Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Stockholm
Author(s): Matteo Giusti, Stephan Barthel and Lars Marcus
Source: Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 24, No. 3, Special Section on Greening Early
Childhood Education (2014), pp. 16-42
Published by: The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, for the benefit
of the Children, Youth and Environments Center at the University of Colorado Boulder
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, for the benefit of the Children, Youth
and Environments Center at the University of Colorado Boulder is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Children, Youth and Environments.
http://www.jstor.org
Stephan Barthel
Institute of Urban History and Stockholm Resilience Centre
Stockholm University
Lars Marcus
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Citation: Giusti, Matteo, Stephan Barthel and Lars Marcus (2014). Nature
Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool Children in
Stockholm. Children, Youth and Environments 24(3): 16-42. Retrieved [date]
from: http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi.
Abstract
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
17
The spatial design of a city is a leading factor in how urban dwellers relate to the
physical landscape. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution, anthropocentric
forces have progressively separated urban systems from their surrounding natural
environments (Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill 2007; Steffen et al. 2011). The
commodities that a modern city requires are now not only drawn from the adjacent
regional landscape, but increasingly from the furthest reaches of the planet (Folke
et al. 1997; Barthel et al. 2005; Grimm et al. 2008; Deutsch 2004). While
historically cities were designed to fruitfully co-exist with local and regional
ecosystems, for instance to enable urban agriculture or to benefit from local
sources of waterpower (Mumford 1961; Barthel and Isendahl 2013), todays urban
dynamics conceal from urban dwellers both presence and importance of the
ecological life-support systems. The socio-technical experience of the urban
landscape has left the vast majority of urban citizens systematically deprived of in
situ nature experiences, especially on a daily basis. Such urban routines can be said
to be affected by an extinction of nature experiences, which is often negatively
associated with peoples engagement in nature conservation (Miller 2005; Samways
2007; Stokes 2006). The lack of personal nature experiences seems to initiate a
self-reinforcing cycle of disaffection and carelessness for the environment with
direct implications for the emergence of sustainable lifestyles (Pyle 1993). On a
larger scale, such estrangement from the biosphere is considered a systematic
barrier for a decisive shift of civil society towards sustainable development (Folke et
al. 2011; Folke, Holling and Perrings 1996).
On the other hand, the processes that lead someone to engage in environmental
stewardship are found in the early-life establishment of positive affective and
cognitive assumptions towards nature (Stern 2000; Schultz 2000; Dunlap et al.
2000; Stern, Dietz and Kalof 1993; Kals, Schumacher and Montada 1999).
However, the research that investigates the emergence of positive environmental
attitudes relies mostly on retrospective interviews (Chawla 1999) and surveys
(Ewert, Place and Sibthorp 2005; Wells and Evans 2003). Such methodology
highlights how conscious attributes of the human mind shape ones attitude
towards the environment, but implicitly neglects the unconscious mind. Hence, only
memories of nature experiences that are available to consciousness are taken into
consideration. However, nature experiences that are not available for memory
retrieval, but are the background of ones routine, may have great significance on
forming the human appreciation of nature. Indeed, the impact of unconscious
contextual factors in shaping ones mindset is evident in many other aspects of
human life, from parents role in childrens development to the function that
advertising plays in society for adults.
In neural processes, persistent experiences play a leading role in how
environmental perceptions come to constitute ones internal representation of
reality. In academia, the significance of consistent stimuli to shape ones identity is
recognized, for instance, in the learning process of psychological conditioning, and
increasingly in biological and cognitive neurosciences. Indeed, the persistent
exposure to the same neurological stimulus physically nurtures the same neural
networks (Maletic-Savatic, Malinow and Svoboda 1999). It follows that, persistent
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
18
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
19
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
20
Recreation
Natural beauty
Wilderness
Rurality
Playing in water
Flower display
Forest feeling
Playing in nature
Wild nature
Picnicking
Contact with
water bodies
Domesticated
animals present
Riding
Green oases
Small-scale
cultivation
Land formations
Farmers market
Peacefulness
Panoramas
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
21
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
22
Collection of Data
The data collection process is divided into three phases. In Phase 1, we assess
childrens frequency of nature experiences during preschool activities. In Phase 2,
we assess childrens emotional, cognitive, and attitudinal affinity with the
biosphere. Finally, in Phase 3, we assess the childrens social context. Each phase is
described below.
Phase 1: Assessing Childrens Frequency of Nature Experiences in
Preschools
All 134 municipal preschools in Stockholm that adhere to the Reggio Emilia
pedagogical approach were ranked according to the availability of nature
experiences of recreation, natural beauty, wilderness, and rurality in their
surroundings. We chose preschools that use the Reggio Emilia approach because
they are widely available in the Stockholm municipality, and because they
emphasize the importance of the physical learning environment. We carried out the
ranking of preschools using the following procedure:
1. A GIS analysis is performed using the attraction accessibility function in the
Place Syntax Tool (Sthle, Marcus and Karlstrm 2005), a plug-in application
for MapInfo. Preschool accessibility to nature experiences is calculated by
measuring the distances between each preschools location and every
sociotope included in the categorized nature experiences (see Table 1).
2. The distances resulting from the GIS analysis are coupled with how often
preschool teachers and pupils cover such distances for outdoor activities.
Distances to each sociotope are then translated into values of frequency of
use to create a more direct evaluation of childrens nature routines. How
frequently a distance range is used for outdoor activities determines its
relevance in childrens nature routines. We therefore classify the distance
from each preschool to each sociotope into five different ranges previously
identified by the preschool teachers as corresponding to the frequency of
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
23
3. The resulting frequency values for each sociotope are then summed up in a
single value. At this stage, each preschool has a unique value that represents
a reliable estimation of how often the nature experiences available in the
preschools surroundings are experienced during outdoor activities. All 134
preschools are ranked according to this value.
In other words, each preschool is ranked according to the highest frequency of use
of the greatest variety of nature experiences in its surroundings (mean = 40.3, SD
= 7.7). The top ten preschools with the most frequent use of all nature experiences
and the ten preschools with the least frequent use were selected for comparison.
Preschools in the second-ranked deciles could not be selected to complement this
data because they were pilot-cases used to consolidate the methods for the
assessment of childrens affiliation with the biosphere (Giusti 2012). Of the selected
20 preschools, 13 were eliminated because they did not meet the requirements for
Phase 2 (having a minimum of three Swedish children of five years of age who have
been in the same preschool since their first year). The remaining seven preschools
selectedtwo from the top ranking and five from the bottom rankingreported an
average time of outdoor activities with children of 14 hours/week (SD = 1.7) in line
with the Swedish national curriculum (Skolverket 2010).
Phase 2: Assessing Childrens Affinity with the Biosphere
Each component of this phase is designed to prevent known demographic and
cultural factors from influencing the results (Dunlap et al. 2000). Childrens age,
their number of years of education, their nationality, the nationality of both their
parents, the pedagogical approach of the preschool, and the overall urban
environment (Stockholm) are personal, social, and spatial characteristics that are
uniform in this study. Restricting variation in such a wide variety of factors limits
the size of the dataset, but makes the research more consistent with its intent:
assessing how four years of experiencing urban landscapes with different natural
features relates to childrens affinity with the biosphere.
The final participants were 16 children from preschools with low access to nature
experiences and 11 from preschools with high access to nature experiences.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
24
Teachers individually interviewed all children inside their own preschool to create a
safe, relaxing environment for the children to respond to the tasks given to them
(Chawla 2006b). In so doing, we also minimize eventual unconscious transfer of
desired results from researchers to the children.
Materials for Phase 2
The assessment of childrens affinity with the biosphere is designed to address
affective and cognitive aspects of connectedness with the biosphere using two
complementary sets of image-based tasks, or games. The games were designed
to be general and not locally specific, as well as straightforward to interpret for the
researchers. Childrens motivations and intentions of playing in natural
environments, i.e. attitudinal affinity, is then evaluated with a short interview
(Table 2). Before performing the interview, the teachers were briefed about the
project and its assumptions, and were provided with written instructions on how to
perform all the requested tasks.
Table 2. Games testing for Emotional Affinity (EA1-EA14), Cognitive
Affinity (CA1-CA21), and Attitudinal Affinity with the Biosphere
assigned task
image sample
Answer yes-no to
Does [image] feel
pain?
Tasks EA1 to EA8
Choosing a smile after
showing an image of
positive/negative
environmental
behavior.
[animals]
[you]
[vehicles]
[people]
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
25
people.
Each image group in
the second column is
composed of three
distinct images.
Recreation
area
Videogames
Playground
Farm
Toys
Green area
Outdoor
street
Forest
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
26
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
27
Results
Phase 1: Childrens Frequency of Nature Experiences in Preschools
Figure 1 shows the geographical location of all the selected 134 preschools and
their different frequency of use of nature experiences, together with the locations of
the top and the bottom ten preschools selected for comparison. The standard
deviation values obtained from the statistical analysis confirm that nature
experiences of recreation (mean = 11.3, SD = 2.2) and natural beauty (mean =
11.6, SD = 3.3) are more evenly distributed than experiences of wilderness
(mean = 11.3, SD = 4.3), while experiences of rurality are considerably less
available across the whole municipality (mean = 6.1, SD = 2.9). In fact, the spatial
configuration of Stockholm provides very few experiences of rurality (Figure 1d)
and mostly isolates experiences of wilderness in peripheral locations of the
municipality (Figure 1c). The two preschools with highest frequency of nature
experiences, compared to the five lowest ones, have considerably more access to
all four nature experiences (mean = 38.7, SD = 18): recreation (mean = 11, SD =
6.4), natural beauty (mean = 11.1, SD = 6.4), wilderness (mean = 11.4, SD = 5.5)
and rurality (mean = 6.2, SD = 3.8).
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
b)
c)
d)
28
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
29
affinity CND
(N = 16)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
df
Emotional
Affinity with the
Biosphere
.792
.121
.665
.154
2.289
.031
25
.916
Cognitive
Affinity with the
Biosphere
.771
.134
.660
.133
2.114
.045
25
.845
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
30
Children with nature-rich routines score (mean = .771) significantly and notably
higher in Cognitive Affinity (CA) with nature (two-sample t(25) = 2.114, p = .045,
d = .845) than the children with nature-deficit routines (mean = .660). CNR also
show higher cognitive capacity to link finite products with the ecological resources
required for their manufacture and better perception of the harmful effects of
environmental degradation (Figure 2). Specifically, children with nature-rich
routines perform better in the tasks CA5 (37 percent higher understanding of the
link between wool and sheep, mean-CNR = .73, mean-CND = .5), CA8 (37 percent
higher understanding of the link between blueberries and forest, mean-CNR = .73,
mean-CND = .5), and CA19 (50 percent higher understanding the harmful effects
of water pollution for animals, mean-CNR = .73, mean-CND = .44). Once again,
those children with nature-rich routines consistently show on average 15 percent
higher cognitive capacities to affiliate with the biosphere in almost all questions,
regardless of the levels of difficulty characterizing the single tasks.
The qualitative analysis of childrens attitudinal affinity with the biosphere shows
that children with high and low nature experiences share very similar attitudes
towards playing in natural environments. Indeed, children of both groups consider
indoor environments the safest to play in (n = 13) and wild environments the least
safe (n = 12). The fear of getting lost and losing their parents (n = 4) and the fear
of dangerous animals such as wolves, bears, and moose (n = 6) motivate a large
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
31
The main results of this study indicate that the spatial configuration of nature
experiences in Stockholm is associated with childrens development of an affinity
with the biosphere. More specifically, we show that of the 27 participants, those
who have had nature-deficit routines for four years in preschool have developed
considerably weaker emotional and cognitive affinity with the biosphere. The strict
selection of participants (same age, years of education, nationality, parents
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
32
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
33
Conclusion
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
34
also on the human capacity to emotionally bond with local ecosystems and existing
non-human life. Considering that cities are the most common human habitat, the
intentional design of their very forms have great potential to remind, cherish or
neglect the interdependence of human and biotic well-being.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Terry Hartig for the insightful discussion on an earlier version of the
paper, and three anonymous reviewers for their feedback.
Matteo Giustis research aims at defining principles of urban design that nurture
identification with nature. The extinction of nature experience is commonplace in
the urban lifestyle and its consequences are widely assumed to trigger a selfreinforcing cycle of disaffection that hinders peoples engagement in environmental
stewardship. Matteos research revolves on how to design spatial configurations of
urban nature to support the psychological foundation of environmental
stewardshipidentification with nature. Matteos research embraces aspects of
resilience theory, spatial cognition, biophilic design, neuro-biological theories of
cognition, and more generally environmental psychology and urban design.
Stephan Barthel's research revolves around the management of urban ecosystem
services and resilience. Stephans research shows that urban ecosystem services
are a product of human-driven co-evolution, consequently sustaining ecosystems in
urban landscapes is not about conservation without people, but shaped by and
dependent on management practice by people. Practice that links to generation of
ecosystem services are facilitated by social-ecological memory of local
communities-of-practice that holds long-term management rights. Consequently,
local communities of practice that contribute to the production of ecosystem
services should explicitly be taken into account in urban green governance of urban
landscapes.
Lars Marcus is an architect and professor in Urban Design at KTH School of
Architecture. He is director of the research group Spatial Analysis and Design (SAD)
in the field of Spatial Morphology, the study of how spatial form generated by
architecture and urban design structures peoples use of space in their everyday life
and, in extension, conditions critical social, economic and ecological processes. He
is co-founder of the international MSc-program in Sustainable Urban Planning and
Design (SUPD) and also founder of the consultancy firm Spacescape, which
performs spatial analysis and policy development for urban projects.
References
Andersson, E, S. Barthel, and K. Ahrn (2007). Measuring Social-Ecological
Dynamics behind the Generation of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Applications
17(5): 12671278.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
35
Andersson, Erik (2006). Urban Landscapes and Sustainable Cities. Ecology and
Society 11(1).
Bamberg, S., and G. Mser (2007). Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford, and
Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants of Pro-Environmental
Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27(1): 14-25.
Barthel, S., J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, and C. Folke (2005). History and Local
Management of a Biodiversity-Rich, Urban Cultural Landscape. Ecology and Society
10(2).
Barthel, S., C. Crumley, and U. Svedin (2013). Bio-Cultural Refugia
Safeguarding Diversity of Practices for Food Security and Biodiversity. Global
Environmental Change 23(5): 1142-1152.
Barthel, S., and C. Isendahl (2013) Urban Gardens, Agriculture, and Water
Management: Sources of Resilience for Long-Term Food Security in Cities.
Ecological Economics 86: 224-234.
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional
Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications 10(5):
1251-1262.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems:
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Borke, H. (1973). The Development of Empathy in Chinese and American Children
between Three and Six Years of Age: A Cross-Cultural Study. Developmental
Psychology 9(1): 102108.
Bragg, E.A. (1996). Towards Ecological Self: Deep Ecology Meets Constructionist
Self-Theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16(2): 93108.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human
Development: Research Perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22(6): 723742.
Bryant, B. (1982). An Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents. Child
Development 53(2): 413425.
Chawla, L. (2006a). "Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It."
Barn 2(2): 5778.
----- (2006b). "Research Methods to Investigate Significant Life Experiences:
Review and Recommendations." Environmental Education Research 12(3-4): 359
374.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
36
----- (1999). Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action. The Journal of
Environmental Education 31(1): 1526.
----- (1998). Significant Life Experiences Revisited: A Review of Research on
Sources of Environmental Sensitivity. Environmental Education Research 4(4):
369382.
Cheng, J.C.H., and M.C. Monroe (2010). Connection to Nature: Childrens
Affective Attitude toward Nature. Environment and Behavior 44(1): 3149.
Cialdini, R.B., S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis, C. Luce, and S.L. Neuberg (1997).
Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One into One Equals
Oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(3): 48194.
Clayton, S.D. (2003). Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and Operational
Definition. In S.D. Clayton and S. Opotow, eds. Identity and the Natural
Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
4566.
Colding, J., J. Lundberg, and C. Folke (2006). Incorporating Green-Area User
Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management. Ambio 35(5): 237244.
Crumley, C. (1994). Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing
Landscapes. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Dalton, R.C., C. Hlscher, and A. Turner (2012). Understanding Space: the
Nascent Synthesis of Cognition and the Syntax of Spatial Morphologies.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(1): 711.
Deutsch, L. (2004). Global Trade, Food Production and Ecosystem Support:
Making the Interactions Visible. Stockholm University.
Dunlap, R.E., and K. Van Liere (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm.
Journal of Environmental Education 9: 1019.
Dunlap, R.E., K. Van Liere, A. Mertig, and R. Jones (2000). Measuring
Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of
Social Issues 56(3): 425442.
Evans, G.W., G. Brauchle, A. Haq, R. Stecker, K. Wong, and E. Shapiro
(2007). Young Childrens Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Environment
and Behavior 39(5): 635658.
Ewert, A., G. Place, and J. Sibthorp (2005). Early-Life Outdoor Experiences and
an Individuals Environmental Attitudes. Leisure Sciences 27(3): 225239.
Feshbach, N.D. (1975). Empathy in Children: Some Theoretical and Empirical
Considerations. The Counseling Psychologist 5(2): 2530.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
37
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
38
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
39
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
40
Pell, T., and T. Jarvis (2001). Developing Attitude to Science Scales for Use with
Children of Ages from Five to Eleven Years. International Journal of Science
Education 23(8): 847-862.
Peponis, J., C. Zimring, and Y.K. Choi (1990). Finding the Building in
Wayfinding. Environment and Behavior 22(5): 555590.
Peterson, N., and H.R. Hungerford (1982). Developmental Variables Affecting
Environmental Sensitivity in Professional Environmental Educators. PhD diss.,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Piaget, J. (1960). The Childs Conception of the World. Totowa, New Jersey:
Adams and Co.
Pyle, R.M. (1993). The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Samways, M.J. (2007). Rescuing the Extinction of Experience. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16(7): 19951997.
Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking
on Concern for Environmental Issues. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 391-406.
----- (2001). The Structure of Environmental Concern: Concern for Self, Other
People, and the Biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(4): 327-339.
----- (2002). Inclusion with Nature: Understanding Human-Nature Interactions.
In P. Schmuck and P.W. Schultz, eds. Psychology of Sustainable Development. New
York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 61-78.
Schultz, P.W., C. Shriver, J.J. Tabanico, and A.M. Khazian (2004). Implicit
Connections with Nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1): 31-42.
Sia, A.P., H.R. Hungerford, and A.N. Tomera (1986). Selected Predictors of
Responsible Environmental Behavior: An Analysis. The Journal of Environmental
Education 17(2): 31-40.
Singer, T., B. Seymour, J. ODoherty, H. Kaube, R.J. Dolan, and C.D. Frith
(2004). Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but Not Sensory Components of
Pain. Science 303(5661): 1157-62.
Skolverket (2010). Lpf 98. Curriculum for the Preschool. Stockholm.
Sociotophandboken (2003). Planering av det offentliga uterummet med
Stockholmarna och sociotopkartan. Rapport SBK 2.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
41
Sthle, A. (2006). Sociotope Mapping - Exploring Public Open Space and Its
Scape Planning Practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 19(4): 59-71.
Sthle, A., L. Marcus, and A. Karlstrm (2005). A Space Syntax Approach to
Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium.
Delft, Netherlands: Technische Universitt Delft, 131-139.
Stedman, R.C. (2002). Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior
from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environment and Behavior
34(5): 561-581.
Stedman, R.C. (2003). Is It Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution
of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place. Society & Natural Resources 16(8):
671-685.
Steffen, W., J. Crutzen, and J.R. McNeill (2007). The Anthropocene: Are
Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio 36(8- 61421.
Steffen, W., J. Grinevald, P. Crutzen, and J. McNeill (2011). The
Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions.
Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 369(1938): 842-67.
Steg, L., and C. Vlek (2009). Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An
Integrative Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology
29(3): 309-317.
Stern, P.C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424.
Stern, P.C., and T. Dietz (1994). The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Journal of Social Issues 50(3): 65-84.
Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, and L. Kalof (1993). Value Orientations, Gender, and
Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior 25(5): 322-348.
Stockhom Stad (n.d.) "Statistik om Stockholm." Available from:
http://www.statistikomstockholm.se/
Stokes, D.L. (2006). Conservators of Experience. BioScience 56(1): 7.
Sthle, A. (2006). Sociotope Mapping: Exploring Public Open Space and Its
Multiple Use in Urban and Landscape Planning Practice. Nordic Journal of
Architectural Research 19(4): 59-71.
Szagun, G., and V.I. Pavlov (1995). Environmental Awareness: A Comparative
Study of German and Russian Adolescents. Youth & Society 27(1): 93-112.
Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool
42