Barriers and pathways to climate action among nature lovers

The study investigates how people who enjoy spending time in nature perceive, talk about, and potentially act on climate change. Despite broad agreement in Canada and the United States that climate change is occurring, is largely human-caused, and is cause for worry, most people are reluctant to discuss it with family and friends. Conversation within existing social networks can increase knowledge, signal that others care, and encourage climate-friendly actions. Nature-related organisations (e.g., hiking, cross-country skiing, birding, hunting, fishing, trail maintenance, conservation volunteering) provide social settings where climate change could be discussed, yet research has focused more on the environmental movement than on movement-adjacent groups. Drawing on the Five Canadas of Climate Change (a counterpart to Global Warming’s Six Americas), the study explores barriers and pathways to climate action among nature lovers affiliated with such organisations in Ontario, Canada.

Climate change discourse, often communicated through a natural science lens, intersects with several lay discourses: scepticism, gradualism, and catastrophism. Climate scepticism—fueled historically by conservative think tanks—rests on claims that climate change is natural, overhyped, based on faulty science, not occurring, or a conspiracy; extreme scepticism manifests as denial. Gradualism frames climate change as slow and manageable by technological or economic adaptation; temporal distancing positions it as a future issue, dampening urgency. Catastrophism highlights dire futures but can backfire if perceived as exaggerated, prompting some activists to seek alternatives to doom-laden narratives. Psychological research shows heuristic decision-making is prone to biases; confirmation bias leads people to seek, overweight, and remember information that supports prior beliefs. Nickerson outlines five forms of confirmation bias, and evidence suggests that trusted scientific sources can mitigate misperceptions. Public opinion tracking indicates substantial concern: in the US, about 72% say global warming is happening, 58% attribute it mainly to humans, and 65% are worried; Canadian surveys report even higher levels. Audience segmentation (Six Americas; Five Canadas) consistently finds the Concerned as the largest group, with notable shares Alarmed. Yet most Americans rarely or never talk about global warming; perceived social norms (injunctive and descriptive) predict discussion frequency. The Alarmed talk most; the Concerned less so and often feel less informed or confident, especially in Canada. Prior studies show pluralistic ignorance and fear of appearing incompetent suppress climate discussions, while Norway’s case illustrates tacit avoidance despite visible impacts. The finite pool of worry suggests competing concerns (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) can crowd out attention to climate change.

Design and data collection: The study used 32 semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom between May 2023 and January 2024 with 33 representatives (one interview included two participants) of nature-related non-profit organisations in Ontario, Canada. Interviews lasted 45 minutes to 2 hours (one was a 20-minute phone call) and included open-ended and closed-ended questions. Topics covered organisational background, approaches to climate change and biodiversity loss, and interviewees’ own attitudes and emotions (e.g., worry, hope) toward climate change. Closed-ended items were derived from prior literature; the Six Americas self-identification was elicited by providing the six category labels in the chat. Sampling: With no comprehensive list available, a sampling frame (n=284 organisations) was built from the membership lists of Ontario Nature and Cross Country Ski Ontario. Organisations were categorised (conservation, naturalists, hiking/trails, cross-country skiing, hunting/fishing) and selected using seven Ontario Nature regions in a quasi-random approach, supplemented by purposive sampling to fill gaps. The final sample of 32 organisations was chosen to capture varied sizes and catchment areas; half had no paid staff (board member interviewed), and the remainder included staff and some additional board members. Excluding four provincial bodies, 28 organisations represented over 22,000 members. Interviewee demographics: Board members were exclusively white and mostly aged 50+, with slightly more males; staff were mostly under 55, predominantly female, and included two BIPOC interviewees. Analysis: Zoom transcripts were edited and imported into NVivo. A grounded theory approach guided manual coding, with initial codes from the literature expanded inductively. Themes and closed-ended responses were organised by interviewee in Excel. Bivariate statistics examined alignment between Six Americas self-assessment and worry. Validity check: In March 2024, a 4-question SASSY online tool follow-up was sent; response rate was 48%. Among respondents who completed both measures, 69% had identical categories, and others were slightly more alarmed on SASSY. Contextual event: Historically unusual wildfire smoke across Ontario in June 2023 heightened climate salience for many interviewees and may have produced a lasting increase in alarm. Ethics: The study received York University ethics approval (Certificate # STU 2023-009); all participants provided informed consent.

- Sample and identification as nature lovers: 87% of interviewees said their group’s members are nature lovers (others noted mixed motivations). A working definition was enjoying outdoor time and appreciating the natural environment. - Six Americas self-identification (n=30 asked): 40% Alarmed, 47% Concerned, 10% Cautious, 3% Disengaged; Concerned was the largest group. Worry about climate change: 81% yes, 16% maybe, 3% no. - Local evidence of climate change: Only one interviewee reported not noticing local effects (two initially denied but later cited examples). Most reported multiple indicators. • Changes in species ranges: 16 of 33 mentioned northward or range shifts in flora/fauna (e.g., deer into moose territory; warm-water fish thriving; cold-water species at risk; bird shifts; northward tick expansion; tree species viability changes). • Weather, seasons, and water: 21 reported seasonality shifts and weather/water anomalies. All six cross-country skiers/snowshoers observed shorter or later-starting seasons; lake groups cited data on reduced winter ice cover; 10 noted flooding, drought, or changing lake levels; several mentioned hotter temperatures, more severe or unpredictable storms; some reported tree loss from extreme weather. Ticks linked to milder winters. • Wildfires: 11 referenced smoke or fires during/after June 2023; some weighed fires as strong evidence (overweighting risk), while sceptical views cited local forest resilience—examples of confirmation bias in opposite directions. - Personal barriers and pathways to action: • Concern for organisational activities: 13 discussed climate impacts on their group’s activities (e.g., degraded ski conditions; altered hunt/fish ranges; flooding/water levels; volunteering windows shrinking). This concern may motivate action. • Distancing and gradualism: 11 implied climate change is not a major problem yet (temporal distancing or gradualism), including some who initially denied local changes. Several expressed hope in technological/economic adaptation, indicating potential barriers to action. Six of these voiced worry for future generations, which could also serve as a motivation for action through responsibility/affinity. • Scepticism and catastrophism: Only three expressed sceptical elements (e.g., alternative explanations for ticks/flooding, conspiracy theories), demonstrating my-side bias; none were outright deniers. One interviewee used a catastrophist frame (“terrified,” “climate emergency”), which might motivate action but risk alienating others. • Frustration with others: Commonly expressed toward government, corporations, or disengaged individuals; may precede mobilisation. Some worried that negative media discourages youth, contributing to disengagement. • Finite pool of worry: One Disengaged parent highlighted competing day-to-day concerns overshadowing climate concerns. • Lack of knowledge: Two admitted limited climate knowledge despite concern, indicating potential benefit from discussion/education. - Social dynamics and climate talk within organisations: • Social opportunities: Many groups have strong social components (buses to ski venues, indoor speaker meetings, nature walks, volunteer workdays) where conversation can occur. • Three patterns regarding climate talk: avoidance was most common (“doesn’t come up”); obstructionism appeared mainly in some hunting/fishing circles (vocal denialism by a subset); open-mindedness also present, with some members welcoming discussion and seeking ways to foster it. - Alignment of worry with Six Americas: Greater reported worry corresponded with more alarmed self-identification. Younger (25–34) and oldest (65+) ages were overrepresented among those reporting maybe/no worry (small numbers). - Validity check: SASSY classifications matched self-identifications in 69% of respondents; others were slightly more alarmed on SASSY, consistent with possible wildfire influence.

Findings support the premise that nature lovers frequently notice local climate impacts, especially weather/seasonal shifts, water-level changes, species range movements, and wildfire smoke. Most interviewees identified as Concerned or Alarmed, indicating a receptive audience for climate discussion and potential action. However, barriers exist: gradualism and temporal distancing reduce perceived urgency; limited knowledge, pluralistic ignorance, and fear of conflict can suppress discussion; sceptical narratives and finite pools of worry further dampen engagement. Simultaneously, multiple pathways to action emerged: concern for the continuity of valued recreational activities; affinity and responsibility toward children and future generations; frustration that can translate into mobilisation; and the rich social infrastructure of clubs (events, meetings, volunteer activities) that can host respectful conversations. Organisations can leverage open-mindedness among members and bring in trusted experts to correct misinformation and build confidence among the Concerned. Recognising shared concern within groups could counteract perceived disagreement and reduce avoidance, thereby normalising climate talk and fostering individual and collective actions.

The study contributes an update on lay understandings of climate change among nature lovers affiliated with conservation and recreation organisations in Ontario. Most interviewees both noticed local climate impacts and self-identified as Concerned or Alarmed, indicating readiness for deeper engagement. Key barriers include gradualism, temporal distancing, limited knowledge, scepticism among a minority, and finite attention due to competing worries. Key pathways include concern for organisational activities and future generations, frustration that can catalyse mobilisation, and abundant social settings where discussion can be nurtured. Practically, encouraging these organisations to create opportunities for informed, peer-supported discussions—potentially featuring expert speakers—could increase the acceptability and uptake of climate actions. Future work will extend to organisational-level pathways and barriers via participant observation and intervention studies to test strategies that stimulate constructive climate discourse and action within these communities.

- Sampling and representativeness: The sampling frame (from Ontario Nature and Cross Country Ski Ontario) is not comprehensive, and the pseudo-random plus purposive approach was not intended to be representative. Board members and non-profit employees may not fully represent all members. Nature lovers themselves may be a biased population relative to the general public. - Demographic skew: Board interviewees were exclusively white and largely 50+, while staff skewed younger and female with limited BIPOC representation. This limits generalisability and suggests a need to study younger and BIPOC participants’ experiences. - Self-selection bias: Individuals less engaged with or more dismissive of climate change may have declined participation, underrepresenting Disengaged/Doubtful/Dismissive views. - Measurement considerations: Six Americas self-identification was a brief, self-reported heuristic; the SASSY validation had a 48% response rate and indicated slightly higher alarm post-interviews. An external event (June 2023 wildfire smoke) likely increased salience and may have elevated alarm. - Scope: The study primarily examines individual-level perceptions and discourse; organisational-level dynamics and causal impacts of discussion on action were not tested and are planned for future research.