneous, self-organizing acts that are motivated by stewards' sense of community and need for healing rituals, and are expressed through myriad relationships with nature (Roberts, 2002; Svendsen & Campbell, 2010; Tidball et al., 2010). As such, the emergence of OSSPs is part of a socio-ecological process of disturbance and resilience (Berkes & Folke, 1998, 2002; Stedman & Ingalls, 2013). Stewards use their immediate landscape act as a mechanism to foster collective resilience in the aftermath of a crisis (Tidball 2010; Tidball & Krasny, 2013). This "adaptive capacity" of environmental stewards is essential to a healthy society and to overall ecosystem function (Folke et al., 2003; Gallopin, 2006; Tidball and Krasny, 2007).
The act of local OSSP creation and stewardship is an act fundamental to the healing process of those involved (Tidball et al., 2010). Studies of environmental volunteers find that stewardship activities help to lessen feelings of isolation and disempowerment and can strengthen neighborhood attachment (Townsend, 2006; Svendsen & Campbell, 2006; Comstock et al., 2010). Research on urban greening has shown that different benefits from these projects are derived at the individual, organization, and community levels (Westphal, 2003, 1999; Wolf, 2008). Studies of community gardeners have found that at the individual level, stewardship can promote relaxation, mitigate stress, create self-confidence, and strengthen sense of control and self-efficacy; at the collective level it can help to establish trust, strengthen social cohesion, share knowledge, and leave a legacy (Baker, 2004; Dow, 2006; Glover et al., 2005; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny, 2004; Svendsen, 2009; Teig et al., 2009).
Furthermore, studies have pointed to the therapeutic and symbolic value of trees, treescapes, and other aspects of nature (Anderson, 2004; Jones & Cloke, 2002; Miller, 1997; Perlman, 1994; Tidball 2014). Plants, as well as interacting with plants (e.g., through gardening, tree planting), appear to aid in resistance and resilience through psychophysiological effects (Hartig et al., 1991; Heerwagen, 2009; Korpela & Ylen, 2007; Kuo, 2001; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Kweon et al., 1998; McCaffrey et al., 2010; Wells, 2003). Nature is also a crucial resource for communities recovering from disaster (Hull, 1992; Ottosson & Grahn, 2008).
The purpose of extending this project (NE1962) is to provide evidence for the role of and mechanisms by which parks and other green environments support human well-being in three areas (health, environmental literacy, community vibrancy/resilience) and extend the knowledge gained to practitioners and other affected groups.
1. Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting physical activity and associated preventative health benefits, particularly among youth.
2. Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting environmental literacy among youth, and document the long-term influences of early lifespan connections with nature.
3. Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting community vibrancy and resilience.
As this project seeks to develop collaborations and new research, a specific methodology is not yet defined. The methods listed below will serve as a starting point from which to advance methodology.
Objective 1: Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting physical activity and associated preventative health benefits, particularly among youth, as well as constraints to this activity.
Park and recreation services are defined as the public services, nonprofit agencies, and private businesses composed of professionals who work to connect people to leisure and leisure behavior (Henderson, 2014). A variety of methods have been and will continue to be used to evaluate the success of park and outdoor recreation services for understanding physical activity and outdoor activities, as well as constraints to outdoor activities. Surveys, interviews, direct observation and GIS examine not only the amount and type of physical activity by various age and ethnic groups, but also constraints to such activity and the key role of proximity. Expanding this systems-based approach to account for a broader array of socio-ecological forces and interactions is needed.
Auditing and assessment tools (e.g., SOPLAY-System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth; and NEWS-Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale) are furthering the evidence and information, as is photo elicitation. Photo elicitation was used by Montanez et al. (2012) to explore children's perceptions of places to be physically active. Behavioral monitoring devices, such as pedometers and accelerometers are used to measure volume and intensity of activity associated with various types of outdoor facilities and amenities.
Concentration performance tests, clinical depression diagnostic tools, physiological measures using standard medical instrumentation and protocols (blood pressure, pulse, nerve and brain wave activity, blood cortisol and glucose levels, immune cells, etc.), experimental designs and large scale studies with statistical controls have been and are being employed in separate studies across the US and in other countries. The linkage between outdoor physical activity and longer-term well-being has yet to be established. Discovering evidence for such a linkage will require cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental designs.
Determining the validity of the assumption that the amount of outdoor physical activity is declining across broad segments of the population will require establishing a baseline for comparison purposes. Meta-analyses of previous published research and identification of unpublished data are two methods for establishing a baseline. Subsequently, monitoring in multiple states for comparison purposes using a variety of behavioral (e.g., accelerometer) and direct observation procedures should be implemented; settings should also be varied (private residences, city streets, schoolyards, city, state and national parks, forests, and open space, etc.).
Objective 2: Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting environmental literacy among youth, and document the long-term influences of early lifespan connections with nature.
Research on the correlation between reduced outdoor recreation, contact with nature and reduced environmental literacy is primarily based on single case studies and anecdotal evidence popularized by Richard Louv and the Nature-Deficit Disorder concept. The majority of research has been quantitative studies of specific environmental education programs that are short term, rely mostly on retrospective self-reports, and lack longitudinal programmatic evaluations (Wells and Lekies, 2006). Studies providing evidence for short-term associations between childhood nature contact and adult environmental outcomes are fairly numerous, but they are 10 to 15 years old and mostly correlational. The study by Hsu (2004) is more recent, but again only provides results related to short-term impacts (two months). In addition, the results were based on a sample of college students who took a formal environmental education class. There is still much to learn about the effect of childhood experience with nature and unstructured outdoor play on adult environmentalism (literacy and behavior).
Despite the lack of long-term experimental evidence, researchers have developed theoretical frameworks necessary to begin experimental and longitudinal research (Tidball & Krasny, 2011; Wimberley, 2009). These theoretical frameworks encourage nested research that studies humans within larger social and environmental systems. Additionally, researchers have developed instruments to assess the impacts of environmental education efforts on environmental quality (Duffin, Murphy, & Johnson, 2008; Short, 2009). Thus, one group of scholars is calling for a current and sustained research effort focused on establishing causality, utilizing experimental or quasi-experimental designs and prospective, longitudinal designs.
Others disagree (Courtney-Hall & Rogers, 2002; Maiteny, 2002), arguing that the behavior-modeling, causality approach creates epistemological problems. Instead of relying on positivistic, deterministic approaches to understanding environmental literacy, Courtney-Hall and Rogers (2002) emphasize the need for more interpretive research approaches and equal use of qualitative procedures. Thus, other scholars are interested in taking advantage of emerging methodologies that utilize a mixed methods research approach. Through the use of research techniques such as interviews and surveys, these researchers will be able to explore elements related to contact with nature and environmental literacy, and then quantify these elements. Concepts identified in interviews and findings of previous studies on environmental literacy (Wells & Lekies, 2006; Ewert, Place & Sibthorp, 2005; Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2005; Roth, 1992) will be used to develop survey instruments; demographic questions and questions about the type of environmental settings primarily experienced during childhood (e.g., urban, rural) will also be included.
Objective 3: Demonstrate and expand the evidence for the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting community vibrancy and resilience.
In addition to traditional quantitative and qualitative methods, research and engagement methods in this category could include community-based participatory research methods, such as Becker, Harris, McLaughlin and Nielsen's (2003) Interactive Community Forum, or participatory modeling strategies similar to those described by Chase et al. (2010). Researchers could also include economic analyses, using input/output and counterfactual models designed to assess the development of tourism-based industry in rural locations. Past examples include assessments of development adjacent to high amenity resources, such as gateway communities to national parks (Krannich & Petrazelka, 2003), and regional economic indices developed by Eschker (Humboldt State University) and Lee (Plymouth State University).
Researchers who examine the roles of green environments in urban communities are using unique, non-survey procedures. For example, researchers in Illinois have documented negative correlations between natural areas and crime through methods such as photo elicitation (Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998) and comparing aerial photography and crime reports (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Additionally, The Trust for Public Land documents the willingness of community members to be taxed for parks and green space preservation through its analysis of ballot initiatives. GIS applications are becoming common within community-based recreation research to visually identify the links between community indicators and parks, recreation resources, and other green environments. Systems-based approaches are also being seen as essential in order to adequately explain the influences of a broad array of socio-ecological forces and interactions.
Still needed are research designs that clarify interconnections between outdoor recreation activity and indicators of resilience. Resilience is a multi-dimensional concept, so a range of resilience measures need to be applied in an outdoor recreation context. Human contributions to community resilience can be measured at an individual (psychological) or a collective (social) level. New indicators are being developed to address some research questions under the broad umbrella of community resilience. For example, Larson et al. (2015) developed indicators of pro-environmental behavior (PEB) that can be applied in a recreation research context. Cooper et al. (2015) applied those indicators to demonstrate a connection between wildlife-dependent outdoor recreation and expression of pro-environmental behaviors.
Measurement of Progress and Results
- General Outputs Comments: -Regular meetings with multistate group, including annual in-persona gathering and virtual interactions throughout the year -Centralized location (e.g., Multistate Research Project website) that serves as hub for information sharing, including repository for research studies, instruments, and measures related to parks, outdoor recreation, health and well-being, environmental literacy, and community resiliency. -Project Synthesis papers and presentations for professional associations, such as the Society of Outdoor Recreation Professional (SORP) & National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and for dissemination to practitioners. -Standardized 1-2 page factsheets on study findings that will be distributed to recreation program managers at various government agencies (local, state and federal) and nongovernmental organizations. -Workshops, symposia, or conference sessions that connect researchers, extension specialists, and practitioners to present the mechanisms by which parks and other green environments support (1) human health, (2) environmental literacy and (3) community vibrancy and resiliency, as well as fostering continued and new engagement in this Multistate Research Project. -Increased student participation and engagement in the Multistate Group to enhance networking and professional development opportunities -Generate external funding from agency, foundation, and/or corporate sponsors to support Multistate research efforts and objectives
- Health & Well-being Comments: -Development, implementation and refinement of reliable and valid scales that measure different types of park, recreation, and nature-related health outcomes across diverse populations -Peer-reviewed publications and professional conference presentations that document the role of parks and outdoor recreation service in promoting associated preventative health benefits across diverse populations.
- Environmental Literacy Comments: -Development, implementation and refinement of reliable and valid scales that measure the diverse ways that children and adults think about and engage with nature, including environmental literacy, knowledge, attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. -Peer-reviewed publications and professional conference presentations that document the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting environmental literacy among youth and adults
- Community Vibrancy & Resiliency Comments: -Development, implementation and refinement of reliable and valid scales that measure the different components and contributors to community vibrancy and resiliency, including economic development, governance, civic ecology, conservation recreation, sense of place, environmental stewardship, and related concepts. -Peer-reviewed publications and professional conference presentations that document the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting community vibrancy and resilience, particularly as it relates to transformative communities, economic development, sense of place, and repurposing outdoor spaces. -Peer-reviewed publications and professional conference presentations that document long-term influences of early lifespan connections with nature, particularly in relation to environmental literacy and pro-environmental behaviors, including policy support and stewardship engagement.
Outcomes or Projected Impacts
- General Outcomes (short-term) -Enhanced national coordination and scientific capacity to address contemporary problems in parks and recreation by applying and revising state-of-the-art knowledge. -Creation and cultivation of relationships with potential research funding partners, including federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and foundations -Forecasts for park use and recreation visitor volume and trends, and plans for appropriate recreation management responses.
- Health and Well-Being Outcomes (short-term) -Increased understanding of the multifaceted health benefits of recreation in parks and other green environments. -Increased understanding of the mechanisms through which health benefits, particularly in relation to healthy human habitat, occur. -Increased understanding of how these benefits are experienced across diverse populations.
- Environmental Literacy Outcomes (short-term) -Documentation of trends in unstructured outdoor play (i.e., amount of time spent in unstructured outdoor play). -Increased understanding of the strength of relationships between unstructured and structured (i.e., environmental education programs) contact with nature and environmental literacy. -Identification of critical developmental points that are more important than others in terms of childhood engagement with nature. -Increased understanding of the role of outdoor recreation on enhancing cognitive development and school performance among youth.
- Community Vibrancy & Resiliency Outcomes (short-term) -Increased understanding of the ecological, economic and social contributions of recreation to community vibrancy and resilience. -Awareness among researchers and providers of standardized methods and instruments to measure community vibrancy and resilience related to outdoor recreation, parks and other green environments. -Development of recreation planning documents incorporate resilience, vibrancy and recreation. -Increased understanding of outdoor recreations role in larger socio-ecological systems in terms its contribution to human health, environmental literacy and community vibrancy and resilience.
- General Impacts (long-term) -Transformative research that positions parks, green spaces and outdoor recreation as key components of a sustainable and healthy future -Creation and cultivation of relationships among researchers, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and foundations to help support sustainable park and outdoor recreation systems -Effective education, communication and promotion of the value of parks, green spaces and outdoor recreation across diverse populations.
- Health & Well-being Impacts (long-term) -Increased public awareness of active recreation opportunities and relationships to personal health. -Increased participation rates in active outdoor recreation, particularly among youth. -Infrastructure that supports healthy lifestyle choices, such as increased pedestrian and bicycle transportation coordinators to schools. -Improved health and quality of life across diverse populations. -Reduced strain on healthcare costs and the healthcare system via integration of nature-based health promotion strategies. -Inclusion of outdoor recreation in health education requirements. -Enhancement of school-based recreation programs to promote healthy lifestyle choices.
- Environmental Literacy Impacts (long-term) -Public awareness of environmental and ecosystem processes. -Public awareness of ecological footprint (individual consumption), including recreation-related footprints and impacts. -Citizens engage with natural resources, including participation in environmental education, interpretation and conservation stewardship programs. -National education curriculum includes experiential environmental education. -Greater support for environmental policies and natural resource conservation. -Development of environmental and outdoor programs targeted towards specific youth populations
- Community Vibrancy & Resiliency Impacts (long-term) -Enhanced sense of place and public attachment to natural environment. -Awareness among community leaders and entrepreneurs of the role of park and outdoor recreation services in promoting community vibrancy and resilience. -Outdoor recreation enterprises contribute to communities' economic stability. -Awareness among citizens of role of natural resource amenities and recreation service delivery systems on tax revenues. -Improved social networks and community ties from increased contact with community members during outdoor recreation. -Increased work productivity. -Youth who become responsible outdoor recreationists and resource stewards. -Sustainable and accessible outdoor recreation environments that lead to resilient communities and high quality of life. -Citizens engage in pro-environmental behaviors. -Increased public engagement and participation in park and natural resource-related decision making and policy development
Milestones(2018):• Creation of NE1962 Multistate Project website that serves multiple functions including categorized inventory of ongoing projects across multistate partners, documentation of contributors/partners and project-related resources, communication forum, and recruiting tool for new collaborators. • Development of formal and coordinated grant proposal process for NE1962 partners to prepare for future grant submissions • Increased NE1962 engagement and participation (including annual meeting and other virtual meetings throughout the year) • Identification of collaborative research and funding opportunities • Annual meeting in Washington, DC •Investigate possibility of future NE1962 annual meetings to be held in Mountain or West Coast location to increase western states’ participation
(2019):• Continued coordination of group efforts and ongoing research, including development, implementation and refinement of instruments and scales for assessing key outcome variables. • Publication of ongoing research. • Coordinated pursuit of research and funding opportunities. • Outreach and information dissemination of existing projects, including resources for extension specialists on project website. • Coordinate conference session and/or panel discussion that highlights NE1962 Multistate Project and outcomes related to at least one project objective • Annual meeting (location TBD)
(2020):• Continued coordination of group efforts and ongoing research, including development, implementation, and refinement of instruments and scales for assessing key outcome variables. • Publication of ongoing research. • Coordinated pursuit of research and funding opportunities, with successful acquisition of at least one collaborative, externally-funded grant • Outreach and information dissemination of existing projects, including resources for extension specialists on project website. • Annual meeting (location TBD)
(2021):• Continued coordination of group efforts and ongoing research, including development, implementation and refinement of instruments and scales for assessing key outcome variables. • Publication of ongoing research. • Coordinated pursuit of research and funding opportunities, with successful acquisition of at least one collaborative, externally-funded grant • Outreach and information dissemination of existing projects, including resources for extension specialists on project website. • Coordinate conference session and/or panel discussion that highlights NE1962 Multistate Project and outcomes related to at least one project objective • Annual meeting (location TBD)
(2022):• Continued coordination of group efforts and ongoing research, including development, implementation and refinement of instruments and scales for assessing key outcome variables. • Publication of ongoing research. • Coordinated pursuit of research and funding opportunities, with successful acquisition of at least one collaborative, externally-funded grant • Outreach and information dissemination of existing projects, including resources for extension specialists on project website. • Annual meeting (location TBD) • Future planning for renewal of Multistate Project
(2023):• Continued coordination of group efforts and ongoing research, including development, implementation and refinement of instruments and scales for assessing key outcome variables. • Publication of ongoing research. • Coordinated pursuit of research and funding opportunities, with successful acquisition of at least one collaborative, externally-funded grant • Outreach and information dissemination of existing projects, including resources for extension specialists on project website. • Annual meeting (location TBD) • Renewal of Multistate Project
Projected ParticipationView Appendix E: Participation
Research results from NE-1962 are of interest to academic audiences as well as various publics including community and youth leaders, policymakers, K-12 schools and organizations. During the first year of this project, efforts will be made to invite Extension faculty and specialists to integrate formal outreach programming into the project. NE-1962 members will make research results available through scientific journals, Extension publications, fact sheets, popular press news articles, and appropriate websites and social media outlets. In addition, NE-1962 members will present at national and international conferences as well as regional and local workshops and meetings. A listing of publications by NE-1962 members will be updated annually and posted on the official NE-1962 website. Internal communication related to NE-1962 will be facilitated by the annual meeting, official website, and google group.
The organization of project NE-1962 was established in accordance with the Manual for Cooperative Regional Research. A Technical Committee will be formed that grants voting membership for elections. One representative from each participating organization, agency or institution can serve on the Technical Committee, with appointments made through appropriate administrative channels of the organization, agency or institution. In year one, a Chair will be elected and will serve a one-year term. Primary duties of the Chair include: scheduling and organizing the annual meeting, managing participant contact information lists, and managing the communication network. A Chair Elect will be elected in years 1, 2, 3, and 4, serving a one-year term before serving as the Chair in the subsequent year. Duties of the Chair Elect include: serving as secretary and drafting and submitting the annual report. All appointments (chair, chair-elect, and technical committee) will be annual with terms beginning October 1. Each year a 1-2 day annual meeting will be held, in a location chosen by the chair and with in-person participation only.
- Peter Fix - University of Alaska, Fairbanks;
- Taylor Stein - University of Florida;
- Kristi Lekies - The Ohio State University;
- Alia Dietsch - The Ohio State University;
- William Siemer - Cornell University;
- Keith Tidball – Cornell University;
- Sandra De Uriste-Stone – University of Maine;
- Lincoln Larson - North Carolina State University;
- Myron Floyd – North Carolina State University;
- Amy Villamagna – Plymouth State University;
- Brian Eisenhauer – Plymouth State University;
- Kathleen Scholl - University of Northern Iowa.
Ajzen, J., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
American Institute of Architects (2007). AIA Communities by Design's 10 principles of livable communities. Accessed June 11, 2012 from: http://www.aia.org/about/initiatives/AIAS075369
Anderson, K. (2004). Nature, culture, and big old trees: Live oaks and ceibas in the landscapes of Louisiana and Guatemala. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Armstrong, J. B., & Impara, J. C. (1991). The impact of an environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 36-40.
Baker, L. E. (2004). Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto's community gardens. Geographical Review, 94(3), 305-325.
Barr, S. (2003). Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. Area, 35(3), 227-240.
Becker, D. R., Harris, C. C., McLaughlin, W. J., & Nielsen, E. A. (2003). A participatory approach to social impact assessment: The interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(3), 367-382.
Bell, J. F., Wilson, J. S., & Liu, G. C. (2008). Neighborhood greenness and 2-year changes in body mass index of children and youth. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 35(6), 547-553.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (2002). Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding transformation in systems of humans and nature (pp. 121-146). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Berkes, F. & Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26:1, 5-20.
Beyer, K. M., Kaltenbach, A., Szabo, A., Bogar, S., Nieto, F. J., & Malecki, K. M. (2014). Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 3453-3472.
Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 795-818.
Boone-Heinonen, J., Casanova, K., Richardson, A. S., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2010). Where can they play? Outdoor spaces and physical activity among adolescents in US urbanized areas. Preventive Medicine, 51(3-4), 295-298.
Bosselman, F. P., Peterson, C. A., & McCarthy, C. (1999). Managing tourism growth: Issues and applications. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Branas, C. C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J. M., Tam, V. W., Jackson, T. D., & Ten Have, T. R. (2011). A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174, 1296-1306.
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118-136.
Bruton, C. M., & Floyd, M. F. (2014). Disparities in built and natural features of urban parks: Comparisons by neighborhood level race/ethnicity and income. Journal of Urban Health, 91(5), 894-907.
Chase, L., Boumans, R., & Morse, S. (2010). Participatory modeling as a tool for community development planning: Tourism in the northern forest. Community Development, 41(3), 385-397.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452. Chipeniuk, R. (1995). Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition about biodiversity. Environment and Behavior, 27(4), 490-512.
Cho, S. H., Bowker, J. M., & Park, W. M. (2006). Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(3), 485-507.
Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509-514. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447
Cohen-Cline, H., Turkheimer, E., & Duncan, G. E. (2015). Access to green space, physical activity and mental health: a twin study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(6), 523-529.
Coley, R.L., Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468-494.
Comstock, N., Dickinson, L. M., Marshall, J. A., Soobader, M. J., Turbin, M. S., Buchenau, M., & Lilt, J. S. (2010). Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 435-442.
Conway, D., Li, C. Q., Wolch, J., Kahle, C., & Jerrett, M. (2010). A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 41(2), 150-169.
Cooper, C., L. Larson, A. Dayer, R. Stedman, and D. Decker. (2015). Are wildlife recreationists conservationists? Linking hunting, birdwatching, and pro‐environmental behavior. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(3), 446-457.
Corcoran, P. B. (1999). Formative influences in the lives of environmental educators in the United States. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 207-220.
Cottrell, S. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment & Behavior, 35(3), 347-375.
Courtney-Hall, P. & Rogers, L. (2002). Gaps in mind: Problems in environmental knowledge-behaviour modeling research. Environmental Education Research, 8(3): 285-297.
Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 19-127.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Crompton, J. L. (2000). The impact of parks and open space on property values and the property tax base. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association.
Crompton, J. W. (2007). Community benefits and repositioning: The keys to park and recreations future viability. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association.
Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R. D., Stickler, C., & van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8, 975-987.
Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., ... & Jerrett, M. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937-7942.
DeGraaf, D., & Jordan, D. (2003). Social capital. Parks and Recreation, 38(12), 20-27.
Diez Roux, A. V., Evenson, K. R., McGinn, A. P., Brown, D. G., Moore, L., Brines, S., & Jacobs, D. R., Jr. (2007). Availability of recreational resources and physical activity in adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 493-499.
Dentro, K. N., Beals, K., Crouter, S. E., Eisenmann, J. C., McKenzie, T. L., Pate, R. R., ... & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2014). Results from the United States’ 2014 report card on physical activity for children and youth. J Phys Act Health, 11(Suppl 1), S105-12.
Dow, C. L. (2006). Benefits and barriers to implementing and managing well rooted community gardens in Waterloo Region, Ontario (Masters thesis). Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. (http://homepage.mac.com/cityfarmer/CHERYLFINAL.pdf)
Duffin, M., Murphy, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). Quantifying a relationship between place-based learning and environmental quality: Final report. Woodstock, VT: NPS Conservation Study Institute in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and Shelburne Farms.
Edwards, M. B., Jilcott, S. B., Floyd, M. F., & Moore, J. B. (2011). County-level disparities in access to recreational resources and associations with adult obesity. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 29(2), 39-54.
Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 402-409.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54-77.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.
Faber Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.
Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings (Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660). Portland, OR: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Floyd, M. F., Spengler, J. O., Maddock, J. E., Gobster, P. H., & Suau, L. J. (2008). Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two U.S. cities. An observational study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 299-305.
Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2003). Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 352-387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forbes, B. C., Stammler, F., Kumpula, T., Meschtyb, N., Pajunen, A., & Kaarlejarvi, E. (2009). High resilience in the Yamal-Nenets social-ecological system, West Siberian Arctic, Russia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(52), 22041-22048.
Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401-409.
Frank, L. D., Kerr, J., Chapman, J., & Sallis, J. (2007). Urban form relationships with walk trip frequency and distance among youth. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 305-311.
Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 227-246. Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 1(6), 293-303.
Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences, 27(1), 75-92.
Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor recreation, health, and wellness: Understanding and enhancing the relationship. Washington, D. C.: Resources for the Future.
Godbey, G., Roy, M. Payne, L., & Orsega-Smith, E. (1998). The relation between health and use of local parks. National Recreation Foundation.
Gooch, M., Rigano, D., Hickey, R., & Flen, J. (2008). How do primary pre-service teachers in a regional Australian university plan for teaching, learning and acting in environmentally responsible ways? Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 175-186.
Goodwin, T. (2016). Educating for Ecological Literacy. American Biology Teacher, 78(4), 287-291.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409-421.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207-228.
Heerwagen, J. (2009). Biophilia, jealth, and well-being. In L. Campbell & A Wiesen (Eds.), Restorative commons: Creating health and well-being through urban landscapes (pp. 38-57). General Technical Report. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Hernández, B., Martin, A. M., Ruiz, C., & Hidalgo, M. C. (2010). The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 281–288.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-87). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3): 1-8.
Ho, C. H., Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., Godbey, G. (2003). Parks, recreation and public health. Parks & Recreation, 38(4), 18-27.
Hofferth, S. & Sandberg, J. (2001). Changes in American children's time, 1981-1997. In S. L. Hofferth & T. J. Owen (Eds.), Children at the millennium: Where have we come from, where are we going? (pp. 193-229). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Holtan, M. T., Dieterlen, S. L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 502-525.
Hsu, S. J. (2004). The effects of an environmental education program on environmentally responsible behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2): 37-48.
Hull, R. B. (1992). How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(2), 98-101.
Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Jackson, E. L., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton. (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 299-322). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13: 196. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13020196
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 471-486.
Johnson, A., Glover, T. D., and Stewart, W. P. (2009). One person's trash in another person's treasure: The public place-making of Mount Trashmore. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(1), 85-103.
Johnson, B., Duffin, M., & Murphy, M. (2012). Quantifying a relationship between place-based learning and environmental quality. Environmental Education Research, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2011.640748
Jones, 0. & Cloke, P. (2002). Tree cultures: The place of trees and trees in their place. Oxford: Berg. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 79, 316-327.
Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29, 315-354.
Kellert, S. R. (1985). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. Journal of Environmental Education, 16(3): 29-39.
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (117-151). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 117-125.
Klenosky, D., LeBlanc, C., Vogt, C., & Schroeder, H. (2008). Factors that attract and repel visitation to urban recreation sites: A framework for research. In C. LeBlanc & C. Vogt (comps.), Proceedings of the 2007 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 39-47). April 15-17, 2007, Bolton Landing, NY. GTR NRS-P-23, Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Kline, J. D. (2001). Tourism and natural resource management: A general overview of research and issues. PNW-GTR-506. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Kline, J.D., Rosenberger, R. S., & White, E. M. (2011). A national assessment of physical activity in U.S. National Forests. Journal of Forestry, 109(6), 343-351. Knapp, D., Volk, T. L. & Hungerford, H. R. (1997). The identification of empirically derived goals for program development in environmental interpretation. Journal of Environmental Education, 28(3): 24-34.
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
Kondo, M. C., South, E. C., & Branas, C. C. (2015). Nature-based strategies for improving urban health and safety. Journal of Urban Health, 92(5), 800-814.
Korpela, K. M., & Ylen, M. (2007). Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favourite places in the vicinity. Health & Place, 13(1), 138-151. Kovacs, K. F. (2012). Integrating property value and local recreation models to value ecosystem services from regional parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(2), 79-90.
Krannich, R. S., & Petrzelka, P. (2003). Tourism and natural amenity development: Real opportunities? In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 190-199). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Krasny, M. E., Russ, A., Tidball, K. G., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem services, 7, 177-186.
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2010) Civic ecology: Linking social and ecological approaches in extension. Journal of Extension, 48(1), http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/iw1.php
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2015). Civic ecology: adaptation and transformation from the ground up. Cambridge, Massachussetts. MIT Press.
Kudryavtsev, A., Krasny, M. E., & Stedman, R. C. (2012). The impact of environmental education on sense of place among urban youth. Ecosphere 3(4), article 29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00318.1
Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2012b). Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 229-250.
Kuo, F. E. (2010). Parks and other green environments: Essential components of a healthy human habitat. Research Series. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33(l), 5-34.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment & Behavior, 30(1), 28-59.
Kuo, F E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543-571.
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 832-858.
Larson, L. R., Whiting, J. W., Green, G. T. (2011). Exploring the influence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local Environment, 16(1), 67-86.
Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B. & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43, 112-124.
Larson, L. R., Jennings, V., & Cloutier, S. A. (2016). Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas of the United States. PloS ONE, 11(4), e0153211.
Leopold, A. (1938). Conservation esthetic. Bird-lore, 40(2),101-109.
Lohr, V. I. & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2005). Children's active and passive interactions with plants influence their attitudes and actions toward trees and gardening as adults. HortTechnology, 15(3), 472-476.
Magis, K. (2010). Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 23(5), 401-416.
Maiteny, P. T. (2002). Mind in the gap: Summary of research exploring 'inner' influences on pro-sustainability learning and behavior. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 300-306.
Maller, C. Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2003). Healthy nature healthy people: Contact with natureas an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45-54.
Manzo, L. C., & Devine-Wright, P (editors). (2014). Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1-20.
McCaffrey, R., Hanson, C., & McCaffery, W. (2010). Garden walking for depression: a research report. Holistic Nursing Practice, 24(5), 252-259.
McManus, P., Walmsley, J., Argent, N., Baum, S., Bourke, L., Martin, J., Pritchard, B. & Sorensen, T. (2012). Rural community and rural resilience: What is important to framers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 20-29.
Miller, R. (1997). Urban forestry: Planning and managing urban greenspaces. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Montanez, S., Lin, L., Wilhelm Stanis, S., McElroy, J., White, S., & LeMaster, J. (2012, April). Understanding childrens perceptions of places for physical activity through cognitive mapping. In D. Kuehn (Chair), 2012 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium. April 1-3, 2012, Cooperstown, NY.
Morrone, M., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4): 33-42.
Mowen, A. J., & Confer, J. J. (2003). The relationship between perceptions, distance, and socio-demographic characteristics upon public use of an urban in-fill.Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(3), 58-74.
National Association of University Forest Resources Programs (NAUFRP). (2010). Sustaining healthy and forests: An investment in America's competitive position in the global marketplace. Falls Church, VA: National Association of University Forest Resources Programs.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.
O'Dell, P. (2016). Redefining the National Park Service Role in Urban Areas: Bringing the Parks to the People. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(1), 5-11.
Ottosson, J., & Grahn, P. (2008). The role of natural settings in crisis rehabilitation: How does the level of crisis influence the response to experiences of nature with regard to measures of rehabilitation? Landscape Research, 33, 1-51.
Palmer, J. A. (1993). Development of concern for the environment and formative experiences of educators. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 26-30.
Perlman, M. (1994). The power of trees: The reforesting of the soul. Woodstock, CT: Spring Publications.
Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 93-100.
Pooley, J. A. & O'Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711-723.
Potwarka, L., Kaczynski, A., & Flack, A. (2008). Places to play: Association of park space and facilities with health weight status among children. Journal of Community Health, 33(5), 344-350.
Ramsey, J. M. & Hungerford, H. (1989). The effects of issue investigation and action training on environmental behavior in seventh grade students. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 29-34.
Reeder, R. J. & Brown, D. M. (2005). Recreation, tourism and rural well-being. USDA, Economic Research Report #7. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service.
Roberts, P. (2002). Spontaneous memorialization. In R. Kastenhaum (Ed.), Macmillan encyclopedia of death and dying (569-570). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Roemmich, J. N., Epstein, L. H., Raja, S., Yin, L., Robinson, J., & Winiewicz, D. (2006). Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Preventive Medicine, 43(6), 437-441. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.07.007
Rosenberger, R. S., Bergerson, T. R., & Kline, J. D. (2009). Macro-linkages between health and outdoor recreation: The role of parks and recreation providers. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 27(3), 8-20.
Rosenberger, R.S., Sneh, Y., Phipps, T. T., & Gurvitch, R. (2005). A spatial analysis of linkages between health care expenditures, physical inactivity, obesity and recreation supply. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(2), 216-235.
Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and direction in the 1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environment and Behavior, 37, 3-42.
Saldivar-Tanaka, L., & Krasny, M. E. (2004). Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 399-412.
Sallis J. F, & Bauman, M. P. (1998). Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 15, 379-397.
Sallis J., Hovell M., Hofstetter C., Elder, J. P., Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J., & Powell, K. E. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Reports, 105(2), 179-186.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 289-297.
Schilling, J., & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America's shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 451-466.
Scott, T. G. (1958). The ornithologist's responsibility to the future. Wilson Bulletin, 70(4), 385- 393.
Shores, K. A., & West, S. T. (2008). Physical activity outcomes associated with African American park visitation in four community parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26(3), 75-92.
Short, P. C. (2009). Responsible environmental action: Its role and status in environmental education and environmental quality. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 7-21.
Siemer, W. F., & Knuth, B. A. (2001). Effects of fishing education programs on antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 23-29.
Smith, L. M., Case, J. L., Smith, H. M., Harwell, L. C., & Summers, J. K. (2013). Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a US index. Ecological Indicators, 28, 79-90.
Stables, A., & Bishop, K. (2001). Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 89-97.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34, 561-581.
Stedman, R. C. & Ingalls, M. (2014). Topophilia, biophilia and greening in the red zone. n K. G. Tidball & M. E. Krasny (Eds.), Greening in the red zone: Disaster, resilience, and community greening (pp. 129-144). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stedman, R. C., Amsden, B. L., Beckley, T. M., & Tidball, K. G. (2013). Photo-based methods for understanding place meanings as foundations of attachment. In Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 112-124). New York, NY: Routledge
Stern, P. S., Dietz, T. & Karlof, L. (1993). Values orientation, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(3), 322-348.
Svendsen, E. (2009). Cultivating resilience: Urban stewardship as a means to improving health and well-being. In L. Campbell & A. Wiesen (Eds.), Restorative commons: Creating health and well-being through urban landscapes (pp. 58-87). General Technical Report. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Svendsen, F., & Campbell, F. (2010). Living memorials: Understanding the social meanings of community-based memorials to September 11, 2001. Environment and Behavior, 42(3), 318-334.
Sward, L. L. (1999). Significant life experiences affecting the environmental sensitivity of El Salvadoran environmental professionals. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 201-206.
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20-24.
Teig, E., Amulya, J. Bardwell, L., Buchenau, M., Marshall, J. A., & Litt, J. S. (2009). Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: Strengthening neighborhoods and health through community gardens. Health & Place, 15(4), 1115-1122.
Tidball, K. G. (2013). Trees and rebirth: social-ecological symbols and rituals in the resilience of post-Katrina New Orleans. In Greening in the red zone (pp. 257-296). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2007). From risk to resilience: What role for community greening and civic ecology in cities? In A. Wals (Ed.), Social learning towards a more sustainable world (pp. 149-164). Wagengingen, The Netherlands: Wagengingen Academic Press.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2010). Urban environmental education from a social-ecological perspective: conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment, 3(1), article 11. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/11.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Toward an ecology of environmental education and learning. Ecosphere, 2(2), 21-17.
Tidball, K. G., Krasny, M. E., Svendsen, E., Campbell, L., & Helphand, K. (2010). Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research, 15(5-6), 591-609. Tidball, K. G. (2010). Greening in the red zone: Green space and disaster resistance, recovery and resilience. Anthropology News, 5(1), 7.
Tidball, K. G. and Krasny, M. E. (Eds.). (2013. Greening in the red zone: Disaster, resilience, and community greening. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Townsend, M. (2006). Feel blue? Touch green! Participation in forest/woodland management as a treatment for depression. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(3), 111-120.
US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. (2007). Outdoor recreation research and education for the 21st Century: Defining national direction and building capacity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
US Department of Interior, National Park Service. (2010). Public Health Program. Retr. 04/15/12 from http://www.nps.gov/public_health/hp/hp.htm.
Vaughan, K. B., Kaczynski, A. T., Stanis, S. A. W., Besenyi, G. M., Bergstrom, R., & Heinrich, K. M. (2013). Exploring the distribution of park availability, features, and quality across Kansas City, Missouri by income and race/ethnicity: an environmental justice investigation. Annals of behavioral medicine, 45(1), 28-38.
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16-21.
Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241-283.
Wainger, L. A., & Price, E. W. (2004). Evaluating quality of life, economic vulnerabilities, and drivers of ecosystem change. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 94, 69-84.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Walker, G. J., & Chapman, R. (2003). Thinking like a park: The effects of sense of place, perspective-taking, and empathy on pro-environmental intentions. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 21, 71-86.
Walker, G., & Virden, R. (2005). Constraints on outdoor recreation. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 201-219). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: The effects of nearby nature on children's cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775-795.
Wells, N. M. & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment & Behavior, 35(3), 311-330.
Wells, N. M. & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1-24.
West, S. T., Shores, K. A., & Mudd, L. M. (2012). Association of available parkland, physical activity, and overweight in America's largest cities. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 18(5), 423-430.
Westfphal, L. M. (1999). Growing power? Social benefits from urban greening projects (Doctoral dissertation). Public Policy Analysis and Urban Planning, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. (http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/3017)
Westphal, L. M. (2003). Social aspects of urban forestry: Urban greening and social benefits: A study of empowerment outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 137-147.
Wimberley, E. T. 2009. Nested ecology: The place of humans in the ecological hierarchy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Witten, K., Hiscock, R., Pearce, J., & Blakely, T. (2008). Neighbourhood access to open spaces and the physical activity of residents: a national study. Preventive Medicine, 47(3), 299-303. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.04.010
Wolf, K. L. (2008, Winter). With plants in mind: Social benefits of civic nature. MasterGardener, 2(1), 7-11.
Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L., & Capaldi, C. A. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 24-31.