Search

Abstract Around the world, people express a variety of values of nature based on how they relate and interact with it. These values of nature, broadly classified as instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values, underlie environmental policy and decision‐making processes. In this paper, our aim was to assess the values of nature that are expressed in national environmental policy documents. We assessed the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), the key national policy framework for biodiversity conservation, from 11 countries, representing the five regional United Nations groups. We used qualitative content analysis to identify the value orientation of the statements in the NBSAPs and the main themes under each. Across the 11 NBSAPs, unspecified value orientation statements were the most common (40%), followed by instrumental (38%), intrinsic (14%) and relational (9%) value orientation statements. We identified the main themes in the instrumental value orientation statements as follows: (1) sustainability, (2) natural resources and (3) ecosystem services. The main themes present in the intrinsic value orientation statements were as follows: (1) recognizing intrinsic value, (2) endangered species and habitats, (3) conservation programmes and (4) threats to nature. Relational value orientation statements referenced as follows: (1) duty and responsibility to protect nature, (2) values expressed for nature, (3) national pride and heritage, (4) Indigenous peoples and local community's (IP&LCs) relationships with nature, (5) protecting nature for future generations and (6) equity in the use and access of nature. Our findings indicate that NBSAPs respond to the directive of the Convention on Biological Diversity. They are primarily based on the instrumental values of nature, only rarely considering other ways in which nature is valuable to people. This can reinforce unjust outcomes for human well‐being since environmental policies may not reflect the diverse ways in which nature and biodiversity matter to the population. In an increasingly interconnected world, environmental policies are called on to incorporate multiple values to achieve positive outcomes for both human well‐being and biodiversity conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Prior evidence suggests that perspective-taking may promote pro-environmental behavior, at least for low-cost behaviors or local environmental problems. Climate change, however, requires costly mitigation efforts and is a global problem. Thus, in this study, we examine whether perspective-taking in the context of climate change is effective in promoting mitigation behaviors, including actual and/or costly behaviors, the mechanisms through which perspective-taking works, and if the distance to the person adversely affected by climate change matters for the effect. We conducted an online experiment with a non-student sample from Germany (n = 557), utilizing a 2 × 2 factorial design, to investigate the impact of perspective-taking and distance on three outcome measures: a climate donation, signing a petition, and approval of mitigation policies. We find that perspective-taking does not promote these mitigation behaviors, yet it raises the degree perspective-takers value and – for close others – feel connected with the affected person. Exploratory analysis shows that dispositional perspective-taking and empathic concern are correlated with mitigation behaviors.

Adverse consequences of climate change often affect people and places far away from those that have the greatest capacity for mitigation. Several correlational and some experimental studies suggest that the willingness to take mitigation actions may diminish with increasing distance. However, the empirical findings are ambiguous. In order to investigate if and how socio-spatial distance to climate change effects plays a role for the willingness to engage in mitigation actions, we conducted an online experiment with a German population sample (n = 383). We find that the willingness to sign a petition for climate protection was significantly reduced when a person in India with a name of Indian origin was affected by flooding, as compared to a person in Germany with a name of German origin. Distance did not affect donating money to climate protection or approving of mitigation policies. Our results provide evidence for the existence of a negative effect of distance to climate change consequences on the willingness to engage in low-cost mitigation actions. Investigating explanations for such an effect, we find that it can be attributed to the spatial rather than the social dimension of distance. Moreover, we find some cautious evidence that people with strong racist attitudes react differently to the distance manipulations, suggesting a form of environmental racism that could also reduce mitigation action in the case of climate change.

Adolescents are the decision-makers of the future, and as educational research shows, behaviors, habits, and attitudes established at young age strongly shape behavior in adulthood. Therefore, it is important to understand what factors shape young people's climate-relevant behavior. In this study, we examine how information about peer behavior affects adolescents' perception of prevailing social norms and own decision-making. Experimentally, we manipulated whether adolescents received information about other young people's (lack of) support for climate protection, operationalized as a donation to a CO2 offsetting scheme. We find that empirical expectations shifted for all age groups when the information revealed that peers donated nothing or only small amounts. Donation behavior and the normative assessment, however, changed only in the younger age groups. Our study illustrates the caution that must be exercised when others' behavior becomes visible or is deliberatively made salient in order to induce behavioral change, especially among young individuals.