Abstract
Significant changes to Australians’ behaviours toward the natural environment are needed to mitigate a climate emergency. Yet, Australian’s existing concerns for the natural environment have not translated into meaningful action. To address this, a qualitative analysis explored Australians’ avoidance/approach motivations and negative and positive emotions when reporting reasons to protect the natural environment. A qualitative secondary data analysis was employed with a sample of 482 Australians aged 18 to 84 years (M = 45.55, SD = 15.76) recruited via an online survey. Utilising a content analysis methodology, results showed that participants reported avoidance motivations of loss, destruction, death and suffering. Approach motivations were also reported with anthropocentric and eco-centric drivers. Negative emotions of fear, contempt and hopelessness were identified, whilst positive emotions of compassion, gratitude, awe, beauty, and enjoyment were also conveyed. These findings illustrate the diversity of pro-environmental motivations in Australia, suggesting a multi-pronged approach may be beneficial for environmental communications.
Introduction
The current rate of damage to the natural environment has not been seen before in human history (IPBES, 2019). According to future modelling, a climate emergency – in which substantial parts of the earth will become uninhabitable – is inevitable (Hébert et al., 2021), with the degree to which natural ecosystems are under threat varying across countries (IPCC, 2022). As the world’s second-most arid continent, Australia is already experiencing climate-exacerbated weather conditions, alongside substantial flora and fauna loss (Abram et al., 2021; IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2022). Whilst unsustainable human behaviour has consistently been the leading contributor to environmental issues (IPCC, 2022; WWF International, 2019), the moderate to high levels of concern shown by Australians for environmental issues has not yet translated to meaningful action (Collins et al., 2003; Gifford, 2011; Lowy Institute, 2021). Research has shown that appealing to specific motivations is often more effective at eliciting pro-environmental behavioural change than appeal to general environmental concern (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Gifford, 2011; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, understanding the underlying motivations that contribute to Australian’s intentions to protect the natural environment may be essential to addressing the pro-environmental attitude-behaviour gap in Australia.
Exploring Individual Motivations to Protect the Natural Environment
Individuals’ unique motivations, including their goals, have been shown to be strong predictors of their behaviour across multiple domains including pro-environmental action (Carver, 2006; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Some work has sought to understand what motivations may drive individuals’ protective action for the natural environment with a focus on identifying specific goals that may be relevant (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). For example, normative goals, where an individual is focused on doing the ‘right’ thing, has been shown to positively contribute to individuals desires to protect the natural environment (Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). However, specific goals may be subsumed more broadly by avoidance and approach motivations that underpin individuals’ desires to protect nature through pro-environmental action (Kidd et al., 2019). According to this framework, individuals that hold an avoidance orientation are motivated to either remove or evade potential threats (e.g., avoid environmental destruction/death of humans, flora, and/or fauna), whereas those with an approach orientation are motivated to maintain or obtain positive rewards (e.g., resources or personal/collective wellbeing; Carver, 2006; Elliot, 2006). Many appeals to increase pro-environmental behaviour appear to assume that individuals have strong avoidance motivations, utilising loss frames that emphasise the calamity and salience of environmental threats (Feinberg & Willer, 2011; Hornsey & Fielding, 2020; Nabi et al., 2018). Yet, the research evidence of the effectiveness of loss frames compared to a positively framed message for promoting pro-environmental behaviour is mixed.
In some studies, loss appeals have encouraged certain forms of pro-environmental behavioural change, such as decreasing energy footprints and increasing support for environmental organisations (Schwartz & Lowenstein, 2017). Whilst fear can often be a persuasive emotion in inducing positive behavioural change (Schwartz & Lowenstein, 2017), there is evidence to suggest that in some instances loss frames may have potential ‘backfire effects’ which may result in increased levels of fear and decreased positive pro-environmental behaviour (Haltinner & Sarathchandra, 2018). One potential reason for these mixed effects could be that loss frames appealing to general threats or losses (i.e., a general environmental catastrophe) may be less effective at eliciting individuals to take protective action than those appealing to specific environmental losses (i.e., a loss of natural beauty; Chapman et al., 2017; Nabi et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2014). This may be due to specific threats being more personally relevant to the target audience or presenting a clearer path of action to take (Chapman et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2014). Despite this nuance, little research has sought to identify and deeply explore the types of environmental threats that may underlie individuals’ avoidance motivations in the pro-environmental context.
In comparison to avoidance motivations, somewhat less research has focused on appealing to individuals approach motivations for protecting the environment. Studies using ‘gain frames,’ which highlight the potential rewards of protecting the environment, have shown increases in individuals’ pro-environmental behaviours when positive rewards related to the natural environment or individuals themselves are emphasised (Elliot & Thrash, 2010; Monni et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018). This suggests individuals may be motivated to protect the environment to approach personal or environmental rewards. However, similar to loss frames, pro-environmental gain frames have shown limited and mixed utility for behavioural change compared to loss-framed messages (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009; Yechiam & Hochman, 2013). The effectiveness of these frames in part appears to be predicted by the specific pro-environmental behaviour they aim to elicit. For example, gain frames have demonstrated effectiveness for high-salience issues such as recycling (Obermiller, 1995), but not as effective for less salient issues such as purchasing environmentally friendly biofuels (Moon et al., 2016). Mixed evidence for the effectiveness of both loss and gain frames suggests a more nuanced approach to understanding individuals' motivations to engage in pro-environmental behaviour is needed, including an understanding the types of environmental benefits and threats that may be applicable in the pro-environmental context.
The Role of Emotion in Motivating Environmental Protection
Emotions facilitate motivation – be it avoidance or approach motivation – and therefore an exploration of emotions in the context of specific pro-environmental motivations is also warranted (Frijda et al., 1989; Levenson, 1999). Emotions prime specific behaviours that can drive progress or specific motivations to achieve specific goals (Carver, 2006). For instance, in the context of negative emotions, fear is associated with avoiding a threat (Carver, 2006), whilst a positive emotion like hope has been associated with anticipation of approaching rewards (Paul & Pourtois, 2017). Emotions also appear to be related to pro-environmental motivations and actions (Dickinson et al., 2016; Kates & DeSteno, 2021; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014; Witte & Allen, 2000). Whilst prior research has provided mixed outcomes in relation to the effectiveness of fear and guilt in motivating pro-environmental behaviours (Harth, 2021; Schneider et al., 2017), there is evidence to suggest these emotions are positively correlated with some environmental outcomes (e.g., climate policy support; Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014). Alternatively, positive emotions such as hope, and awe also appear to positively predict some pro-environmental behaviour such as using renewable energy sources (Yang et al., 2021).
As with loss- and gain-oriented frames, both negative and positive emotions have also been utilised in the construction and testing of environmental message frames, with an emphasis on appealing to the emotions of fear and hope specifically (Sherman et al., 2006; van’t Riet et al., 2010). Fear appeals do appear to encourage some types of climate action, such as decreasing energy footprints and increasing support for environmental organisations (Schwartz & Lowenstein, 2017). However, they have also ‘backfired,’ with strong levels of fear sometimes resulting in increased scepticism toward climate change (Haltinner & Sarathchandra, 2018) or disempowerment and/or disengagement in individuals (O’Neill & Nicholson Cole, 2009). Similarly, the effectiveness of hope appeals is mixed. For example, emphasising the public health benefits of climate action appears to incite hope and subsequent pro-environmental action (Myers et al., 2012; Ojala, 2015), but other hope appeals appear to decrease action by engendering complacency about the relative gravity of climate change (Hornsey & Fielding, 2016, 2020). A recent meta-analysis on hope appeals suggests that a reason for these mixed findings may relate to perceptions of both the impact of climate action and the personal efficacy to undertake such action (Geiger et al., 2023). For example, when individuals contemplate the possibility of taking action and their ability to do so, engagement in climate action increased. Alternatively, when individuals did not perceive climate action as a problem, that undertaking action would only maintain the current environmental status-quo, a negative effect on engagement was found (Geiger et al., 2023). These mixed findings for both types of appeals suggest a more nuanced approach to understanding the role fear and hope may play in motivating pro-environmental behaviours is needed.
Beyond fear and hope, other emotions that may facilitate approach motivations to protect nature include self-transcendent emotions (i.e., awe, gratitude, compassion; Bethelmy & Corraliza, 2019; Stellar et al., 2017), and other types of negative emotions beyond fear (i.e., anxiety; Hmielowski et al., 2019). Emerging research shows experiences of awe of nature increase conservation behaviours, whilst gratitude and compassion have been linked to pro-environmental intentions (Dickinson et al., 2016; Lu & Schuldt, 2016; Yang et al., 2021). Further, feelings of anxiety have been shown to promote engagement in seeking information relating to environmental issues and concerns (Hmielowski et al., 2019). Yet comparatively little has been done to understand how these numerous other types of positive emotions or negative emotions beyond fear and hope–such as guilt, anxiety, and hopelessness–may also impact pro-environmental motivations and behaviour change (Searle & Gow, 2010). Existing research also suggests climate anxiety (i.e., emotional distress relating to negative environmental changes; Albrecht, 2011; Searle & Gow, 2010) is experienced, however current climate anxiety research has focused on emotions relating to the negative effects of climate change, rather than emotions about what needs to be done to mitigate these effects. Therefore, a broad scope examination of the emotions that may truly underpin individuals’ motivations for protecting the natural environment through pro-environmental behaviour is needed.
The Current Study
The literature reviewed above suggests that appealing to avoidance/approach motivations and inducing negative/positive emotions have mixed effectiveness on eliciting pro-environmental behaviour, suggesting a more nuanced approach to understanding these relations may be required. Furthermore, assumptions have been made in prior research as to which specific emotions and motivations of individuals leads to pro-environmental engagement, rather than clarifying these details directly with individuals (see Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014; Yang et al., 2021). As such, it is unclear whether these previously examined emotions are the most personally relevant or applicable in the context of environmental protection. As countries hold differing vulnerabilities within their environmental landscapes (Burck et al., 2021), each may be differently affected by threats or changes resulting from climate change. As such, emotions and motivations of individuals may be context or country-specific, and it is important to understand these differences and the nuances that may also exist within each. It is possible that by directly incorporating information reported by specific communities about their motivations and emotions could therefore lead to improvements in environmental communications. Despite this, most prior research has utilised predominantly quantitative designs, which do not allow participants to self-disclose which emotions they personally perceive to be important in the context of environmental protection, nor allow them to provide their own explanations of the specific reasons that underpin their motivations to protect the natural environment (Lewis et al., 2020; Ratcliffe et al., 2023). In contrast, qualitative methodologies can capture the diversity and nuances in peoples understanding, perceptions, and experiences of the natural environment by allowing participants to describe these phenomena in their own words (Soutar & Wand, 2022; Willig, 2008). This need to better utilise these qualitative approaches to capture the complexity of environmental phenomenon has also been recently advanced within the domain of environmental psychology (Masaryk & Stainton Rogers, 2024; Nielsen et al., 2021; Ratcliffe et al., 2023).
As previously described, a deeper understanding of the emotions and motivations of the Australian community in particular is essential, given the country’s unique vulnerability to environmental threats and climate change (Abram et al., 2021) and the low uptake of pro-environmental behaviour change (Burck et al., 2021). Australia holds the highest mammal extinction rate in the world (Woinarski et al., 2015), alongside significant increases in average temperatures, extreme weather events (i.e., heatwaves, bushfires) and decreased rainfall (Bureau of Meteorology Australia (BoM) & Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), 2020). With some of the lowest rating for climate policies world-wide and consistently low ranking compared to other developed nations for reductions in pollution (Burck et al., 2021), it is therefore paramount to explore what may motivate Australians specifically to protect their vulnerable natural environment. Yet little research on motivations and emotions to protect the environment either quantitively or qualitatively has been conducted in this context.
Against this background, the current study employs a qualitative approach to identify the content of Australian avoidance/approach motivations, and to explore which specific emotions are relevant to protecting the natural environment in the Australian context. Subsequently, the study aimed to (1) identify avoidance/approach motivations reported by Australians when discussing their reasons to protect the natural environment; and (2) identify instances of emotions experienced by Australians when thinking about the natural environment. As per best practice guidelines for qualitative methodology, a hypothesis was not generated, and research questions were instead utilised to address these study aims (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The following research questions guided data analysis and interpretation: (1) What is the content of Australians avoidance/approach motivations when providing their reasons to protect the natural environment, and (2) What positive and negative emotional-laden words do Australians use when explaining about the need to protect the natural environment.
Methodology
Qualitative Secondary Data Analysis
The current study involved the secondary data analysis of pre-existing, open-source qualitative dataset – a flexible methodological approach often referred to as Qualitative Secondary Data Analysis (QSDA; Hinds et al., 1997). Broadly, QSDA involves further explorations of pre-existing qualitative data – either by the same or different researcher(s) – wherein new research questions and/or different analytic strategies are utilised to obtain additional novel insights from the original dataset (Szabo & Strang, 1997). One way in which QSDA can be used is to further expand the understanding of the phenomenon that was initially examined in the original work (Hinds et al., 1997). Consequently, it is resource efficient, reduces participant burden, and allows for the maximisation of research outputs from an existing qualitative sample (Ruggiano & Perry, 2019; Sherif, 2018).
As noted above, the aims of the current study were to (1) identify avoidance/approach motivations reported by Australians when discussing their reasons to protect the natural environment; and (2) identify instances of emotions experienced by Australians when thinking about the need to protect the natural environment. Rather than collecting a new sample for these aims, we instead utilised the Australian subset of the publicly available pre-existing dataset from Gustafson et al. (2022), conducting a more in-depth analysis of this sample subset (which is one of the four acceptable ways in which QSDA can be applied, see Hinds et al., 1997 for more details). Specifically, whilst Gustafson et al. (2022) sought to identify individuals’ broad motivations to protect the natural environment across 12 countries utilising a bottom-up approach, we only analysed the Australian data subset, taking a theory driven approach. That is, we sought to expand our understanding according to the avoidance/ approach motivation framework of which specific types of pro-environmental motivations and emotions were relevant in the Australian context.
Participants
The sample for the present study was drawn from a pre-existing qualitative dataset available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9xnz8; accessed 16th July 2022). This original dataset comprised of a nationally representative international sample of 12,000 participants, over the age of 18, from 12 countries (Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States; see Gustafson et al., 2022 for more details). The Australian subsample who self-selected to complete the open-ended question was used within the current study was extracted. This subsample consisted of 482 participants aged 18 to 84 years (M = 45.55, SD = 15.76) with a gender distribution of 253 females, (53%), 228 males (47%), and 1 (<1%) preferring not to say. 1
Data Collection
Data for the original study (see Gustafson et al., 2022) were collected by the online market research group Ipsos on behalf of the primary researchers in 2019. Designed by the National Geographic Society, the original survey invited participants to answer open-ended questions which measured a range of attitudes about nature, environmental issues, and pro-environmental behaviours. The subset of data used in the present study only utilised responses to the open-ended survey question: ‘What do you think is the most important reason we should protect nature?’ Responses in our subset sample to this specific question presented an average word count of 11.2 ranging between 1 and 109 words per response (SD = 12.89).
Data Analysis
A combined inductive and deductive approach was utilised for data analysis and interpretation. An inductive approach was employed as the analysis was heavily data-driven, and codes were derived from the data. However, as theoretical concepts and theories – such as avoidance/approach motivations and emotions – were used as a foundation for analysis and coding the data, a deductive approach was also required (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Terry et al., 2017). Using a dualistic approach meant the data could be interpreted beyond participant-expressed meanings with some inferences made on behalf of the researchers to the underlying patterns in the data (i.e., latent coding; deductive), whilst still applying the new categories emerging from the data (i.e., inductive; Terry et al., 2017). Given the use of pre-existing theoretical frameworks, the first round of coding and creation of the coding template followed a deductive approach to identify instances of these theories (i.e., approach/avoidance motivations). The second round of coding utilised an inductive approach to identify instances not captured initially that were outside the theoretical frameworks utilised in the current study (i.e., instances of positive and negative emotions). In conjunction with this approach, a critical realist epistemological position was taken during data analysis and interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2013, 2020; Terry et al., 2017). This position recognises individuals hold their own meanings of experiences, whilst acknowledging broader social contexts – such as culture and demographics – may influence this experience of reality (Braun & Clarke, 2020; Terry et al., 2017). Adopting this epistemological position enabled exploration of participants’ responses of their motivations for protecting the natural environment without minimising the contribution that the wider social context may have had upon these social cognitions (Klas et al., 2019).
For the analysis specifically, a qualitative content analysis was utilised. Qualitative content analysis focuses on identifying common occurring words or terms within text data, which are then coded according to a systematic classification system (i.e., codebook) generated by the research team (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The approach of investigator triangulation – a collaborative method where multiple investigators are involved in a study (Archibald, 2016) – was used strengthen the understanding of the data and the credibility in its analysis. The analysis was completed by the first and third authors, supervised by the remaining authors as outlined below. Whilst the authors held similar disciplinary backgrounds at varying stages of learning, their personal demographic characteristics, professional and life experiences were varied. Thus, diverse perspectives and interpretations of the data were applied during all steps of the analysis, especially when the team came together to discuss codes and themes, thereby ensuring investigator triangulation (Archibald, 2016). Following the staged method for qualitative content analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; North et al., 2021), all members of the research team commenced familiarisation of the data through repeated readings of the dataset (specifically, each member of the research team read through the dataset at least two times; Step 1). Once completed, Step 2 involved two research team members categorising the data into meaningful clusters relevant to the research questions. These clusters were clarified into themes through iterations of feedback during discussions with other members of the research team. For Step 3, an initial codebook was then created with definitions of themes then formulated by the first and third author as well as codes for each theme. Inclusion / exclusion criteria for each code were included in the codebook to facilitate the identification of presence within the data, and quotes were identified within the corpus to exemplify themes. For Step 4, the first and third author then amalgamated synonymous codes so only differing codes remained. In Step 5, the codebook was then cross-referenced by all members of the research team. All necessary revisions to the codebook were discussed, implemented, and finalised amongst the team, resulting in clear themes and respective subthemes as shown in Table 1. The approved finalised codebook was tabulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for efficiency, and commencement of coding the complete data set ensued. In the final stages of analysis, the first and third authors utilised the final codebook to code the entire dataset. Specifically, for Step 6, the first author read through all participant responses, allocating each to either the relevant respective codes and themes, or discarding those that held no relevance to the research questions as per the recommended guidelines for content analysis (Terry et al., 2017). Serving to strengthen the credibility and trustworthiness of the research findings, the third author then utilised the final coding template to double code 100% of the data. Following established methodology (Forman & Damschroder, 2007), any discrepancies that arose between the two coders were discussed until consensus was reached, thus ensuring inter-coder agreement. This was achieved by actively questioning and discussing the underlying logic of the applied code, acknowledging personal biases, and proposing potential alternatives.
Themes and Subthemes Found Within Data Analysis.
Note. The count-level data for instances of each theme is provided in the supplemental materials.
Indicates themes generated in round 1 of coding.
Results
Using a qualitative content analysis, four superordinate themes were identified across the participants. A summary of these four themes and their affiliated subthemes is provided in Table 1, with a detailed description of each subtheme following. Given the anonymous nature of the data and its size (>400 participants), unique identifier numbers rather than pseudonyms are used for each participant alongside their quotes. As the aim of this study is to examine how the relevant words were used, and how these words may have ‘hung’ together, we do not present count data within this manuscript. Whilst this is common with qualitative content analysis, for the sake of transparency we have provided count-level data within the supplemental materials.
Theme 1: Avoidance Motivations
Subtheme 1A: Loss and Destruction
This subtheme represents responses where participants referred to their desire to protect the environment to avoid loss, damage, or destruction to the natural environment – ‘we should be doing our part to protect nature instead of destroying it’ (P31). Participants either described a desire to avoid loss in direct terms, exhibiting avoidance-oriented motivations, or indirectly, through reference to the potential negative consequences to the world at large and effects to humanity (e.g., ‘if we lose nature, man will have nothing left,’ P171). Participants were also motivated to avoid destruction of both the natural environment and the planet as a whole, reflecting worldview threats by linking this damage or destruction with human activity through direct statements such as, ‘it is often because of humans and development that habitats get destroyed and they become endangered’ (P457).
Subtheme 1B: Death and Suffering
This subtheme encapsulated responses where participants specifically referenced avoidance of death, dying, or suffering as a reason to protect nature, often reflecting existential threats – ‘so the planet doesn’t die, and we don’t all starve to death’ (P308). Commonly, participants referred to a collective ‘we’ (P464), anticipating suffering or death of ‘humans’ (P55), ‘animals’ (P42), or the ‘planet’ (P308) as a flow on effect of the damage or change occurring with the natural environment. Further, participants regularly referenced future generations – ‘if we do not protect it future generations will suffer’ (P161) – within their responses concerning death and/or suffering, and similarly, indicated wanting to avoid death or suffering in near-future events, such as ‘later in life’ (P276).
Theme 2: Approach Motivations
Subtheme 2A: Anthropocentric Approach Motivation
This subtheme highlighted instances in which participants indicated they were motivated to protect the natural environment to move toward desired outcomes for human-centred reasons (i.e., anthropocentrism; e.g., ‘for the health of humans,’ P139). A commonly held perception amongst participants indicated the availability and sustainability of biodiverse ecosystems is beneficial to the human species and improves their quality of life, with participants noting protecting the natural environment was ‘for people’s welfare’ (P127) and ‘for a better place to live’ (P348). As such, participants reflected a shared desire to maintain and preserve the natural environment for an improved quality of life currently, and gains for future generations, to ‘ensure we leave a better and liveable planet’ (P352). This finding is like those in Subtheme 1B (Death and Suffering), where references to future generations were also made by participants. However, rather than noting the negative consequences for the future, in this subtheme participants displayed anthropocentric approach motivations, discussing the potential gains for future generations if environmental protection occurred.
Subtheme 2B: Eco-Centric Approach Motivation
Subtheme 2B represents instances in which participants were motivated to protect the environment for the preservation and advancement of non-human life – ‘all living organisms’ (P277) – and the natural world for its own sake (i.e., eco-centrism) – ‘keep ecological balance’ (P175). A shared perspective amongst participants was the inherent value of the natural environment, irrespective of its usefulness to humans, with participants at times noting that they were motivated to protect the natural environment ‘for all the planet’s survival’ (P480). Participants also indicated the health of the planet as an environmental consideration, driving motivations to protect the natural environment. Such considerations encompassed the ‘rights of nature’ (P218) and preservation to achieve ‘ecosystem equilibrium’ (P284).
Theme 3: Negative Emotions
Subtheme 3A: Fear
The subtheme of fear captures instances where fear was conveyed through a worry or concern regarding adverse consequences of not protecting the natural environment – ‘the world should be a good place where everyone and everything can live without fear of an early death’ (P339). An undertone of fear was often present where participants referenced the ‘death’ (P189) of ‘humans’ (P464), ‘animals’ (P243), and the ‘natural environment’ (P193), often depicting events in an escalating manner – ‘. . .Without animals we would be very skinny, and without plants where’s the herbivore animals, (and) without them carnivore animals can’t survive which means we can’t survive’ (P243). This suggests an awareness of human interdependence within nature, which some participants also directly acknowledged in their responses – ‘the failure of the system would ultimately threaten the subsistence of human beings’ (P189). Additionally, a fear of cascading effects that may result through not protecting the natural environment was acknowledged, with the ultimate fear of what may result from such being death (as described in Subtheme 1B: Death and Suffering) – ‘we will have a cascade failure that we do not have the knowledge to reverse. . . that is the recipe for death’ (P193).
Subtheme 3B: Contempt
The subtheme of contempt was identified through responses conveying a sense of disdain, disgust, or anger, displaying a sense of disapproval or disrespect regarding specific individuals or toward humans as a collective group – ‘humans have created more destruction in our relatively short time on this planet than anything else’ (P266). Participants displayed contempt through descriptions of human actions, providing a scathing assessment of humans and their activity – ‘it’s repugnant to think we can wantonly destroy the planet without any regard for the other life forms we destroy in the process’ (P454). Such responses illustrate a strong understanding of the result of human interactions with the natural environment. Additionally, when destruction of the natural environment occurred, the individuals inflicting this damage were perceived to hold attitudes of ‘indifference’ (P422) or ‘callousness’ (P454) in relation to the adverse consequences of their actions – ‘we, the humans, will suffer and ruin everything’ (P53). Similarly, participants exhibited contempt for the apparent greed of humans, resulting in the natural environment needing protection, ‘we have no right to abuse the planet for our own ends’ (P454).
Subtheme 3C: Hopelessness
The subtheme of hopelessness was identified through responses conveying sadness, an absence of hope, or lack of optimism. Participants often reflected on the plight of humanity without nature – ‘without it we’re toast’ (P471), indicating a lack of faith in humanity to reverse negative trends toward the natural environment by humans, ‘people will fight and destroy nature, and anything we need’ (P466). Furthermore, participants displayed an overt sense of hopelessness, with statements such as ‘I think it’s too late’ (P460), and ‘If we do not protect it, then we sign our own death warrant. Maybe not such a bad thing?’ (P481).
Theme 4: Positive and Self-Transcendent Emotions
Subtheme 4A: Compassion and Gratitude
This subtheme captured perceptions of participants’ gracious acknowledgement of all that sustains life, the need to treat nature with sensitivity, and a moral and ethical rationale for protecting the natural environment. Positive emotions of gratitude towards nature were frequently linked to an increased care for nature and pro-environmental behavioural intentions, with one participant even noting humans’ ‘duty to protect and maintain the life that gives us life on this planet’ (P165). Here participants implied a genuine feeling of gratitude and respect for the environment and its provisions, wanting to protect it in return – ‘nature deserves the same respect that it gives to us’ (P330). Participants also described intense emotions of compassion – ‘the kind thing to do, the right thing to do’ (P27) – linking these to a responsibility to protect the natural environment, often describing it as a ‘moral obligation to protect nature’ (P28).
Subtheme 4B: Awe
The awe subtheme represented participants strong sense of humility when considering their position in the natural world – ‘nature is our living’ (P34) – reflecting the emotion of awe. Contrasting perspectives in the focus of participants awe were evident in this subtheme, with some noting awe of the natural world – ‘delights of nature’ (P302) – and others noting their awe of the divine – ‘it’s a gift from God’ (P206). Participants also conveyed an awareness of the small role of humans within the planet, presenting the notion of nature as sacred being a motivating factor to protect the natural environment – ‘preserv[e] species that spiritually need to be around so that we may appreciate them’ (P276).
Subtheme 4c: Beauty and Enjoyment
This subtheme embodied participants’ appreciation for, and enjoyment of nature, and instances that implied the restorative effects of nature on the human experience, ‘. . .it is also meditative to walk around in natural areas’ (P36). Participants described beauty in the context of the natural environment (e.g., ‘nature is important for people to be able to experience the beauty that it brings,’ P239), and joy and fulfilment as motivations to protect the natural environment (e.g., ‘the environment makes people happy,’ P226). Further, participants commonly held the perception that nature ‘must be protected for living creatures to share’ (P21). This suggests the desire to afford future generations the opportunity to connect with and experience the natural environment ‘to appreciate like we do today’ (P132).
Discussion
Due to an urgency within the Australian context to increase environmental protection, this study qualitatively explored the content of Australian’s avoidance and approach motivations, and the potential negative and positive emotions they experienced regarding the protection of the natural environment. Utilising an avoidance/approach motivation framework, we generated several types of motivations that exemplified these two types. In the context of avoidance motivations, we found loss and destruction, alongside death and suffering, as motivating factors to protect the natural environment. Consistent with existing research showing individuals change behaviour to avoid potential threats and negative impacts of climate change (Carver, 2006; Chapman et al., 2017; Nabi et al., 2018), these findings extend our understanding by providing a more specific overview of what Australians are motivated to avoid when it comes to environmental threats (e.g., environmental loss, ecosystem destructions, death, and suffering).
With the data displaying an awareness of the adverse effects of loss and destruction to the natural environment, participants indicated a cognisance of the interconnectedness of human life and the natural environment. The relation of human activity to the destruction of the natural environment may suggest a sense of responsibility. With existing literature showing connections between responsibility and engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, this may present a promising avenue for further investigation (Bateman & O’Connor, 2016; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). Participants also indicated both existential and worldview threats because of destruction and loss of the natural environment. Aligning with existing research showing awareness of one’s own death can be a strong motivator of behavioural change (Cooper et al., 2011; Galliot et al., 2008), by connecting the loss of the natural environment to their own death and suffering, these findings may indicate that individuals who are motivated to avoid death and suffering may also be motivated to protect nature. Highlighting potential benefits in loss framed messaging, the alignment of this finding with existing research (Cooper et al., 2011; Galliot et al., 2008) affirms that depicting death or suffering in a manner such that it raises an individual’s consciousness of their own mortality, spurs positive behavioural change. Further exploration into these associations may be advantageous for the design of future communications.
Approach motivations were also discovered, with participants driven to protect the natural environment through both anthropocentric and eco-centric motivations. These findings provide qualitative support for the applicability of approach motivation theories (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2010) to the context of environmental preservation. Participants reported anthropocentric approach motivations, portraying a consciousness of protecting the environment for the direct benefit to humanity. Contrastingly, participants reporting eco-centric approach motivations portrayed a desire to protect the environment for the direct benefit to the ecosystems of the planet. These results suggest Australians may differ in their approach-based motivations to protect the natural environment, providing some explanation of the mixed success of message appeals. Previously, messaging efforts have focused largely on anthropocentric motivators (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010) but have had lesser emphasis on eco-centric motivators. In light of these findings, it is possible that gain-framed messaging around ecocentrism could also spur motivation to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, and further investigation as to the effect of this on positive behavioural influence would be beneficial.
Given the association between motivations and emotions, the current study also explored instances of positive and negative emotional-laden words used by Australians when thinking about the need to protect the natural environment. To understand and conceptualise these emotions, we used the circumplex (dimensional) models of emotion. These models demonstrate that positive emotions often correlate with other positive emotions, and similarly, negative emotions with other negative emotions (Posner et al., 2005; Russell & Barrett, 1999). Whilst these emotions may otherwise be understood to be discrete, they are also highly intercorrelated and subsumed by higher order factors of negative and positive affect. Our findings demonstrate the correlation of emotions, and the co-occurrence of these are reflected within the subtheme groupings. For example, contempt, anger, and disgust are can be conceptualised as discrete emotions, however, in our study these often appeared together. Consequently, we considered these negative emotions to form a higher order factor we chose to label as contempt, aligning with existing research showing their intercorrelation (Hutcherson & Gross, 2011).
It was found participants displayed negative emotion, often through the expression of fear, contempt, and hopelessness. These findings are consistent with prior studies suggesting negative emotions may be experienced when thinking about how to mitigate potential threats to the environment (Albrecht, 2011; Searle & Gow, 2010). Whilst existing literature has provided evidence of specific negative emotions influencing behaviour, such as fear (Smith & Leiserowitz, 2014; Yang et al., 2021), our study provides further details on how these emotions co-occur – fear (worry, concern), contempt (anger, disdain, disgust), and hopelessness (sadness, lack of hope) – and their existence within the environmental and/or climate context. By providing qualitative evidence to distinguish the co-occurrence of negative emotions in this context, future research is better placed to investigate if these induce actual behavioural change. In particular, future research should examine if these nuanced differences may be beneficial in constructing more effective message framing for appeals attempting to induce negative emotions, alongside reducing the potential backfire effects of such.
Participants also displayed instances of positive emotion, expressing emotions of compassion, gratitude, and awe, alongside an appreciation of the beauty and enjoyment within the natural environment. As demonstrated by Zelenski and Desrochers (2021), these findings indicate self-transcendent emotions have the potential to inspire behavioural change. Moreover, we present the additional emotions of beauty and enjoyment to the study of environmental motivations, two positive emotions that have had limited consideration in current environmental research (Brielmann et al., 2021; Lumber et al., 2017). Whilst beauty has not previously been considered to be an emotion, there is existing literature to support its classification as such (for example, Brielmann et al., 2021). With emerging research showing beauty and enjoyment to be important components to individuals’ feelings of connectedness to nature (Lumber et al., 2017), these findings demonstrate potential new avenues of motivational drivers for behavioural change. This provides a promising avenue within environmental communication research which attempts to induce positive emotions (especially hope) in order to increase pro-environmental behaviour. The use of positive emotions like awe and gratitude may be especially useful in promoting these behaviours – particularly through emphasis of harmonious human-nature relationships. Therefore, tailoring communication strategies to resonate with these positive emotions may provide an alternative to negative emotional appeals, circumventing potential backfire effects such as avoidance or denial (Witte & Allen, 2000).
Limitations
Although we have achieved new insights into individuals avoidance/approach motivations, and relevant negative and positive emotions, there were limitations present. Firstly, by using a secondary data analysis on a pre-existing dataset, we were unable to choose the open-ended question that was posed to participants, limiting our analysis to one open-ended question. However, as this was a self-selected subsample of the Australian population, this still provides interesting insights relevant to our study aim. Secondly, we are unable to make inferences about how participants’ reported motivations to protect the environment contribute to their actual pro-environmental behaviour. Therefore, further research is needed to determine whether the identified avoidance/approach motivations can result in pro-environmental behaviour change. Finally, as our study only analysed the Australian subsample, it is unclear if the motivations and emotions identified are relevant in other country contexts. As prior research has shown that there are discrepancies in people’s motivations and actual environmental behaviours (Gifford, 2011) and given the emerging research relating to the impact of emotions on pro-environmental behaviours, future research should look to further identify what motivations and emotions are evident across differing countries.
Concluding Remarks
Previous research on the effectiveness of environmental communications appealing to emotion and motivation has led to mixed results, indicating a more nuanced, context specific approach to understanding the motivations to protect the natural environment was needed. The current study aimed to address this gap in the Australian context using a qualitative examination of Australians’ avoidance/approach motivations, and instances of negative and positive emotions, when discussing reasons to protect the natural environment. A secondary data analysis on an existing qualitative dataset was employed, utilising a content analysis methodology. The results found avoidance motivations were held by Australians when discussing reasons to protect the natural environment, specifically around the areas of loss, destruction, death, and suffering. Approach motivations were also revealed, with both anthropocentric and eco-centric drivers. Negative emotions were portrayed through fear, contempt, and hopelessness, with positive emotions of compassion and gratitude, awe, beauty and enjoyment displayed. The current findings illustrate the diversity of motivations for pro-environmental action, and the potential utility of employing the avoidance/approach motivation framework in the pro-environmental context. These findings also have implications for communication design and implementation, suggesting a multipronged approach may be more beneficial in tailoring messaging appeals targeted at different groups that resonate with their varying motives for environmental preservation. This, in turn, may induce these specific motivations and emotions which may more effectively encourage and maximise behaviours to protect the natural environment.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-eab-10.1177_00139165261447103 – Supplemental material for Reasons to Protect Nature: A Qualitative Exploration of Australians’ Avoidance/Approach Motivations and Emotions
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eab-10.1177_00139165261447103 for Reasons to Protect Nature: A Qualitative Exploration of Australians’ Avoidance/Approach Motivations and Emotions by Lyndal Kilgannon, Anna Klas, Olivia Jones and Kate A. Barford in Environment and Behavior
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
As the current study utilised a secondary data analysis approach with data available in the public domain an ethics review was not required. As such, no application for review or exemption was needed by Deakin Human Research Ethics Committee.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
