Contrasting Trajectories in Adolescent Pro-Environmentalism: Qualitative Differences Between “Engagers” Versus “Disengagers”

Abstract

The present study is a qualitative expansion of pre-existing quantitative research. Two groups of teenagers from a previous longitudinal study were specifically targeted, namely those who demonstrated extraordinary increases in their pro-environmental engagement from 13 to 17 years (called “Engagers”) and those who showed the opposite trajectory, that is, a marked decrease in pro-environmental behavior, reminiscent of an adolescent dip (called “Disengagers”). Nineteen participants (equally distributed across the engagers and disengagers categories) took part in semi-structured interviews that explored participants’ relationships with nature over their adolescent years, communication about environmental issues in the context of family, peers and school, as well as media influences. All interviewees described memorable nature experiences in childhood and adolescence as important to them, and all were growing up in family households where parents had established basic routines of sustainability behavior. All participants had access to a wealth of media information about environmental sustainability (and lack thereof). However, they largely differed in what they made out of it. For the group of disengagers, environmental concerns moved more and more into the background as other themes, goals, and projects came to the forefront over the adolescent period (e.g., graduation, establishing an educational and occupational career, establishing lasting peer relationships). In contrast, engagers actively expanded their environmental engagement over time. As a consequence, this engagement became increasingly independent from family, peer and school contexts. Ultimately, it was the process of engagement and disengagement itself that accounted for the different trajectories that were targeted in the present study. The study points out that it is not possible to understand the developmental context for pro-environmentalism as a factor that operates independently from the individual person. Teenagers create the contexts that influences their pro-environmental engagement as much as they are influenced by them.

1. Introduction

The planet Earth is facing urgent environmental challenges that demand global attention now more than ever [1,2]. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [3] rings alarm bells on the need for immediate action against climate change. From devastating wildfires in Australia and California to intensified hurricanes and flooding on all continents, the tangible impacts of climate change are undeniable [4,5]. In response, countries are implementing policies, such as the European Green Deal, aiming to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius [6,7]. The protection of the natural environment is no longer a mere suggestion but an ecological necessity [8]. Recognizing this, the United Nations has called for the 2021–2030 period to be the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, urging actions to revive and protect ecosystems across the globe [9].

Adolescents are increasingly tuned into these environmental issues. A survey spanning ten countries showed that a majority of youth are deeply concerned about climate change, with many saying it impacts their daily lives [10]. They are not just worried; they are also vocal, pushing for governments to take stronger action. Adolescence is a prime time for such activism. Young people’s beliefs and values are still forming, and they are curious and open to new ideas, especially when they see the importance of engaging in new behaviors or practices [11,12,13].

However, adolescence has also been described as a developmental “time out” period for environmental concerns. While there is generally a positive correlation between age and pro-environmental behavior [14,15] researchers repeatedly reported an age-related decline, specifically in the age period of adolescence [16,17,18,19,20,21]. The combination of these two trends—a general age-related increase in pro-environmentalism, on the one hand, and a decline specifically in the adolescent years, on the other—led to the notion of an “adolescent dip” in the development of pro-environmental behavior [22], with somewhat different estimates as to when the developmental trajectory of pro-environmental behavior exactly reaches its turning point [23]. Thus, it appears that for some, the age period of adolescence is the harbinger of hope, while others stress disengagement from environmental issues as being particularly noticeable in this age period. How can these conflicting characterizations be reconciled?

Almost all of the research documenting an adolescent dip in environmental concerns was based on cross-sectional data, which confound the effects of chronological age and cohort. Thus, it is unclear whether the lower scores in pro-environmental behavior of older teenagers reflect higher pro-environmental engagement in younger cohorts or an actual decline with age. In a deliberate effort to disambiguate this situation, Krettenauer and colleagues [24] conducted a cross-sequential study investigating mean level change in pro-environmental behavior and related constructs (nature connectedness as well as pro-environmental norm endorsement) over a 4-year time interval in two different cohorts (13- and 18-year-olds) from 2017 to 2022. The study found no evidence for an “adolescent dip”, that is, a downturn during teenage years in pro-environmental behavior as noted in previous cross-sectional studies. Instead, a slight increase in pro-environmental behavior over the first two years of the study was found in both cohorts that levelled off in the second half of the longitudinal assessment. This trajectory was attributed to specific historical trends. In 2017–18, that is at the onset of the study, there was an increasing awareness of environmental issues worldwide, particularly among youth, as manifested in the rise of the Fridays for Future movement. However, in March 2020, close to the second wave of data collection, COVID-19 hit, with school closings and physical distancing regimes in place, pushing other topics to the forefront of young people’s minds. The impact of these historical events indicates that the development of pro-environmental behavior and related constructs from early adolescence to early adulthood is highly context-sensitive and much more malleable than previously assumed [25]. Therefore, the age-related decrease in adolescents’ pro-environmental behavior that has been reported before [20] is not cast in stone. Pro-environmental behavior may take different trajectories as the developmental context changes. As a consequence, the “adolescent dip” may adequately characterize the development of pro-environmental behavior of some teenagers but not of others depending on the context they are surrounded with. What makes the difference, and how? This is the leading question of the present paper, which will address this question by employing a qualitative research methodology.

There are many different ways of conceptualizing and describing developmental contexts, such Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory [26], or Magnuson’s holistic–interactionist approach [27]. In the present study, we did not adopt a specific theory for conceptualizing context. Rather, we sampled contexts eclectically from the literature on the development of pro-environmental behavior and zoomed in on those contexts that have been repeatedly researched and identified as potentially important: the natural environment, family, peers, school, and media. Such an approach seems fully adequate for the explorative approach taken in the present study. However, by identifying these contexts, we do not want to imply that these contexts operate independently in influencing the person. Contexts are always dynamic and interactive, forming higher-order systems. More importantly, the person is never separated from these environmental systems but is an integral part of them. As a consequence, contexts influence individuals as much as they are influenced by them. While the measurement operations in quantitative research allow for the separation of context conditions that impact individuals’ behavior and beliefs, the qualitative approach taken in the present study renders such a separation an undue analytic abstraction. We are, therefore, less interested in describing how various contexts condition impact adolescents’ pro-environmental behavior. Rather, we want to describe the different ways in which adolescents engage with various contexts and how these different forms of engagement may bring about opposing developmental trajectories in the development of pro-environmental behavior over the course of adolescence.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

The present study is a qualitative expansion of the longitudinal study reported by Krettenauer and colleagues [24]. This study investigated longitudinal changes in pro-environmental behavior, connectedness with nature, and the endorsement of pro-environmental norms from early adolescence to early adulthood. The researchers used a cross-sequential study design, following two cohorts over four years (cohort I from 13 to 17 years, n = 220, and cohort II from 18 to 22 years, n = 390), and employed latent growth as well as cross-lagged path models to analyze the data [24].

For the present extension of this study, we specifically targeted two groups of teenagers in Cohort I, namely those who demonstrated extraordinary increases in their pro-environmental engagement from 13 to 17 years and those who showed the opposite trajectory, that is, a marked decrease in pro-environmental behavior, reminiscent of an adolescent dip. To identify these two groups, we focused on everyday pro-environmental behavior as measured by an adapted version of the General Ecological Behavior Scale (GEB) developed by Kaiser and Wilson [28]. This scale included 30 items, representing a broad range from citizenship behaviors (e.g., “I volunteer for environmental projects”, “I follow environmental issues in the media”), energy conservation (“I use public transportation or ride my bike to get around”), recycling, waste reduction, and low-cost private consumer decisions, such as buying environmentally friendly products (e.g., “I prefer buying products made from recyclables (e.g., paper)”). Participants were asked to indicate how often they have engaged in this behavior over the last year on a 5-point scale from 0 = never to 4 = always [28].

To gauge longitudinal change in pro-environmental behavior (PEB) over four years, residualized change scores were calculated using a multiple regression model, with a summary score of pro-environmental behavior at the age of 17 years as the criterion variable and pro-environmental behavior at the age of 13 years as the predictor. This method is preferable over calculating difference scores, as it takes into account regressions towards the mean that might simply result from measurement error. Overall, there was a slight uptick in pro-environmental behavior, while positional stability over time was moderate, r = 0.43, p < 0.01, indicating that changes in pro-environmental behavior were substantial. Z-standardized residualized change scores ranged from −2.34 to 3.84, M = 0.0, SD = 0.99.

The longitudinal sample included 130 participants with sufficient data points at the first and last wave of data collection. Of this sample, we selected 20 participants with the highest and 20 participants with the lowest residualized changes scores and invited them to participate in a follow-up one-on-one interview conducted over Zoom. In qualitative research, there is no standard procedure to determine the size of a sample. In the present study, the targeted sample size was to strike a balance between having sufficiently large groups of participants that represented the two opposing developmental trajectories, on the one hand, and maximizing the distance between these two groups, on the other. Any increase in the size of these extreme groups would have lowered the distance between the two and, thus, would have made it more difficult to detect any differences between them through the qualitative interviews.

Ultimately, 19 participants accepted the invitation to participate in the interview. Nine of these adolescents, in the following also referred to as “Engagers”, demonstrated far above-average increases in pro-environmental behavior (z = 1.61). In contrast, ten adolescents, labeled “Disengagers”, evidenced significant declines in pro-environmental behavior, with a residualized change score of z = −1.57. The sample consisted of 13 females and 6 males, who were about equally distributed across the 2 groups of engagers and disengagers. Interviews were conducted in English and typically lasted 45–50 minutes. During the online interviews, only the interviewee and interviewer were present. Under the guidance of a graduate supervisor, all interviews were conducted by a graduate student and research team member. This student, who was female and a visible minority, completed three practice interviews with other research team members and four preliminary interviews with participants to ensure consistency and to establish a robust interview process.

Sixteen out of the nineteen participants were born in Canada, while three were born outside Canada. All participants had been living in Canada for at least 4 years at the study onset, that is, at the age of 13. At the time of the interview, participants were between 17 and 20 years old and all were residing in Southwest Ontario. Six participants were in their final year of high school (Grade 12), while the remaining participants had completed high school in the previous two school years. They were either working or continuing with post-secondary education at a college or university.

To assess participants’ socioeconomic background, they were asked to provide descriptions of their mother’s and father’s occupations at the onset of the longitudinal study. Descriptions were coded according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88) and transferred into the Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI), which is a well-validated measure of socioeconomic status [29]. Theoretically, ISEI scores range from 10 to 90, with a midpoint of the scale at 50. ISEI scores were the averaged scores for each mother and father. The sample mean was M = 52.25, SD = 12.24. Thus, socioeconomic status (SES) was an average in the sample. The two groups, engagers vs. disengagers, did not differ with regard to SES, W = 68, z = −1.55, p = 0.121. A breakdown of participant characteristics is provided in

Table 1. Participants in the qualitative interview project.

Participant	Group a	Gender b	Age in Years	SES c	Country of Birth	Change in PEB Age 13–17 d	PEB at Wave 3 e
1	E	F	18	74	Canada	0.98	1.26
2	E	M	19	47	Ukraine	1.2	2.31
3	D	F	19	69	Canada	−1.04	−0.03
4	E	F	19	29	Canada	2.27	2.01
5	D	M	17	43	Canada	−1.12	−0.78
6	E	F	18	38.5	Canada	1.22	1.49
7	E	F	17	43.5	Canada	1.05	1.74
8	D	F	17	49.5	Canada	−1.25	−0.57
9	D	F	17	-	Canada	−1.54	−1.00
10	D	M	17	69	Canada	−1.74	−0.78
11	D	F	20	54	United Arab Emirates	−1.83	−1.22
12	D	F	19	52.5	Canada	−2.34	−1.46
13	D	F	18	65	Canada	−1.45	−0.37
14	E	F	19	54	Iran	1.52	3.6
15	D	M	18	46.5	Canada	−1.99	−1.22
16	E	F	20	54	Canada	1.49	1.74
17	E	M	19	41.5	Canada	0.9	2.01
18	D	F	18	51	Canada	−1.32	−0.17
19	E	M	17	35	Canada	3.83	3.6

Notes. ^a E = engager, D = disengager, ^b F = female, M = male, ^c ISEI score averaged for mother and father; ^d residualized change score (z-standardized); ^e summary (Rasch) score of pro-environmental behavior (sample M = 0.39; SD = 1.06).

. It is noteworthy that the decline in pro-environmental behavior in the disengager group did not result in low scores in pro-environmental behavior for all participants of this group at the final wave of data collection. While all engagers were well above average in their pro-environmental behavior, some disengagers (participants 3, 13, and 18) were below average, but not dramatically.

Data collection for the present study occurred from July to October 2023. Participants who agreed to take part received consent forms detailing the interview’s purpose and procedures, including consent for their audio recording to be transcribed verbatim using Microsoft Word (Microsoft Office 365) and NVivo (20.7) qualitative software. An honorarium of CAD 50 was provided upon interview completion. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Wilfrid Laurier University Research Ethics Board (REB #8500).

2.2. Interview and Coding

The interview aimed to elicit specific participant experiences while allowing room for personal storytelling, producing a rich body of qualitative material. Interviews focused on several key areas: (1) participants’ relationship with nature, exploring their feelings, thoughts, and activities related to nature connectedness as they evolved through their adolescent years; (2) communication about environmental issues with family, peers, and school, addressing topics, frequency, participants, initiators, outcomes, and emotions; and (3) the influence of news and social media, including feelings about news, environmental activists, activism movements, and social media presence related to environmentalism. Each topic area was introduced by a set of standard questions asked to all interviewees that served as prompts to facilitate individual storytelling.

We analyzed the data using qualitative methods to gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ experiences and perspectives. Given the exploratory nature of our study, we employed a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to ensure a comprehensive analysis. We began by developing a set of interview questions based on an extensive literature review. This top-down approach allowed us to structure the interviews around the key topic areas we wished to explore. After conducting and transcribing the interviews, we transitioned to a bottom-up approach for data analysis. We conducted an initial coding that allowed themes and patterns to emerge organically from the participants’ narratives. These codes were then refined and organized into broader categories that captured the essence of the participants’ engagement with nature, their environmental attitudes, and the influence of peer pressure, media, and social media. Thematic analysis was employed to systematically examine the data, allowing us to identify recurring themes and subthemes across the interviews. By comparing and contrasting the responses of engagers and disengagers, we wanted to highlight differences and similarities between the two groups. Additionally, we used comparison techniques, such as memo writing and axial coding. Memo writing has been described as a flexible technique that “…can help to clarify thinking on a research topic, provide a mechanism for the articulation of assumptions and subjective perspectives about the area of research” [30]. Axial coding refers to the process of identifying major themes in the data [31]. Memo writing allowed us to document our reflections and insights throughout the analysis process, while axial coding helped to connect related codes and identify overarching themes. The use of NVivo qualitative software was instrumental in managing and organizing the large volume of data, providing visual representations of the themes and facilitating a comprehensive and nuanced analysis.

3. Results

We report findings from this qualitative study by organizing them around themes. First, we qualitatively describe the pro-environmental engagement of the two groups, engagers vs. disengagers, as a way of validating our grouping variable. Second, we address various contexts, i.e., (a) engaging with the natural environment, (b) family, peers, and school, and (c) social media.

3.1. Environmental Engagement and Barriers

Stern and colleagues [32] identified four types of pro-environmental behaviors: engaged activism, active citizenship, policy support, and consumer behavior in the private sphere. Generally, pro-environmental activists focus on political actions aimed at influencing the political system and altering public behavior. Active citizenship involves activities, such as signing petitions, writing to government officials, and supporting environmental organizations. Policy support is a more indirect form of pro-environmental behavior, characterized by the acceptance of public policies that may require personal sacrifices. Lastly, consumer behavior in the private sphere encompasses everyday decisions regarding resource consumption and product purchases. While our study did not specifically target individuals who identify as environmental activists, we observed some of the four mentioned types of pro-environmental behaviors in everyday sustainable engagement in participants.

Both engagers and disengagers typically described some form of pro- environmental actions that they take part in. The most prevalent actions were recycling, picking up trash, and reducing carbon emissions. While both groups highlighted these everyday sustainable actions, engagers were more detailed in describing the steps that they took to lessen their environmental footprint. Disengagers, on the other hand, tended to give more superficial and stereotypical responses. Participant 19 (E) reflects on their sustainable actions in the following quotation (all interview quotations presented in this paper have been edited to increase their readability by deleting filler words and adjusting grammar to written language while preserving their original meaning):

“My entire family, we were pretty good on just things in general. I don’t want to say by any means we’re like, crazy outliers on like saving energy for small things like whenever we do laundry, we make sure to do a lot at once to not waste water. Just having the general mindset of not being wasteful. We only have one car, I’ll only use it to work and back. Other than that, everyone in my family uses public transportation like buses. Turn off lights, don’t waste water. Put our trash where it belongs, make efforts to pick up litter, can’t say that we really excel in any place. Just do our part.”

—Participant 19 (E)

They (in the following quotations, all participants are referred to using non-specific pronouns to ensure consistency and inclusivity in the written report) go on to speak about how their upbringing instilled in them a mindset of avoiding waste that extends beyond just environmental practices:

“I want to say for as long as I can remember our culture, or just the way we were brought up, is just not be wasteful. That translated to many things outside of just the environment. Talk to anybody I know, I will not leave a single grain of rice on the plate, or else that’s considered wasting food…That’s how we were brought up. And…it translates to a lot of different places.”

—Participant 19 (E)

However, the topic of not being wasteful is not exclusively represented by engagers, as the following quote of Participant 9 (D) demonstrates:

“I don’t know if there’s necessarily anything I do but making sure you’re throwing stuff in the garbage and not contributing to pollution. I don’t like throwing stuff in the garbage and not just like throwing it on the ground. And I use my water bottle a lot of the time so I’m not using plastic straws anymore.”

—Participant 9 (D)

When asked about their level of satisfaction with their current environmental actions both engagers and disengagers expressed wanting to do more for the environment in some capacity. However, some differences occurred for some disengagers who, while recognizing that they could do more for the environment, also reflected on their lack of interest in doing so, as follows:

“I don’t really care. I guess my life, like school starting, moving to whatever city (for) schooling, a job. I run track so, track practice. And then, even when I come home, when you have a busy life, you don’t want to do something you’re not interested in. So, you just do your own thing, which is what I do. So, it’s on the backburner for me.”

—Participant 12 (D)

Like other disengagers, this participant highlighted other priorities in their life that take precedence over their engagement in environmental action; the most telling of these priorities were newfound priorities, like finishing their last year of high school, beginning their transition into post-secondary education, or work commitments.

Both engagers and disengagers identified several barriers that hindered their ability to engage more fully in pro-environmental behaviors. However, the nature and weight of these barriers varied across the two groups. Engagers often recognized external barriers, such as the high cost of sustainable products, limited accessibility to eco-friendly alternatives, and the lack of systemic change (e.g., corporate responsibility and government policies). Despite these challenges, engagers tended to frame these barriers as obstacles to overcome rather than insurmountable roadblocks. For instance, Participant 1 (E) acknowledged the inaccessibility of affordable sustainable products but remained committed to making gradual changes in their daily behavior, as follows:

“But for myself, normally, I won’t necessarily look for items [marked] as the sustainable thing, but I’ll try and make purchases that I know will last a long time. This was super difficult for me because I have ADHD, and I love a good impulse buy, but I do my best to stay away from things that I know I won’t use. Or if I’m getting a drink, I’ll go for the can instead of the bottle because it’s less plastic. But not everything has a sustainable substitute, or one that’s marketed as such, and they can be hard to ship to Canada.”

—Participant 1 (E)

Even with the challenges they experience, they still described trying their best to engage in sustainable actions when they were able to.

Engagers also tended to offer more thought-out ideas to overcome possible barriers to environmental action whether on a personal or national scale. Participant 1 (E) offers their thoughts on overcoming barriers as follows:

“I think there needs to be a lot more nuance in discussions and lawmaking. There hasn’t been a lot of environmental law put in place, which means there’s less to undo. It’s so easy to jump to, ’Okay, we don’t need plastic straws’. But some people might not be able to drink without a plastic straw. So, I think adding more nuance and having a variety of climate activists. I took a social justice class, and one of our projects was to highlight black climate activists. Everyone knows Greta Thunberg, but not many know Autumn Peltier, an indigenous water activist. There are lots of water activists who are white Europeans, but they have better knowledge of their own communities. We need to make sure laws aren’t going to leave certain demographics behind.”

—Participant 1 (E)

Disengagers, on the other hand, cited similar barriers but often used them as reasons for disengagement or inaction. Many disengagers pointed to time constraints, convenience, and the perceived inefficacy of individual actions as key reasons for their lack of environmental engagement. Moreover, disengagers expressed a sense of helplessness in the face of large-scale environmental problems, feeling that their individual actions would not make a significant impact. Participant 13 (D) expresses the following thoughts:

“With climate change, I don’t really think there’s anything I could do to help…I notice in the Arctic how the polar bears are losing their iceberg. Everything is melting. It’s definitely harder to help farther away places than places that are closer.”

—Participant 13 (D)

While both groups face similar external barriers, the internal attitudes and motivations of engagers enabled them to persist in their environmental efforts despite these challenges. Engagers’ proactive mindset, coupled with a willingness to seek out and implement solutions, sets them apart, illustrating the critical role of internal motivation in overcoming obstacles to environmental action.

Overall, it has become evident from these interview examples that the range of activities engagers and disengagers consider for environmental action is not vastly different and is mostly about recycling, reducing waste, and reducing one’s carbon footprint. However, the commitment to actually perform these actions shows marked differences between the two groups. In the present sample, none of the engagers was an environmental activist in the narrow sense of the word, that is engaging in political activism in the public sphere. Rather, engagers could be more aptly characterized as what have been called “everyday activists” [33,34]. Unlike political activism, everyday environmental activism consists of routine actions that collectively contribute to environmental change. This form of activism is generally more realistic for adolescents who are busy with academic commitments, extracurricular activities, work, and various social engagements [12,35]. At the same time, the many commitments adolescents have can easily undermine everyday environmental activism, as they make pro-environmental actions appear extra arduous, inconvenient or, difficult to achieve. Pro-environmental engagement and disengagement in adolescence emerges within this field of conflicting tendencies.

3.2. Connections with Nature

Research identified connectedness with nature as one of the most important single predictors of pro-environmental behavior that operates independently of age, gender, and cultural background [36]. Kaplan and Kaplan [37] argued that it is exactly this nature connectedness that is subject to a “time-out” in the adolescent years, accounting for the “adolescent dip” that has been described in the introduction. Teenagers enjoy nature less than children and adults [37].

In the interview, the relationship with nature was described in positive terms by both engagers and disengagers. Both cited childhood experiences, family outings, and camping as important foundations for their relationship with nature. However, this relationship was characterized by greater continuity in the group of engagers. For engagers, nature often represented a source of solace and well-being. Participants who were classified as engagers not only described nature connectedness as growing over time but also as a motivating factor for working in outdoor environments and other pro-environmental activities, such as teaching children about nature. Several engagers reported rediscovering their appreciation for nature during the COVID-19 lockdown, as they spent more time outdoors due to limited social interactions.

On the other hand, disengagers typically expressed a weakened connection with nature as they transitioned into adolescence. While many shared positive childhood memories associated with outdoor activities, this connection diminished as they grew older, often due to lifestyle changes, increased responsibilities, or distractions from technology. Most disengagers, such as Participant 8, acknowledged that nature had mental health benefits for them, but their engagement with it became sporadic in their teenage years, as they focused more on personal well-being rather than environmental engagement:

“I still love swimming, and going on walks, and being with my friends outdoors. I just don’t feel like it’s the same way it used to be when I was younger. You wouldn’t see me rolling down a hill or tobogganing but I still enjoy being outside. Sometimes when people come over, we’ll sit out on the deck or porch. Times have changed. As you grow up, you don’t have as much time as when you were younger. A lot of time goes into homework. School hours are long, people have commitments like jobs. Interests kind of change.”

—Participant 8 (D)

Overall engagers described more vividness and reflections on their environmental behaviors. This is similar to a quantitative study of Canadian environmental activists [38], which found that activists, compared to non-activists, exhibited higher levels of general identity maturity and environmental identity, attitudes, and actions. Most importantly, using a narrative approach, Matsuba and colleagues found that the environmental stories told by activists were more reflective, showcasing deeper meaning, vividness, and impact [38]. These narratives indicated a more mature form of narrative environmental identity [39]. While this sample does not reflect political environmental activists, we can still see that individuals who had an interest in sustainability regularly cited rich descriptions of moments in their childhood that they described as possible contributors to their connection with nature. Participant 7 (E) describes their experiences as follows:

“I definitely grew up outside…My mom had a cowbell to ring me in for dinner. I spent the majority of my childhood outside…I had lots of friends who lived around me, so we played outside a lot. It wasn’t just individual appreciation for nature, but through a community…We had a play structure in the backyard…We would make different potions with mud and were never afraid to get our hands dirty. Just exploring and feeling comfortable in our own backyards…It was a safe and protected place, like nothing could get to us.”

—Participant 7 (E)

Participant 11 (D), in contrast, described their nature experience in childhood quite differently:

“I played soccer when I was younger, I would go with friends and play manhunt. We had a pool in the backyard I’d be out swimming all the time.”

—Participant 11 (D)

This participant goes on to describe how they felt differently about being outside in their teenage years versus when they were around the age of 12:

“I feel like I didn’t appreciate [nature] as much in my teenage years as I did when I was little. As a kid I didn’t really pay attention to how beautiful it is to be outside and how nice it is to be outside. Because you get consumed with other responsibilities. When you’re outside, you’re not in the moment, not appreciating where you are. But when you’re little, you’re just having fun, enjoying the weather and everything.”

—Participant 11 (D)

Participant 3 (D) finds a sense of belonging and rejuvenation in nature, but their engagement is often hindered by the demands of daily life and a historically weaker connection to nature. Although they enjoy activities, like hiking, birdwatching, and gardening, these are primarily driven by the mental health benefits and sensory experiences that nature provides. Participant 3 describes feeling a stronger connection to nature when they are outside, linking it to improved mental health: “I noticed when I’m away from nature too long like staying inside going to like cities with no green I get kind of depressed”. They explain that being in nature is “very healing”. This awareness of nature’s positive impact on their well-being has grown over time, yet it competes with the pressures of work and school, leading to a sense of disconnection when not actively engaged in outdoor activities. They acknowledge the need for nature but struggle to prioritize it amid other commitments: “I feel like I have roots in nature that I’ve almost been pulled away from because of, work and school, and everyday life”.

In contrast, Participant 16 (E), maintains a consistent and deep connection with nature, rooted in both personal enjoyment and a broader understanding of human-nature interdependence. They express a strong sense of calm and happiness when outdoors, often engaging in walks and hikes that allow them to explore and appreciate different natural environments. Participant 16 noted, “I just feel better when I’m in nature. I really enjoy being outside, and I like going on really long walks. It’s very calming, I think it’s been good for the soul”. Their connection is further reinforced by their desire to integrate nature into their future career, as they aspire to “intertwine, like career and my future with nature” they emphasize, “I really like animals, I want to do a minor in biology so I can work with animals in rehabilitation when I’m older”. Participant 16 (E) developed a greater respect for nature as they matured, driven by an awareness of environmental issues, like climate change. This respect fuels their motivation to stay connected, even amid concerns about the future of the natural world. Unlike Participant 3, Participant 16’s engagement is less about immediate mental health benefits and more about a lifelong commitment to nature.

This example reflects the broader patterns observed among engagers and disengagers. Engagers often maintain a deeper, more integrated connection with nature that extends beyond personal well-being. They recognize the broader benefits of nature, fostering a sense of community and environmental stewardship, and are motivated by a desire to protect and preserve the environment they live in. In contrast, disengagers may struggle to prioritize their connection to nature due to competing demands in their daily lives, often focusing on immediate mental health benefits rather than a broader environmental commitment.

3.3. Family, Peers, and School

Family and peers loom large in any textbook on adolescence as two major contexts that shape adolescent development in various ways. Correspondingly, their influence on adolescents’ pro-environmental awareness and behavior has been documented multiple times [40,41,42].

Family influences were mentioned repeatedly by our interviewees as the most important factor in shaping their environmental engagement. This was the case for both engagers and disengagers, with parental examples recognized by adolescents regardless of the level of parental engagement.

For engagers, family influence often reinforced their proactive environmental behaviors. There was a strong narrative of familial support and guidance in fostering environmental awareness and habits. Engagers frequently mentioned their parents, siblings, or grandparents as role models who instilled values of sustainability, recycling, and respect for nature. For example, Participant 17 (E) highlighted the impact of his mother’s environmentally friendly practices as follows:

“My mom is very environmentally friendly and has tried to pass that down to her kids as well. So, my mom has influenced me the most. She is an ecologist and she’s very conscious about recycling, being outside, and making sure we use the car as little as possible and walk everywhere. So, it’s kind of ingrained in me at this point.”

—Participant 17 (E)

The participant’s mother, an ecologist, modeled various environmentally conscious behaviors, such as recycling and minimizing car use. These practices became ingrained in their daily routine, illustrating how parental influence can embed environmental values from a young age. Additionally, engagers often expressed a sense of autonomy in forming their own environmental opinions, building on the foundational values instilled by their parents:

“I would say yes and no, on some things my parents have a really big influence. But now that I’m older, I feel like I still respect my parents’ values and opinions, but I’m old enough to know the consequences of my actions. Obviously, I still listen to my parents’ advice, but I can form my own opinions on how to protect the environment. I still use the recycling bin and green bin, but maybe also put solar panels on my future house or buy more consciously. My parents are not as conscious buyers as I am. They definitely have a big influence on how I see the environment. My dad is really big on nature, and he’ll always be in nature during breaks, which has pushed me to be more with nature.”

—Participant 6 (E)

The reflections highlight how initial parental influence can evolve into independent environmental engagement as adolescents mature.

In contrast, while disengagers also recognized family influence, this impact was more limited and less consistent. Although many participants noted that their families engaged in basic sustainable practices, like recycling or composting, these behaviors were often described as routine or passive, without a deeper commitment to environmentalism. Additionally, some disengagers, such as Participant 9, reported that family influence waned as they grew older and they turned to the Internet for information:

“Well, I don’t spend as much time with them as I did when I was a kid. Google is a thing now on my own phone, I just search it up when I need to know something. So it’s less like asking them for information. I don’t know if their connection with nature is any less, I just feel like my connection with them and nature is”

—Participant 9 (D)

Furthermore, disengagers reported minimal environmental discussions within their families, leading to a lack of proactive engagement. Participant 18’s experience exemplifies this lack of influence: “Not really, we don’t talk about environmental topics at home really. Only occasionally when my brother brings it up, because he’s a biology major.”—Participant 18 (D). Additional responses from disengagers further illustrate this lack of engagement, as follows:

“[My parents] have been staying inside more. Might influence me to stay in too. Because if they’re not going and doing it, then I’m not influenced to.”

—Participant 11 (D)

“I can’t think of any reason why [environmental issues] is not really talked about [in my family].”

—Participant 5 (D)

While parents and the broader family context are generally recognized as influential for both engagers and disengagers, the role of peers and school, by contrast, is downplayed. Engagers regularly highlighted that they made their own decisions about their pro-environmental engagement regardless of school and peer opinions, as Participant 19 (E) stresses:

“My family or friends don’t really talk about [the environment]. I know all of my friends recycle but I don’t know what more they do. I don’t know their influence on me, especially because they don’t really, further my knowledge, understanding or criticize me or anything, in what I’m doing wrong, you know? I don’t know if they’ve ever had an impact or influence on me. My main influence would just be my family because I live here and adopt the things that we all do.”

—Participant 19 (E)

Both engagers and disengagers made note that, generally, environmental issues were not thoroughly discussed in schools and not a topic of interest in their friend groups. A few disengagers speak to their experiences as follows:

“Wasn’t really a class with a curriculum on [environmental issues]. They still taught us about, climate change and all that stuff. But it didn’t really have much of an influence on me.”

—Participant 5 (D)

“I had one teacher who would play birds, like a bird feeder [video] in the morning…During COVID, they would take us on walks, so I feel like going out for a quick walk helped with nature…I’ve had some teachers that were way more connected [to nature] than others. But I wouldn’t say they did anything specific to help with a connection [between me and nature].”

—Participant 9 (D)

Participant 9, goes on to discuss classes that may have had a small influence on their environmental attitudes, as follows:

“Not an overly big influence, but probably science, because it’s learning about nature and the environment. With COVID, they cut back, so there could have been other classes [about nature], but during COVID, there weren’t. I wouldn’t say there’s any classes that really stand out to me that connected with nature other than science. Maybe history in a sense, because you’re learning about natural disasters.”

—Participant 9 (D)

Disengagers consistently expressed the view that discussing environmental issues with their peer groups was highly uncommon:

“To be honest, not at all. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to my friends about [the Environment] I don’t think it’s very interesting. Not really a big topic with them. So just never talked about it.”

—Participant 15 (D)

“Usually, teenagers don’t just talk about, climate change and recycling with each other. It kind of just seems weird to me.”

—Participant 5 (D)

Peers have been highlighted as a major influence in various aspects of adolescent development; however, this may not be the case when it comes to environmental issues. One possible explanation for this is that adolescents may increasingly recognize the environment as a significant political issue [43,44]. Politics are typically highly sensitive topics among peer groups and are often avoided in discussions [44]. This avoidance could result in a lack of peer influence on environmental stances. Additionally, political drivers and broader societal narratives may be having a more substantial impact on adolescents’ environmental attitudes than peers or school [45,46]. This shift could indicate that adolescents are more influenced by the political and social discourse surrounding environmental issues, rather than their immediate social circles of peers or the school environment.

3.4. Social Media

Towards the end of the interview and after talking about various contexts and experiences that might have influenced participants’ views of environmental issues and their pro-environmental engagement, they were asked about what influenced them most. The majority of interviewees (11 out of 19), highlighted social media as the biggest influence, with an almost equal split between engagers and disengagers. However, there were notable differences in how each group utilized social media as their primary environmental influence.

For engagers, social media served as a catalyst for action and deeper engagement with environmental issues. This group actively sought knowledge and used the information they encountered online to drive their environmental behaviors. Engagers reported vivid online interactions that translated into meaningful actions. For instance, Participant 14 (E) mentioned the following:

“Seeing people facing the damages of wildfires or air pollution, seeing animals dying, and species going extinct…motivated me to do more and do more research. Also, seeing different documentaries and people being active in saving the environment really inspired me. It made me feel sad because I see people and animals suffer. Ever since I was a kid, I would take animals and bring them home to care for them. It really made me sad. So that’s what’s been motivating me more now.”

—Participant 14 (E)

This quote exemplifies how engagers described transforming their online experiences into real-world actions. They are not just passive consumers of information; they are motivated to research, engage, and take tangible steps toward environmental protection, often stating that they sought out practical ways to contribute, even if on a small scale:

“I won’t save the world alone. But little things can make a difference.”

—Participant 1 (E)

Some engagers also expressed frustration with the superficiality of some social media trends, criticizing the lack of depth in many environmental campaigns. Participant 7 articulated this concern as follows:

“Teenagers and adolescents rely on social media a lot. And that’s not just, Instagram and TikTok. But also different means of media. Even just communicating with friend is like a trend nowadays. So things will wave in and wave out. Climate change and the environment is something that stays consistent. It’s something that you have to work at consistently. And honestly, adolescents’ attention span is so small, that’s why we have trends because there’s always something new to pick up. You see the fires in Hawaii, that’s something that people are like, ‘oh, donate money, donate money’ but by next week, there’s still families that are going to be affected by it. But, everybody will have forgotten.”

—Participant 7 (E)

The participant’s observation suggests a high-level interest and investment in online environmental campaigns, indicating that they have thought deeply about the challenges of maintaining attention and action in the digital age. Moreover, this critique underscores the need for more robust and sustained environmental education and advocacy that goes beyond the short-lived nature of social media trends, aiming to foster a deeper, more enduring connection to environmental causes among adolescents.

In contrast, disengagers exhibited a more passive approach to social media. While they were exposed to similar information, their engagement remained superficial, and they often felt overwhelmed, by the volume of information and desensitized to the constant stream of negative news about climate change and environmental degradation. This desensitization sometimes contributed to their disengagement, as they struggled to connect emotionally with issues that felt distant or abstract. Participant 12’s response illustrates this passive consumption as follows:

“I feel like social media is a big influence on like, half? Yeah. For example, I wouldn’t know, the fires in Hawaii, were happening if I wasn’t on Instagram or if I didn’t have Apple news. I feel like social media has a big influence. And it teaches me, what’s happening, where. Even the fires in Alberta. I wouldn’t know because I’m not interested in like looking up, ‘oh, like what’s happening recently?’ Like it’s not an interest. You know what I mean?”

—Participant 12 (D)

Participant 12’s words reveal a sense of detachment and lack of engagement. While they acknowledge social media as a key source of information about environmental events, such as the wildfires in Hawaii and Alberta, their interaction remains passive. This participant relies on social media and news apps for updates but lacks the interest to seek out information independently. This passive consumption results in awareness without action; they recognize social media’s role in keeping them informed but are not motivated to take further steps beyond this basic awareness. This broad but shallow awareness was consistent in other disengagers. Other disengages expressed sadness and a desire to help but did not take any concrete steps toward environmental action:

“It’s just kind of sad you want to help to revert that.”

—Participant 15 (D)

While social media was a prevalent influence for both groups, engagers used it as a springboard for action and deeper involvement, whereas disengagers remained passive consumers of information.

4. Conclusions

The present study was based on the notion that the development of pro-environmental behavior might be more malleable and context-dependent than previously assumed. As a consequence, it appears problematic to assume a general developmental trend in adolescents’ pro-environmental behavior that holds independently of social and cultural contexts and independently of historical time. From this perspective, the “adolescent dip”, that is the general decline in pro-environmental engagement, which has been reported repeatedly over the past 20 years, might be reflective of specific context conditions rather than a universal trend. The present study sought to identify context conditions that might be associated with a decline in environmental engagement in adolescence, reminiscent of an adolescent dip. We did so by contrasting two trajectories in pro-environmental behavior, one characterized by significant increases and one defined by the opposite. We interviewed two groups of adolescents (dubbed “Engagers” and “Disengagers”) about the meaning of pro-environmental engagement, their relationship with nature, the influence of parents, peers, school, and media, and the changes in these factors that they experienced over their adolescent years.

By reviewing their answers, it became evident that there is no single factor that accounts for the difference between the two groups. All teenagers described memorable nature experiences in childhood and adolescence as important to them, e.g., when going camping or spending parts of their summer vacation at a cabin or cottage with their family. All of the teenagers who participated in this research were growing up in family households where parents had established basic routines of sustainability behavior, such as recycling or composting. All teenagers had access to public transportation and had relied on it to some extent in the past. Last but not least, all teenagers had access to a wealth of media coverage about environmental sustainability (and lack thereof) and the dire consequences of climate change (forest fires, flooding, rising sea levels etc.), and had learned about it in school. In the early 2020s in a Western liberal democracy, such as Canada, it is almost impossible to ignore this information and not be exposed to basic practices of sustainability behavior. Nonetheless, teenagers differ in what they make out of it. For the group of disengagers, environmental concerns moved more and more into the background as other themes, goals, and projects came to the forefront over the adolescent period. Succeeding in high school, embarking on an educational or vocational career, building lasting relationships with peers, and establishing their first steps into independence from their parents’ home were at the top of their agenda. Coping with these developmental tasks is, as such, demanding and makes any additional engagement for the environment appear to be tacked on, inconvenient, and difficult to achieve. For disengagers’ parents, peers and school do not function as supportive contexts in this situation and do not help them to maintain their level of pro-environmental engagement. On top of this, there is a general sense of futility and hopelessness around the future of the natural environment that allows teenagers to easily disengage from environmental obligations or responsibilities.

Largely different is the profile of engagers. They started to engage more in environmental issues as they grew older and made pro-environmental engagement part of their own projects, goals, and perhaps identity. Engagers actively sought out information online as they expanded their engagement. As a consequence, their environmental engagement became increasingly independent from the family, peer, and school contexts. It is important to note that in the present study, engaging vs. disengaging in environmental issues was not a byproduct of an increased politicalization of environmental issues along typical party lines. Neither group, i.e., engagers and disengagers, articulated specific political views in relationship to their environmental (dis)engagement.

Ultimately, it is, thus, the process of engagement and disengagement itself that accounts for the different trajectories that were targeted in the present study. This may sound somewhat circular, explaining the outcome by the process. However, it is fully consistent with a dynamic systems view on development, which maintains that individuals actively shape their environment as much as they are influenced by it. Both constantly interact. It is, therefore, not possible to understand context as a factor that operates independently from the individual person. Teenagers create the contexts that influence their pro-environmental engagement as much as they are influenced by them.

This study, as a qualitative extension of a previous longitudinal research project, encountered several notable limitations. Participant attrition was a persistent issue, as a significant number of participants dropped out over the 4-year duration of data collection. Moreover, only about 50% of participants who were invited for the interview actually agreed to participate. As a consequence, it is impossible to gauge how well the interviews conducted in this study represent the two targeted groups, i.e., “Engagers” versus “Disengagers”. The inherent subjectivity in qualitative research further complicated the analysis, and the typically smaller, non-random samples of “Engagers” and “Disengagers” may limit the generalizability of the findings. Despite these challenges, the study provided valuable insights into the dynamics of change and continuity over time, highlighting the importance of addressing these limitations in future research.

This study offers several significant benefits, particularly in its novel approach to understanding adolescent environmental engagement. It is the first of its kind to encourage “disengaged” and “engaged” adolescents to qualitatively reflect on the contexts influencing their environmental awareness, providing a richer, more nuanced understanding of these influences. Additionally, it challenges traditional lines of thought by showing that school and peer influences may not be as effective as previously believed in shaping adolescent environmental attitudes.

Future research should explore the strong influence of social media for environmental engagement identified in this study. Investigating how these influences can be harnessed to enhance educational curricula and community programs could provide more effective pathways for engaging adolescents in meaningful environmental actions. Additionally, expanding the research to include a broader range of demographic and cultural contexts would help to generalize the findings and offer insights into how different environments might uniquely shape environmental attitudes and behaviors.