Uses and Gratifications of and Exposure to Nature 2.0 and Associated Interdependence With Nature and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Abstract

New media studies have begun to take environmental topics into consideration. However, there has been little research that explores the origins of human psychological needs that motivate people to get exposed to nature on the Internet and gain satisfaction via social media uses related to nature. This study intended to investigate the uses and gratifications of and exposure to “nature 2.0” (a nature that is humanly created on Web 2.0) and the associated interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. The results found that the needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 can be satisfied through functional, relational, and emotional gratifications. Exposure to nature 2.0 was associated with commitment to nature and pro-environmental self-reported behavior. Functional gratification was correlated with pro-environmental behavior, while relational and emotional gratifications were related to interdependence with nature.

Keywords

biophilia interdependence with nature Internet use pro-environmental behavior uses and gratifications

Human influence on the world’s environment has been active and substantial that it has changed the functioning of the environmental system (Hamilton, 2016). Population growth, rapid urbanization, and increasing levels of consumption have combined to cause air and water pollution, climate change, desertification, land degradation, and the mass extinctions of plant and animal species (United Nations Environment Programme, 2016). From a human-centric point of view, technological progress has given humans the ability to change the natural environment or to rethink what human beings have been done to nature (Guitton, 2017). A set of new opportunities are now available that can turn around what humans have done to the environment. Highly social human beings are supposed to be attracted to the Internet because it allows them to communicate and cooperate with others without geographical constraints (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Ng, 2019). The coordination of interpersonal communication for discussing environmental issues on the Internet can change pro-environmental behavioral outcomes. Thus, enhancing sustainability efforts could be possible (Guitton, 2017; Koteyko et al., 2015).

New media studies have started to take environmental issues into account. For example, communication researchers have studied the role of the Internet and social media in environmental collective action (e.g., Lee, 2015; Zhang & Skoric, 2018). Because of the lower cost of coordination, information, mobilization, and participation by using the Internet (Coopman, 2011), Web 2.0, and social media can provide a new channel for environmental organizations to encourage individuals to be more environmentally friendly (Büscher, 2016). Also, social media can serve as an educational tool to share knowledge about environmental protection, encourage the public to engage in conservation projects collaborating with scientists, promote the significance of sustainability to business and facilitate changes within business, formulate environmental activism, and generate individual pro-environmental behavioral outcomes (Pearson et al., 2016).

Scholars have investigated the impact of the Internet and social media on the pro-environmental action of individuals and organizations (e.g., Ballew et al., 2015; Büscher, 2016; Oakley & Salam, 2014; Pearson et al., 2016). Little is known, however, about the relationships between usage of and exposure to nature on the Internet and pro-environmental psychological and behavioral outcomes. This study intended to empirically examine the uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 and the associated interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior.

Following Büscher (2016), nature 2.0 is defined as a nature that is humanly created on Web 2.0. Nature 2.0 also involves online activities that can develop, promote, and maintain pro-environmental actions via social media platforms (Ballew et al., 2015). The concept of “nature 2.0” that represents new online specification can help us understand the relationship between new media and nature conservation and protection.

This study focused on the relationships between nature 2.0 and interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. Understanding how to induce the positive human–environment relationship, including depending emotionally and physically on nature, taking the perspective of what is good for nature, making a commitment to protect the nature, and behaving environmentally friendly, should be worth investigating. It is because those pro-environmental psychological and behavioral outcomes can help mitigate environmental problems and preserve natural environments (Davis et al., 2009; Kaiser et al., 2003). Studies have explored factors that are related to pro-environmental psychological and behavioral outcomes. However, many of those factors involve high money and time cost such as environmental education and field visits (Arendt & Matthes, 2016). Nature 2.0 can be an inexpensive and less time-consuming tool to satisfy their needs to affiliate with nature and may positively relate to interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior.

Theoretical Framework

Uses and Gratifications and Mediated Nature

Uses and gratifications theory postulates that individuals are active media users and are aware of their interests and motives. They use media to satisfy their needs and to accomplish their goals. Media consumption and exposure can satisfy social and psychological needs related to strengthening information, emotional experience, social relationship, and tension release (E. Katz, Gurevitch, & Haas, 1973).

The uses and gratifications theory offers a cutting-edge theoretical framework to explain computer-mediated communication (Ruggiero, 2000). The active audience concept applies to Internet use because of its capability to empower individuals to autonomously and actively seek the information they need (e.g., Dhir et al., 2016; Larose et al., 2001). Social media also allow individuals to create and exchange user-generated content that can fulfill their various psychological and social needs such as social interaction, information seeking, and entertainment (Whiting & Williams, 2013).

The uses and gratifications approach can serve as a lens to understand where the needs originate and how the needs are gratified by nature 2.0. In order to understand the uses and gratifications of nature 2.0, as suggested by previous communication scholars (Newhagen & Rafaeli, 2006; Ruggiero, 2000), the biological, psychological, and sociological motivations behind humans using the Internet should be taken into consideration. The origins of needs may motivate users to get exposed to nature 2.0. How humans create, receive, and share the content of nature 2.0 to satisfy biological and psychological needs should also be considered.

Before comprehending the biological and psychological needs humans are gratifying by using nature 2.0, we need to understand the evolutionary needs humans are satisfying by affiliating with nature and mediated nature. Some biologists hypothesized that human beings have an inborn tendency to affiliate with nature (Kellert, 1997; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). This is because having a connection to nature has been evolutionarily adaptive for contemporary human beings’ ancestors. The tendency to pay attention to cues in nature—in the course of such activities as searching for food, water, and shelter and avoiding life-threatening encounters with predators and natural disasters—has been an adaptation enhancing the chance of survival and reproduction of humans’ genes (Rolston, 1993). Consequently, those individuals who were closely affiliated with nature would gain evolutionary advantages over those who were not. As the tendency to nature connectedness could increase the chances of gene survival and reproduction, Ulrich (1993) argued that it has been one of the traits that have propagated through past populations and, in the long run, to humans in modern times. Although human beings have shifted to urban living in a relatively short and recent period within evolutionary history, the human brain has remained the locus of the mechanism by which they are attracted to nature (Kellert & Wilson, 1993).

According to the biophilia hypothesis (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), human beings tend to affiliate with life and lifelike processes by virtue of genetically heritable traits. The definition of “lifelike processes” has, however, not been clearly given (Kahn et al., 2009). Kahn and colleagues have argued that mediated nature—that is, lifelike nature—has changed humans’ psychological experiences of nature. Mediated nature is defined as the technologies and media that mediate, simulate, or augment the natural environment (Kahn et al., 2009). For example, TV programs, such as the Discovery Channel, offer people mediated digital experiences of the natural environment. Video games, such as Nature Treks VR, provide humans with a mediated connection to nature. A study showed that participants who watched a real-time plasma display of nature reported enhanced connection to nature (Friedman et al., 2008).

Uses and Gratifications of Nature 2.0

This study focused on another lifelike nature, that is, nature 2.0. Because of the structures of Web 2.0 and social media, nature 2.0 is also conceptualized as the facilitation of pro-environmental actions via social media (Ballew et al., 2015). One way to investigate the evolutionary needs humans are satisfying by using the Internet is to employ uses and gratifications theory (e.g., Ng & Zhao, 2018). This theory holds that people are active and goal-oriented Internet users, and they use the Internet to fulfill their biological and social needs (Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000; Ruggiero, 2000). In this case, Internet and social media uses related to nature may fulfill their needs to affiliate with nature 2.0.

The needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 can be gratified through various social media uses. E. Katz, Gurevitch, and Hass (1973) proposed that people actively select media to satisfy various needs such as cognitive needs to gain information and knowledge, affective needs to express emotions and release pressure, and interpersonal needs to connect and interact with others. Ballew et al. (2015) developed the technologies for pro-environmental action model to explain the informational, relational, and experiential functions of Web 2.0 and social media uses to generate personal, social, and contextual influences on facilitating pro-environmental action. For informational use, individuals can disseminate and post information and pictures of nature spaces via social media; for relational use, people can encourage others to engage in conservation talks and upload images and post content about nature connection on social media; and for experiential use, people can promote reflective writing about nature experiences and build online communities of shared environmental concern (Ballew et al., 2015).

This study adopted and modified the gravitating toward Facebook measure (Aladwani, 2014) to capture the uses and gratifications of nature 2.0 social media uses. This measure was used because it covers multifaceted activities on social media that meet fundamental human needs, including functional needs (e.g., coordinate with others, organize events), social needs (e.g., establish and maintain relationships), emotional needs (e.g., reduce pressure and feel relaxed), and epistemic needs (e.g., learn new things; Aladwani, 2014). The uses and gratifications approach explains the origins of human needs that motivate users to get exposed to nature 2.0 and how it can be used to gratify their “biophilia” need. Aladwani’s (2014) measure is applicable to the uses and gratifications approach that emphasizes human needs and motivations. It is because this measure considers both intrinsic and extrinsic motives that explain how people make their choices and thus can provide a balanced view to grasp usage motives. This study intended to explore the needs and motives that drive individuals to use nature 2.0 on social media.

Exposure to Nature 2.0

In this study, exposure to nature 2.0 is defined as the consumption of professionally produced or user-generated materials on the Internet. Nature 2.0 contains certain representational modes of nature such as photos, videos, and articles related to nature and environmental protection. This study focused on Internet uses related to nature 2.0 due to its incorporation of the theoretical notion (i.e., uses and gratifications theory) that humans’ seeking of nature connection is biophilia-driven. Individuals can use web search engines such as Google to search for information that is congruent with their dispositions and needs. They access the Internet not only using desktop computers at home or in the office but also on tablets, laptops, and smartphones; with Wi-Fi now ubiquitous in most urban centers, this is done easily. Exposure to and consumption of nature on the Internet—thought of as a form of nature 2.0—that predicts pro-environmental psychological and behavioral constructs is worthy of attention.

Exposure to nature on the Internet may fulfill human needs to affiliate with nature 2.0. E. Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1973) argued that media user gratifications can be derived from exposure to the media per se. The existence of the Internet changed the structural relationships among traditional media and the users (Carey, 1998). Internet users can experience animation, pictures, text, video, virtual reality, and voice and receive messages combing animated images, writing, voices, and sounds (Newhagen & Rafaeli, 2006). Following the biophilia hypothesis that humans tend to affiliate with lifelike processes such as nature 2.0, exposure to photos, videos, and articles related to nature and environmental protection on the Internet can satisfy their biophilia need. This study tested the uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 and the associations with independence with the environment (Davis et al., 2009) and pro-environmental behavior (Kaiser et al., 2003; Stern et al., 1999).

Nature 2.0 and Independence With the Environment

E. Katz, Gurevitch, and Hass (1973) proposed that the “studies of media ‘uses and gratifications’ are not only interesting in themselves; but they are, ultimately, an effort to understand ‘effects’” (p. 164). The uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 can be the effects relating to pro-environmental psychological and behavioral constructs. One of the reasons why people use the Internet and social media to satisfy their needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 maybe because humans are dependent on nature emotionally and physically (Davis et al., 2009). The dependence and interconnectedness with nature indicate the boundaries between self and nature. The inclusion of nature in self implies that individuals would take the perspective of what should be good for the environment (Schultz, 2001). The origins of human needs to maintain an overlap between the self and nature can be gratified through the Internet. This study explores whether the needs and motivations that drive people to use nature 2.0 on social media would be correlated with the inclusion of nature in the self. Exposure to photos, videos, and articles related to nature 2.0 could satisfy their need to retain an overlap between the self and nature.

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Is there a correlation between the inclusion of nature in the self and (RQ1a) gratifications of nature 2.0 and (RQ1b) exposure to nature 2.0?

The natural environment can be treated as a partner with whom people feel commitment (Davis et al., 2009). Humans and nature have a reciprocal-dependent association. Derived from interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), Davis and colleagues proposed that people are dependent on the natural environment because nature fulfills human needs, and the needs cannot be gratified without nature. Commitment serves as the perceived experience of dependence because of the need fulfillment (Le & Agnew, 2003). Thus, greater dependence will generate greater commitment to a relationship. Commitment to the environment derived from the biophilia need could be gratified via the affiliation with life and lifelike processes such as nature 2.0. The uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 could mirror the commitment to the environment because of the biophilia need.

Research Question 2 (RQ2): Is there a correlation between the commitment to the environment and (RQ2a) gratifications of nature 2.0 and (RQ2b) exposure to nature 2.0?

Nature 2.0 and Pro-Environmental Behavior

Pro-environmental behavior is defined as behavior that consciously pursues to reduce the negative influence of one’s acts on the natural world such as looking for ways to reuse things, recycling things, and buying eco-friendly products (Kaiser et al., 2003). Previous empirical studies have demonstrated the positive correlations between the Internet and social media uses and pro-environmental behavioral outcomes (e.g., Oakley & Salam, 2014; Zhang & Skoric, 2018). The technologies for pro-environmental action model explain that the functions of Web 2.0 and social media technologies, such as disseminating information to boost the awareness of climate change, interacting with other online users to encourage them to be environmentally friendly, and creating pro-environmental web content, can strengthen individuals’ intention to act environmentally (Ballew et al., 2015). Computer-mediated social networks establish a virtual social environment that facilitates significant impacts on environmental consumerism (Oakley & Salam, 2014). A previous study found that news and articles on social media can be used to promote eco-friendly purchasing behavior (Byrum, 2019). Apart from exposure to contents on social media, social media usages also predict pro-environmental behavior. Political and relational social media uses were associated with environmental activism and consumerism (Zhang & Skoric, 2018). Based on the results of the previous empirical studies, this research explores the uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 and the associated pro-environmental behavior.

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Is there a correlation between pro-environmental behavior and (RQ3a) gratifications of nature 2.0 and (RQ3b) exposure to nature 2.0?

Method

Participants and Procedure

This study adopted a nonrandom convenience sampling method. The convenience sample was collected via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is an online survey platform developed by Amazon to help researchers recruit and pay workers for computerized tasks (e.g., online survey and experiment; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Although nonrandom convenience sampling has been criticized because of its lack of generalizability and external validity, convenience samples generated via MTurk may not significantly limit the external validity and do not indicate a poor sampling strategy (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Participants recruited via MTurk were more socioeconomically and racially diverse than recruited via social media platforms (Casler et al., 2013). Also, one of the notable advantages of using MTurk is that researchers can recruit non-WEIRD participants (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich et al., 2010) at low time and monetary costs.

Based on the tenet of the uses and gratifications approach, factor analysis should be performed to extract the underlying factor structure of the gratifications of nature 2.0. A rough estimation for adequate sample sizes for factor analysis was that a sample size of 300 was good and 500 indicated very good (Comrey & Lee, 1992; MacCallum et al., 1999). Thus, 499 MTurk workers were recruited. Before starting the survey, participants were told that the purpose of this study was to study Internet use and environmental behavior. They understood that they were Internet and social media users, so that they were able to continue and finish this study.

They received US$0.4 in return for their participation in a 10-min online questionnaire. The amount awarded is small in MTurk because MTurk workers are in part internally motivated (Buhrmester et al., 2011). This survey included 3 items to identify careless responses (e.g., “Please select ‘Somewhat agree’ for this item”). Participants who answered at least 1 of the 3 items incorrectly and finished the online survey more than once (in which case the first completion was included) were excluded (24.05%).

This left a final sample of 379 MTurk workers (41.2% female, 58.3% male, and 0.5% other; Mean_age = 32.22, SD_age = 10.06, Min_age–Max_age = 18–69; 55.7% Asian, 31.7% White, 3.7% African American, 2.9% Latino American, 2.1% mixed race, 2.1% others, and 1.8% Native American). Their general social media use was (i.e., how many minutes they spent on social media per day) 1.8% 10 min or less; 15.8% 10–30 min; 20.8% 31–60 min; 24.0% 1–2 hr; 14.5% 2–3 hr; 9.0% 3–4 hr; 7.1% 4–5 hr; 1.8% 5–6 hr; and 5.0% 6+ hr. Participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire consisting of the following measures after reading the informed consent statement and agreeing to participate in the study. Questions were presented in random order. This study was conducted in February 2018. Data are available online at https://osf.io/uxk2e/?view_only=f2c138f1889b4b319758cd7e79914495.

Measures

Gratifications of nature 2.0

The Gravitating toward Facebook (GoToFB) measurement was modified to assess various gratifications of social media use related to nature 2.0. The gratifications measure focused specifically on Web 2.0 and social media because of its interactive and user-generated nature that can cultivate information sharing and connection among individuals all over the world (Ng, 2019). It thus can provide a medium for the encouragement of environmental protection worldwide (Ballew et al., 2015). It is an appropriate scale to evaluate social media uses related to nature 2.0 because it captures comprehensive aspects on engagement with social network sites including branding, connecting, expressing, learning, monitoring, organizing, relaxing, and sharing (Aladwani, 2014). It also considers the intrinsic and extrinsic motives to explain how users make their choice to satisfy their needs and motives. With reference to the original 34 GoToFB items, 29 items were selected and rewritten to measure social media uses related to connection with and content consumption about the natural environment because these concepts are core in individuals’ mental representations of nature (Davis et al., 2009). For example, “While I was interacting with Facebook, I felt gravitated toward exploiting its features to arrange meetings” was changed to “I use social media (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter) to arrange meetings about environmental protection.” The 5 items were removed due to their redundancies and irrelevance. Participants were asked to respond on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

To evaluate the face and content validity of the 29 modified items, nine additional MTurk workers who were environmentally friendly (i.e., having a lifestyle that is better for the environment) were invited to participate in a pilot test. They were asked to answer the 29 items and provide suggestions about whether these questions were clear and easy to understand or not. All of them replied that the questions were clear.

Exposure to nature 2.0

To ensure sufficient content validity, a measure should consist of all aspects of a construct (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; de Vellis, 2003). As the Internet consists of digitized objects, including images, videos, and text (Newhagen & Rafaeli, 2006), referring to a previous study on Internet exposure (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006), exposure to nature 2.0 includes contact with online materials containing photos, videos, and articles related to nature and environmental protection. This measure focused on natural content consumption via search engines and separated social media uses. This section stated “Would you please indicate how often you search the following content via web search engines (e.g., Google Search, Bing Search) on average?” The natural content included (a) nature photos, (b) nature videos, (c) nature articles, (d) photos, (e) videos, and (f) articles related to environmental protection. No restrictions were provided on their searching behavior. Participants rated on 7-point Likert-type scales: 1 (never), 2 (less than once a month), 3 (1–3 times a month), 4 (once a week), 5 (several times a week), 6 (every day), and 7 (several times a day). A principal component factor analysis (PCA) with promax rotation was performed on the 6 items to examine if they loaded on a single factor. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) index was .92 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ²(15) = 2,013.35, p < .001. A single factor was extracted (eigenvalue = 4.68 with 78.07% variance explained). The reliabilities of the measures are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations, Means, SDs, and Cronbach’s αs of Measures.

Variables	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender				—
2. Age	32.22	10.06		−.05	—
3. GSM	4.28	1.91	—	−.05	−.09	—
4. FG	3.75	1.59	.97	.08	−.24***	.09	—
5. RG	4.43	1.42	.96	−.01	−.11*	.19***	.81***	—
6. EG	4.45	1.46	.92	−.05	−.07	.12*	.68***	.77***	—
7. EN	3.80	1.42	.94	.09	−.28***	.20***	.73***	.73***	.62***	—
8. INS	4.51	1.77	—	.08	.02	.01	.35***	.46***	.36***	.36***	—
9. CE	5.16	1.02	.90	−.06	.12*	.08	.19***	.46***	.39***	.31***	.49***	—
10. PEB	4.30	1.06	.89	.01	−.06	.08	.68***	.73***	.59***	.70***	.45***	.51***

Note. Bold values indicate that the items load onto the same factor. GSM = general social media use; FG = functional gratification; RG = relational gratification; EG = emotional gratification; EN = exposure to nature 2.0; INS = inclusion of nature in the self; CE = commitment to the environment; PEB = pro-environmental behavior.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Inclusion of nature in the self

The Inclusion of Nature in the Self Scale (Davis et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001) is a closeness measure that assesses the interconnectedness of individuals with nature using Venn-like pictorial diagrams. The diagrams consisted of two circles with various degrees of overlap. One circle indicated the self and the other represented nature. Participants selected from among seven Venn-like diagrams, choosing the one whose degree of overlap of circles described their relationship with nature from 1 (least overlap) to 7 (greatest overlap). Each diagram was consistent in the area, diameter, and progressive enhancement of overlap. Higher scores meant a greater sense of inclusion.

Commitment to the environment

The Commitment to the Environment Scale (Davis et al., 2009) was adopted to assess psychological attachment and long-term orientation to the natural environment. The reliability of this scale was excellent in a previous study (α = .91; Davis et al., 2009). Participants responded from 1 (do not agree at all) to 9 (agree completely) to 11 items. One revised item was recoded and the total 11 items were averaged to create a composite index for commitment, with higher scores indicating greater commitment. For example, “It seems to me that humans and the environment are interdependent.”

Pro-environmental behavior

Pro-environmental behavior was assessed by a 12-item self-reported scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always; Kaiser et al., 2003; Tam, 2013). An example is “I look for ways to reuse things.”

Results

An exploratory PCA with promax rotation was performed on the 29 gratifications of nature 2.0 items to test the underlying factor structure. There are two reasons PCA was first conducted. The first reason is that Aladwani (2014) studied gravitating toward Facebook, but not social media in general. The second is that the original 34 items were related to general Facebook gravitation, whereas 29 items were selected and adjusted to assess gratifications of nature 2.0 in this study. Thus, the modified scale is expected to be theoretically different from the original scale. PCA was conducted to extract a new factor structure. Promax rotation was used because the extracted factors were expected to be intercorrelated.

Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, explaining 73.89% of the variance. Two cross-loading items were excluded (“improve my knowledge of the natural environment” and “get more information about the natural environment”). A PCA was rerun on the remaining 27 items. The second PCA also generated a three-solution factor structure (eigenvalues > 1; 74.63% variance explained), and no cross-loading factor was found. The KMO index was .98 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ²(351) = 10,920.17, p < .001. Thirteen items loaded exclusively on Factor 1 (eigenvalue = 9.57 with 35.43% variance explained), 10 exclusively on Factor 2 (eigenvalue = 7.16 with 26.52% variance explained), and 4 on Factor 3 (eigenvalue = 3.42 with 12.68% variance explained), respectively. Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the 27 items generated from the second PCA with a three-factor solution to find a factor structure with the best statistical fit. This three-factor model demonstrated good fit: χ²(321) = 1,053.91, p < .001, comparative fit index = .93, root mean square error of approximation = .08, standardized root mean square residual = .04. Table 2 shows the factor loadings of the final items.

Table 2.

Factor Loading of the Final Three-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Gratifications of Nature 2.0.

Items	Factor 1 “Functional Gratification”	Factor 2 “Relational Gratification”	Factor 3 “Emotional Gratification”
Arrange meetings about environmental protection	.92	.06	−.11
Manage events about environmental protection	.89	.11	−.13
Keep an eye on my friends who are not environmentally friendly	.89	−.08	.03
Increase my popularity by showing to others that I consume content about the natural environment	.88	−.14	.14
Show off my coolness by showing to others that I consume content about the natural environment	.88	−.07	.08
Publicize myself by showing to others that I consume content about the natural environment	.86	−.06	.13
Monitor my colleagues at work to be environmentally friendly	.85	.07	−.04
Organize events about environmental protection	.85	.06	−.01
Coordinate tasks about environmental protection	.82	.13	−.04
Observe my neighbors’ social activities to be environmentally friendly	.80	.00	.07
Exit from relationships with people who are not environmentally friendly	.68	.16	−.18
Express my good taste by showing to others that I consume content about the natural environment	.60	.16	.18
Track celebrities who are environmentally friendly	.59	.14	.10
Exchange content about the natural environment	−.04	.92	−.01
Maintain relationships with people who have a connection with the natural environment	−.17	.89	.07
Distribute content about the natural environment	.10	.86	−.11
Develop relationships with people who are attached to the natural environment	−.02	.85	.05
Share content about the natural environment	.05	.76	.08
Promote content about the natural environment	.04	.75	.12
Initiate new relationships with people who have a connection with the natural environment	.16	.75	−.04
Contribute content about the natural environment	.18	.72	.05
Talk about my beliefs about environmental protection freely	.06	.72	.09
Express myself about the environmental protection without limits	.30	.53	.04
Feel relaxed by consuming content about the natural environment	−.11	.17	.86
Reduce my mental stress by consuming content about the natural environment	.01	.03	.86
Reduce the pressure of my daily routine by consuming content about the natural environment	.13	.00	.82
Reduce my emotional worries by consuming content about the natural environment	.05	.07	.80

Factor 1 (functional gratification) consisted of 13 items concerning organizational gratification to organize, manage, arrange, and coordinate tasks and events about environmental protection. This factor also included monitorial gratification to keep an eye on friends, monitor colleagues, observe neighbors, and track celebrities to be environmentally friendly; and branding including increasing popularity, showing off coolness, publicizing self, and express good taste by showing to others that they consume content about the natural environment. Factor 2 (relational gratification) had 10 items relating to the gratification of sharing (including exchanging, distributing, promoting, and contributing) content about the natural environment; connecting to others who are attached to the nature such as initiating, developing, and maintaining relationships with others; and expressing own opinions and beliefs about nature. Factor 3 (emotional gratification) contained 4 items consisting of emotional use to satisfy the needs and motives to reduce pressures and worries by consuming content about the natural environment. To conclude, the psychometric basis for selecting a three-factor model was good. The self-perceived social experiences related to gratifications of nature 2.0 focused on functional, relational, and emotional gratifications.

The descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s αs, and Pearson correlations of the main measures are shown in Table 1. The reliabilities of the construct were excellent (αs = .89–.97). Functional, relational, and emotional gratifications and exposure to nature 2.0 were positively associated with inclusion of nature in the self, commitment to the environment, and pro-environmental behavior. The Pearson correlations of these constructs did not exceed .81, indicating that there was no multicollinearity problem (M. H. Katz, 2011).

Table 3 displays three regressions predicting inclusion of nature in the self, commitment to the environment, and pro-environmental behavior. Gender and age were treated as control variables, as they were significant predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Zhang & Skoric, 2018). Two hierarchical regressions were performed that demographic variables (Model 1: gender and age) and the five Internet-related variables (Model 2: general social media use, functional, relational, and emotional gratifications, and exposure to nature 2.0) were served as the predictors to associate with inclusion of nature in the self and commitment to the environment, respectively.

Table 3.

Regression Analysis Predicting INS, CE, and PEB.

Predictors	B	SE	β	t	INS	B	SE	β	t	CE	B	SE	β	t	PEB
Predictors	B	SE	β	t	p	B	SE	β	t	p	B	SE	β	t	p
Model					1					1					1
Intercept	4.23	0.33		12.89	<.001	4.84	0.19		25.59	<.001	4.51	0.20		22.77	<.001
Gender	.28	0.18	.08	1.53	.128	−.12	0.10	−.06	−1.13	.261	.00	0.11	.00	.03	.978
Age	.00	0.01	.02	.39	.700	.01	0.01	.12	2.31	.021	−.01	0.01	−.06	−1.19	.237
Model															2
Intercept											1.85	0.27		6.83	<.001
Gender											.01	0.09	.01	.11	.916
Age											−.01	0.01	−.11	−2.65	.008
INS											.15	0.03	.25	5.16	<.001
CE											.42	0.05	.40	8.08	<.001
Model					2					2					3
Intercept	1.51	0.45		3.33	<.001	3.14	0.24		12.83	<.001	.57	0.22		2.60	.010
Gender	.30	0.16	.09	1.84	.067	−.03	0.09	−.01	−.31	.760	−.07	0.07	−.03	−1.07	.285
Age	.01	0.01	.07	1.34	.183	.01	0.01	.11	2.49	.013	.01	0.00	.08	2.30	.022
GSM	−.08	0.04	−.09	−1.93	.054	−.03	0.02	−.06	−1.26	.210	−.03	0.02	−.05	−1.44	.150
FG	−.15	0.10	−.14	−1.60	.111	−.38	0.05	−.59	−7.40	<.001	.21	0.04	.32	5.19	<.001
RG	.63	0.12	.51	5.35	<.001	.52	0.06	.73	8.27	<.001	.10	0.05	.13	1.93	.055
EG	.02	0.09	.02	.22	.827	.09	0.05	.13	1.98	.049	−.03	0.04	−.04	−.76	.448
EN	.13	0.09	.11	1.45	.148	.13	0.05	.18	2.62	.009	.24	0.04	.32	6.53	<.001
INS											.03	0.02	.04	1.18	.241
CE											.29	0.04	.28	6.93	<.001

Note. GSM = general social media use; FG = functional gratification; RG = relational gratification; EG = emotional gratification; EN = exposure to nature 2.0; INS = inclusion of nature in the self; CE = commitment to the environment; and PEB = pro-environmental behavior.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 1 did not explain the variance of inclusion of nature in the self, F(2, 376) = 1.21, p = .30, R² = .006. Adding the five Internet-related variables significantly improved the prediction, F(7, 371) = 16.48, p < .001, R² change = .23. RQ1a asked whether different gratifications of nature 2.0 would be correlated with inclusion of nature in the self. The results showed that only relational gratification was positively associated with inclusion of nature in the self. No other significant association was found. Exposure to nature 2.0 was not correlated with inclusion of nature in the self (RQ1b).

Model 1 explained a significant proportion of variance of commitment to the environment, F(2, 376) = 3.45, p = .033, R² = .02. Adding the five Internet-related variables in Model 2 enhanced the prediction, F(7, 371) = 27.64, p < .001, R² change = .31. RQ2a asked whether gratifications of nature 2.0 would be correlated with commitment to the environment. The findings indicated that the three gratifications predicted commitment in different patterns. Relational and emotional gratifications were positively associated with commitment to the environment, whereas functional gratification was negatively correlated with it. For RQ2b, exposure to nature 2.0 was positively correlated with commitment to the environment.

A previous study demonstrated that inclusion of nature in the self and commitment to the environment positively predicted pro-environmental behavior (Davis et al., 2009). Thus, the two interdependence with nature variables were controlled in the regression. Two demographic variables (Model 1), two interdependence with nature variables (Model 2), and the five Internet-related variables (Model 3) were served as the predictors to predict pro-environmental behavior, respectively. Model 1 did not explain the variance of pro-environmental behavior, F(2, 376) = .71, p = .49, R² = .004. Entering the two interdependence with nature variables significantly increased the prediction, F(4, 374) = 45.10, p < .001, R² change = .321. Finally, adding the five Internet-related variables further improved the prediction, F(9, 369) = 81.63, p < .001, R² change = .345. Functional gratification (RQ3a) and exposure to nature 2.0 (RQ3b) were the positive predictors of pro-environmental behavior.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to test the uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 and the associated interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior contributing to environmental sustainability. Through the uses and gratifications approach (E. Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973; E. Katz, Gurevitch, Hass, 1973), we are able to understand where the needs of nature 2.0 originate, how the needs are gratified, and what the needs are. It is possible that the needs of nature 2.0 originate from human biophilia needs to affiliate with life and lifelike processes (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), for example, nature 2.0. The results of this study showed that the needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 can be gratified through the usage of and exposure to nature 2.0.

The results found that the needs and motivations of users of nature 2.0 on social media involved functional, relational, and emotional gratifications. Consistent with E. Katz, Gurevitch, and Hass (1973) that individuals actively choose media to fulfill various needs including cognitive, interpersonal, and affective needs, this study identified three similar gratifications related to nature 2.0 to gratify their needs to affiliate with nature: (1) Functional gratification to organize and manage events about environmental protection; monitor friends, colleagues, and neighbors to be environmentally friendly; and improve personal branding by consuming content about nature; (2) relational gratification to share and exchange content about nature; connect to others who are attached to nature; and express own opinions and beliefs about nature; and (3) emotional gratification to reduce pressures by consuming content about nature. Compared to Ballew et al.’s (2015) technologies for pro-environmental action model, this study shared the same gratifications including the informational and relational gratifications of social media use to disseminate information of nature and participate in conservation talks and thus facilitate pro-environmental action. However, this study discovered two types of gratification that were not included in Ballew’s model: the functional gratification to manage offline events, monitor others, and promote personal branding; and the emotional gratification to release pressure.

One may argue that the functional and relational gratifications are not separated from each other in a clear-cut manner. In fact, the two types of gratification are theoretically separated. Both the two gratifications seem superficial to generate interpersonal influences to encourage other online users to be environmentally friendly; however, they indeed have different focuses. Functional gratification involves organizing events, branding self, and monitoring others, whereas relational gratification focuses on sharing information and connecting with others in a friendly manner (also see Aladwani, 2014). Thus, at the practical level, organizations and practitioners can develop different strategies to target social media users based on their functional, relational, or emotional gratification.

The findings demonstrated that exposure to nature 2.0 was associated with commitment to nature and pro-environmental self-reported behavior. The origins of human need to retain an overlap between the self and nature may not be fulfilled via the exposure, but the commitment to nature derived from the need to affiliate with nature (Davis et al., 2009) can be gratified via exposure to nature on the Internet. Individuals who are more likely to have higher exposure are more likely to minimize the negative impact of their actions on nature.

The three gratifications of nature 2.0 were associated with interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior in different ways. Functional gratification was positively correlated with pro-environmental behavior. Individuals who actively monitor others and take action on social media to organize and arrange environmental events are more likely to be those who are active in environmental protection. Interestingly, functional gratification was negatively related to commitment to nature. A possible explanation is that while individuals who use social networking platforms to organize environmental protests are more likely to do pro-environmental action, they need less to commit to nature in order to act environmentally friendly.

Relational gratification was associated with inclusion of nature in the self and commitment to the environment. The results implied that people who use social media to share content about nature with others and broaden and build relationships with environmentally friendly individuals are more likely to be those the self-overlaps with nature and are dependent on nature. Finally, emotional gratification was related to commitment only, implying that people who use social media related to nature to release emotional stress have a higher level of perceived experience of dependence on nature.

This study provides empirical support for the links between nature 2.0 and pro-environmental behavior. Web 2.0 and social media offer individuals the platforms to create and share online content related to nature and then change the online and offline actions (Büscher, 2016). While the technologies for pro-environmental action model (Ballew et al., 2015) is a proposed theoretical model based on a review of previous research, the findings of this study empirically support this model that relational social media use related to nature can significantly predict pro-environmental action. One of the theoretical contributions of this study is that in addition to relational gratification (distributing and sharing information to others), the results find that functional gratification (managing events, branding self, and monitoring others) and emotional gratification (releasing pressures), which are not included in this model, are also significant predictors of pro-environmental action. The results of this study are also consistent with the previous studies that gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 via social media uses are associated with pro-environmental behavior (Byrum, 2019; Oakley & Salam, 2014; Zhang & Skoric, 2018).

To conclude, as suggested by E. Katz, Gurevitch, and Hass (1973) that the uses and gratifications approach can be adopted to understand psychological and behavioral effects, the uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 were related to interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. Individuals use the Internet and social media to fulfill their needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 because of their physical and emotional dependence on nature (Davis et al., 2009).

Limitations of the current research included that because the studies were correlational in design, the findings were not able to identify the causal relationship between Internet uses related to nature and interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. Future research should conduct experiments to investigate the causal effects of online information search and social media uses on pro-environmental action. Second, all the Internet uses and behavioral measures were self-reported. Thus, the data only consisted of subjectively perceived Internet usages and self-reported behavior. Future studies should measure actual Internet uses and pro-environmental behavioral outcomes. Third, content about the natural environment (e.g., Amazon rainforest) and environmental issues (e.g., pollution) could relate to humans’ psychological and behavioral connection with the natural world in different patterns. Future research should separate the two topics and test whether Internet uses could fulfill human needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 or pay attention to environmental issues that would threaten their life.

Footnotes

Data Availability

Data are available online at .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Software Information

JASP Version 0.9.2 (https://jasp-stats.org/) and jamovi Version 1.0 () were used to analyze the data.

References

Aladwani

A. M.

(2014). Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): What it is? and How can it be measured? Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.005

Arendt

Matthes

(2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10, 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415

Ballew

Omoto

Winter

(2015). Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability, 7, 10620–10648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810620

Bargh

J. A.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

(2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Büscher

(2016). Nature 2.0: Exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation. New Media & Society, 18, 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545841

Byrum

(2019). “Hey friend, buy green”: Social media use to influence eco-purchasing involvement. Environmental Communication, 13, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308404

Carey

J. W.

(1998). The Internet and the end of the national communication system: Uncertain predictions of an uncertain future. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500106

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

(2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

10.

Comrey

A. L.

Lee

H. B.

(1992). A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum.

11.

Coopman

T. M.

(2011). Networks of dissent: Emergent forms in media based collective action. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2010.514934

12.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E.

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

13.

Davis

J. L.

Green

J. D.

Reed

(2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001

14.

de Vellis

R. F.

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.

15.

Dhir

Chen

Nieminen

(2016). The effects of demographics, technology accessibility, and unwillingness to communicate in predicting Internet gratifications and heavy Internet use among adolescents. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315582854

16.

Friedman

Freier

N. G.

Kahn

P. H.

Lin

Sodeman

(2008). Office window of the future?—Field-based analyses of a new use of a large display. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.12.005

17.

Guitton

M. J.

(2017). Rethinking the impact of new technologies in a climate change era: Challenges or opportunities? Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.005

18.

Hamilton

(2016). Define the Anthropocene in terms of the whole Earth. Nature, 536, 251–251. https://doi.org/10.1038/536251a

19.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

20.

Kahn

P. H.

Severson

R. L.

Ruckert

J. H.

(2009). The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x

21.

Kaiser

F. G.

Doka

Hofstetter

Ranney

M. A.

(2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00075-0

22.

Katz

Blumler

J. G.

Gurevitch

(1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109

23.

Katz

Gurevitch

Haas

(1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094393

24.

Katz

M. H.

(2011). Multivariable analysis: A practical guide for clinicians and public health researchers. Cambridge University Press.

25.

Kellert

S. R.

(1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press.

26.

Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.

27.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.

28.

Koteyko

Nerlich

Hellsten

(2015). Climate change communication and the Internet: Challenges and opportunities for research. Environmental Communication, 9, 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1029297

29.

Landers

R. N.

Behrend

T. S.

(2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13

30.

Larose

Mastro

Eastin

M. S.

(2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900401

31.

Agnew

C. R.

(2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035

32.

Lee

F. L. F.

(2015). Internet, citizen self-mobilisation, and social movement organisations in environmental collective action campaigns: Two Hong Kong cases. Environmental Politics, 24, 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.919749

33.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Zhang

Hong

(1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84

34.

Newhagen

J. E.

Rafaeli

(2006). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00172.x

35.

Y.-L.

(2019). Toward an evolutionary perspective on social media use for cooperation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000172

36.

Y.-L.

Zhao

(2018). The human alarm system for sensational news, online news headlines, and associated generic digital footprints: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218793739

37.

Oakley

R. L.

Salam

A. F.

(2014). Examining the impact of computer-mediated social networks on individual consumerism environmental behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.033

38.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

39.

Papacharissi

Rubin

A. M.

(2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2

40.

Pearson

Tindle

Ferguson

Ryan

Litchfield

(2016). Can we tweet, post, and share our way to a more sustainable society? A review of the current contributions and future potential of #Socialmediaforsustainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 363–397. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090000

41.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2006). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet. Communication Research, 33, 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285369

42.

Rolston

(1993). Biophilia, selfish genes, shared values. In Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis: A theoretical and empirical inquiry (pp. 381–414). Island Press.

43.

Ruggiero

T. E.

(2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

44.

Schultz

P. W.

(2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227

45.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Abel

Guagnano

G. A.

Kalof

(1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.

46.

Tam

K.-P.

(2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.004

47.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert

S. R.

Wilson

E. O.

(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis: A theoretical and empirical inquiry (pp. 73–137). Island Press.

48.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2016). Rate of environmental damage increasing across the planet but there is still time to reverse worst impacts if governments act now. https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/rate-environmental-damage-increasing-across-planet-there-still-time

49.

Whiting

Williams

(2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041

50.

Wilson

E. O.

(1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.

51.

Zhang

Skoric

M. M.

(2018). Media use and environmental engagement: Examining differential gains from news media and social media. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1–24.