Pleasurable experiences in nature are suspected to promote a personal connection with nature, and subsequently, nature conservation in individuals. Using an Internet-based survey employing a convenience sample of the general population (N = 1,309), we developed a connection-with-nature instrument that relies on only simple self-reflection. That is, connection with nature is indirectly derived from inspecting reports of past bonding activities and responses to evaluative statements reflecting an appreciation of nature. As such, our instrument is intellectually easy and not particularly taxing to respond to. Although conceptualized as an attitude, our new Disposition to Connect with Nature scale converged with other connection-with-nature measures – with only one exception – and, simultaneously, turned out to be technically superior with regard to accuracy and validity.

In environmental psychology, many researchers have apparently placed appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection in the same attitudinal category. In this article, the authors argue that this involves a misconception. The authors used survey data from 1,336 Swiss adults to compare competing attitudinal models: the currently accepted one-dimensional model against a two-dimensional model that distinguishes appreciation of nature from appreciation of environmental protection. A Rasch-type measurement model was implemented to test the theoretically anticipated item-factor structure. The model that treated appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection as distinct attitudes was statistically superior to the one-dimensional model. The gains in reliability and model accuracy were modest, but the authors see substantial theoretical and practical value in treating appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection as separate attitudes. For example, if the intention is to promote more environmental engagement, then appreciation of nature might be the more malleable target and thus the critical factor for change.

This research investigated how an individual’s endorsements of mitigation and adaptation relate to each other, and how well each of these can be accounted for by relevant social psychological factors. Based on survey data from two European convenience samples (N = 616 / 309) we found that public endorsements of mitigation and adaptation are strongly associated: Someone who is willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) is also willing to prepare for climate change impacts (adaptation). Moreover, people endorsed the two response strategies for similar reasons: People who believe that climate change is real and dangerous, who have positive attitudes about protecting the environment and the climate, and who perceive climate change as a risk, are willing to respond to climate change. Furthermore, distinguishing between (spatially) proximal and distant risk perceptions suggested that the idea of portraying climate change as a proximal (i.e., local) threat might indeed be effective in promoting personal actions. However, to gain endorsement of broader societal initiatives such as policy support, it seems advisable to turn to the distant risks of climate change. The notion that “localising” climate change might not be the panacea for engaging people in this domain is discussed in regard to previous theory and research.