38

Comparing Undergraduates' Connection with Nature and
New Ecological Paradigm in Relation to Intention of Environmental
Behaviors in Taiwan and Japan

Research Article

Yu Chi Tseng*, Ryo Sakurai**, Kimiharu To***
National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan*
Ritsumeikan University**
Aomori University***
Accepted on November 5, 2021
Abstract
Connection with nature (CWN) is a promising research focus in environmental education.
Previous research has repeatedly indicated that CWN was an important predictor of proenvironmental behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to understand the differenceof Taiwanese and Japanese undergraduates’ CWN and most importantly to compare the predictive
power of CWN and the new ecological paradigm (NEP) in terms of explaining the intention ofenvironmental behaviors (IEB) in both countries. This survey adopted one Taiwanese CWN scale
to avoid possible measurement bias caused by eastern-western cultural contexts. A total of 302
undergraduates participated in this survey: 178 students were from 3 Taiwanese universities, and
124 were from 2 Japanese universities. The independent sample t-test showed that Taiwanese
undergraduates significantly performed more actively in CWN, NEP, and IEB than Japanese
undergraduates. The overall findings of multiple regression analysis indicated that CWN was amore powerful predictor than the NEP to predict the IEBs in both countries, and the regression
coefficient of CWN in Taiwan was higher than in Japan. Although the NEP can significantly
predict some IEB constructs in Taiwan, it was not a significant predictor in Japan. Based on
those findings, this research also proposed possible directions for future research.
Keywords: connection with nature; cross-country survey, new ecological paradigm, intentionof environmental behavior, undergraduate students
Ⅰ. Introduction
Since 1980, a series of research on Significant Life Experiences (SLEs) has indicated natureexperiences in childhood and adolescence as one of the most formative experiences that could
influence people’s environmental commitments and actions (Chawla and Derr 2012, Cagle 2018).
When Louv (2005) created the term “nature-deficit disorder” to describe children and adolescents’
health problems due to the alienation from nature in the U.S., the benefits of connecting with nature(CWN) caught environmental educators’ attention to the cultivation of learners’ positive relationships
with nature. CWN also led a new trend in environmental education (EE) research to bring nature backinto the theoretical frameworks, which was initially not an important factor in previous theoreticalEmail: yctseng1201@mail.ntcu.edu.tw

Japanese Journal of Environmental Education

ⒸThe Japanese Society of Environmental Education 2021

Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature

39

models (e.g., the Responsible Environmental Behavior model proposed by Hines et al. in 1987).
CWN is an internalized awareness of one’s interrelatedness with nature in several psychologicaldimensions. Some scholars viewed CWN as a specific emotion or cognition toward nature.
For example, Kals et al. (1999) believed CWN was a purely emotional concept and defined it
as people’s emotional inclination to nature that comprised love, freedom, safety, and onenessto nature. For Schultz and Clayton, CWN was a cognitive concept of self-identification withnature. Schultz (2002) tended to measure the extent to which an individual included nature
within his/her cognitive representation of the self. Similarly, Clayton (2003) viewed CWN as
an environmental identity and a belief that the environment is important to us and an importantpart of who we are. In recent years, more and more researchers, such as Nisbet et al. (2009) andZylstra et al. (2014), are inclined to consider CWN a holistic concept that might simultaneously
comprise affect, cognition, identity, perspective, belief, experience, and even spirituality. For
instance, Nisbet et al.’s Nature Relatedness Scale was a typical instrument that took this multidimensional viewpoint to measure experience, the self, and perspective about nature.
Considering the CWN-EB association, several studies have shown that CWN can significantly
predict environmental behavior (EB)—including intention and frequency of various behaviors)—
no matter what CWN scales were adopted. For instance, Kals et al. (1999) found that theemotional CWN (emotional affinity toward nature) could significantly predict 281 German adults’personal behavioral decisions. Nisbet et al. (2009) discovered that CWN can predict 145 Canadianundergraduates’ participation in environmental organizations and green consumption. When Tam(2013) compared the predictive power of the seven CWN scales to EB, he found that the common
component of these seven CWN scales can significantly explain 322 Hong Kong undergraduates’and 186 American adults’ EB, like energy-saving and green consumption. Recently, a survey
conducted by Whitburn et al. (2019) in Wellington confirmed that CWN was the strongest predictorof 423 New Zealand adults’ energy-saving, recycling, and conservation support.
However, most CWN definitions and scales were created in western cultural contexts (Zylstra
et al. 2014). Recent papers also showed that scale invariance might be problematic when testing
American CWN scales in European countries (Olivos et al. 2011; Pasca et al. 2018). Moreover,most research was conducted to test the relationships among CWN, environmental attitude(EA), and EB in North America and Europe. All the situations mentioned above may cast doubt
on whether the CWN scales and research findings can also be applied to other cultural contexts
due to intellectual sensitivity between eastern and western cultures that has been illustrated incontemporary philosophical and psychological inquiries.
To overcome the possible cultural bias, the first author of this article initiated a series of CWN
research in Asian contexts. Tseng first redefined the CWN concept from Taiwanese adolescents’experiences and perspectives and found that cognitive knowledge did not lead to CWN. In
addition, unlike what western research has found, Taiwanese adolescents lacked a spiritual
dimension in their CWN. Therefore, a revised CWN definition was proposed to fit the Taiwanesecultural context better. For Taiwanese adolescents, CWN meant “a developing inner union of
the self with nature that comprises multiple sensory engagements in nature with subsequent richpositive and negative emotions attached to nature. Through reflection or guidance, sensory and

Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

40

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To

emotional CWN could be transformed and integrated into a personal value system related tonature in general as a symbolic CWN” (Tseng and Wang 2020, p. 13). Based on these findings,
Tseng (2019) designed a CWN scale that comprised three constructs-sensory experiences,
psychological benefits, and the importance of nature. Tseng (2020) then adopted this adolescentCWN scale to further explore the relationships among teenagers’ SLE, CWN, and EBs andfinally verified that CWN was the most powerful predictor to EBs. CWN not only can directly
and significantly predicted EBs, it also mediated the influence of SLEs on EBs (mediation effect).
Given the fact that CWN has become a powerful motivator to EBs, it might be the time tocompare the predictive power of the factors that were assumed effectively influencing EBs in
the past research. Among those factors, NEP was one of the most widely used concept and scalethat represented an individual environmental attitude by measuring his or her“primitive beliefs”
of “seeing the world ecologically” (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones 2000). Therefore, wethought NEP was appropriate target to be compared with. Another reason for this CWN-NEP
comparison emerged from the practical needs for both efficient educational interventions andbehavioral change to cope with urgent environmental problems. Considering that environmental
attitude (like NEP) were implicitly formed by family, schools, (social) media, or organizations
through one’s lifetime, it is really challenging to identify which factor or life stage that was mostinfluential to people’s environmental attitude leading to EBs. In contrast, if we can prove thatCWN was a better predictor than NEP, then we could point out a “natural short cut” to encourage
people’s EBs by reconnecting them with nature through outdoor programs or curricula in nature.
To date, there are not many published papers revealing how CWN influenced people’s EB
in Asia, neither did these articles compared the influential level of CWN and NEP to EBs.
Accordingly, this research aims to firstly present the current situation and the difference in
CWN among demographic features and between countries (Taiwan and Japan). Secondly andmost importantly, we compared the predictivity of CWN and NEP in terms of explaining theintention of environmental behavior (IEB). By doing this survey, we aim to answer the researchquestion: Can CWN predict Taiwanese and Japanese undergraduates’ IEB better than NEP?
Ⅱ. Method
1. Data Collection1). Research ParticipantsThis cross-country CWN survey’s main participants were undergraduate students from Central
Taiwan and Tohoku (north-eastern) and Kansai (southern-central) regions in Japan. A total of 178
Taiwanese undergraduates joined this survey from the National Taichung University of Education,
National Taichung University of Science and Technology, and Providence University. In Japan,
124 undergraduates from the Aomori University and Ritsumeikan University participated in thisresearch. The total number of the sample was 302. Most undergraduates were 19 to 20 years old
and lived in suburban and urban areas. The majors of Taiwanese undergraduates at university
were more diverse than those of Japanese undergraduates. It is interesting to note that 66.9%
of Taiwanese undergraduates went outdoors with family members, compared to only 26.6% ofJapanese undergraduates. More demographic information was analyzed in Appendix 1.
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature

412). Questionnaire Design and Reliability
According to research questions, we designed a questionnaire that contained four parts—
demographic information, environmental attitude (the tendency of agreement on New Ecological
Paradigm, NEP), CWN, and IEB. Except for the demographic items, NEP, CWN, and IEB were
measured by a six-point Likert scale (1 being strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree).
Please refer to Appendix 2 and 3 for complete scales.
Among all the demographic items, we particularly wanted to know if undergraduates everwent outdoors with family members (mainly parents and siblings). If they did outdoor activities
with family members, the family item would be coded as 1. Otherwise, it would be coded as
0. Further, we chose Dunlap et al.’s (2000) NEP because scholars widely adopted it in many
countries to measure environmental attitude. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .83 when
originally tested in American adults. To reduce the threat to scale validity in non-westerncountries, we introduced the Connection with Nature Scale for Taiwanese adolescents tocollect information about how close undergraduates felt with nature in multiple psychologicaldimensions (Tseng 2019). It contained constructs of sensory experience, psychological benefit,
and the symbolical importance of nature. The original Cronbach’s alpha of the whole scale was.90 when tested it on Taiwanese teenagers.
Regarding the measurement of IEB, as young adults, undergraduates should have theautonomy and ability to conduct more complicated behaviors than other younger K-12 graders.
Therefore, we focused on three more difficult behaviors: persuasion (persuading family,classmates, or friends to protect environments), civic engagement (participating in clubs ororganizations as volunteer or member to protect environments), and politics and law actions(supporting politicians, congress members, or officials to protect the environment). We selected
IEB items that have been commonly used in national environmental literacy surveys in the U.S.
(Zhu 2015).
We first completed a Chinese questionnaire. The questionnaire’s scales and items were alreadyreviewed and revised by scholars with expertise in environmental education, psychometrics,
and statistics from previous research (Tseng 2019, 2020). The first author translated the Chinesequestionnaire into English, after which it was translated into Japanese by two other authors. The
first author also invited a Taiwanese researcher who gained a doctoral degree at the Nagoya
Institute of Technology in Japan to check the quality of the Chinese-Japanese translation. The
whole process had assured the content and face validity of the questionnaire. Regarding thereliability, we have listed Cronbach’s alpha of each main variable and subordinate constructs inAppendix 4. Almost all the scales’ reliability (including subscales) of the NEP, CWN, and IEB
was higher than the accepted level of .60. Only the reliability of CWN-importance of nature in
Japan was lower (.55).
To avoid respondent’s social desirability that might cause measuring bias, we explicitly
informed the respondents both orally and in written form in the survey process that there is
no standard answer to those survey questions and we do not expect them to perform particulartendency. We told the respondents to choose what they felt most appropriate according to their
feelings, thoughts or experiences.
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To

42

2. Data Analysis
We used SPSS (version 27) to analyze data. According to the research purposes, we computed
demographic information in Appendix 1. To understand if there was any significant differencein the NEP, CWN, and IEB scores between Taiwan and Japan, we conducted an independent
sample t-test. Furthermore, we adopted multiple regression analysis separately in samples of
Taiwan and Japan to verify if NEP and CWN could significantly predict IEB as most previous
research assumed and compared CWN and NEP’s predictivity.
Ⅲ. Result
1. Descriptive statistics and score difference between Taiwan and Japan
Taiwanese undergraduates seemed to perform more actively in CWN, NEP, and IEB than Japanese
undergraduates. Taiwanese undergraduates’ mean scores of the entire CWN and two constructs
were significantly higher than those of Japanese undergraduates. Only the CWN-psychologicalbenefit score was the same in both countries. There was a similar tendency in NEP and IEB(including the entire IEB and two constructs of persuasion, politics, and law action). Only the IEB of
civic engagement showed no statistical difference between the countries. In addition, there was no
statistical difference in gender (male, female), residential areas (urban, suburban, and countryside),and frequencies of outdoor activities accompanied by family in Taiwanese undergraduates’ wholeCWN and its three constructs. However, Japanese undergraduates accompanied by the family had
significantly higher scores in CWN-sensory experience (M=4,58 > 4.08, p< .05).
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test
Mean (SD)Japan(N=124)3.97( .48)

df

t

p

effectsize (d)NEP

Taiwan(N=178)4.68( .71)

300

10.40

< .001

1.13

CWN (whole scale)4.52( .82)

4.14( .83)

300

4.00

< .001.48

CWN-sensory experience

4.74( .86)

4.45( .99)

300

2.72

.007

.32

CWN-psychological benefit

4.42( .94)

4.42( .94)

300

0.01

.993

.001

CWN-importance of nature

4.27( .97)

3.34(1.02)

300

8.00

< .001.94

IEB (whole scale)4.22( .86)

3.60(1.09)

224

5.34

< .001.65

IEB-persuasion

4.81( .89)

3.88(1.24)

208

7.20

< .001.89

IEB-civic engagement

3.87(1.05)

3.72(1.16)

300

1.25

.214

.14

IEB-politics and law

4.04(1.02)

3.29(1.19)

239

5.68

< .001.69

2. CWN predictability to the IEB (compared with NEP)
1). The prediction of NEP and CWN to the entire IEB
When we compared CWN and NEP’s predictivity to the entire IEB in both Taiwanese andJapanese samples, we found CWN was a more powerful predictor than NEP. In addition, theregression coefficient of CWN in the Taiwanese sample was higher than that in the Japanesesample. Besides, the NEP was not a significant predictor in the Japanese sample.
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature

43

Table 2-1 Multiple regression to the entire IEB in Taiwan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN (whole scale)Unstandardized
coefficients

Standardized
coefficients

B
SE
β
.46
.41
.27
.07
.22
.55
.06
.53
R= .61a R2= .37
R2=.36a=intention of environmental behaviors (IEB)

t

p

1.11
3.61
8.61

.27
< .001< .001

t

p

1.46
.27
4.764

.148
.79
< .001

Table 2-2 Multiple regression to entire IEB in Japan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN (whole scale)Unstandardized
coefficients

Standardized
coefficients

B
SE
β
1.15
.79
.05
.20
.02
.54
.11
.41
R= .42a R2= .17
R2=.16a=intention of environmental behaviors (IEB)

2). The prediction of three CWN constructs and NEP to three IEBs
To further understand which CWN could best predict different IEBs, we made three CWN
constructs as independent variables to predict each kind of IEB. In addition, we kept NEP an
independent variable to compare its predictive power with three CWN constructs. All detailed
results are shown in Tables 3-1 to 5-2.
For Taiwanese undergraduates’ persuasive IEB, sensory experience (β=28, p<.01) and NEP(β=21, p<.01) were two significant predictors, and the adjusted total variance explained was .30.
For Japanese undergraduates, the sensory experience was the only influential factor (β=40, p<.01),
and the adjusted R2 was .18. When predicting the IEB of civic engagement, only the importanceof nature (β=41, p<.001) and the NEP (β=20, p<.01) were significant predictors in the Taiwanesesample, and the adjusted total variance explained was .36. Meanwhile, in Japan, neither NEP nor
any of the three CWN constructs could predict civic engagement. In terms of IEB of political andlaw action, only the importance of nature was influential to Taiwanese undergraduates (β=.23,
p<.05, R2=.20). In contrast, the sensory experience was the only significant factor for Japanese
undergraduates’ IEB of political and law action (β=.37, p<.01, R2=.11).
In sum, the sensory experience was the best predictor of persuasive IEB in both countries. It
was also the only significant factor to predict Japanese undergraduates’ IEB to political and law
action. Comparatively, the importance of nature was the only CWN construct that can predict
Taiwanese undergraduates’ IEB to civic engagement and political and law action. It is worth
noting that none of the three CWN constructs could predict Japanese undergraduates’ IEB of
civic engagement. Similarly, the NEP could not predict any of the three IEBs in the Japanesesample (but the NEP can influence the IEB of civic engagement, political and law action in the
Taiwanese samples). Among all three CWN constructs, the psychological benefit seemed theless important factor because it could not predict any of the three IEBs.
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To

44

Table 3-1 Multiple regression to IEB-persuasion in Taiwan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
1.17
.46
.27
.08
.29
.09
.10
.11
.14
.10
R= .56a R2= .31
R2=.30a= IEB-persuasion

Standardized
coefficients
β
.21
.28
.10
.15

t

p

2.54
3.21
3.09
.89
1.49

.01
.002
.002
.38
.14

t

p

.88
.69
3.25
.02
.64

.38
.49
.001
.98
.52

t

p

-.61
3.17
1.17
.61
4.16

.55
.002
.25
.54
< .001

t

p

1.67
-.05
1.92
1.70
-.17

.10
.96
.06
.09
.87

Table 3-2 Multiple regression to IEB-persuasion in Japan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
.78
.89
.15
.22
.50
.15
.003
.16
.07
.12
R= .45a R2= .20
R2=.18a= IEB-persuasion

Standardized
coefficients
β
.06
.40
.003
.06

Table 4-1 Multiple regression to IEB-civic engagement in Taiwan
Unstandardized
coefficients

Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

B
SE
-.32
.52
.30
.09
.12
.11
.07
.12
.44
.11
R= .62a R2= .38
R2=.36a=IEB-civic engagement

Standardized
coefficients
β
.20
.10
.07
.41

Table 4-2 Multiple regression to IEB-civic engagement in Japan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
1.42
.85
-.01
.21
.28
.15
.26
.16
-.02
.11
R= .41a R2= .17
R2=.14a=IEB-civic engagement

Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

Standardized
coefficients
β
-.004
.24
.21
-.02

Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature

45

Table 5-1 Multiple regression to IEB-political and law action in Taiwan
Unstandardized
coefficients

Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

B
SE
.87
.57
.19
.10
.18
.12
.09
.13
.25
.12
a
2
R= .47 R = .22
R2=.20a=IEB-politics and law

Standardized
coefficients

t

p

1.53
1.83
1.54
.71
2.13

.13
.07
.13
.48
.04

t

p

1.49
-.001
2.87
- .30
.63

.14
1.00
.01
.77
.53

β
.13
.15
.09
.23

Table 5-2 Multiple regression to IEB-political and law action in Japan
Model(intercept)
NEP
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature

Unstandardized
coefficients
B
SE
1.32
.89
<.001
.22
.44
.15
-.05
.16
.07
.11
a
2
R= .37 R = .14
R2=.11a=IEB-politics and law

Standardized
coefficientsβ< .001
.37
-.04
.06

IV. Discussion and Conclusion
Will CWN differ in gender? Some studies asserted that females had higher CWN than males(e.g., Dornhoff et al.’s survey on high school students in Germany in 2019). The other studies
supported that males’ CWN was higher (e.g., study by Larson et al. 2019 conducted in the U.S).
However, following the result of studies in Turkish, British, and Spanish (Ahmetoglu 2019,
Bragg et al. 2013, Musitu-Ferrer et al. 2019), our analysis in Taiwan and Japan discovered no
gender differences. Bedsides, according to what the SLE research has indicated, the family wasanother important facilitator to cultivate adults’ EB by encouraging or accompanying children
to play outdoors (Chawla 2007, D’Amore and Chawla 2020). Though our finding showed thatJapanese undergraduates who were accompanied by family members outdoors had significantly
higher CWN-sensory experiences, we found no such difference in the Taiwanese sample. This
result remains a puzzle for us. Concerning the influence of geographic locations (and maybe
cultural contexts) on CWN, Whitburn et al. (2019) reported no moderation effect through ameta-analysis from 37 studies. That is, CWN might not be culturally patterned so far. However,it was still worthy of exploring any cultural clues that distinguish the CWN level in Taiwan andJapan.
When Whitburn et al. (2019) used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software to analyze 37
CWN studies in diverse countries (n = 13,237), they found a positive and significant association
between CWN and EB (r = 0.42, 95% CI 0.36, 0.47, p < .001) in a random-effects model. This
relationship could hold across gender and geographic location, regardless of the instrument
they adopted to measure CWN and EB. Our research also partially confirmed Whitburn et al.'sJapanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

46

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To(2009) findings and the studies reviewed in the introduction because CWN was the only common
factor that can predict IEB in Taiwan and Japan. This result was also consistent with what
Zylstra et al. (2014) and Chawla (2020) had concluded after they reviewed numerous papers.
They discovered that children, adolescents, and adults with higher levels of nature connection
showed greater willingness to conserve nature and applied pro-environmental behaviors suchas energy saving, recycling, environmental volunteering, and talking with others about theimportance of environmental protection. Although this research adopted a new Asian scale tomeasure CWN, in general, our findings replicate what previous western studies have verified,namely that CWN is a prominent psychological motivator to people’s pro-environmental
behaviors (including intention).
Our research further revealed interesting details about what kind of CWN better predicteddifferent types of IEB and compared CWN and NEP’s predictivity in Taiwan and Japan
separately. The overall result indicated that CWN was a much more powerful predictor than
NEP to influence Taiwanese and Japanese undergraduates’ IEBs. However, CWN seemed more
influential in Taiwan. For Taiwanese undergraduates, two CWN constructs—sensory experienceand the importance of nature were key predictors to all three IEBs. In contrast, only sensory
experience can predict Japanese undergraduates’ IEB in persuasion, political and law action.
We understand that there are several limitation to our research. Firstly, we were not able to reveal
what types of cultural characteristics affected NEP and CWN and overall IEB. Future studies
should look into how cultural, social, and demographic differences between Taiwan and Japanaffect their perceptions and behaviors. In addition, further studies would be necessary to understandsuch as what types and frequency of outdoor activities students daily engage in to interpret why
there were significant difference between Taiwanese and Japanese students in terms of CWN and
NEP. Furthermore, since there was a decent difference in terms of outdoor experiences with family
between Taiwanese and Japanese students, future research could include this factor as independent
variable to predict influence of family experience on CWN and IEB. Since more nursery school/
pre-school/kindergarten are providing nature experience programs today, future surveys mightalso need to explore the influences of outdoor experiences from those school system. We also
understand that only certain types of environmental behavioral intentions are measured in our
survey (especially focusing on persuading and political behaviors), and future research could
look into other types of environmental behaviors and intentions (e.g., saving electricity, bringing
my bag and cup) and verify if the relationship between CWN and IEB are still obvious. Finally,
if CWN is so influential to EBs, how can we figure out the best strategies to design effective
educational practices to improve undergraduates’ CWN? We will need more research to answer all
those fascinating questions in the future.
References
Ahmetoglu, E. 2019. The Contributions of Familial and Environmental Factors on Children’s
Connection with Nature and Outdoor Activities. Early Childhood Development and Care,
189(2): 233–243.
Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J., and Pretty, J. 2013. Measuring Connection to Nature in Children
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature47

8-12: A Robust Methodology for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Colchester,
UK: Essex Sustainability Institute and School of Biological Sciences.
Cagle, N. L. 2018. Changes in Experiences with Nature Through the Lives of Environmentally
Committed University Faculty. Environmental Education Research 24(6): 889–898. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1342116
Chawla, L. 2007. Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural World. Children,
Youth and Environments, 17(4): 144–170.
Chawla, L., and Derr, V. 2012. The Development of Conservation Behaviors in Childhood andYouth. In The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, edited by
Clayton, S. D., 527-555. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chawla, L. 2020. Helping Students Cope with Environmental Change and Take Constructive
Civic Action. Green Schools Catalyst Quarterly, 7(1): 44–57.
Clayton S. 2003. Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and Operational Definition. Identity
and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, edited by Clayton
S., and Opotow S., 45–65. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
D’Amore, C., and Chawla, L. 2020. Significant Life Experiences that Connect Children
with Nature: A Research Review and Applications to A Family Nature Club. In Researchhandbook on Childhoodnature, edited by A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, K. Malone, & E.
Barratt Hacking (Eds.), 799–825. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Dornhoff, M., Sothmann, J.-N., Fiebelkorn, F., and Menzel, S. 2019. Nature Relatedness andEnvironmental Concern of Young People in Ecuador and Germany. Frontiers in Psychology,
10: 453.doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsygg.2019.00453
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Emmet Jones, R. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues,
56(3), 425–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Hines J. M., Hungerford H., and Tomera A. N. 1987. Analysis and Synthesis of Research
on Responsible Environmental Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental
Education, 18: 1–8.
Kals E, Schumacher D, and Montada L. 1999. Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as A
Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environment and Behavior, 31: 178–202.
Larson, D. F., Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Seekamp, E., and Strnad, R. 2019.
Evaluating Climate Change Concern and Behaviors in the Family Context. Environmental
Education Research, 25(5): 678–690. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504 622.2018.1564248
Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Mayer FS, and Frantz CM. 2004. The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’
Feeling in Community with Nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24: 503–515.
Musitu-Ferrer, D., Léon-Moreno, C., Callejas-Jerónimo, J. E., Esteban- Ibáñez, M., andMusitu-Ochoa, G. 2019. Relationships between Parent Socialization Styles, Empathy andConnectedness with Nature: Their Implications in Environmentalism. International Journalof Environmental Research and Public Health, 16. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142461
Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

48

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. 2009. The Nature Relatedness Scale Linking
Individuals’ Connection with Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environment
and Behavior, 41: 715–740. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
Olivos, P., Aragonés, J. I. and Amérigo, M. 2011. The Connectedness to Nature Scale and
Its Relationship with Environmental Beliefs and Identity. International Journal of Hispanic
Psychology, 4(1): 5-19.
Pasca, L., Coello, M. T., Aragonés, J. I., and Frantz, C. M. 2018. The Equivalence of Measureson The Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Comparison between Ordinal Methods of DIF
Detection. PLoS ONE, 13(11). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207739
Schultz, P. W. 2002. Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of Human-Nature Relations. In
Psychology of Sustainable Development, edited by P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), 6178. Boston, MA: Springer.
Tam, K.-P. 2013. Concepts and Measures Related to Connection to Nature: Similarities andDifferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34: 64–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2013.01.004
Tseng, Y. C., and Wang, S. M. 2020. Understanding Taiwanese Adolescents’ Connections
with Nature: Rethinking Conventional Definitions and Scales for Environmental Education.
Environmental Education Research, 26(1): 115– 129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135046
22.2019.1668354
Tseng, Y. C. 2019. The Development of Connection with Nature Scale for
Junior-High-School Adolescents. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 27(4): 323-345.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.201912_27(4).0006. (in Chinese).
Tseng, Y. C. 2020. An Explorative Research on the Relationships among Taiwanese Adolescents’Significant Life Experiences and Environmental Behaviors with the Mediation of Connection
with Nature. Chinese Journal of Science Education,28(3): 223-254. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.6173/CJSE.202009_28(3).0002. (in Chinese).
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. L., and Milfont, T. L. 2019. Exposure to Urban Nature and Tree
Planting Are Related to Pro-Environmental Behavior via Connection to Nature, the Useof Nature for Psychological Restoration, and Environmental Attitudes. Environment andBehavior, 51(7): 787-810. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916517751009
Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., and Abrahamse, W. 2020. Meta-Analysis of Human Connection to
Nature and Proenvironmental Behavior. Conservation Biology, 34(1): 180-193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381
Zhu, Y. (2015). An assessment of environmental literacy among undergraduate students at two
national universities in Hubei province, China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida
Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL.
Zylstra, M. J., Esler, K. J., Knight, A. T., and LeGrange, L. L. 2014. Connectedness as A Core
Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and A Call for Practice.
Springer Science Reviews, 2: 119–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s4036 2-014-0021-3

Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2Comparing Taiwanese and Japanese Undergraduates' Connection with Nature

49

Appendix
Appendix 1 Demographics of undergraduates in Taiwan (N=178) and Japan (N=124)
Demographic items

Category

Age

18
19
20
21
22
over 23
Male
FemaleCountryside
SuburbUrban
Social Science
Humanities and Art/Design
Management
Computer Science/Electrical Engineering
Natural Sciences/Mathematics
Without familyWith family

GenderResidential areas

University
Major

Outdooractivities

Taiwan(N=178)
N
1
111
40
14
7
3
91
86
38
73
67
24
59
19
36
40
59
119

%
.6%
62.4%
22.5%
7.9%
3.9%
1.7%
51.1%
48.3%
21.3%
41.0%
37.6%
13.5%
33.1%
10.7%
20.2%
22.5%
33.1%
66.9%

Japan
(N=124)
N
12
43
37
16
10
2
68
48
37
49
31
90
34
91
33

%
9.7%
34.7%
29.8%
12.9%
8.1%
1.6%
54.8%
38.7%
29.8%
39.5%
25.0%
72.6%
27.4%
73.4%
26.6%

Appendix 2 Descriptive statistics of CWN scale in both Taiwanese and Japanese samples
M(SD)Taiwan(N=178)Japan(N=124)4.27(1.28)

4.38(1.25)

5)I enjoy watching the clouds moving across the sky.

5.31( .90)

4.29(1.47)

6)I enjoy observing animals when being outdoors.

4.39(1.28)

3.98(1.47)

7)I enjoy smelling fresh air when being in nature.

4.79(1.11)

4.73(1.22)

8)I enjoy sitting or lying down on the grassland.

4.93(1.00)

4.85(1.07)

1)I feel relaxed when being in nature.

4.93(1.00)

4.85(1.07)

2)I think nature is important to who I am.

3.84(1.23)

4.75(1.13)

3)I think about my day when I have quiet time in nature.

4.49(1.26)

3.65(1.43)

9)I feel I am missing something if not being able to spend time in nature.

3.63(1.34)

3.19(1.27)

10)I feel sad when seeing new shopping malls replacing natural areas.

4.64(1.16)

3.37(1.34)

11)I feel like there is something bigger than me when being in nature.

4.53(1.24)

3.46(1.59)

Items
CWN-sensory experience4)I enjoy hearing different sounds in nature.

CWN-psychological benefit

CWN-importance of natureJapanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

Yu Chi Tseng, Ryo Sakurai, Kimiharu To

50

Appendix 3 Descriptive statistics of IEB scale in both Taiwanese and Japanese samples
Mean (SD)How much are you willing to conduct the following pro-environmental behaviors?
IEB-persuasion
3)Encouraging others to recycle and reuse stuff.
4)Actively introducing strategies to conserve natural resources to family and friends.
7)Encouraging or persuading others to take actions to solve or prevent environmental
problems.
IEB-civic engagement
1)Joining nature conservation-related NPOs or student clubs.

Taiwan(N=178)Japan(N=124)4.99( .97)

4.13(1.34)

4.89(1.03)
4.56(1.10)

3.90(1.40)
3.60(1.45)

3.51(1.27)

4.02(1.30)

2)Donating money to nature conservation-related NPOs.

3.73(1.36)

3.78(1.34)

5)Participating in petitions related to issues about nature conservation.

4.38(1.23)

3.34(1.52)

3.69(1.25)
4.00(1.35)
4.26(1.25)
4.21(1.27)

3.16(1.39)
3.44(1.47)
3.15(1.36)
3.43(1.33)

IEB-politics and law
6)Participating in public hearings related to issues about nature conservation.
8)Supporting political parties that advocate environmental protection policies.
9)Reporting violations of environmental laws to the official environmental organizations.
10)Supporting victims to take legal actions against environmental destruction.

Appendix 4 Reliability of all variables in both Taiwanese and Japanese samples
Variable and Constructs
NEP
CWN (whole scale)
CWN-sensory experience
CWN-psychological benefit
CWN-importance of nature
IEB (whole scale)
IEB-persuasion
IEB-civic engagement
IEB-politics and law

Taiwan
.84
.89
.83
.73
.67
.89
.82
.75
.81

Japanese Journal of Environmental Education VOL. 31-2

Japan
.72
.89
.81
.65
.55
.93
.87
.78
.88