1. Attitudes toward and use of urban green spaces and neighborhood attachment M. Bonnes, G. Carrus, & P. Passafaro 18th iaps Conference Wien, 7-10 July 2004 Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione

2. Increased number of contribution focusing people-natural environment relations (Gifford, 1995) Increased interest for sustainability-related issues: environmental psychology of “sustainable development” (Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 2002) Concern for quality of life in large urban settlements: nature in the city and urban sustainability Environmental psychological research and the natural environment

3. General positive character of nature experience (Hartig & Evans, 1993) Social psychological factors: Development of shared environmental concern (Dunlap et al., 2000) Affective factors Green areas predicting residential attachment and satisfaction (Bonaiuto et al., 1999) Functional factors Healthy and stress-recovering properties of contact with nature (Ulrich, 1984; Hartig et al., 1991) why should we expect urban inhabitants’ positive evaluations of nature in the city?

4. MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION WHICH ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE DIFFERENT FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENT’S EVALUATIONS OF URBAN GREEN AREAS?

5. THE PRESENT STUDY MAIN AIMS Exploring the relation between resident’s evaluations and use-frequency of urban green spaces and different social psychological variables Developing an Italian version of various measuring instruments widely used in E-B literature

6. THE PRESENT STUDY MAIN AIMS Exploring the relation between resident’s evaluations and use-frequency of urban green spaces and different social psychological variables Developing an Italian version of various measuring instruments widely used in E-B literature

7. METHOD PARTICIPANTS 500 Rome’s residents balanced for socio-demographic characteristics M = 254 F = 246 Aged 18-92 years (Mean = 45 SD=16.3) Sampled in neighbourhoods with differing characteristics of green spaces TOOLS & PROCEDURE Paper & pencil self-administered questionnaire, composed by various Likert-type scales (5-steps)

8. METHOD PARTICIPANTS 500 Rome’s residents balanced for socio-demographic characteristics M = 254 F = 246 Aged 18-92 years (Mean = 45 SD=16.3) Sampled in neighbourhoods with differing characteristics of green spaces TOOLS & PROCEDURE Paper & pencil self-administered questionnaire, composed by various Likert-type scales (5-steps)

9. MEASURES 1. Environmental value orientations - Stern et al. 1995 2. General environmental concern - NEP scale, Dunlap et al. 2000 3. Ecocentrism/anthropocentrism scale – Thompson & Barton 1994 4. Ecological behaviors - GEB scale, Kaiser 1998 5. Perceived residential qualities - Bonaiuto et al. 1999 6. Neighbourhood attachment - Bonaiuto et al., 1999 7. Attitudes towards urban green areas – Carrus et al., 2004 8. Use frequency of urban green areas

10. MEASURES 1. Environmental value orientations - Stern et al. 1995 2. General environmental concern - NEP scale, Dunlap et al. 2000 3. Ecocentrism/anthropocentrism scale – Thompson & Barton 1994 4. Ecological behaviors - GEB scale, Kaiser 1998 5. Perceived residential qualities - Bonaiuto et al. 1999 6. Neighbourhood attachment - Bonaiuto et al., 1999 7. Attitudes towards urban green areas – Carrus et al., 2004 8. Use frequency of urban green areas

11. ANALYSES PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS CRONBACH’S  BIVARIATE CORRELATIONS

12. Preliminary RESULTS (1) Scale reliability

13. Preliminary RESULTS (2) bivariate correlations

14. Preliminary RESULTS (2) bivariate correlations

15. Preliminary RESULTS (2) bivariate correlations

16. Preliminary RESULTS (2) bivariate correlations

17. Preliminary RESULTS (2) bivariate correlations

18. CONCLUSIONS & POSSIBLE ISSUES FOR FURTHER STUDIES Weak relations between general env-concern and daily-life behaviors such as use of urban green Importance of place attachment in sustainability domain potential ambivalence of attitudes towards urban green additional rather than substitutive use of urban & extra-urban green spaces

19. THE END