Abstract
This chapter considers the potential of virtual reality (VR) technology in fostering mental well-being and raising environmental consciousness. As urbanisation leads to a decline in green spaces, VR emerges as a solution by simulating natural environments, providing an innovative approach to health and well-being. The chapter investigates the capacity of VR to evoke emotional responses thus potentially promoting prosocial behaviour and effective environmental communication. It also examines how VR can help frame environmental messages and the need for more empirical research to understand the effects of message framing on pro-environmental behaviour. Furthermore, the chapter considers the psychological benefits of VR nature experiences and the rise of virtual reality tourism as a sustainable alternative to traditional tourism, which often contributes to environmental degradation due to associated economic activities. Despite facing challenges and limitations such as lack of standardisation and varying user acceptance, VR technology holds promise in the fields of environmental education and nature-based health promotion, meriting further exploration and research.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
17.1 Introduction
Mental health is a leading cause of disability globally and there is a growing emphasis on promoting mental well-being (UN General Assembly, 2011; WHO, 2013; 2014). The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines mental health as a state that allows individuals to utilise their abilities, cope with stress, work effectively, and contribute to their community (WHO, 2004). There is evidence linking mental health to experience of nature, including parks and public green spaces in urban areas (Bratman et al., 2012; Douglas 2012; Kaplan, 2001; Maller et al., 2016). While some studies have shown positive associations between parks and mental health, the effects can vary by gender and age (Annerstedt et al., 2012; Astell-Burt et al., 2014). The quality of parks and green spaces has been shown to be important for mental health, with residents in neighbourhoods with higher-quality parks having lower levels of psychological distress (Francis et al., 2012). Green spaces also play a crucial role in advancing biodiversity and ecological health and are therefore important for both human and planetary well-being.
One of the most significant impacts of urbanisation on the environment is the loss of green spaces. As cities grow, more land is needed to accommodate the growing population, resulting in the destruction of natural habitats. According to a study by the United Nations, the world’s urban areas are expected to grow by 2.5 billion people by 2050, which means that more green spaces will be lost to make room for buildings and infrastructure (United Nations, 2018). The scarcity of green spaces in cities has numerous negative effects on people’s health and well-being. Studies have shown that access to green spaces can improve mental health and reduce stress levels (Bowler et al., 2010). Without green spaces, people are more likely to experience mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Additionally, the lack of green spaces can lead to physical health problems, such as obesity, as people are less likely to engage in outdoor activities.
Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a potential solution to bridge the gap between people and nature. VR technology can simulate natural environments and provide exposure to a range of settings from scenic landscapes to wildlife habitats, in a controlled and safe environment. VR also has the potential to reach a wide audience, including people who may have difficulty accessing natural environments due to physical or financial limitations. Thus, the integration of VR technology in promoting exposure to natural environments has the potential to offer a new and innovative approach for education, communication, and well-being promotion.
17.2 Overview of Virtual Reality Technology: Definition, Development, and Its Potential Uses
Virtual Reality (VR) has been a popular topic in information technology for the past several years, with the release of the film Ready Player One by Steven Spielberg bringing VR to the attention of millions of people. However, VR technology has been around since the 1960s, but its widespread adoption has been hindered by high equipment costs and low quality (Newman et al., 2022; Valmaggia, 2017). VR has been referred to as ‘over-hyped’ for a long time (Walsh & Pawlowski, 2002) and was even thought to be a ‘dead’ technology (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016), but the release of affordable, high-quality, and consumer-grade VR headsets for gaming and entertainment has contributed to the revival of the VR technology starting from the mid-2010s.
VR technology simulates a virtual environment that immerses users, giving them a sense of presence or of ‘being there’ (Bowman & McMahan, 2007). Researchers from various disciplines, including computer science, engineering, and the social sciences, have been studying VR technology for decades, but the focus has mostly been on the technology itself, leaving limited understanding of its behavioural and organisational impacts (Walsh & Pawlowski, 2002). As a result, interest in VR research has been increasing among information system researchers (Cavusoglu et al., 2019; Khairunisa et al., 2022; Lee, 2022). The VR market has been estimated to grow from $7.3 billion in 2018 to $120.5 billion in 2026 (Fortune Business Insights, 2019, as reported in Yang & Han, 2021), with a significant portion of the market being consumer software, primarily video games. However, companies such as IKEA, Volkswagen, and Takeda have started to use VR technology for non-gaming purposes. Further development of the idea of using simulated worlds for non-gaming purposes was also embraced by Meta and the development of the idea of the metaverse (Duan, et al., 2021; Knox, 2022). Despite some potentially detrimental side effects, VR technology has also gained uses in the context of health (Grassini & Laumann, 2021).
The ability for VR to promote a high sense of presence in users has been exploited for both clinical uses and well-being promotion (Frost et al., 2022). The technology has been shown to be a promising tool for diagnosing and treating medical conditions, including stress, social anxiety, chronic pain, and Alzheimer’s disease (García-Betances et al., 2015; Grassini, 2022a, 2022b; Jones et al., 2016). VR has been effective in treating PTSD and anxiety disorders, as well as distracting patients from physical pain during medical procedures (Indovina et al., 2018). VR-based diagnostic testing could potentially provide objective results for conditions such as schizophrenia, ADHD, and autism, leading to earlier and more accurate diagnoses (Kim et al., 2019a, 2019b).
17.3 Closing the Knowledge-To-Action Gap: Communication Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published a special report on the impacts of global climate change on nature and society (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2018). The report highlights the dire consequences of global warming, even if the Earth’s temperature increases by just 0.5°C. It predicts that rising temperatures will lead to food shortages, increased wildfires, and the mass die-off of coral reefs by as early as 2040. Despite increasing media attention on the human-induced rate of climate change, research from the behavioural sciences has found that people may perceive climate change as a non-urgent, psychologically distant risk, which has led to delayed action and decision-making about mitigation and adaptation (Van der Linden et al., 2015). However, it is worth noting that an increased awareness of problems related to climate change and concerns about the phenomenon have become more common among the general population (Leiserowitz et al., 2022). This has led to new psychological phenomena of distress, generally referred in current literature as climate anxiety (for a review see Soutar & Wand, 2022).
Traditionally, one of the greatest challenges in communicating climate science to the public is bridging the knowledge-to-action gap (Moser & Dilling, 2011). This gap refers to the general lack of environmental behaviour change by individuals or society at large, even when there is greater communication about environmental problems and heightened public awareness. To bridge this gap, successful communication methods involve cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Moser & Dilling 2011; Nelson et al., 2018a, 2018b; Van der Linden et al., 2015). For example, people need to gain an understanding of the issue, experience an emotional and cognitive response—such as interest or worry—and then actively respond by changing their behaviour or taking political action. Research has shown that the message content (Gifford & Comeau, 2011) and level of visual immersion (Innocenti, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2013; Shin, 2018) can impact the intensity of emotional responses and influence behaviour (Baberini et al., 2015).
The nature documentary series Our Planet has recently gained significant media attention for using negative framing of human-induced climate change impacts on nature to encourage viewers to visit a conservation website (Lowry, 2019). In addition to framing, virtual reality (VR) technology has also garnered attention for its ability to increase immersion and one’s sense of presence, which is believed to impact emotions and improve people’s connection to the subject matter (Diemer et al., 2015). In 2017, Fortune magazine published an article claiming that virtual reality (VR) can increase awareness, evoke empathy, and elicit action, citing a Facebook report that ‘48% of virtual reality charity content viewers were likely to donate to the causes they experienced’ and a report by the United Nations stating that their VR production Clouds over Sidra, which depicts the life of a 12-year-old Syrian refugee, helped raise twice the charity’s normal rate (Samit, 2017).
However, these studies lack controlled experimental designs, and other uncontrolled factors may have contributed to the supposed increase in donations, such as increased media attention on the Syrian crisis that year, regardless of VR technology’s use at the fundraiser. The Facebook report and a study by the market research company Nielsen (2017) found that donation intentions were higher after exposure to a 360° video compared to other media, but these only considered hypothetical donation decisions. The idea of experimentally testing the impact of different levels of immersion (low vs. high immersive environments) on emotional response and prosocial behaviour emerged from the recent surge of media articles suggesting that virtual reality ‘can make you a better person’ and is ‘the ultimate empathy machine’ (Chang, 2018; Millar et al., 2023; Samit, 2017; West, 2015). Nelson et al. (2020) further explored this concept in their study reporting promising results.
17.4 Virtual Reality and Prosocial Behaviour: Evidence from Laboratory Studies
Several laboratory studies at Stanford University’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab focus on the effects of VR on encouraging prosocial behaviour (Ahn et al., 2014, 2016) and environmental behavioural intentions (Ahn et al., 2014). Evidence suggests that VR interactions can increase a person’s sense of presence, improving their connection to the subject matter and affecting behaviour. In one study, Ahn et al. (2014) compared the effects of cutting a tree in VR to reading a written description or watching a video of the tree-cutting process to promote paper conservation. The virtual experience resulted in a 20% decrease in paper use during the experiment compared to participants who read a print description of tree-cutting. In another experiment by Ahn et al. (2016), participants wore a VR headset and experienced what it’s like to be a cow raised for dairy and meat. After the experience, participants reported eating less meat. However, preliminary research by the authors of this paper found no statistical differences in university students’ charitable giving behaviour for coral reef conservation exposed to varying levels of immersion in an underwater VR world (Nelson et al., 2019). While some scholars believe VR can create empathy with non-human actors, such as simulating the experience of being a cow or coral (Ahn et al., 2016), other scholars are critical of this concept (Ramirez, 2017).
17.5 Emotional Framing of Environmental Communication Using Immersive Systems
In the context of communication, framing refers to the semantic restructuring of identical information (Hallahan, 2008). Valence framing involves presenting information in either a positive or negative light. Positive message valence describes actions that lead to favourable outcomes, while negative message valence describes the consequences of inaction, which lead to adverse conditions (Avineri & Waygood, 2013). Classic economic theory assumes that presenting information in different frames should not affect an individual’s preferences. However, research has shown that people’s decisions can be influenced by positive or negative semantics, a cognitive bias known as the framing effect (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
In the realm of climate change communication, it is crucial to frame messages in a way that encourages environmentally friendly behaviour. While the effects of framing on attitudes are somewhat understood, there is a surprising scarcity of empirical research examining the effects of message framing on pro-environmental behaviour (Cheng et al., 2011; Jacobson et al., 2019). Furthermore, the literature on positive and negative message framing is inconsistent and highly contextual (Rothman et al., 2006). Virtual reality shows promise in enhancing pro-environmental behaviour and charitable giving, despite current limited evidence and the need for more research to understand the underlying mechanisms and address limitations of existing studies.
17.6 Virtual Nature Health Promotion
As noted earlier in this chapter, a substantial body of research has established the connection between nature experience and positive psychological outcomes such as changes in affect, stress recovery, and cognitive restoration (Browning et al., 2020). A significant portion of these studies make use of simulated or virtual nature, which includes visual media, recorded sounds/soundscapes, and virtual reality (VR) in laboratory settings. Prior research has explored the impact of computer-mediated forms of nature, such as images displayed in slide shows (Berman et al., 2008; Gladwell et al., 2012) or videos (Mayer et al., 2009; Van den Berg et al., 2003), on physiological and psychological processes.
For instance, Gladwell et al. (2012) found that viewing nature images led to a significant increase in heart rate variability compared to viewing urban images, and van den Berg et al. (2003) reported improved mood after watching a video of a forest walk compared to a street walk. Grassini et al. (2019) found that people looking at natural images reported to be more relaxed than people looking at urban scenes, and the effect was detectable also from neurophysiological markers. Grassini et al. (2022) found that a similar psychophysiological effect was detectable when participants were exposed to videos of natural environments compared to videos of urban or neutral environments. These studies aimed to control confounding variables by examining the effects of actual nature in controlled experimental settings. However, these studies have all used exposition media that deliver a low level of immersion and therefore sense of presence. Modern VR systems, on the other hand, can be used to stimulate user senses in a more realistic and immersive manner.
Despite not affording the same consistency or strength of outcomes as direct nature experience, VR nature can still have psychological benefits as shown by several studies (Bolouki, 2022; Lee et al., 2022; Ünal et al., 2022). VR nature can provide an alternative for individuals who are unable to experience real nature due to various reasons, including physical limitations, urbanisation, or lack of access to green spaces (Li et al., 2021). Additionally, VR nature can provide a balance between the desire for environmental experience and the need for environmental protection and health and safety, as seen in the use of VR for heritage sites (Godovykh et al., 2022). Such use of VR can help individuals learn about the history, culture, and significance of these sites without putting the sites themselves at risk of damage or degradation.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of relevant studies indicate that VR nature is associated with increased positive affective states and reduced negative affective states, self-reported stress, and fatigue (Li et al., 2022). Lee et al. (2022) found in their systematic review that affective recovery from negative emotions was the most consistently observed outcome in VR nature studies. This highlights the potential for VR nature to help individuals cope with stress and negative emotions, and promote positive well-being. Meanwhile, Bolouki’s (2022) systematic review and meta-analysis found both positive and negative affect to be consistently affected by VR nature, with greater effects for negative affect. This suggests that VR nature can have a broad impact on individuals’ emotional states and may be particularly useful for improving mood and reducing negative affect. However, there are also reports of negative affect reductions in response to VR built environments (Bolouki, 2022). Thus, researchers should consider the psychological benefits of different environments, not just nature, in their studies of VR environments and their impact on psychological well-being (e.g., see Weber & Trojan, 2018, for a review of restorative urban environments).
The use of VR built environments can help individuals experience the benefits of urban green spaces, or the benefits of visiting heritage sites in situations where physical access is not possible. The way VR nature is presented also plays a crucial role in determining its psychological benefits. Li et al. (2022) found that medium immersion in virtual nature was associated with greater positive affect outcomes compared to high or low immersion. This suggests a trade-off between creating a sense of presence in the VR environment and avoiding adverse effects such as VR sickness, which can be attributed to the use of head-mounted devices (HMDs). Lee et al. (2022) reported that exposure duration of 10 minutes or more was associated with more consistent affective benefits but noted the need to balance longer exposure time with the increased possibility of negative user experiences. Bolouki (2022) also highlighted that users’ comfort and familiarity with VR technology can impact the psychological benefits achieved in simulated nature. It is essential to consider how VR environments are presented to users in order to maximise their potential to generate positive psychological outcomes.
In conclusion, while VR nature may not have the same psychological benefits as direct nature experience, it can still have positive effects on affective states. Researchers should focus on ensuring that users feel immersed in the VR environment while minimising the occurrence of adverse effects, which may depend on the technology used, administration, and target audience. VR nature can provide an alternative for individuals who are unable to experience real nature and may be particularly useful for improving mood and reducing negative affect. Furthermore, the use of VR nature can provide a balance between the desire for environmental experience and the need for environmental protection and health and safety, making it a valuable tool for promoting well-being and learning about heritage sites. It is important for researchers to continue exploring the potential of VR nature and how it can best be utilised to promote positive psychological outcomes.
17.7 Technology for Ecotourism
The United Nations General Assembly’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, aiming to address environmental, social, and economic challenges (Gue et al., 2020). Among these goals, environmental concerns are particularly challenging, as human activities are often the cause of environmental degradation. The tourism industry, for example, has been associated with environmental degradation due to its contribution to global carbon emissions (Bhutto et al., 2021a, 2021b; Lenzen et al., 2018). However, the tourism sector also contributes significantly to economic growth and cultural enrichment (Movono et al., 2018). As a result, it is crucial to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability and explore sustainable solutions to reduce the negative impact of tourism on the environment.
One of the proposed solutions to reduce the impact of tourism on the environment is virtual reality tourism (VRT). VRT involves the simulation of tourist destinations through visualisation, immersion, and interactivity, providing individuals with a realistic experience of tourism without the need for physical travel (Gutierrez et al., 2008; Guttentag, 2010). VRT can be a sustainable alternative to traditional tourism, as it does not generate pollution or contribute to environmental degradation. However, it’s important to consider that VRT may not always have the same economic benefits as traditional tourism, despite its positive impact on the environment. Therefore, while VRT has the potential to be a sustainable alternative to traditional tourism, it is crucial to assess its full impact on both the environment and the economy before fully embracing it as a solution.
Recent advancements in virtual reality technology, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on travel, have made VRT a more viable option for sustainable tourism (Talwar et al., 2022). VRT is not only a solution for sustainable tourism, but it has also been employed to promote awareness of endangered areas such as marine conservation (Koh et al., 2023), the protection of the Great Barrier Reef (Reilly, 2017), and other protected or endangered areas (e.g., Ecoegypt nd.). Organisations such as national parks have also recently adopted VR solutions to allow citizens to experience and explore the great outdoors (some examples: Birtles nd; Lane, 2020; Watson nd). To ensure the long-term acceptance and use of VRT, it is crucial to understand individuals’ perceptions and attitudes towards this technology. Research in this area is essential as it can help promote sustainable consumption and drive societal, national, and global sustainability orientation (Anderson & Bows, 2011; Lorek & Fuchs, 2013).
17.8 Challenges and Limitations
Virtual Reality (VR) technology has come a long way in terms of its development but still has a long way to go before it can be fully utilised in all its potential applications. One major challenge facing VR technology is the lack of standardisation in its presentation and technology (LaRocco, 2020). Currently, each developer has their own specifications and functionality, making it difficult for applications to be easily transferable between devices. The only standardisation that can be seen is with popular games that are designed to work across different VR platforms. This lack of standardisation also makes it challenging to troubleshoot bugs and receive proper support for any issues. Efforts to standardize VR technology are underway, but they are still in their early stages (LaRocco, 2020).
VR technology is facing other challenges regarding the hardware and software requirements for professional VR development. VR development software tends to consume a large amount of data space on computers and has high power consumption (Fernández & Alonso, 2015). VR headsets can also be heavy and cause physical strain on users, leading to headaches and pain, especially in the neck and shoulders (Kaplan et al., 2020). The long-term effects of VR use on users’ eyesight are not yet known, but it is known to cause eye strain, especially with prolonged usage (Hirzle et al., 2022). Long-term effects of prolonged use of VR have not been studied yet, but it has been found that there may be health risks associated with its use (e.g., Grassini & Laumann, 2021), and that individual characteristics of the users may make some of them more susceptible to ill effects related to the use of VR (Grassini & Laumann, 2020; Grassini et al., 2021; Thorp et al., 2022, 2023).
A common issue in VR technology is the lag between a user’s movements and the visual display within a VR headset (Laviola, 2000). The headset’s tracking often does not keep up with the user’s movements, reducing their immersion and causing dizziness or ‘cybersickness’ which is a phenomenon where users feel symptoms of motion sickness, characterised by, e.g., nausea, dizziness, and light-headedness, because of using a VR device (Hamad, 2021; McCauley & Sharkey, 1992). The exact cause of cybersickness is not yet known, but it is believed to be due to a conflict between the user’s visual system and vestibular system or an inability to perceive or react to new dynamic situations (Laviola, 2000; Stanney et al., 2020). Cybersickness can be exacerbated by several factors, including prolonged VR exposure, the user’s predisposition to motion sickness, fatigue, or nausea, and how adapted the user is to VR applications (Laviola, 2000). Technical factors, such as noticeable lags, position tracking errors, and visual distortions, can also increase the likelihood of cybersickness (Laviola, 2000). If users continue to experience cybersickness, it can be a hindrance to the widespread development and utilisation of VR applications (Stanney et al., 2020).
Despite these challenges, VR technology is becoming increasingly accessible as it evolves. The cost of VR headsets is still high, but it is comparable to most gaming consoles. Headsets like the Oculus Quest 2, for instance, cost about $300 for the base model and can be fully operated without a computer, making it one of the more accessible VR headsets on the market. Most other VR headsets, however, require a high-end computer with a powerful graphics card that can manage VR applications, making them more expensive overall and out of reach for most people (Kaplan et al., 2020). The cost of VR technology is one of the major barriers to its growth as a household technology, and often to its use in research (Newman et al., 2022).
As VR technology evolves, it is becoming more accessible, especially compared to its earlier stages. The cost of VR headsets on the market is still higher than most people can afford, but it is now on par with most gaming consoles. Consumer-oriented last-generation headsets like the Oculus Quest 2 are becoming increasingly affordable and can be fully operated without a computer. However, most of the ‘traditional’ VR headsets require a ‘VR-ready’ computer, which is typically more expensive than most computers, making them more expensive overall and less accessible to most people. Furthermore, the general acceptability of VR among different groups of users may vary depending on various factors, such as age, sex, motivation, and perceived benefits and risks. One of the main factors that may influence the acceptability of VR is age. Older people may have different needs, preferences, and expectations than younger people when using VR. For example, older people may be more concerned about the usability and accessibility of VR devices, as well as the potential negative effects of VR on their health and well-being (e.g., motion sickness, eye strain, isolation). On the other hand, older people may also benefit from using VR for enhancing their cognitive abilities, social engagement, and quality of life (Abdul Rahman et al., 2020). VR has been used for both assessment and training of elderly with impaired episodic memory (La Corte et al., 2019) and as a potential aid for patients with dementia (Hayhurst, 2018).
VR may also pose some risks for communication strategies, as it may be argued that it may provoke disengagement from the real world and potentially reduce the sense of empathy with real entities. However, the current literature on the topic suggests instead a positive effect of VR on empathic feelings towards social situations in the physical world (Schutte & Stilinović, 2017). VR may also raise ethical concerns, as it may expose users to unwanted or harmful content, manipulate their perceptions and emotions, or collect their personal data without their consent (Gonzalez-Franco et al., 2019). A further challenge and potential limitation for the mass adoption of VR systems is how to handle and collect data from the immersive environments. VR systems can generate large amounts of data from various sources, such as user interactions, eye tracking, physiological sensors, and environmental variables (Feltham, 2018).
These data can provide valuable insights into the user’s behaviour, preferences, emotions, and cognitive processes. However, they also pose ethical and practical issues regarding data privacy, security, storage, analysis, and presentation (Addis & Kutar, 2018). For example, VR data can reveal sensitive information about the user’s identity, health condition, personality traits, or political views (Feltham, 2018). Therefore, researchers need to ensure that they follow appropriate protocols for obtaining informed consent from participants, protecting their anonymity and confidentiality, encrypting, and storing data securely, and complying with relevant regulations and standards, as the European GDPR framework (Henriksson, 2018).
17.9 Conclusion
In conclusion, virtual reality technology has the potential to revolutionise environmental education by providing immersive and interactive learning experiences. The use of VR in environmental education can offer a fresh perspective and a new dimension to learning, making it more engaging and interesting. It can effectively educate individuals on the impact of human actions on the environment and the importance of preserving natural spaces. The use of VR in environmental education can also provide a platform for learners to witness the consequences of their actions and the positive impact of their conservation efforts. Furthermore, VR can be integrated with current tourism strategies, such as virtual guided tours, or guided tours using mixed reality (where virtual elements are added in addition to the real world, see e.g., Futurism, n.d.). This method to promote engaging tourism experiences has been already studied in the context of heritage tourism (see, e.g., Jiang et al., 2023), which can offer a more informative travel experience. This can promote a greater appreciation for the environment and inspire learners to take action to protect it.
Another significant application of VR is improving the health of those who cannot access natural environments by providing nature exposure. This can be especially beneficial for individuals who are unable to travel or have limited mobility. VR can simulate natural environments and offer a calming and restorative experience for individuals who are experiencing stress, anxiety, or depression. However, it is important to note that further research is necessary to explore the full potential of VR in environmental education and its effectiveness in promoting environmental awareness and conservation. The technology is still relatively novel, and there is much to be learned about its impact and effectiveness. Furthermore, it may be questioned whether or not the technology has reached a level of maturity sufficient for a large-scale acceptability. In summary, VR offers a valuable opportunity to inspire individuals to make positive changes to the environment. It can provide a dynamic and engaging learning experience, promote greater appreciation for nature, and improve the health and well-being of individuals. As this technology continues to evolve, it is essential to explore its potential and use it as a tool to create a more sustainable and environmentally conscious society.
References
Abdul Rahman, N., Mohamad, A., Ahmad, M., & Yusof, A. (2020). Acceptability of Virtual Reality among Older People. In Proceedings of International Conference on HCI for Cybersecurity Privacy & Trust HCICPT 2020: HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Papers: Human Aspects in Cybersecurity Privacy & Trust (pp. 3–15).
Addis, C., & Kutar, M. (2018, March). The general data protection regulation (GDPR), emerging technologies and UK organisations: Awareness, implementation and readiness. In UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2018 (p. 29). UKAIS–UK Academy for Information Systems.
Ahn, S. J., & G., Bailenson, J. & Dooyeon Park. (2014). Short- and long-term effects of embodied experiences in immersive virtual environments on environmental locus of control and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.014
Ahn, S. J., & G., Bostick, J., Ogle, E., Nowak, K., McGillicuddy, K. & Bailenson, J. (2016). Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(6), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12172
Anderson, K., & Bows, A. (2011). Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: Emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1934), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0290
Annerstedt, M., Östergren, P. O., Björk, J., Grahn, P., Skärbäck, E., & Währborg, P. (2012). Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health–results from a longitudinal cohort study in Southern Sweden. BMC Public Health, 12, 1–13.
Astell-Burt, T., Mitchell, R., & Hartig, T. (2014). The association between green space and mental health varies across the lifecourse. A longitudinal study. Journal Epidemiol Community Health, 68(6), 578–583.
Avineri, E., Owen, E., & Waygood, D. (2013). Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. Transportation Research Part a: Policy and Practice, 48, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.003
Baberini, M., Coleman, C., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2015). Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2015.1061433
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.
Bhutto, S., Butt, F., Abbas, Q., Rehman, Z., & Shaikh, F. (2021a). Carbon footprint analysis of global inbound tourist destinations: An empirical study based on panel data estimation techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123629.
Bhutto, T., Farooq, R., Talwar, S., Awan, U., & Dhir, A. (2021b). Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: Serial mediation of green psychological climate and work engagement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(10), 1716–1737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1867864
Birtles. (n.d.). National parks online: Virtual tours. Trafalgar. https://www.trafalgar.com/real-word/national-parks-online-virtual-tours/. Accessed 9 March 2023.
Bowler, D., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T., & Pullin, A. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10, 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118–136.
Browning, M. H., Shipley, N., McAnirlin, O., Becker, D., Yu, C. P., Hartig, T., & Dzhambov, A. M. (2020). An actual natural setting improves mood better than its virtual counterpart: A meta-analysis of experimental data. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2200.
Bolouki, A. (2022). The impact of virtual reality natural and built environments on affective responses: A systematic review and metaanalysis. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 1–17.
Bowman, D. A., & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7), 36–43.
Cavusoglu, H., Dennis, A. R., & Parsons, J. (2019). immersive systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 680–682.
Chang, P. (2018). Using virtual reality for increased charity donor outreach and funding. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1399185
Cheng, T., Woon, D., & Lynes, J. (2011). The use of message framing in the promotion of environmentally sustainable behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15245004.2011.570859
Coghlan, A. (2022). Can ecotourism interpretation influence reef protective behaviours? Findings from a quasi-experimental field study involving a virtual reality game. Journal of Ecotourism, 21(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2021.1971240
Diemer, J., Alpers, G., Peperkorn, H., Shiban, Y., & Mühlberger, A. (2015). The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: A review of research in virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00026
Douglas, I. (2012). Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: Understanding the links to human health and well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(4), 385–392.
Duan, H., Li, J., Fan, S., Lin, Z., Wu, X., & Cai, W. (2021, October). Metaverse for social good: A university campus prototype. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 153–161). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.08985
Ecoegypt (nd). https://ecoegypt.org/. Accessed 1 March 2023.
Feltham J. (2018, August 6). Researcher outlines how VR data collection could be used against you. https://uploadvr.com/report-vr-data-collection-stanford/. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Fernández, R., & Alonso, V. (2015). Virtual Reality in a shipbuilding environment. Advances in Engineering Software, 81, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.11.001
Francis, J., Wood, L. J., Knuiman, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2012). Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 74(10), 1570–1577.
Frost, S., Kannis-Dymand, L., Schaffer, V., Millea, P., Allen, A., Stallman, H., et al. (2022). Virtual immersion in nature and psychological well-being: A systematic literature review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101765
Futurism. (n.d.). Virtual travel: Google is bringing the national parks to a VR headset near you. Futurism. https://futurism.com/virtual-travel-google-is-bringing-the-national-parks-to-a-vr-headset-near-you. Accessed 9 March 2023.
García-Betances, R., Arredondo Waldmeyer, M., Fico, G., & Cabrera-Umpiérrez, M. (2015). A succinct overview of virtual reality technology use in Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00080
Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004
Gladwell, V. F., Brown, D. K., Barton, J. L., Tarvainen, M. P., Kuoppa, P., Pretty, J., & Sandercock, G. R. H. (2012). The effects of views of nature on autonomic control. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 3379–3386.
Jingjing, G., Yan, Z., Zheng, Y., Yonghua, H., Jun, F., & Weiwei, Z. (2013). The framing effect in medical decision-making: A review of the literature. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 18(6), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2013.766352
Gonzalez-Franco M., Peck T., Rodriguez-Fornells A. & Slater M. (2019). The hidden risk of virtual reality—and what to do about it. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/the-hidden-risk-of-virtual-reality-and-what-to-do-about-it/. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Grassini, S. (2022a). Virtual reality assisted non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain management: A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 4071. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074071
Grassini, S. (2022b). The use of VR natural environments for the reduction of stress: an overview on current research and future prospective. In Proceedings of the 33rd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3552327.3552336
Grassini, S., & Laumann, K. (2020). Are modern head-mounted displays sexist? A systematic review on gender differences in HMD-mediated virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01604
Grassini, S. & Laumann, K. (2021). Immersive visual technologies and human health. In Proceedings of the 32nd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3452853.3452856
Grassini, S., Laumann, K., de Martin Topranin, V., & Thorp, S. (2021). Evaluating the effect of multi-sensory stimulations on simulator sickness and sense of presence during HMD-mediated VR experience. Ergonomics, 64(12), 1532–1542. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1941279
Grassini, S., Revonsuo, A., Castellotti, S., Petrizzo, I., Benedetti, V., & Koivisto, M. (2019). Processing of natural scenery is associated with lower attentional and cognitive load compared with urban ones. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 1–11.
Grassini, S., Segurini, G. V., & Koivisto, M. (2022). Watching nature videos promotes physiological restoration: evidence from the modulation of alpha waves in electroencephalography. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 871143.
Godovykh, M., Baker, C., & Fyall, A. (2022). VR in tourism: A new call for virtual tourism experience amid and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Tourism and Hospitality, 3(1), 265–275.
Guangzhi, T. Z., Fu., Wu Yuanyuan, & Hongyu, & Wang Jiajing,. (2019). Positive versus negative messaging in discouraging drunken driving: Matching behavior consequences with target groups. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2018-029
Gue, I., Ubando, A., Tseng, M., & Tan, R. (2020). Artificial neural networks for sustainable development: A critical review. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22, 1449–1465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01883-2
Gürerk, Ö. & Kasulke, A. (2018). Does virtual reality increase charitable giving? An experimental study. SSRN Journal (October 8, 2018). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3267691.
Gutierrez, M., Vexo, F., & Thalmann, D. (2008). Stepping into Virtual Reality.
Guttentag, D. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.003
Hakkinen, J., Vuori, T., & Paakka, M. (October 2002). (2002) Postural stability and sickness symptoms after HMD use. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, 6–9, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2002.1167964
Hallahan, K. (2008). Strategic framing. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecs107
Hamad, A. (2021) Two wheelistic: Development of a high-fidelity virtual reality cycling simulator for transportation safety research. Unpublished Thesis University of Michigan. https://doi.org/10.7302/1035
Hardisty, D., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: Money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016433
Hayhurst, J. (2018). How augmented reality and virtual reality is being used to support people living with dementia—design challenges and future directions. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Empowering Human, Place and Business, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_20
Henriksson, E. (2018). Data protection challenges for virtual reality applications. Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 1(1), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.4337/ielr.2018.01.05
Hettinger, L. & Riccio, G. (1992). Visually induced motion sickness in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(3), 306–310.
Hirzle, T., Fischbach, F., Karlbauer, J., Jansen, P., Gugenheimer, J., Rukzio, E., & Bulling, A. (2022). Understanding, addressing, and analysing Digital Eye Strain in Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(4), 1–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492802
Indovina, P., Barone, D., Gallo, L., Chirico, A., De Pietro, G., & Antonio, G. (2018). Virtual reality as a distraction intervention to relieve pain and distress during medical rocedures. Clinical Journal of Pain, 34(9), 858–877. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000599
Innocenti, A. (2017). Virtual reality experiments in economics. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 69, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.06.001
Jacobson, S., Morales, N., Chen, B., Soodeen, R., Moulton, M., & Eakta, J. (2019). Love or Loss: Effective message framing to promote environmental conservation. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 18(3), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2018.1456380
Jiang, S., Moyle, B., Yung, R., Tao, L., & Scott, N. (2023). Augmented reality and the enhancement of memorable tourism experiences at heritage sites. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(2), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2026303
Jones, T., Moore, T., & Choo, J. (2016). The impact of virtual reality on chronic pain. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0167523. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167523
Kandaurova, M., Lee, S. H., & Mark. (2019). The effects of Virtual Reality (VR) on charitable giving: The role of empathy, guilt, responsibility, and social exclusion. Journal of Business Research, 100, 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.022
Kaplan, A., Cruit, J., Endsley, M., Beers, S., Sawyer, B., & Hancock, P. (2020). The Effects of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality as Training Enhancement Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 63, 706–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820904229
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 507–542.
Khairunisa, Y., Nurhasanah, Y., & Verlaili, R. (2022). Virtual Job Fair Information System Design Based on Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. Sinkron: Jurnal Dan Penelitian Teknik Informatika, 7(4), 2449–2461. https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v7i4.11795
Kim, H., Lim, H.-T., & Ro, Y. (2019a). Deep Virtual Reality Image Quality Assessment with Human Perception Guider for Omnidirectional Image. IEEE Transactions on Circuits Systems and Video Technology, 30, 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2019.2898732
Kim, O., Pang, Y., & Kim, J. (2019b). The effectiveness of virtual reality for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: A meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2180-x
Knox, J. (2022). The metaverse, or the serious business of tech frontiers. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00300-9
Koh, L. Y., Wu, M., Wang, X., & Yuen, K. F. (2023). Willingness to participate in virtual reality technologies: Public adoption and policy perspectives for marine conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 334, 117480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117480
La Corte, V., Sperduti, M., Abichou, K., & Piolino, P. (2019). Episodic memory assessment and remediation in normal and pathological aging using virtual reality: a mini review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00173. eCollection 2019
Lane, L. (2020, April 12). Travel virtually to U.S. national parks—including ones you probably wouldn’t otherwise get to. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2020/04/12/travel-virtually-to-us-national-parks-including-ones-you-probably-wouldnt-otherwise-get-to/. Accessed 9 March 2023.
LaRocco, M. (2020). Developing the ‘best practices’ of virtual reality design: Industry standards at the frontier of emerging media. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/147041292090625
Lateef, F., Chong, Y., Sethi, D., & Loh, C. (2018). Going forward with Pokemon Go. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock, 11(4), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.4103/JETS.JETS_87_17
Laviola, J., Jr. (2000). A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 32(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344
Lee, U. (2022). Tourism using virtual reality: Media richness and information system successes. Sustainability, 14(7), 3975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073975
Leiserowitz, A., Carman, J., Buttermore, N., Neyens, L., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J. et al. (2022). International Public Opinion on Climate Change, 2022. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Data for Good at Meta.
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
Li, H., Zhang, X., Wang, H., Yang, Z., Liu, H., Cao, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Access to nature via virtual reality: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 725288.
Lorek, S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Strong sustainable consumption governance – precondition for a degrowth path? Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.008
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Lowry, B. (2019, April 1). ‘Our Planet’ is visually stunning and deadly serious. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/01/entertainment/nature-documentaries-our-planet/index.html. Accessed 14 April 2023.
Maller, C., Nicholls, L., & Strengers, Y. (2016). Understanding the materiality of neighbourhoods in ‘healthy practices’: Outdoor exercise practices in a new master-planned estate. Urban Policy and Research, 34(1), 55–72.
Marquet, O., Alberico, C., Adlakha, D., & Hipp, J. (2017). Examining motivations to play Pokémon GO and their influence on perceived outcomes and physical activity. JMIR Serious Games, 5(4), e21. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.7229
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. et al. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (p. 32). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643.
McCauley, M. & Sharkey, T. (1992). Cybersickness: Perception of self-motion in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1 (3), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.311
Millar, M., Westfall, R. S., & Fink-Armold, A. (2023). Effects of disease threat and attitude similarity on willingness to help: The mediating role of disgust. Psychological Reports, 126(1), 150-168.
Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2011). COMMUNICATING CHANGE SCIENCE:-CLOSING ACTION CLIMATE. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, 161. Millar, M., Westfall, R. S., & Fink-Armold
Movono, A., Dahles, H., & Becken, S. (2018). Fijian culture and the environment: A focus on the ecological and social interconnectedness of tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1359280
Nelson, K., Schlüter, A., & Vance, C. (2018a). Distributional preferences and donation behavior among marine resource users in Wakatobi, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 162, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.09.003
Nelson, K., Schlüter, A., & Vance, C. (2018b). Funding conservation locally: Insights from behavioral experiments in Indonesia. Conservation Letters, 11(2), e12378. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12378
Nelson, K., Cepok, J., Marnholz, K., Arzaroli, R., Grosse, C., Zachmann, G. (2019). Effects of virtual reality on giving to charity. Experimental Economics for the Environment, Münster, Germany, February 25–26, 2019.
Nelson, K., Anggraini, E., & Schlüter, A. (2020). Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0223631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223631
Newman, M., Gatersleben, B., Wyles, K., & Ratcliffe, E. (2022). The use of virtual reality in environment experiences and the importance of realism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, 101733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101733
Nielsen (2017). Virtual empathy: How 360-Degree video can boost the efforts of non-profits. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/how-360-degree-video-can-boost-the-efforts-of-non-profits.html. Accessed 15 April 2023.
O’Keefe, D., & Jensen, J. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
Pelletier, L., & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012755
Pounders, K., Seungae, L., & Mackert, M. (2015). Matching temporal frame, self-view, and message frame valence: Improving persuasiveness in health communications. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1071210
Ramirez, E. (2017). Empathy and the limits of thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 48(4), 504–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12249
Rebenitsch, L. & Owen, C. (2014). Individual variation in susceptibility to cybersickness. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 309–317). Virtual Event. https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647394.
Reed-Jones, R., Hollands, M., Reed-Jones, J., & Vallis, L. (2009). Visually evoked whole-body turning responses during stepping in place in a virtual environment. Gait and Posture, 30, 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.06.001
Reilly, C. (2017, October 20). Scientists hope building an artificial reef could help save the real one. CNET. Retrieved March 2, 2023 from https://www.cnet.com/science/saving-great-barrier-reef-simulated-oceans-and-3d-coral/. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Rodríguez-Fidalgo, M., & Paíno-Ambrosio, A. (2020). Use of virtual reality and 360° video as narrative resources in the documentary genre: Towards a new immersive social documentary? Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies, 12(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00030_1
Rosenberg, R., Baughman, S., & Bailenson, J. (2013). Virtual superheroes: Using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055003
Rothman , A., Bartels R., Wlaschin, J & Salovey P. (2006). The strategic use of gain-and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56 (suppl_1), S202–S220.
Samit, J. (2017, November 21). How these charities are using virtual reality to reach donors this holiday season. Fortune. http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/virtual-reality-charities-donations/. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Schmitt, H., Schmitt, C., & Nelson, K. (2017). Coral reefs: Life below the surface. Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TPG8lcfeDc&t=64s:TheJetlagged. Accessed 15 April 2023.
Schutte, N., & Stilinović, E. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 708–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7
Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.012
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3(74), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074
Soutar, C., & Wand, A. (2022). Understanding the spectrum of anxiety responses to climate change: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020990
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Stanney, K., Lawson, B., Rokers, B., Dennison, M., Fidopiastis, C., Stoffregen, T., et al. (2020). Identifying causes of and solutions for cybersickness in immersive technology: Reformulation of a research and development agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36, 1783–1803. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1828535
Sutherland I. (1965) The ultimate display. In: Proceedings of the International Federation for Information Processing Congress, New York, pp. 506–508.
Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Escobar, O., & Lan, S. (2022). Virtual reality tourism to satisfy wanderlust without wandering: An unconventional innovation to promote sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 152, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.032
Thorp, S., Rimol, L., & Grassini, S. (2023). Association of the big five personality traits with training effectiveness, sense of presence, and cybersickness in virtual Reality. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 7(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7020011
Thorp, S., Sævild Ree, A., & Grassini, S. (2022). Temporal development of sense of presence and cybersickness during an immersive VR experience. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(5), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6050031
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. In D. Wendt & C. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Theory and decision library, vol. 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
Ünal, A. B., Pals, R., Steg, L., Siero, F. W., & van der Zee, K. I. (2022). Is virtual reality a valid tool for restorative environments research? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127673.
United Nations (2018). Around 2.5 billion more people will be living in cities by 2050, projects new UN report. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. . Accessed 2 March 2023.
Valmaggia, L. (2017). The use of virtual reality in psychosis research and treatment. World Psychiatry, 16(3), 246–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20443
Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135–146.
Van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516
Walsh, K., & Pawlowski, S. (2002). Virtual reality: A technology in need of IS research. Communications for the Association of Information Systems, 8(20), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00820
Watson (n.d.). Take a virtual visit to a national park. National Parks Foundation. https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/blog/take-virtual-visit-national-park. Accessed 9 March 2023.
Weber, A. M., & Trojan, J. (2018). The restorative value of the urban environment: A systematic review of the existing literature. Environmental Health Insights, 12, 1178630218812805.
West, M. (2015). Charities use virtual reality to draw in donors. https://www.wsj.com/articles/charities-use-virtual-reality-to-draw-in-donors-1448663492. Accessed 2 March 2023.
World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: Summary report. World Health Organization.
Yang, H., & Han, S. Y. (2021). Understanding virtual reality continuance: An extended perspective of perceived value. Online Information Review, 45(2), 422–439.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grassini, S., Ratcliffe, E. (2024). The Virtual Wild: Exploring the Intersection of Virtual Reality and Natural Environments. In: Finneran, N., Hewlett, D., Clarke, R. (eds) Managing Protected Areas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40783-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40783-3_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40782-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40783-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)