A new paper, freely available here, which I first read about in this article, reveals that showing people pictures of nature can make them care more for the future. People were shown images of cities and images of nature and then played a game designed to test how much they valued future outcomes. The results show that participants who saw pictures of nature cared more about outcomes in the future than those who saw photos of urban settings.

The paper says “exposing people to natural landscapes extends their time horizons, whereas exposure to urban landscapes narrows people’s time perspectives.”

This is important for a couple of reasons.

First, it seems to back up existing evidence that it’s possible to shift people’s values through environmental cues, and that the best ways to encourage pro-environmental (and pro-social) behaviours can be through reinforcing environmental values.

Common Cause theory, suggests that many NGOs may be barking up the wrong tree by appealing to materialism or status values to convince people to act to protect nature. Instead, reinforcing deeply held environmental values by providing images or experiences of nature could make people care more both for nature and the future.

Caring more about the future is critical for the conservation of nature since may of the consequences of today’s environmental problems will fall on the shoulders of young people and future generations. If people have a longer-term perspective they will be more capable of understanding the imperative to protect nature.

Second, it’s important because it runs counter to a key piece of orthodox economic practice. When calculations are made to determine the costs and benefits of a project (building a new bridge for example), any costs and benefits in the future are given less importance than costs and benefits in the present. This is because it’s assumed that rational people in the marketplace and society care less about the future than they do about today.

This new research suggests that people’s perception of the future’s value is not so static. This is critical, since when the future is ‘discounted’ (valued less than the present) as it’s called, environmental impacts on future generations (such as climate change or loss of wildlife) are underestimated.

This means future generations benefit from, for example, development, while future generations pay – unfairly. As conservationists, if we want to make people care more about the future then ensuring they see pictures of nature and wildlife, or even better have more opportunities to experience it directly, could be critical.

As the paper points out, “with the majority of people in the world now living in towns and cities, it may be important to find ways to unleash people’s innate biophilia.”

Should conservation organisations shift substantial resources from providing pristine nature reserves in the inaccessible countryside to preserving medium or low-quality green spaces in urban communities?

Such changes might affect everyone from the public through to decision-makers in politics and business.