# Fostering urban nature: How identity dynamics and future envisioning drive biodiversity conservation in cities

Lucia Bosone, Aurore Grandin, Marie Chevrier, Carla Jullien, Franck Zenasni, Julie Collange

► To cite this version:

Lucia Bosone, Aurore Grandin, Marie Chevrier, Carla Jullien, Franck Zenasni, et al.. Fostering urban nature: How identity dynamics and future envisioning drive biodiversity conservation in cities. Biological Conservation, 2025, 311, 10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111451. hal-05442440

HAL Id: hal-05442440

https://hal.science/hal-05442440v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Fostering urban nature: How identity dynamics and future envisioning drive biodiversity conservation in cities

Lucia Bosone a,*, b ID, Aurore Grandin a,b ID, Marie Chevrier a ID, Carla Jullien a,1 ID,
Franck Zenasni c ID, Julie Collange c ID

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Nature experience

- Nature connectedness

- Identity dynamics

- Ability to imagine a sustainable future

- Biodiversity conservation

## ABSTRACT

This study examines the psychological drivers of biodiversity conservation behaviours in urban and peri-urban settings, focusing on the role of nature experiences, identity dynamics, and future envisioning. A correlational study was conducted with 2052 French urban and peri-urban residents, assessing their (declared) engagement in pro-biodiversity behaviours (both individual and collective) and policy support, and psychological predictors. Results show that nature connectedness and pro-environmental identity dynamics (self- and social-identity) strongly predict pro-biodiversity behaviours. Additionally, the ability to imagine a sustainable future significantly influences biodiversity-supportive behaviours, particularly through perceived desirability and plausibility of future eco-friendly societies. The study offers practical insights for urban planning and environmental communication, suggesting that fostering a sense of environmental social identity and promoting positive future visions can enhance collective action for biodiversity conservation.

## 1. Introduction

Urbanisation leads to the destruction of natural habitats, reducing space for wildlife and causing declines in species richness and abundance (Austvoll et al., 2020; Isaksson et al., 2020). The loss of green spaces in cities negatively affects insect diversity, plant communities, and ecosystem health (Fenoglio et al., 2021). Environmental changes like pollution and non-native species introductions further contribute to biodiversity decline in urban areas (Newport et al., 2014). Urban green spaces, such as private gardens and terraces, can play a supportive role in biodiversity conservation within cities (Aronson et al., 2017; Goddard et al., 2010; Theodorou et al., 2020), although urban areas generally host lower levels of biodiversity than most other land types, except for intensively farmed regions (IPBES, 2019). Wildlife-friendly gardening practices, like using native plants and reducing pesticide use, help support urban biodiversity (Beckwith et al., 2022; Coisnon et al., 2019; Gaston et al., 2005). Encouraging urban residents to engage in these practices can foster a connection with nature and contribute to broader

biodiversity conservation efforts (Mumaw and Mata, 2022). For these reasons, it is important to identify - beyond the sociological and economic dimensions - the psychological dimensions that could be a right lever to the adoption of pro-biodiversity behaviours and to public policies support.

Extensive research has explored the psychological factors influencing pro-environmental behaviours in general and behaviours related to biodiversity conservation specifically, demonstrating the importance of risk perception (Bosone et al., 2022; Bosone and Bertoldo, 2022), as well as identity dynamics in determining the decision to engage in such behaviours both at an individual and collective levels (Bamberg et al., 2023a; Bamberg et al., 2023b; Bosone et al., 2024a). The more individuals perceive environmental crises to be a concern, and the more they identify as individuals sharing pro-environmental values and being connected to nature, the more they are willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviours. However, these studies have largely neglected an important aspect of behaviour: the temporal dimension. The decision to engage (or not to engage) in pro-environmental actions

<footnote>ª Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, F-78000 Versailles, France</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇ Centre de formation sur l'environnement et la société, Ecole normale supérieure, Université PSL, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote>ᶜ Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, F-92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: 25 allée des Marronniers, 78000 Versailles, France.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: lucia.bosone@univ-eiffel.fr (L. Bosone).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ This author was not present in the list of authors of the original submission; we would like to add her because she contributed to the first round of revision of the manuscript; we have asked if this is acceptable to the editor in the cover letter.</footnote>
often presents individuals with a social and temporal dilemma, as it involves personal and immediate costs in exchange for collective, long-term benefits (Joireman, 2005). Avoiding watering the grass in one's garden can for instance be associated with the collective future benefits linked to resource conservation, but it can cause the plants to die and the garden to become dry and inhospitable. We argue that an important predictor of individuals' willingness to pay a personal and immediate cost for biodiversity protection is their ability to clearly imagine future benefits at a societal level. We thus argue that individuals' capacity to envision a positive future and their belief in sustainable solutions may play a key role in shaping their engagement to protect biodiversity.

The present paper aims to test whether identity dynamics in relation with the environment and individuals' ability to imagine a future eco-friendly society influence pro-biodiversity behaviours, specifically in the domain of behaviours that individuals adopt in their interaction with nature in favour of the conservation of urban and peri-urban biodiversity (on their balconies and gardens).

## 1.1. Identity dynamics: From the individual to the group

Past research on pro-environmental behaviours has demonstrated that the way individuals perceive themselves in relation to nature and the natural environment has a strong impact on their actions. Three identity-related constructs are particularly relevant: **nature connectedness** (the way people who feel connected to nature), **environmental self-identity** (individuals' perception of themselves as being environmentally-friendly individuals), and **pro-environmental social identity** (individuals' perception of themselves as members of a group sharing pro-environmental values). While these constructs are sometimes used interchangeably, they refer to distinct psychological processes that operate at different levels—ranging from personal connection to nature to group-based identification.

**Nature connectedness** refers to an individual's emotional and experiential sense of closeness to the natural world. Rooted in the bio-philia hypothesis (Kellert and Wilson, 1995), this construct has been consistently linked to pro-environmental behaviours across quantitative studies and meta-analyses conducted mainly in Europe, North America, and East Asia (Barragan-Jason et al., 2022; Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; Whitburn et al., 2020; Tiscareno-Osorno et al., 2023). It is typically understood as a subjective feeling of oneness with nature (Mayer and Frantz, 2004).

Closely related but distinct is **environmental self-identity**, which reflects the extent to which individuals see themselves as the kind of person who acts in environmentally friendly ways (van der Werff et al., 2013; Van der Werff et al., 2014; Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010; Lauren et al., 2019). While nature connectedness reflects a general bond with the natural world, environmental self-identity refers more directly to a personal identity rooted in eco-friendly behaviour. The two are positively correlated (as shown in a survey with Lithuanian university students, by Balundė et al., 2019) and may reinforce one another, but they are not interchangeable.

In contrast, **pro-environmental social identity** involves identifying as part of a group that shares environmental values and engages in collective environmental action. This form of identity has been referred to as “opinion-based” or “activist” social identity (Schmitt et al., 2019; Schulte et al., 2020), and it differs from environmental self-identity in that it emphasizes shared beliefs and group membership rather than individual behaviour. Udall et al. (2020) reviewed 62 quantitative studies - conducted primarily in North America, Europe, and Australia - examining how different types of identity relate to pro-environmental behaviours and found that individually-focused identities were often linked to individually-focused behaviours (64 %), while group-focused identities were primarily linked to group-focused behaviours (80 %). Despite these tendencies, both types of identity were significantly correlated with both types of behaviour. Vesely et al. (2021) found that pro-environmental intentions and behaviours are significantly

associated with both environmental self-identity and social identity, particularly when the latter is based on shared opinions rather than merely shared community or broad group affiliations (Buchan et al., 2011; Dono et al., 2010; Hart and Nisbet, 2012; McFarland et al., 2012; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Schulte et al., 2020). The distinction between self- and social-identity is supported by recent empirical work. Bosone et al. (2024a) found that, although these constructs are highly correlated, they remain empirically and theoretically distinct. Their cross-sectional study, conducted on a sample of 380 French adults, showed that each identity type predicts different types of pro-environmental intention via distinct emotional pathways. This finding reinforces the need to consider both dimensions of identity when examining environmental engagement. The current study builds on this work by replicating these identity dynamics on a bigger sample of participants.

Past research has also demonstrated that these pro-environmental identity dynamics are strongly linked to the **experiences** individuals have in nature. Indeed, direct contact with nature, such as spending time in green spaces, strengthens emotional bonds with the environment and fosters a personal relationship with it. Studies show that regular exposure to natural environments helps individuals internalise environmental values, leading to a deeper sense of responsibility towards the natural world. These experiences lay the foundation for a connection that often translates into a robust environmental identity (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001). When individuals feel connected to nature, their sense of belonging to a larger eco-friendly system is enhanced, which in turn strengthens their pro-environmental identity. People who regularly engage with nature tend to see themselves as part of the broader environmental community and are more likely to align their personal identity with environmental stewardship (Zelenski and Nisbet, 2014; Cleary et al., 2020).

Certain types of nature experiences are more effective than others in fostering nature connectedness and enhancing environmental identity. For instance, passive or indirect experiences—such as viewing nature through a window or spending time in low-biodiversity urban green spaces—tend to have a more limited influence on long-term environmental attitudes and behaviours (DeVille et al., 2021). Likewise, incidental or unstructured contact with nature, although beneficial, may not elicit strong emotional or identity-forming responses compared to more intentional interactions (Collado and Evans, 2019). Research with older adults also suggests that restricted or low-quality access to gardens may reduce the psychological benefits typically associated with nature engagement (van Heezik et al., 2020). By contrast, immersive, direct contact with natural environments, such as spending time in green spaces, forests, or near bodies of water, has been shown to elicit strong emotional responses (e.g. van Heezik et al., 2021), which are linked to a greater sense of connection to nature (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009). These experiences deepen emotional bonds with the environment, reinforcing individuals' identification with eco-friendly systems and promoting pro-environmental attitudes. Simple, daily interactions with nature, like observing wildlife, walking in parks, or gardening, can also stimulate these feelings of connectedness by providing continuous and meaningful contact with natural elements (Zelenski and Nisbet, 2014; Cazalis and Prévot, 2019).

It is thus possible to argue that **daily nature experiences**, such as gardening on a balcony or in one's garden, are particularly effective at fostering environmental identity and improving pro-environmental behaviours. These routine activities provide individuals with regular exposure to natural processes, such as plant growth, seasonal changes, and interactions with insects and birds. These small, frequent experiences help individuals feel more responsible for their immediate environment and integrate pro-environmental actions into their daily lives. Research has shown that habitual nature engagement, even in small doses, significantly increases a person's likelihood of adopting sustainable practices and identifying as an eco-friendly person (Clayton, 2012; Tam, 2013; Prévot et al., 2018). For instance, a survey conducted with over 2000 urban residents in France (Prévot et al., 2018) showed that
routine interactions with nearby nature—such as walking or observing greenery—were associated with stronger environmental identity and self-reported ecological behaviours. Therefore, in the present article we investigate how nature experiences, as well as nature connectedness and pro-environmental self- and social-identity, predict pro-biodiversity behaviours.

Together with identity dynamics, nature experiences can influence another important dimension of the decisional process, bringing individuals to change their behaviours when facing environmental crises: their perception of the psychological distance of such crises.

## 1.2. Psychological distance

Psychological distance, as defined by Trope and Liberman (2010), refers to the perception of how far or close a phenomenon feels to an individual, across dimensions such as geographic, temporal, social, and uncertainty. When facing threats, individuals' perceived psychological distance plays a critical role in their decision-making. Research suggests that people who perceive a threat as distant are less motivated to take action, whereas those who perceive a threat as close are more likely to evaluate their options for effective coping responses (Kothe et al., 2019; Witte, 1992; Witte and Allen, 2000). Climate change, in particular, is often perceived as a distant threat—occurring in the future, in distant locations, and affecting others—hindering proactive engagement (Spence et al., 2012).

Research suggests that direct contact with nature can make environmental issues feel more immediate and personal. For instance, spending time in natural settings fosters an emotional connection to the environment, helping people internalise the impacts of climate change on ecosystems they feel connected to. This can make the abstract idea of climate change more tangible and relevant to their daily lives (Sahin, 2023). Moreover, regular nature contact, such as through activities like gardening, walking in green spaces, or visiting natural parks, strengthens a sense of personal responsibility towards protecting the environment. These experiences help bridge the gap between distant, global concerns like climate change and individuals' immediate environments, thereby reducing psychological distance. People who engage more frequently with nature are likely to perceive the risks of climate change as more urgent and related to their personal well-being, which enhances their motivation to engage in pro-environmental actions (McDonald et al., 2015).

Lastly, educational strategies that incorporate place-based learning, where people engage directly with their local environment, are particularly effective in addressing psychological distance. When individuals understand the direct impact of climate change on their local ecosystems, they feel a stronger obligation to act. This type of environmental education not only fosters nature connectedness but also provides a practical framework for understanding how global environmental issues like climate change affect local communities (Duke and Holt, 2022). Thus, frequent, meaningful nature experiences are key in proximising the climate crisis and encouraging proactive environmental behaviours.

However, studies on how a "proximised" distance, meaning increasing individuals' perception of climate change as closer and more immediate, influences behavioural change have produced mixed results (see McDonald et al., 2015). Some studies found direct effects of reducing psychological distance on promoting pro-environmental behaviour (Jones et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017), while others reported indirect effects or no effects (Brügger et al., 2016; Schuldt et al., 2018). Literature reviews, identifying and reviewing studies conducted primarily in Europe, North America, and Australia, confirm that while psychological distance is important, it may not be the strongest predictor of climate action (Keller et al., 2022; Maiella et al., 2020). Growing awareness of climate change in recent decades (Baiardi and Morana, 2021; Luís et al., 2018) may also have reduced the influence of distance. Meanwhile, biodiversity loss, another critical environmental issue, remains less understood and more distant in the public's

perception (Fischer et al., 2011; Levé et al., 2019). Recent research in France, using two community-based samples (collecting both qualitative and quantitative data through a questionnaire), indicates that those who perceive biodiversity loss as a close threat are more likely to think of conservation efforts, highlighting the importance of reducing the perceived distance of both climate change and biodiversity threats (Bosone and Bertoldo, 2022). The heterogeneity of findings around psychological distance, and the lack of studies on specifically biodiversity loss psychological distance, led us to investigate in the present study whether biodiversity loss psychological distance contributes to pro-environmental behaviours.

Finally, we argue that self-perceptions (identity dynamics) and risk-perception (psychological distance) are not enough to predict pro-environmental behaviours, as this type of behaviours often present individuals with a temporal dilemma, as they are associated with personal short-term costs and collective long-term benefits (Joireman, 2005). We thus argue that to inspire pro-environmental action, individuals must be able to imagine an alternative future worth pursuing.

## 1.3. Envisioning a positive future: Ability, beliefs and attitudes

Envisioning positive alternative futures sets high aspirations (Badaan et al., 2022; Fernando et al., 2018) and encourages critical reflection on society and drives collective social transformation efforts (Boldero and Francis, 2002). Considering that pro-environmental actions are often associated with collective long-term benefits, but with personal short-term costs (Joireman, 2005; Kortenkamp and Moore, 2006), we argue that envisioning a positive future would be an important lever to motivate behavioural change. We suppose that the process of envisioning is structured on several dimensions, and more precisely the ability of individuals to imagine a positive eco-friendly future, their beliefs about the existence of solutions to attain it, and their attitudes towards it in terms of its desirability and plausibility.

Indeed, even if individuals feel able to imagine an eco-friendly future, they might not believe that it is possible to attain it, or they might find it undesirable (Bosone et al., 2024b), which might hinder the positive effects that positive future envisioning is expected to have on pro-environmental behaviours. Empirical quantitative studies, cross-sectional (Wright et al., 2020) and experimental (Bosone et al., 2024c; Wright et al., 2022), carried out with European, Canadian and North American samples, show that people are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours when they can vividly imagine a sustainable world different from the current reality. This concept, known as environmental cognitive alternatives (Wright et al., 2020, 2022), is based on Tajfel and Turner's (1979) idea that alternative social realities are both conceivable and achievable.

Apart from individuals' perceived ability to imagine a positive future, it can be suggested that envisioning the future becomes difficult when individuals lack confidence in the existence of solutions that can drive such changes, or becomes less motivating when individuals perceive such positive future alternatives as undesirable. A recent multi-study research indicates that those who have strong *beliefs in the existence of solutions* to attain a positive eco-friendly future, and consequently strongly believe in the *plausibility* of such a future, are more likely to feel motivated for social change and take action to achieve it (Basso and Krpan, 2022; "beliefs in transformative utopian solutions"). However, the importance of the perceived *desirability* of such alternative futures remains underexplored. In an experimental study, Bosone et al. (2024c) found that French participants who were shown positive scenarios of environmentally sustainable futures rated a decarbonized future more favourably, with higher pro-environmental intentions, compared to a control group. Similarly, Wenzel et al. (2024) conducted two studies with UK-based adult participants recruited via Prolific, testing whether prospection tasks could enhance the perceived desirability of collective goals, such as climate change mitigation and economic equality. While prospection increased the desirability of economic equality, no such
effect was seen for climate change, likely due to its already high
perceived importance. In both studies, however, greater perceived
desirability of the goals was associated with stronger motivation for
social change.

Linked to perceived desirability and plausibility, it is also important
to consider that envisioning a positive future could have an impact on
efficacy beliefs, as perceived ability to imagine positive alternatives is
linked to beliefs in efficacy and hope for social change (Badaan et al.,
2022; Hamann et al., 2021; Iyer et al., 2017). Efficacy beliefs have been
demonstrated to be a fundamental step of individuals' decision-making
process when facing possible threats (Witte, 1992; Witte and Allen,
2000). This has been further supported by Miller et al. (2022), who
examined data from a survey carried out with university students in 11
countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States) and found that
environmental efficacy was significantly associated with pro-
environmental behaviour across these diverse cultural contexts. We
argue that individuals who are able to envision a positive collective
future where environmental sustainability has been successfully reached
will also perceive higher efficacy of social and collective changes. In this
sense, we included two complementary measures of efficacy beliefs, and
more precisely collective efficacy, defined as individuals' perception of
the ability to collectively achieve a common goal (Bandura, 2000; Jugert
et al., 2016; Wallis et al., 2022; Maduneme and Cohen, 2024), as well as
participative efficacy, defined as individuals' perception of their own
ability to significantly contribute to the collective efforts to accomplish
the goal (van Zomeren et al., 2013).

Since the relationship between envisioning future solutions and pro-
environmental behaviour, particularly in biodiversity conservation, is
underexplored, we conducted an exploratory correlational study to
investigate these dimensions further.

1.4. Overall objectives

In this paper, we present the results of a correlational study aiming to
investigate the psychological correlates of individuals' engagement in
pro-biodiversity behaviours, both at an individual level (e.g. when
interacting with nature in their garden or elsewhere) and a collective
one (e.g. public policy support), within urban and peri-urban settings.
More precisely, we investigate the role of nature experiences and related
identity dynamics, meaning nature connectedness and pro-
environmental self- and social- identity, in predicting individual vs
collective behavioural intentions respectively (Bosone et al., 2024a).
Furthermore, we investigate the role of individuals' envisioning of a
positive future, a process that we conceptualise as structured on multiple
dimensions, namely individuals' perceived ability to imagine a positive
future, their attitudes towards it (in terms of desirability and plausibil-
ity), their beliefs about the existence of solutions to attain it and about
their efficacy. Focusing specifically on biodiversity conservation be-
haviours in urban and peri-urban environments, we targeted individuals
living in these areas, with access to either a garden, balcony, or neither.
Recognizing that these living situations may influence interactions with
nature (e.g., gardening activities may differ for those with or without a
garden or balcony), we measured various self-reported biodiversity
conservation behaviours: wildlife gardening and feature richness for
those with outdoor access, and general pro-biodiversity behaviours (e.
g., following nature protection rules) across the entire sample. Addi-
tionally, we measured support for biodiversity-related public policies, as
well as general pro-environmental behaviours, to replicate previous
findings on the link between envisioning the future and pro-
environmental actions (Bosone et al., 2024c). The psychological corre-
lates and behavioural dimensions investigated in this research are rep-
resented in Fig. 1.

2. Methods

2.1. Sample and procedure

For this study, we collected data from citizens in urban or peri-urban
areas in France, having access to either a balcony or a garden (private or
shared).<fnref n="2" /> Only individuals over 18 who speak French were allowed to
participate. Data collection was carried out between June 2024 and July
2024, through the poll agency Bilendi, with a particular attention to
collect data from homogeneous quotas according to gender and socio-
professional status. A total of 2054 French adults living in urban and
peri-urban areas completed the questionnaire via Qualtrics (53 % fe-
male, 88 % urban, 39 % with a garden). Participants who failed an
attention check at the start of the survey were automatically excluded. In
order to use an inclusive gender measure, participants were allowed to
choose the option “other” in addition to the female and male categories.
Two participants chose this option. Given this low proportion of re-
spondents in this category, they were excluded from the analyses which
used the gender variable, resulting in a total sample of N = 2052. Table 1
reports details about the sample in terms of their gender, age, socio-
professional category, type of housing, and residential area (urban vs
peri-urban). Fig. 2 represents the geographical distribution of partici-
pants across French departments.<fnref n="3" />

## 2.2. Measures

The questionnaire began by collecting socio-demographic data:
participants were asked about their gender, age, socio-professional
category, educational level and postal code. Participants were also
asked about the type of area they lived in (urban or peri-urban) and
whether they had access to a garden or balcony, whether private or
shared. Then, participants filled the questionnaire measuring psycho-
logical variables (10), and finished with measures of self-reported be-
haviours (4). All predictors and outcomes variables are described below.
For the complete set of questions in English and in the original French
version, see the OSF project online: https://osf.io/3x9ar/files/osfsto
rage?view_only=56c40d3be0014f6aa3b71b23ef08df96.

2.2.1. Self-reported behaviour

We measured participants' *gardening behaviours* using items from the Eurobarometer survey n° 83.4 (see Coisnon et al., 2019), such as “avoid using pesticides and chemicals”, “leave space for wild animals and plants”, and “avoid introducing new plants that may become invasive” (α = 0.66). More precisely, we asked participants how often they engaged in 5 wildlife gardening behaviours in the last 12 months, on a scale from 1 - Never to 7 - Often. Unless otherwise specified, this scale was used for the rest of the self-reported behaviours measured.

All participants were also asked about their engagement in several
types of pro-biodiversity behaviours which do not specifically require ac-
cess to a garden or a balcony, such as “respecting nature protection rules
(e.g. not leaving waste in the forest or on the beach or disturbing ani-
mals” or “take part in events to support the protection of urban biodi-
versity”, α = 0.83). They were also asked to indicate how often they
engaged in 13 different pro-environmental behaviours in general, inspired
by past work (Bosone et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c; e.g. reuse or repair
objects instead of throwing them away, sign a petition on an environ-
mental issue; α = 0.80).

<footnote n="2">² This study is the first wave of a longitudinal four-waves study that is currently ongoing (see pre-registration: https://osf.io/ds75b/?view_only=e2b7403d4b3a4709a5e2080a10181d30).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Although not pre-registered, we analysed whether the behaviours self-reported by participants changed depending on the geographical area of residence. Since no significant difference was found, these analyses will not be discussed further in the present article, but are openly available here on OSF.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Model of the dimensions investigated.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1**

Descriptive statistics (sociodemographic characteristics).</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th></th><th>Socio-professional category</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Age group</td><td>18-34</td><td>8.2 %</td><td>Inactive</td><td>34 %</td></tr><tr><td>34-44</td><td>17 %</td><td>Working class</td><td>33 %</td></tr><tr><td>45-49</td><td>11 %</td><td>Upper class</td><td>33 %</td></tr><tr><td>50-54</td><td>14 %</td><td>Has a garden or balcony</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>55-59</td><td>13 %</td><td>balcony</td><td>50 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>60-64</td><td>12 %</td><td>garden</td><td>50 %</td></tr><tr><td>65+</td><td>24 %</td><td>Education level</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Female</td><td></td><td>No high school</td><td>18 %</td></tr><tr><td>50 %</td><td>Attended high school</td><td>4.9 %</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Male</td><td>50 %</td><td>High school diploma</td><td>21 %</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>&lt;0.1 %</td><td>2-year bachelor degree or advanced vocational training</td><td>24 %</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>3-year bachelor degree</td><td>12 %</td></tr><tr><td>Residential area</td><td>Peri-urban area</td><td>50 %</td><td>Master degree and more</td><td>21 %</td></tr><tr><td>Urban area</td><td></td><td>50 %</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="4"><i>N</i> = 2054.</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Policy support was measured by asking participants to report their support for several types of public policies relative to biodiversity protection, including “restrictions on the use of garden hoses during the summer” or “increase in the tax for the protection and creation of wetlands” (α = 0.77). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they supported these public policies on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely).

### 2.2.2. Psychological variables

Unless specified otherwise, participants' agreement with the items measuring the psychological variables was collected on a scale from 1 - Completely disagree to 7 - Completely agree.

Participants' connectedness to nature was measured with a 3-item scale inspired by Mayer and Frantz's (2004) connectedness to nature scale (e.g. “I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong”, α = 0.75). We initially included two items which were reverse-coded (e.g. “When I think of my place on Earth, I consider myself to be a top member of a hierarchy that exists in nature”), but we removed them because the alpha was too low (α = 0.51).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Geographical distribution of participants.</figcaption></figure>

To measure environmental self-identity we used three items from Van der Werff et al. (2013) (e.g. “Acting environmentally-friendly is an important part of who I am”, α = 0.90), while to measure environmental social-identity we translated a measure developed by Bamberg et al. (2023a, 2023b), which includes 3 items such as “I feel connected with groups that actively work for the protection of biological diversity” (α = 0.92).

To measure individuals' experience in nature, we both measure nature proximity by asking respondents to report if they lived in close proximity to a public park or a forest (on a scale from 1-not at all to 7-very close), and time spent in nature activities, by asking participants about the frequency (on a scale from 1 - Never to 7 - Often) with which they engage in various experiences in nature in the previous 12 months (e.g. hiking in the mountains, walking in forests, etc. α = 0.65).

We measured participants' perception of the psychological distance of biodiversity loss using a 8-item scale inspired by Spence et al.'s (2012)
measure of the psychological distance of climate change (e.g. “The most negative consequences of biodiversity loss will affect countries far from where I live”, α = 0.78; higher scores correspond to psychological proximity, while low scores correspond to high psychological distance).

As for individuals' envisioning of sustainable future societies, we measured their ability to imagine a positive future, their beliefs in the existence of transformative utopian solutions, and their attitudes towards such a sustainable positive society in terms of desirability and plausibility. Following Bosone et al. (2024a, 2024b, 2024c), participants' perceived ability to imagine a sustainable future was measured with the six most general items from the Environmental Cognitive Alternative (ECA) scale by Wright et al. (2020) (e.g. “I can think of numerous methods of achieving a world where carbon emissions are reduced below current levels”, α = 0.87). To measure beliefs in transformative utopian solutions, we translated and adapted four items from Basso and Krpan's (2022) Transformative Utopian Impulse for Planetary Health Scale. We selected items relative to beliefs in transformative solutions (e. g., “I feel that there are many alternative social and economic activities that could resolve current social issues if they were widely adopted”, α = 0.92). Perceived desirability (α (N = 4) = 0.89; e.g. “I would gladly live in an eco-friendly society”) and plausibility (r = 0.73, p < .001; e.g. “It is likely that in 2050 we live in an eco-friendly society”) of a future eco- friendly society were assessed with items adapted from Bosone et al. (2024a, 2024b, 2024c).

Finally, to measure efficacy beliefs, we translated and adapted 4 items from Hamann and Reese (2020), e.g. “I believe that I make a significant contribution to my environmental initiative in order to jointly advance environmental protection” (α = 0.88).

### 2.2.3. *Analysis plan*

We pre-registered a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the 10 psychological dimensions plus 4 self-reported behaviours, and consequently to follow up with four regression analyses. However, the model showed poor fit values (CFI = 0.766; TLI = 0.752; SRMR = 0.098; RMSEA = 0.063). We hypothesised that this was due to the conceptualisation of pro-biodiversity and pro-environmental behaviours as unified constructs, while in reality the measures included both individual and collective behaviours. Considering past work highlighting differences between predictors of individual pro-environmental behaviours (such as recycling) and collective pro-environmental behaviours (such as being part of an environmental organisation, Ando et al., 2010; Bosone et al., 2024c; Hansmann and Binder, 2020), we decided to deviate from the pre-registration. We thus carried out a CFA on the 10 psychological determinants (past experiences in nature, nature connectedness, self-identity, social-identity, psychological distance, perceived ability, beliefs, desirability, plausibility, efficacy beliefs) because past research has consistently shown these constructs to represent distinct latent dimensions (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2023a, 2023b; Bosone and Grandin, 2025), thus allowing us to test their fit to the expected structure. In contrast, we applied an EFA to the behavioural measures because we did not have a clear a priori hypothesis about how the individual items—spanning pro-biodiversity, pro-environmental, gardening behaviours, and policy support—would group together. Five factors were extracted (as explained in the Results section).

We thus carried out five hierarchical regression analyses on the five new dimensions of declared behaviour (collective behaviours, purchase behaviours, gardening, natural resources conservation, and policy support), to investigate the psychological correlates of the self-declared behavioural dimensions. We used the following 7 blocks of predictors: 1st block: socio-demographic variables (age, gender, geographical area: urban vs suburban, and living situation: having access to a balcony vs a garden); 2nd block: past experiences in nature and proximity to nature; 3rd block: nature connectedness; 4th block: psychological distance; 5th block: environmental self- and social-identity; 6th block: perceived ability to imagine an environmentally sustainable future society, beliefs and attitudes towards an environmentally sustainable future society; 7th

block: efficacy beliefs.<fnref n="4" />

## 3. Results

Descriptive statistics for the 10 psychological dimensions and the 5 self-reported behavioural dimensions, and raw correlations among the variables, are presented in Table S1 and Table S2 in the Supplementary Information.

The CFA on the psychological dimensions (past experiences in nature, nature connectedness, self-identity, social-identity, psychological distance, perceived ability, beliefs, desirability, plausibility, efficacy beliefs) presents good fit values (CFI = 0.919; TLI = 0.910; SRMR = 0.057; RMSEA = 0.054, 90 % CI [0.053; 0.056]). For robust reporting, the factor loadings for this CFA are reported in the Supplementary Information (Table S3).

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on all items measuring self-reported behaviours, using Horn's parallel analysis for factor retention and Oblimin rotation for interpretability (Braeken and Van Assen, 2017). This analysis revealed five distinct factors, each representing a coherent domain of biodiversity-related engagement. The first factor, collective behaviours (α = 0.91), includes actions such as participating in biodiversity-focused volunteer work, signing petitions, contributing to citizen science projects, and engaging in environmental demonstrations. These behaviours typically reflect indirect societal engagement, aimed at supporting broader structural change through collective or institutional channels. The second factor, purchase behaviours (α = 0.86), captures environmentally conscious consumer practices such as buying local, organic, or eco-labelled products. These behaviours reflect individual market-based engagement with biodiversity concerns. The third factor, gardening behaviours (α = 0.81), includes actions taken in private or shared green spaces, such as composting, using native plants, or limiting watering. These behaviours reflect hands-on, place-based involvement with biodiversity at a local scale. The fourth factor, natural resource conservation (α = 0.72), encompasses behaviours like reducing water or energy consumption and repairing or reusing goods. These actions aim to minimize environmental impact through resource efficiency, though not always with an explicit biodiversity framing. The fifth factor, policy support (α = 0.77), includes agreement with policy instruments such as water restrictions, habitat protection regulations, and increased taxation for conservation. These items reflect cognitive and attitudinal support for systemic environmental governance.

The values of the contributions of each item are reported in Table 2 (the items charging on multiple factors, which have been excluded from further analyses, are highlighted in grey).

All values for the five hierarchical regressions are reported in the Supplementary Information, in Tables S4 to S8. Fig. 3 represents the coefficients of three multiple linear regressions with all seven blocks, corresponding to the model 7 in Tables S4 to S8. We find that having access to a garden is the main predictor of gardening (β = 0.48, see model 7 in Table S6), which is expected given that our measure of individual behaviours includes several items on gardening practices. The other demographic variables have little or no association with the behavioural outcomes; age in particular shows weak (but significant) associations with all behaviours but policy support. The main predictor of collective behaviours is environmental social identity (β = 0.45, see model 7 in Table S4), while the main predictor of policy support is psychological distance (β = 0.18, see model 7 in Table S8). Environmental self-identity is the factor with the strongest association with

<footnote n="4">⁴ We also ran exploratory analyses testing interactions between the psychological predictors and three demographic variables: gender, age, and access to a garden. The results of these analyses are reported in Supplementary Tables S9-S11 for completeness but are not discussed in the main text, as they were outside the primary aims of the study.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2**

Exploratory Factor Analysis for behavioural outcomes.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="5">Factors</th><th rowspan="2">Uniqueness</th></tr><tr><th>1<br>Collective<br>behaviours</th><th>2<br>Purchase<br>behaviours</th><th>3<br>Gardening<br>behaviours</th><th>4<br>Natural resources<br>conservation</th><th>5<br>Policy<br>support</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Respecting nature protection rules (e.g., by not leaving litter in the forest or on the beach and not disturbing wild animals).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.407</td><td></td><td>0.585</td></tr><tr><td>Buying regularly environmentally friendly or locally produced products (e.g., organic, biodegradable, etc.).</td><td></td><td>0.751</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.307</td></tr><tr><td>Seeking information and adopting a lifestyle that minimizes potential negative impacts on nature and biodiversity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.482</td></tr><tr><td>Limiting your personal water usage (e.g., taking short showers)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.536</td><td></td><td>0.508</td></tr><tr><td>Being mindful when buying plants to ensure they are native species (originating from French territory).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.491</td></tr><tr><td>Composting fruit and vegetable peels and leftovers, whether raw or cooked</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.594</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.571</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteering for projects and actions dedicated to biodiversity (e.g., fieldwork in nature reserves).</td><td>0.802</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.340</td></tr><tr><td>Contributing to one or more monitoring projects (e.g., counting migratory birds)</td><td>0.777</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.363</td></tr><tr><td>Participating in demonstrations to support urban biodiversity protection</td><td>0.869</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.247</td></tr><tr><td>Signing petitions for the creation of green corridors and biodiversity/nature spaces in cities.</td><td>0.728</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.413</td></tr><tr><td>Driving a personal combustion-engine car (reversed)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.984</td></tr><tr><td>Sharing objects with others (e.g., a washing machine, a lawnmower, a car, tools, etc.)</td><td>0.568</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.632</td></tr><tr><td>Consuming meat (reversed)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.976</td></tr><tr><td>Avoiding buying products with excessive packaging</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.534</td></tr><tr><td>Reusing or repairing objects instead of throwing them away</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.462</td><td></td><td>0.603</td></tr><tr><td>Preferring carpooling</td><td>0.495</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.702</td></tr><tr><td>Minimizing heating or air conditioning use to reduce energy consumption</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.551</td><td></td><td>0.587</td></tr><tr><td>Buying organic vegetables</td><td></td><td>0.836</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.377</td></tr><tr><td>Buying local products</td><td></td><td>0.709</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.459</td></tr><tr><td>Buying environmentally friendly and/or energy-efficient products</td><td></td><td>0.700</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.316</td></tr><tr><td>Donating to support local environmental protection.</td><td>0.660</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.405</td></tr><tr><td>Signaing a petition on an environmental issue</td><td>0.670</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.438</td></tr><tr><td>Participating in a demonstration related to an environmental issue</td><td>0.841</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.294</td></tr><tr><td>Using pesticides and chemicals (reversed)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.799</td></tr><tr><td>Choosing plants that provide food for birds and pollinating insects</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.563</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.454</td></tr><tr><td>Being careful not to buy new plants that may become invasive</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.480</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.602</td></tr><tr><td>Limiting plant watering</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.525</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.557</td></tr><tr><td>Using compost to fertilize your plants</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.840</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.347</td></tr><tr><td>Increasing the tax for the protection and creation of wetlands (improves flood protection and contributes to biodiversity).</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.688</td><td>0.448</td></tr><tr><td>Closing access to vulnerable areas, including certain recreational zones and hiking trails</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.553</td><td>0.494</td></tr><tr><td>Increasing water consumption prices</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.608</td><td>0.478</td></tr><tr><td>Imposing restrictions on hosepipe use during summer</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.568</td><td>0.467</td></tr><tr><td>Implementing "wildflower meadow" areas in urban spaces</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.402</td><td>0.528</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: The minimum residual extraction method was used, combined with an oblimin rotation.

purchase behaviours ($\beta$ = 0.28, see model 7 in Table S5) and with natural resources conservation ($\beta$ = 0.28, see model 7 in Table S7) and with the second strongest association with gardening ($\beta$ = 0.22, see model 7 in Table S6). Importantly, the ability to imagine a sustainable future society is a significant predictor of collective behaviours ($\beta$ = 0.13, see model 7 in Table S4) as well as purchase behaviours ($\beta$ = 0.13, see model 7 in Table S5) and gardening ($\beta$ = 0.13, see model 7 in Table S6). Interestingly, perceived desirability is the second strongest predictor of policy support ($\beta$ = 0.17, see model 7 in Table S8) and is also a weak predictor of all other outcome measures.

## 4. Discussion

The research presented in this paper aimed to investigate how nature experience and connectedness, identity dynamics, and the ability to imagine a positive future are psychological correlates of pro-environmental behaviours, particularly biodiversity conservation behaviours in urban and peri-urban environments. Through a correlational study, we explored how regular experiences in nature, such as gardening

or walking in nature, as well as nature connectedness and the correlated pro-environmental identity dynamics (self- and social-identity), drive individual and collective behaviours. Additionally, we examined the role of the perceived psychological distance of biodiversity loss, and of individuals' capacity to envision a positive future—considering their beliefs in solutions and perceptions of plausibility and desirability— in motivating these behaviours.

Present results confirm that nature experiences and nature connectedness are strong predictors of pro-environmental behaviours, be that collective behaviours, policy support, or the three types of individual behaviours, in line with past studies demonstrating that contact with nature is an important element in developing environmental awareness and concern (e.g. Alcock et al., 2020). This might also explain why having access to a garden is associated with individual behaviours related to individuals' interaction with nature, such as gardening and natural resources conservation, as gardening and taking care of plants creates a repeated contact with, and experience of, nature, which increases nature connectedness and pro-environmental attitudes (e.g. DeVille et al., 2021; van Heezik et al., 2020). It is however important to
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Coefficients of Model 7 for all multiple linear regressions.</figcaption></figure>

point out that the strength of such association weakens when identity dimensions (environmental self- and social-identity) are included in the regression, which might suggest the existence of a mediating path, so that nature experiences increase nature connectedness and environmental identity and thus the motivation to protect nature and the environment (as suggested in the review by Balundé et al., 2019). Interestingly, our results also show that having access to a garden is negatively associated with collective behaviours. This counterintuitive finding may be explained by the rebound effect or negative spillover, whereby engaging in one pro-environmental behaviour reduces the likelihood of engaging in others (Behn et al., 2025; Sorrell et al., 2020; Truelove et al., 2014). In this case, individuals who care for their garden may feel they are already contributing to biodiversity, leading to a reduced sense of obligation to participate in broader, collective behaviours such as community conservation or policy support. This psychological mechanism - often referred to as moral licensing (Blanken et al., 2015) - can undermine cumulative environmental impact by substituting personal actions for collective responsibility. These results underline the importance of understanding behavioural spillover effects in pro-environmental engagement and suggest that efforts to promote pro-biodiversity behaviour should highlight the complementary value of both individual and collective action.

Further experimental, and possibly longitudinal, research is needed to investigate whether repeated contact with nature (for instance, through participating in citizen science projects about the environment; Wyles and Ghilardi-Lopes, 2023) increases nature connectedness and environmental identity at both levels (self- and social-), as both are important motivators of pro-environmental behaviours. Indeed, present findings also confirm the strong relationship between both levels of environmental identity (self and social) and individual behaviours, while collective behaviours seem to be significantly associated with social-identity, and public policy support to both. This might depend on the fact that while individual behavioural changes, be that voluntary or imposed by public policies, have direct consequences for the individual itself, social action strongly depends on whether the individual has a

sense of belonging to the group, sharing their interests and values (e.g. Schulte et al., 2020; Vesely et al., 2021). These results are in fact in line with past findings demonstrating that environmental self-identity is strongly associated with individual intentions (e.g. Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010; Carfora et al., 2017) and that social-identity is strongly associated with both individual and collective intentions (e.g. Furlong and Vignoles, 2021; Bosone et al., 2024a), confirming the fundamental role of pro-environmental identity dynamics as a predictor of pro-environmental behaviours.

A second important result concerns another dimension that emerged as a robust predictor of several types of pro-biodiversity engagement, even beyond the influence of self and social environmental identity: the ability to envision a sustainable future. This “ability” component was significantly associated with collective behaviours, purchase behaviours, and gardening, but not with policy support or natural resources conservation. These results are consistent with previous findings concerning climate change mitigation (e.g. Wright et al., 2020; Lutz et al., 2025; Chevrier et al., 2025; Bosone and Grandin, 2025), extending them to the domain of biodiversity protection in a large-scale sample. However, the lack of association with policy support and resource conservation behaviours may indicate that imagining a sustainable future does not automatically translate into support for institutional or restrictive measures—especially those perceived as external, abstract, or requiring personal restraint. These behaviours may depend more on perceived efficacy, social norms, or institutional trust than on future-oriented imagination alone.

It is also interesting to note that while recent research suggests that the effects of the ability to imagine a positive future predict pro-environmental behaviour especially when individuals believe in the existence of solutions to accomplish an eco-friendly future (Chevrier et al., 2024) and consider such a future as desirable and plausible (Bosone et al., 2024c; Wenzel et al., 2024), present results about participants' beliefs, perceived desirability and plausibility are inconsistent. In particular, desirability was positively associated with purchase behaviours, gardening, and policy support, but negatively related to
natural resource conservation and collective behaviours. One possible explanation is that idealised visions of the future may reduce the perceived need for concrete, effortful engagement in the present—especially in collective or conservation-oriented domains that require restraint and cooperation. Future research should thus investigate further whether these dimensions should be considered as a whole methodologically, being that they seem to represent different sub-dimensions of the same concept of Collective Prospection (Kashima et al., 2025; Chevrier et al., 2025).

Additionally, the psychological distance of biodiversity loss (for which low scores are associated with distance, and higher scores with proximity) resulted directly associated with policy support, so that the closer a threat biodiversity loss is perceived to be the more individuals support public policies for biodiversity protection. On the other hand, it is indirectly associated with collective behaviours. This unexpected result would suggest that the further individuals perceive this threat to be, the more they engage in collective behaviours. The psychological distance of biodiversity loss was less influential for individual behaviours. This is in line with a recent meta-analysis which demonstrated that psychological distance is a context-specific multidimensional construct (Keller et al., 2022). In their meta-analysis of 84 studies (correlational and experimental), Keller et al. (2022) found that often a low distance (i.e. psychological proximity) is significantly associated with behavioural intentions and policy support. Our findings on policy support are thus in line with a few past studies finding stronger support for climate change policies when climate change is considered as a proximal threat (e.g. Chu and Yang, 2018; Wiest et al., 2015). The findings concerning collective behaviours instead could depend on the fact that the consequences of collective actions are often represented by individuals as abstract, high-level construals (e.g. Sordi et al., 2018; Stillman et al., 2018), since such consequences do not directly impact climate change mitigation or biodiversity protection, but rather generate systemic long-term changes. Past research has indeed demonstrated that it is possible to increase collective pro-environmental actions (more precisely, environmentalist actions) by activating abstract high-level construals (Duan et al., 2021), as these promote people's considerations of moral principles and actions pertaining to their core values and beliefs (Ledgerwood et al., 2010; Trope and Liberman, 2010). Considering that psychological distance has been associated with a more global vision of specific issues, often combined with a representation of the issue at a high level construal (Trope et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2019), it is possible to suppose that in the case of environmental issues a global vision of the issue motivates actions that are also represented at a high-level construal, which is the case of collective actions. Considering the heterogeneous results concerning the link between the psychological distance of environmental issues (specifically, climate change) and construal levels (see Keller et al., 2022; Maiella et al., 2020), this however remains an hypothesis of interpretation that needs further research. Future studies should thus investigate on the one hand what construals (high or low) characterise individuals' representation of pro-environmental individual and collective actions, and on the other hand the possible effects of psychological distance on behaviours that are represented at high-level construals.

Furthermore, present results demonstrate that efficacy beliefs were significantly associated only with policy support and natural resources conservation, but not with collective behaviours, gardening, or purchase behaviours. This pattern may be explained by the nature of the efficacy beliefs measured in this study—namely, collective efficacy (belief in the capacity of a group to act; Van Zomeren et al., 2013) and participative efficacy (belief that one's participation contributes meaningfully to collective success; Jugert et al., 2016). While such beliefs are known predictors of institutional or policy-oriented engagement (Hamann et al., 2024), they may be less relevant to everyday, habitual, or low-cost behaviours such as purchasing eco-friendly products or gardening, which may rely more on individual-level determinants such as self-efficacy (e.g. Bosone et al., 2024a). Moreover, resource conservation

behaviours (e.g., reducing water or energy use) may involve a sense of moral responsibility linked to broader collective outcomes (e.g. Brus-kotter et al., 2019; Piccolo et al., 2022), aligning with collective efficacy perceptions. In contrast, the absence of links with collective behaviours may reflect a decoupling between perceived group efficacy and actual collective engagement in the biodiversity domain, where opportunities for visible group action are often diffuse or institutionally mediated. Future research should thus examine the distinct roles of self-, partici-pative-, and collective efficacy across behavioural domains, particularly distinguishing between individual, relational, and institutional levels of action.

Although this study presents an important large-scale investigation into French citizens' perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards biodi-versity conservation, there are limitations that need to be addressed. First, our reliance on self-reported measures of behaviours introduces the potential for social desirability bias (Lange and Dewitte, 2019; Lange, 2023) and thus limited the generalisability of these results to pro-environmental behaviour change. Future research should include a measure of actual, observable change in behaviour. Secondly, the cross-sectional design of this study limits our ability to make causal inferences. However, this is the first wave of a longitudinal study, which will allow us to examine changes over time and better understand the relationships between psychological variables and environmental outcomes.

Another limitation of this research lies in how socio-professional categories were classified, as this was based on the type of work (notably with regards to level of responsibility and physical or intel-lectual demands) instead of grouping individuals based on socio-economic and educational backgrounds, which have demonstrated to shape individuals' perceptions of the costs and benefits associated with pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., Grandin et al., 2022) and influence their ability to project into the future. Indeed, those experiencing socio-economic hardship are more likely to prioritize immediate needs and short-term gains, leading to a present-focused time orientation (Adams and White, 2009; Fieulaine and Martinez, 2010; Wagner et al., 2022). In this sense, they might perceive a weaker ability to imagine a sustainable, positive future society. Future research should explore how these psy-chological factors affect engagement in wildlife-friendly gardening and support for biodiversity conservation policies, considering variations in socio-economic and educational status.

Additionally, assessing individuals' experiences with nature in the present may be limited, as long-term exposure to nature — such as childhood experiences in natural settings — may be a stronger predictor of pro-environmental and pro-biodiversity behaviours (Rosa et al., 2018; Ardoin and Bowers, 2020; Wyles et al., 2019). Indeed, a substantial body of research shows that early, emotionally significant interactions with nature during childhood contribute to the development of environ-mental identity and long-term environmental engagement (Chawla, 1998). Such experiences often shape how individuals relate to nature later in life, influencing their values, attitudes, and motivations to pro-tect biodiversity. While we acknowledged this limitation in the present study, we also recognise that not including a measure of childhood na-ture exposure may overlook an important foundational element in the formation of pro-environmental dispositions. The decision to focus on current experiences was primarily driven by the need to balance survey length with the inclusion of psychological variables central to our theoretical model. However, future research should incorporate a life-course perspective that considers both early-life and current experi-ences with nature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how enduring relationships with the natural world are formed and sustained. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that our oper-ationalization of nature experiences - based on (i) self-reported prox-imity to a forest or a park and (ii) the frequency of engagement in a predefined set of nature-related activities - presents limitations. While these measures are commonly used in large-scale surveys for their standardization and comparability, they may not fully capture the di-versity of individual experiences and cultural meanings attached to
nature. For example, as Byrne (2012) notes, proximity to green spaces does not guarantee access or use, as some individuals may feel unwelcome or unsafe in certain parks due to social, cultural, or historical reasons. Similarly, the selection of nature activities (e.g., hiking, going to the beach, camping) may reflect normative assumptions about what constitutes a “valid” or “valuable” nature experience, potentially excluding everyday or culturally specific interactions with nature. This could lead to a form of normalization that overlooks important variations across socio-cultural groups. Future research would benefit from complementing these quantitative indicators with qualitative approaches—such as in-depth interviews, participatory observations, or documentary analysis—to better understand the subjective dimensions of nature experience, and to ensure a more inclusive representation of how diverse populations relate to the natural environment.

This research provides significant theoretical contributions to the ongoing research on pro-biodiversity behaviours (e.g. Kleespies et al., 2024; van Eeden et al., 2025), as well as to research on the interplay between self- and social-levels of environmental identity (e.g.) and on individuals' ability to imagine a positive future (e.g. Wang et al., 2021; Furlong and Vignoles, 2021; Jang and Kim, 2024). Our results in fact demonstrate how identity dynamics and positive future envisioning are strong predictors of pro-environmental behaviours and policy support, even beyond individual differences linked to the socio-demographic context and living situation. These findings also offer important practical insights for designing communication and education campaigns, as well as strengthening community-based conservation programs and informing urban policies and planning. By highlighting that individuals who can clearly envision a positive, achievable eco-friendly future are more likely to engage in biodiversity conservation behaviours, our findings suggest that environmental campaigns should emphasize desirable and realistic sustainable futures rather than solely focusing on threats. This adds to the ongoing discussion regarding the relative effectiveness of optimistic versus pessimistic messaging strategies (Hornsey and Fielding, 2020; Troy et al., 2024) by suggesting that envisioning a positive future can be a lever of action. It is important to emphasize that our study is based on cross-sectional data, and the associations observed between nature experiences, ecological identity, and pro-biodiversity behaviours are correlational. As such, any causal interpretations remain hypothetical and should be tested in future longitudinal or experimental research.

Finally, we acknowledge that our variable-based, quantitative approach may contribute to a form of behavioural normalization, by focusing on predefined indicators of pro-environmental behaviours. This risks overlooking alternative or culturally specific ways of relating to nature that fall outside dominant models. Future research would benefit from integrating qualitative or ethnographic methods to capture the diversity of environmental experiences and practices. To partially address this limitation, we conducted additional exploratory analyses testing interactions between key psychological predictors and contextual or demographic factors (age, gender, and access to a garden). These results are presented in the Supplementary Material (Tables S9-S11). We chose not to include them in the main text, as they were not part of our pre-registered analytical plan and their inclusion would have increased analytical flexibility, which carries a risk of false-positive findings (Simmons et al., 2011; Munafò et al., 2017). Including them would also have added considerable complexity and length to the manuscript, potentially blurring its core message. Although a few weak interaction effects were observed, the main effects identified and discussed throughout the paper remain significant and robust. These exploratory findings are thus best interpreted as preliminary and suggestive avenues for future research rather than conclusive evidence of moderation effects.

Secondly, present findings show that social identity is strongly associated with collective behaviours. This suggests that local initiatives, such as urban gardening projects (Torres et al., 2017) or biodiversity citizen science programs (Bela et al., 2016; Deguines et al.,

2020), can be more effective when they emphasize a sense of community belonging and shared environmental responsibility. Encouraging participation in such collective efforts can enhance engagement and foster long-term commitment to pro-biodiversity behaviours. Additionally, communication strategies that tap into emotional connection rather than just facts have shown greater effectiveness in promoting biodiversity-conscious consumer choices (Schaffner et al., 2015). Since our study also finds that nature connectedness and biodiversity-supportive behaviours are significantly associated with identity and future-oriented thinking, urban planners and policymakers can draw on these insights to design greener urban environments that facilitate positive interactions with nature. Creating accessible green spaces, integrating wildlife-friendly gardening into city policies, and promoting public participation in urban biodiversity initiatives can foster stronger psychological connections to nature, reinforcing pro-environmental behaviours at both individual and community levels. In line with broader behaviour change and social practice frameworks (ADEME, 2016), our findings underscore the value of integrating psychological insights into biodiversity strategies to support enduring transformations towards more nature-connected and ecologically responsible urban societies.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Lucia Bosone:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Aurore Grandin:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. **Marie Chevrier:** Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis. **Carla Jullien:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. **Franck Zenasni:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. **Julie Collange:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

### Ethic statement

Ethical approval was obtained for this research from the Comité de Recherche sur la Personne Humaine (ethic committee) of the Université Gustave Eiffel.

### Funding statement

This research was partially funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR), project « ANR-23-CE55-0001 ».

### Declaration of competing interest

None.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111451.

### Data availability

Data is available on an osf repository, the anonymous link is included in the body of the article.

### References

* Adams, J., White, M., 2009. Time perspective in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and body mass index. *Health Psychol.* 28 (1), 83.

* ADEME, 2016. Changer les comportements, faire évoluer les pratiques sociales vers plus de durabilité. L'apport des sciences humaines et sociales pour comprendre et agir, Paris, ADEME Éditions.
Alcock, I., White, M.P., Pahl, S., Duarte-Davidson, R., Fleming, L.E., 2020. Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Int. 136, 105441.

Ando, K., Ohnuma, S., Blöbaum, A., Matthies, E., Sugiura, J., 2010. Determinants of individual and collective pro-environmental behaviours: comparing Germany and Japan. J. Environ. Inform. Sci. 38 (5), 21–32.

Ardoin, N.M., Bowers, A.W., 2020. Early childhood environmental education: a systematic review of the research literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 31, 100353.

Aronson, M.F., Lepczyk, C.A., Evans, K.L., Goddard, M.A., Lerman, S.B., MacIvor, J.S.,
Nilon, C.H., Vargo, T., 2017. Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green
space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15 (4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/
fee.1480.

Austvoll, C.T., Gallo, V., Montag, D., 2020. Health impact of the Anthropocene: the complex relationship between gut microbiota, epigenetics, and human health, using obesity as an example. Glob. Health Epidemiol. Genomics 5, e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/gheg.2020.2.

Badaan, V., Akil, C., Zebian, Y., Jost, J.T., 2022. Envisioning change: an empirical test of the social psychological model of utopian thinking and collective action. Journal of Social Psychology Research 1 (1), 77–96.

Baiardi, D., Morana, C., 2021. Climate change awareness: empirical evidence for the European Union. Energy Econ. 96, 105163.

Balundé, A., Jovarakauskaitė, L., Poskus, M.S., 2019. Exploring the relationship between connectedness with nature, environmental identity, and environmental self-identity: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. SAGE Open 9 (2), 2158244019841925. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019841925.

Bamberg, S., Diehl, Y., Weber, T., van Deuren, C., Mues, A.W., Schmidt, P., 2023a. Testing the cross-cultural invariance of an extended theory of planned behaviour in predicting biodiversity-conserving behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 89, 102042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102042.

Bamberg, S., Mues, A.W., Reese, G., Kösling, P., van Deuren, C., Tröger, J., 2023b. Development of a measuring instrument to monitor the biodiversity awareness of the German population. J. Environ. Psychol. 91, 102122.

Bandura, Albert, 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9 (3), 75–78.

Barragan-Jason, G., De Mazancourt, C., Parmesan, C., Singer, M.C., Loreau, M., 2022. Human-nature connectedness as a pathway to sustainability: a global meta-analysis. Conserv. Lett. 15 (1), e12852. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12852.

Basso, F., Krpan, D., 2022. Measuring the transformative utopian impulse for planetary health in the age of the Anthropocene: a multi-study scale development and validation. The Lancet Planetary Health 6 (3), e230–e242.

Beckwith, B.R., Johansson, E.M., Huff, V.J., 2022. Connecting people, plants and place: a native plant society's journey towards a community of practice. People and Nature 4 (6), 1414–1425. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10368.

Behn, O., Wichmann, J., Leyer, M., Schilling, A., 2025. Spillover effects in environmental behaviors: a scoping review about its antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. Curr. Psychol. (5), 1.

Bela, G., Peltola, T., Young, J.C., Balazs, B., Arpin, I., Pataki, G., Hauck, J., et al., 2016. Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30, 590–599.

Blanken, I., Van De Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., 2015. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41 (4), 540–558.

Boldero, J., Francis, J., 2002. Goals, standards, and the self: reference values serving different functions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6 (3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957P5PR0603.7

Bosone, L., Bertoldo, R., 2022. The greater the contact, the closer the threat: the influence of contact with nature on the social perception of biodiversity loss and the effectiveness of conservation behaviours. Sustainability 14 (24), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416490.

Bosone, L., Grandin, A., 2025. Envisioning eco-friendly futures: preliminary data on the psychological determinants of biodiversity conservation behaviours in French urban and peri-urban areas. https://osf.io/472zc/.

Bosone, L., Chaurand, N., Chevrier, M., 2022. To change or not to change? Perceived psychological barriers to individuals' behavioural changes in favour of biodiversity conservation. Ecosystems and People 18 (1), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2071343.

Bosone, L., Chevrier, M., Chaurand, N., Collange, J., 2024a. Sharing an opinion motivates acting for it together: identity dynamics influence citizens' intentions to individually and collectively act for the environment. Identity 0 (0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2024.2406876.

Bosone, L., Du, A., Maggio, S., 2024b. Perceived desirability of eco-friendly futures: a mixed method research on the costs and benefits associated by individuals to positive visions of sustainable future societies. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4948307 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.4948307.

Bosone, L., Thiriot, S., Chevrier, M., Rocci, A., Zenasni, F., 2024c. Visioning sustainable futures: exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a Decarbonated world. Global Environmental Psychology 2, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11105.

Breken, J., Van Assen, M.A.L.M., 2017. An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychol. Methods 22 (3), 450–466.

Brügger, A., Morton, T.A., Dessai, S., 2016. "Proximising" climate change reconsidered: a construal level theory perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 46, 125–142.

Bruskotter, J.T., Yucetich, J.A., Dietsch, A., Slagle, K.M., Brooks, J.S., Nelson, M.P., 2019. Conservationists' moral obligations toward wildlife: values and identity promote conservation conflict. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108296.

Buchan, N.R., Brewer, M.B., Grimalda, G., Wilson, R.K., Fatas, E., Foddy, M., 2011. Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychol. Sci. 22 (6), 821–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611409590.

Byrne, J., 2012. When green is white: the cultural politics of race, nature, and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43, 595–611.

Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., Conner, M., 2017. Moderating effects of pro-environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: a multi-behaviour study. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 92–99.

Cazalis, V., Prévot, A.C., 2019. Are protected areas effective in conserving human connection with nature and enhancing pro-environmental behaviours? Biol. Conserv. 236, 548–555.

Chawla, L., 1998. Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. J. Environ. Educ. 29 (3), 11–21.

Chevrier, M., Delhomme, P., Zenasni, F., Bosone, L., 2024. Integrating utopian constructs: a preliminary investigation of their similarities and predictive power on social change intentions. Sustainability 16 (19), 8320.

Chevrier, M., Bosone, L., Zenasni, F., Delhomme, P., 2025. Beyond the individual: testing and applying a collective protection motivation model for pro-environmental behaviors. Curr. Psychol. 1.

Chu, H., Yang, J.Z., 2018. Taking climate change here and now—mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Glob. Environ. Chang. 53, 174–181.

Clayton, S.D., 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford University Press.

Cleary, A., Fielding, K.S., Murray, Z., Roiko, A., 2020. Predictors of nature connection among urban residents: assessing the role of childhood and adult nature experiences. Environ. Behav. 52 (6), 579–610.

Coisnon, T., Rousselière, D., Rousselière, S., 2019. Information on biodiversity and environmental behaviors: a European study of individual and institutional drivers to adopt sustainable gardening practices. Soc. Sci. Res. 84, 102323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.06.014.

Collado, S., Evans, G.W., 2019. Outcome expectancy: a key factor to understanding childhood exposure to nature and children's pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 61, 30–36.

Deguines, N., Princé, K., Prévot, A.C., Fontaine, B., 2020. Assessing the emergence of pro-biodiversity practices in citizen scientists of a backyard butterfly survey. Sci. Total Environ. 716, 136842.

DeVille, N.V., Tomasso, L.P., Stoddard, O.P., Wilt, G.E., Horton, T.H., Wolf, K.L., James, P., 2021. Time spent in nature is associated with increased pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (14), 7498.

Dono, J., Webb, J., Richardson, B., 2010. The relationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (2), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006.

Duan, R., Takahashi, B., Zwickle, A., 2021. How effective are concrete and abstract climate change images? The moderating role of construal level in climate change visual communication. Sci. Commun. 43 (3), 358–387.

Duke, J.R., Holt, E.A., 2022. Seeing climate change: psychological distance and connection to nature. Environ. Educ. Res. 28 (7), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2042205.

Fenoglio, M.S., Calviño, A., González, E., Salvo, A., Videla, M., 2021. Urbanisation drivers and underlying mechanisms of terrestrial insect diversity loss in cities. Ecological Entomology 46 (4), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13041.

Fernando, J.W., Burden, N., Ferguson, A., O'Brien, L.V., Judge, M., Kashima, Y., 2018. Functions of utopia: how utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44 (5), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217748604.

Fieulaine, N., Martinez, F., 2010. Time under control: time perspective and desire for control in substance use. Addict. Behav. 35 (8), 799–802.

Fischer, A., Bednar-Friedl, B., Langers, F., Dobrovodská, M., Geamana, N., Skogen, K., Dumortier, M., 2011. Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biol. Conserv. 144 (3), 998–1007.

Furlong, C., Vignoles, V.L., 2021. Social identification in collective climate activism: predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity 21 (1), 20–35.

Gaston, K.J., Smith, R.M., Thompson, K., Warren, P.H., 2005. Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (2), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-6066-x.

Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 (2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j tree.2009.07.016.

Grandin, A., Guillou, L., Abdel Sater, R., Foucault, M., Chevallier, C., 2022. Socioeconomic status, time preferences and pro-environmentalism. J. Environ. Psychol. 79, 101720.

Hamann, K.R., Holz, J.R., Reese, G., 2021. Coaching for a sustainability transition: empowering student-led sustainability initiatives by developing skills, group identification, and efficacy beliefs. Front. Psychol. 12, 623972.

Hamann, K.R., Wullenkord, M.C., Reese, G., Van Zomeren, M., 2024. Believing that we can change our world for the better: a triple-A (agent-action-aim) framework of self-efficacy beliefs in the context of collective social and ecological aims. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 28 (1), 11–53.

Hamann, K.R.S., Reese, G., 2020. My influence on the world (of others): goal efficacy beliefs and efficacy affect predict private, public, and activist pro-environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 76 (1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12369.

Hansmann, J., Binder, C.R., 2020. Determinants of different types of positive environmental behaviors: an analysis of public and private sphere actions. Sustainability 12 (20), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208547.
Hart, P.S., Nisbet, E.C., 2012. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun. Res. 39 (6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646.

Hornsey, M.J., Fielding, K.S., 2020. Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14 (1), 3–35.

IPBES, 2019. Summary for Policy Makers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Isaksson, C., Bonier, F., Szulkin, M., Munsi-South, J., Charmantier, A., 2020. Urban evolutionary physiology. In: Urban Evolutionary Biology, pp. 215–231.

Iyer, A., Zhang, A., Jetten, J., Hao, Z., Cui, L., 2017. The promise of a better group future: cognitive alternatives increase students' self-efficacy and academic performance. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 56 (4), 750–765.

Jang, Y.J., Kim, E., 2024. How self-identity and social identity grow environmentally sustainable restaurants' brand communities via social rewards. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 48 (3), 516–532.

Joireman, J., 2005. Environmental problems as social dilemmas: The temporal dimension. In: Understanding Behavior in the Context of Time. Psychology Press.

Jones, C., Hine, D.W., Marks, A.D.G., 2017. The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Anal. 37 (2), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601.

Jugert, P., Greenaway, K.H., Barth, M., Büchner, R., Eisentraut, S., Fritsche, I., 2016. Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. J. Environ. Psychol. 48, 12–23.

Kashima, Y., Bain, P.G., Fernando, J.W., Truong, A., 2025. Collective future thinking in cultural dynamics. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1–45.

Keller, A., Marsh, J.E., Richardson, B.H., Ball, L.J., 2022. A systematic review of the psychological distance of climate change: towards the development of an evidence-based construct. J. Environ. Psychol. 81, 101822.

Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., 1995. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.

Kleeps, M.W., Hahn-Klimroth, M., Dierkes, P.W., 2024. Perceptions of biodiversity loss among future decision-makers in 37 countries. Npj Biodiversity 3 (1), 21.

Kortenkamp, K.V., Moore, C.F., 2006. Time, uncertainty, and individual differences in decisions to cooperate in resource dilemmas. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32 (5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284006.

Kothe, E.J., Ling, M., North, M., Klas, A., Mullan, B.A., Novoradovskaya, L., 2019. Protection motivation theory and pro-environmental behaviour: a systematic mapping review. Aust. J. Psychol. 71 (4), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/apj.12271.

Lange, F., 2023. Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Behav. Res. Methods 55 (2), 600–622.

Lange, F., Dewitte, S., 2019. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 63, 92–100.

Lauren, N., Smith, L.D., Louis, W.R., Dean, A.J., 2019. Promoting spillover: how past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environ. Behav. 51 (3), 235–258.

Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Flexibility and consistency in evaluative responding: The function of construal level. In: Trope, Y., Liberman, N. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43. Academic Press, pp. 257–295.

Levé, M., Colléony, A., Conversy, P., Torres, A.-C., Truong, M.-X., Vuillot, C., Prévot, A.-C., 2019. Convergences and divergences in understanding the word biodiversity among citizens: a French case study. Biol. Conserv. 236, 332–339.

Luís, S., Vauclair, C.-M., Lima, M.L., 2018. Raising awareness of climate change causes? Cross-national evidence for the normalization of societal risk perception of climate change. Environ. Sci. Pol. 80, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.015.

Lutz, A.E., Schmitt, M.T., Mackay, C.M., Wright, J.D., 2025. Experimentally elevating environmental cognitive alternatives: effects on activist identification, willingness to act, and opposition to new fossil fuel projects. J. Environ. Psychol. 101, 102516.

Mackay, C.M.L., Schmitt, M.T., 2019. Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 65, 101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323.

Maduneme, E., Cohen, A.S., 2024. Solutions journalism stories boosts pro-environmental behavioral intentions through positive affect and collective efficacy beliefs. Environ. Behav. 56 (3–4), 244–275.

Maiella, R., La Malva, P., Marchetti, D., Pomarico, E., Di Crosta, A., Palumbo, R., Cetara, L., Di Domenico, A., Verrocchio, M.C., 2020. The psychological distance and climate change: a systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Front. Psychol. 11, 568899.

Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.

McDonald, R.I., Chai, H.Y., Newell, B.R., 2015. Personal experience and the 'psychological distance' of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 109–118.

McFarland, S., Webb, M., Brown, D., 2012. All humanity is my ingroup: a measure and studies of identification with all humanity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103 (5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724.

Miller, L.B., Rice, R.E., Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M.H., 2022. Relationships among environmental attitudes, environmental efficacy, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within 11 countries. Environ. Behav. 54 (7–8), 1063–1096.

Mumaw, L., Mata, L., 2022. Wildlife gardening: an urban nexus of social and ecological relationships. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20 (6), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2484.

Munafo, M.R., Nosek, B.A., Bishop, D.V., Button, K.S., Chambers, C.D., du Sert, N., Percie, Ioanidis, J.P., 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 (1), 0021.

Newport, J., Shorthouse, D.J., Manning, A.D., 2014. The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 15 (3), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12120.

Nisbet, E.K., Zeienski, J.M., Murphy, S.A., 2009. The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41 (5), 715–740.

Piccolo, J.J., Taylor, B., Washington, H., Kopnina, H., Gray, J., Alberro, H., Orlikowska, E., 2022. "Nature's contributions to people" and peoples' moral obligations to nature. Biol. Conserv. 270, 109572.

Prévot, A.C., Cheval, H., Raymond, R., Cosquer, A., 2018. Routine experiences of nature in cities can increase personal commitment toward biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 226, 1–8.

Rabinovich, A., Morton, T.A., Postmes, T., Verplanken, B., 2012. Collective self and individual choice: the effects of inter-group comparative context on environmental values and behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51 (4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02022.x.

Rosa, C.D., Profice, C.C., Collado, S., 2018. Nature experiences and adults' self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: the role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Front. Psychol. 9, 1055.

Şahin, G., 2023. Psychological distance in climate change: the role of climate change denial, contact with nature and political opinion. Afet ve Risk Dergisi 6 (3), 1202–1217.

Schaffner, D., Demarmels, S., Juettner, U., 2015. Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals? J. Consum. Mark. 32, 266–277.

Schmitt, M.T., Mackay, C.M.L., Droogendyk, L.M., Payne, D., 2019. What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 61, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003.

Schuld, J.P., Rickard, I.N., Yang, Z.J., 2018. Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001.

Schulte, M., Bamberg, S., Rees, J., Rollin, P., 2020. Social identity as a key concept for connecting transformative societal change with individual environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 72, 101525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101525.

Schultz, P.W., 2001. The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (4), 327–339.

Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., Simonsohn, U., 2011. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22 (11), 1359–1366.

Singh, A.S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J.T., Wilson, R., 2017. The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 73, 93–99.

Sordi, J.D., Perin, M.G., Petrini, M.D.C., Sampaio, C.H., 2018. Construal level and collaborative consumption: an exploratory approach. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 42 (2), 264–273.

Sorrell, S., Gatersleben, B., Druckman, A., 2020. The limits of energy sufficiency: a review of the evidence for rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101439.

Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., 2012. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis: An International Journal 32 (6), 957–972.

Stillman, P.E., Fujita, K., Sheldon, O., Trope, Y., 2018. From "me" to "we": the role of construal level in promoting maximized joint outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 147, 16–25.

Tajfel, J., Turner, J., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.G., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.

Tam, K.-P., 2013. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: similarities and differences. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004.

Theodorou, P., Herbst, S.-C., Kahnt, B., Landaverde-González, P., Baltz, L.M., Osterman, J., Paxton, R.J., 2020. Urban fragmentation leads to lower floral diversity, with knock-on impacts on bee biodiversity. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 21756. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78736-x.

Tiscareno-Osorno, X., Demetriou, Y., Marques, A., Peralta, M., Jorge, R., MacIntyre, T.E., Schönbach, D.M., 2023. Systematic review of explicit instruments measuring nature connectedness: what do we know and what is next? Environ. Behav. 55 (8–10), 551–608.

Torres, A.C., Nadot, S., Prévot, A.C., 2017. Specificities of French community gardens as environmental stewardships. Ecol. Soc. 22 (3).

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117 (2), 440.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Wakslak, C., 2007. Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 17 (2), 83–95.

Troy, C.L., Norman, M., Kim, N., Skurka, C., Myrick, J.G., 2024. Can you picture it? Effects of positive and negative dejections of climate futures on climate action intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 96, 102312.

Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Weber, E.U., Raimi, K.T., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2014. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: an integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang. 29, 127–138.

Udall, A.M., de Groot, J.I.M., de Jong, S.B., Shankar, A., 2020. How do I see myself? A systematic review of identities in pro-environmental behaviour research. J. Consum. Behav. 19 (2), 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1798.
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2013. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. *J. Environ. Psychol.* 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006.

Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., Keizer, K., 2014. I am what I am, by looking past the present: the influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. *Environ. Behav.* 46 (5), 626–657.

van Eeden, L.M., Possingham, H.P., Milfont, T.L., Klebl, C., Fielding, K., 2025. Why do (or don't) people protect nature? Insights from conservation practice and environmental psychology to respond to the biodiversity crisis. *Glob. Environ. Psychol.* 3, 1–24.

van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Buttery, Y., Waters, D.L., 2020. Factors affecting the extent and quality of nature engagement of older adults living in a range of home types. *Environ. Behav.* 52 (8), 799–829.

van Heezik, Y., Freeman, C., Falloon, A., Buttery, Y., Heyzer, A., 2021. Relationships between childhood experience of nature and green/blue space use, landscape preferences, connection with nature and pro-environmental behavior. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* 213, 104135.

Van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T., Schellhaas, F.M., 2013. Believing in "making a difference" to collective efforts: participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. *Group Process. Intergroup Relat.* 16 (5), 618–634.

Vesely, S., Masson, T., Chokrai, P., Becker, A.M., Fritsche, I., Klöckner, C.A., Tiberio, L., Carrus, G., Panno, A., 2021. Climate change action as a project of identity: eight meta-analyses. *Glob. Environ. Chang.* 70, 102322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102322.

Wagner, V., Flores-Aranda, J., Villela Guilhon, A.C., Knight, S., Bertrand, K., 2022. How do past, present and future weigh into trajectories of precarity? The time perspectives of young psychoactive substance users living in situations of social precarity in Montreal. *Qual. Health Res.* 32 (2), 195–209.

Wallis, H., Sieverding, T., Schmidt, K., Matthies, E., 2022. # Fighteverycrisis: a psychological perspective on motivators of the support of mitigation measures in the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. *J. Environ. Psychol.* 84, 101898.

Wang, S., Hurlstone, M.J., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., Lawrence, C., 2019. Climate change from a distance: an analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. *Front. Psychol.* 10, 230.

Wang, X., Van der Werff, E., Bouman, T., Harder, M.K., Steg, L., 2021. I am vs. we are: how biospheric values and environmental identity of individuals and groups can influence pro-environmental behaviour. *Front. Psychol.* 12, 618956.

Wenzel, M., Love, J., Thomas, E.F., 2024. Imagining a positive future: desirability and possibility as possible pathways to Hope and commitment to collective action. *Imagin. Cogn. Pers.* 44 (1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366241268146.

Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., Abrahamse, W., 2020. Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. *Conserv. Biol.* 34 (1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381.

Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S., 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. *J. Environ. Psychol.* 30 (3), 305–314.

Wiest, S.L., Raymond, L., Clawson, R.A., 2015. Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. *Glob. Environ. Chang.* 31, 187–198.

Witte, K., 1992. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. *Commun. Monogr.* 59 (4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276.

Witte, K., Allen, M., 2000. A Meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. *Health Educ. Behav.* 27 (5), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506.

Wright, J.D., Schmitt, M.T., Mackay, C.M., Neufeld, S.D., 2020. Imagining a sustainable world: measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. *J. Environ. Psychol.* 72, 101523.

Wright, J.D., Schmitt, M.T., Mackay, C.M.I., 2022. Access to environmental cognitive alternatives predicts pro-environmental activist behavior. *Environ. Behav.* 54 (3), 712–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211065008.

Wyles, K.J., Ghilardi-Lopes, N.P., 2023. Citizen science as a pro-environmental behaviour and a catalyst for further behaviour change. In: Handbook on pro-Environmental Behaviour Change. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 320–334.

Wyles, K.J., White, M.P., Hattam, C., Pahl, S., King, H., Austen, M., 2019. Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. *Environ. Behav.* 51 (2), 111–143.

Zelenski, J.M., Nisbet, E.K., 2014. Happiness and feeling connected: the distinct role of nature relatedness. *Environ. Behav.* 46 (1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512451901.