Keywords

1 Introduction

Direct and personal interaction with nature is diminishing, in an ongoing alienation termed the “extinction of experience” (Pyle, 2003). Its causes are loss of opportunity (e.g., space and time for exploring nature) and loss of orientation (e.g., positive feelings and attitudes towards nature) (Soga & Gaston, 2016). Loss of orientation is particularly relevant for biology education because educational programs can develop and foster secondary school students’ positive feelings and attitudes towards nature (Baird et al., 2022). Concerning positive attitudes towards nature, research has focused mainly on nature connectedness, which is a multi-dimensional psychological trait that refers to a person’s belief about the extent to which they are part of nature, their emotional relationship with nature, and their experience with it (Richardson et al., 2019). For school-aged children, nature connectedness declines after early childhood before recovering in adulthood (Richardson et al., 2019). This is problematic because for school-aged children nature connectedness predicts interest in participating in nature-based activities (Cheng & Monroe, 2012), and high levels of nature connectedness are associated with pro-environmental behavior (Hughes et al., 2018).

The present study applies a recent relevance framework for science education (Priniski et al., 2018) to the field of research in secondary school students’ nature experiences. The authors of the framework argue that personal relevance is a key driver of motivation. The motivation to seek contact with nature is a neglected – but potentially important – aspect of school-aged children’s extinction of experience. More specifically, the extent to which the perceived personal relevance of a nature experience contributes to the motivation to engage in a nature experience of the same kind is poorly understood. For example, Tal and Morag (2009) report on secondary school students’ lack of motivation to engage in outdoor education, but researchers have so far neglected to research the role of motivation in this context in more detail. Therefore, this study examines secondary school students’ out-of-school, free-choice nature experiences from the perspective of perceived personal relevance. More specifically, the focus of this study lies on variables related to students’ perception of the personal relevance of their own nature experience. For educators, knowledge of these variables is useful because they can use them as pathways to increase the personal relevance of nature experiences in outdoor teaching and increase the students’ motivation to make more frequent contact with nature (for a similar pathway approach, see Lumber et al., 2017).

2 Theoretical Background

The authors of a recent framework for relevance research define personal relevance as an individual’s perception of the degree to which a stimulus (e.g., having a nature experience) has some relation to the individual personally (Priniski et al., 2018). More specifically, personal relevance is an important variable in three major motivation theories, the four-phase-model of interest development, expectancy-value theory, and self-determination theory. In the four-phase-model of interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), for example, personal relevance may trigger situational interest and support the development of individual interest. Furthermore, the authors of the framework predict that the more personally relevant a person perceives a stimulus to be, the more motivated she or he is to reengage with it (Priniski et al., 2018). Analogously, this study examines the hypothesis that secondary school students who perceive their nature experiences as personally relevant are more likely to re-engage in similar experiences than students who perceive their nature experiences as less personally relevant. This hypothesis is relevant because research has shown that the frequency of nature experiences is correlated with nature connectedness, as well as pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (Oh et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the authors of the framework conceptualize personal relevance as a continuum, ranging from personal association to identification (see Fig. 19.1): At the low end of the continuum, personal association describes the perception that the stimulus is connected to some other object or memory that is personally relevant. Thus, the perception of relevance is indirect because the stimulus is not perceived relevant in and of itself, but rather through association to something else. For example, an individual might find a nature experience relevant because it involves something else – bringing guinea pigs outside to play with them, for example – which is fun for the student and makes going out into nature indirectly personally relevant. Personal usefulness is in the middle of the continuum. It describes the perception that the stimulus can be used to fulfill an important personal goal. For example, a person finds going out into nature personally relevant because the natural setting is beautiful and fulfills the desire to be in an unspoiled place with no cars and no loud noises. At the high end, identification describes the perception that the stimulus is highly relevant because it is integrated into one’s identity. For example, an individual who identifies as a nature lover (someone who loves birds, plants, etc.) finds nature experiences highly relevant because they are an opportunity to confirm one’s identity.

Fig. 19.1
An illustration. A rightward arrow block has 3 elements, labeled, personal association, personal usefulness, and identification, in order from left to right.

Personal relevance as a continuum ranging from personal association to identification. (According to Priniski et al., 2018)

Full size image

This application of the framework for relevance research is compatible with broader frameworks which define ecological identity as “one part of the way in which people form their self-concept: a sense of connection to some part of the non-human-natural environment” (Clayton, 2003, p. 46). More specifically, the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience investigated in this study can be considered to be one aspect of the ecological self-concept, which is defined as a collection of beliefs one holds about oneself and nature.

3 Research Rationale and Purpose

This study explores variables related to secondary school students’ perceived personal relevance of their nature experiences and the associations between perceived personal relevance and the frequency of such nature experiences. Methodologically, this study differs from prior studies on students’ nature experiences which used pre-formulated items to investigate the different dimensions of high school students’ anticipated nature experiences (Bögeholz, 1999) or retrospective designs, with adults commenting on their childhood nature experiences (Chawla, 1999). In this study, in contrast, we asked secondary school students to portray a moment or situation in nature that really occurred, rate its perceived personal relevance and indicate how frequently such moments or situations in nature are.

This study has the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    How personally relevant do the secondary school students of this sample perceive their nature experience and what variables are associated with the perceived personal relevance?

  2. 2.

    To what extent are the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience and its frequency associated?

4 Research Design and Method

In order to describe the methodology of the study, we first report on the participants and setting (see Sect. 19.4.1), before explaining the “draw and write” research method (Angeli et al., 2015) which we used – in combination with questionnaire items – to elicit secondary school students’ nature experiences, their perceived personal relevance of the nature experience, and the frequency of such nature experiences (see Sect. 19.4.2).

4.1 Participants and Setting

The sample of this study consisted of a total of 70 secondary school students (41 female; 29 male, aged 10–18 years) from three classes of one secondary school in a small town (30,000–40,000 inhabitants) located in an area in Lower Saxony, Germany. More specifically, 23 students (11 female; 12 male) were in grade 5 (aged 10–11 years), 26 students (18 female; 8 male) in grade 8 (aged 13–15 years) and 21 students (12 female; 9 male) in grade 11 (aged 16–18 years).

The school was located in a district close to the border with the Netherlands which was less densely populated (107 inhabitants per square kilometer) than the average in Lower Saxony (168 inhabitants per square kilometer). We chose this secondary school randomly to test the “draw and write” method for eliciting students’ nature experiences because we plan to use the test instrument with a larger sample of secondary schools. The school is located in a district dominated by agriculture (65% of the district), which is above the average for Lower Saxony (61%). Woodlands account for 17% of the district, which is below the average for Lower Saxony (21%). Furthermore, the district has a relatively strong industrial workforce (92 industrial jobs per 1000 inhabitants), which ranks above the average in Lower Saxony (75 industrial jobs per 1000 inhabitants) (Landesamt für Statistik Niedersachsen, 2007).

4.2 Assessment Instrument and Data Collection

We used a standardized questionnaire for data collection. The assignment was: “Draw an image and write a text about a moment or a situation in nature, which you remember particularly well.” Because the title and the assignment used the term “nature”, we informed the students that the term included all kinds of nature, for example places inside and outside the city, untouched nature (for example wilderness) and human-made nature (for example botanical gardens). Furthermore, we asked the students to rate the following questions: How often are such moments/situations in nature for you? (very often, often, rare, very rare); How personally relevant are such moments/situations in nature for you? (very relevant, relevant, not so relevant, not relevant at all); Did the moment/situation occur in the context of biology instruction? (yes, no); Should biology instruction provide more frequent opportunities for such moments/situations? (yes, no). Finally, we asked the students to give a reason for the last question (open response).

The author of this study obtained permission from the head of the high school to collect data. For minor students, parents were asked to give written consent. Additionally, students were informed about the aims of the study and their right to decline to participate. The questionnaire was administered during regular biology classes, and the students were provided the full class period of 45 minutes to respond. Data collection took place in the summer of 2019.

4.3 Data Coding and Analysis

Data coding focused on inner and outer aspects of the secondary school students’ nature experiences (see Sect. 19.4.3.1). For data analysis, we related these variables to the students’ perceived personal relevance of the nature experience and investigated the association between the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience and its frequency (see Sect. 19.4.3.2).

4.3.1 Nature Experience

In order to characterize the students’ nature experiences, data coding focused on outer aspects (setting, type of interaction, entities encountered and social context), as well as inner aspects (emotions, aesthetic judgments) of the nature experience. This distinction was guided by Matthew Zylstra, who described meaningful nature experiences as “a continuous shifting interaction between the inner and outer” dimensions (Zylstra, 2014, 241). More specifically, we analyzed the following aspects:

  • the setting of the nature experience (Where did the nature experience happen? Was it a natural setting or a human-made setting? Was the setting close to school or a vacation setting?),

  • the student’s interaction with nature (What did the student do? Which senses were involved?),

  • the entities in nature the student encountered (Did the nature experience involve plants, animals, the landscape?),

  • the social context (Which people were involved in the nature experience?),

  • the emotions and aesthetic judgments elicited by the nature experience (Did the students describe positive or negative emotions? Did the students comment on the beauty of nature?).

Concerning the middle and high school students’ interactions with nature, our analyses were guided deductively by the following five types of interactions (Bögeholz, 1999, 2006; Lude, 2001):

  • the aesthetic dimension: enjoying the beauty of plants animals, landscapes,

  • the exploratory dimension: observing animals, looking closely at plants and exploring natural places,

  • the instrumental dimension: cultivating and using parts of plants, as well as breeding or caring for domestic animals,

  • the recreational dimension: playing and doing leisure activities in nature,

  • the social dimension: having a strong emotional relation to a pet.

Concerning the inner aspects (emotions, aesthetic judgments of the nature experience) of the secondary school students’ nature experiences, our categories of analysis were formed deductively by the nature connectedness inventory (Lumber et al., 2017), which distinguishes between the positive emotions of happiness (e.g., “Being outdoors makes me happy”) and amazement (e.g., “I find being in nature really amazing”), as well as aesthetic evaluations of beauty (e.g., “I always find beauty in nature”). Inductively, we formed the categories “cool”, “fun”, “relaxing”, and “interesting”, which we categorized as positive evaluations.

To characterize the diversity of nature experiences, two independent coders, the author of this paper and a person not involved in the research, independently aligned the 70 nature experiences with the five dimensions of nature experience. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.84, which we interpreted as almost perfect interrater reliability according to Landis and Koch (1977).

4.3.2 Statistical Analyses

In order to investigate which variables are associated with the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience (RQ 1 and RQ 2), we used Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis H Tests because the data for the variables “perceived personal relevance of the nature experience” and “frequency of the nature experiences” was not normally distributed. We report on effect size r, which is small for 0.10 – < 0.30, medium for 0.30 –< 0.50 and large for ≥0.50. In non-parametric tests, the observed data is converted into ranks. Nevertheless, when we report on the significance level of the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis H Test, we also report on means and standard deviation to show differences between the groups of students we compared which are invisible when mean ranks are reported. To report means and standard deviations, we coded the categories “very often” and “very relevant” as 4 and “very rare” and “not relevant at all” as 1. Accordingly, high mean values signal high perception of personal relevance and high frequency of the nature experience. In the context of RQ 2, we used Spearman’s Rho to measure the strength of association between “perceived personal relevance of the nature experience” and “frequency of the nature experiences.” We considered correlation coefficients between 0.50 and 0.70 as moderate, and between 0.3 and 0.5 as low. We used T-Test statistics only once for comparing the mean age of students in the recreational and exploratory groups of nature experiences. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 28.

5 Results

To report the results of this study, we provide an overview of students’ nature experiences (see Sect. 19.5.1). Then we present findings to answer the two research questions, first on inner and outer aspects of the nature experience and their association with perceived personal relevance (see Sect. 19.5.2), and second on the extent to which the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience and its frequency are associated (see Sect. 19.5.3).

5.1 Overview: Secondary School Students’ Nature Experiences

The secondary school students described a broad range of differing personal experiences, which occurred in a variety of natural and human-made settings, and consisted of clearly recognizable interactions with nature. The majority of the nature experiences were exploratory (N = 34; 47%) and recreational (N = 29; 40%). Among the recreational experiences, there was a fairly large group of nature experiences focusing on building huts or tepees from branches in the woods. Fewer nature experiences were instrumental (n = 2; 3%), social (n = 2; 3%), and purely aesthetic (N = 5; 7%). Generally, visual impressions dominated the descriptions, for example looking at a sunset, although there were also a few descriptions mentioning other sensations, like feeling the sunshine, listening to birds or music, and tasting self-grown vegetables. Furthermore, the descriptions differed in terms of the entities involved in the nature experience: plants (n = 14; 19%), animals (n = 20; 28%), both plants and animals (n = 7; 10%), and other aspects of nature, like the landscape or the sunset, but neither plants nor animals (n = 31, 43%). Thus 57% of the secondary school students described nature experiences involving plants and/or animals, whereas 43% of the secondary school students described nature experiences without plants and/or animals.

Furthermore, secondary school students’ nature experiences had the following social contexts: family (n = 22; 31%), one (best) friend (n = 14; 19%), unspecified group of people (n = 14; 19%), kindergarten group (n = 5; 7%), and school class (n = 2; 3%). Fifteen secondary school students (21%) reported that they were alone during their nature experience. For other students, spending time with friends, or being with one’s best friend, was an essential aspect of the nature experience. The majority of the secondary school students (n = 49; 71%) evaluated their nature experiences explicitly positively. Three students (4%) commented negatively on their nature experience, and 17 students (25%) described their nature experience in neutral terms, without using any positive or negative evaluations. The students whose texts conveyed positive evaluations mainly used evaluative adjectives, like “fascinating”, “interesting”, “nice”, and “fun”, but also explicit descriptions of feelings and reflections of the experience. The most frequently used evaluative adjectives were “beautiful” (n = 22), “cool” (n = 18), “fun” (n = 13), “relaxing” (n = 10), and “interesting” (n = 6). Furthermore, the students stated that their nature experiences provided opportunities for learning (n = 1) and inspiration (n = 1), made them feel connected to nature (n = 2), happy (n = 1), and good being in one’s favorite place (n = 1), as well as having a new experience (n = 1). Very few students (n = 3; 4%) evaluated their nature experiences negatively. For example, one student described a day hike in the mountains (including the trees, the trail covered with ground bark and the beautiful sky), but wrote that he did not like the nature experience.

Often, the secondary school students’ nature experience elicited emotions, for example, “happiness” and “awe”, which the students explicitly mentioned. Furthermore, the descriptions contained aesthetic judgments, mainly descriptions of natural beauty. Except for one student who provided a description of the pattern of moss on one side of the tree, we did not identify any specialized biological knowledge. Instead, the students’ descriptions of nature experiences clearly conveyed a personal feeling of lived experience, and not of school biology.

5.2 Findings for RQ 1: How Personally Relevant Do the Secondary School Students of this Sample Perceive Their Nature Experience and What Variables Are Associated with the Perceived Personal Relevance?

In our sample, secondary school students rated the perceived personal relevance of their own nature experiences (N = 69; M 3.10; SD .91) well above the theoretical mean of the scale (M 2.5). We observed considerable variation in the ratings as revealed by the standard deviation.

5.2.1 Age and Gender

We observed statistically significant age differences (p = .001) between students in grade 5 (M 3.65 SD .48), grade 8 (M 2.84 SD .89), and grade 11 (M 2.81 SD 1.03). The significant differences were between students in grade 5 and 8 (p = .003), and between students in grade 5 and 11 (p = .008), that is, students in grade 5 assessed higher personal relevance compared to students in grade 8 and in grade 11. Both effect sizes are medium (d = .46 and d = .45). Looking at the complete sample, gender differences were not statistically significant (p = .058), although females (N = 40; M 3.30 SD .75) rated their nature experiences as more personally relevant than males (N = 29; M 2.83 SD 1.03). In grade 5, however, females (N = 11; M 3.91 SD .30) perceived their nature experiences significantly (p = .027) more personally meaningful than males (N = 12; M 3.42 SD .51). The effect size is large (r = .50). In grade 8, differences between females (N = 11; M 3.06 SD .65) and males (N = 8; M 2.38 SD 1.18) were not significant (p = .107). Likewise, in grade 11 differences between females (N = 12; M 3.08 SD .90) and males (N = 9; M 2.44 SD 1.13) were not significant (p = .189) either.

5.2.2 Setting of the Nature Experience

79% of the nature experiences occurred in natural settings and 21% in human-made settings. Furthermore, we distinguished between nature experiences occurring in settings close to school/home (n = 46, 64%), settings within the range of a day trip from home (n = 8; 11%), and settings far away from home, which the students visited on a longer vacation (n = 18; 25%). The latter were often exotic settings, like the Namib, Antarctica and the Grand Canyon.

Secondary school students perceived their nature experiences as more personally relevant (p = .025) when it occurred in human-made settings (N = 16; M 3.50 SD .81) than when it occurred in natural settings (N = 53; M 2.98 SD .90). The effect size is small (r = .27). We observed no significant differences in the students’ perceived personal relevance of their nature experiences concerning the distance of the setting of the nature experience from home (close to home, within a daytrip from home, vacation) (p = .213).

5.2.3 Interactions with Nature

The main types of interactions were the exploratory (N = 32) and the recreational dimension (N = 28). We observed no statistically significant differences (p = .120) regarding the students’ ratings of personal relevance when we compared exploratory (N = 32; M 3.03 SD .86), recreational (N = 28; M 3.00 SD 1.01) and “other” nature experiences (N = 9; M 3.67 SD .50). The category “other” nature experiences combined students from the aesthetic, instrumental and social dimensions.

5.2.4 Entities Encountered in Nature

We observed no significant differences (p = .722) in the students’ perceived personal relevance of their nature experiences when we compared secondary school students whose descriptions mentioned plants and/or animals (N = 39; M 3.12 SD .92) and secondary school students whose descriptions did not mention plants and/or animals (N = 29; M 3.07 SD .90).

5.2.5 Social Context of the Nature Experience

We observed no statistically significant differences (p = .09) between secondary school students whose nature experience occurred with a friend (N = 14; M 3.43 SD .64), with family members (N = 20; M 3.35 SD .67), alone (N = 15; M 3.07 SD .88), in an unspecified group (N = 14; M 2.86 SD 1.09), and a school class/kindergarten group (N = 6; M 2.17 SD 1.16).

5.2.6 Emotions and Aesthetic Judgements Elicited by the Nature Experience

Positive evaluations of the nature experience and explicit descriptions of the beauty of nature were associated with the secondary school students’ perception of personal relevance. More specifically, students perceived their nature experiences as more personally relevant (p = .011) when they evaluated their nature experience explicitly positively and/or mentioned the beauty of nature (N = 49; M 3.33 SD .65) compared to students who neither evaluated their nature experiences, nor mentioned the beauty of nature (N = 17; M 2.53 SD 1.17). The effect size is medium (r = .31). There were too few students who evaluated their nature experiences explicitly negatively (N = 3; M 2.67 SD 1.52) to include them in the tests of statistical significance.

5.3 Findings for RQ 2: To What Extent Are the Perceived Personal Relevance of the Nature Experience and Its Frequency Associated?

Secondary school students rated the frequency of their nature experience (N = 68; M 2.68; SD .92) slightly above the theoretical mean of the scale (M 2.5).

We observed statistically significant age differences (p = .011) between students in grade 5, 10–11 years old (N = 22; M 3.09 SD .81), grade 8, 13–15 years old (N = 26; M 2.65 SD .93) and grade 11, 16–18 years old (N = 29; M 2.25 SD .85), (F(2,65) = 4.88; p = .011). The statistically significant difference was between grade 5 and grade 11 (p = .008). The effect size is medium (d = .46). Furthermore, in the whole sample, female students (N = 39; M 2.85 SD .87) rated the frequency of their nature experience higher than male students (N = 29; M 2.45 SD .94), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = .075). In grade 8, however, females (N = 18; M 3.00 SD .76) rated the frequency of their nature experiences significantly higher (p = .003) than males (N = 8; M 1.88 SD .83). The effect size is large (r = .55). In grade 5, differences between females (N = 10; M 3.30 SD .65) and males (N = 12; M 2.92 SD .90) were not significant (p = .091). Likewise, in grade 11, differences between females (N = 11; M 2.18 SD .87) and males (N = 9; M 2.33 SD .89) were not significant (p = .769) either.

Note that we asked the students to rate the frequency of the nature experience they had described and not of their nature experiences in general. The specificity of the information allows us to test the hypothesis that students who find a specific nature experience personally relevant seek to re-engage in it. Correlational analyses revealed a low positive (rs = .42) and statistically significant relationship (p = .001) between the secondary school students’ perceived relevance of their nature experience (all three types combined) and the frequency of such nature experiences. We calculated correlation coefficients for each of the three types of interactions (exploratory, recreational and other). For recreational nature experiences, the relationship was moderate (rs = .51) and statistically significant (p = .006). For exploratory nature experiences (rs = .29; p = .102) and for other nature experiences (aesthetic, instrumental and social combined) (rs = .49; p = .237), in contrast, we found no statistically significant associations between perceived personal relevance and the frequency of the nature experience.

Almost all secondary school students (98%) indicated that the nature experience described did not occur in the context of biology education. The only student, whose moment occurred in the context of biology education, described the activity of taking nature photos for a biology class. The majority (N = 59, 82%) advocated that biology instruction provide more frequent opportunities for the kinds of nature experiences the students had described, whereas 11 students (15%) did not. Advocating and non-advocating students did not differ in their assessment of perceived personal relevance of the nature experience (p = .105) and in the frequency of such nature experiences (p = .118). The main reason the advocating students gave was that nature experiences provide opportunities for learning and can enrich biology instruction, which they described as often too far removed from direct contact with nature (N = 31, 43%). For example, one student argued that biology instruction should acknowledge personally relevant nature experience “because in biology classes we are rarely in nature”.

6 Discussion

Studying students’ nature experiences is a well-established research strand in biology education research (Kellert, 2002). This study focused on variables associated with the perception of personal relevance of a nature experience (RQ 1), and the relationship between the perceived personal relevance of a nature experience and the frequency of experiences of the same kind (RQ 2). The contribution of this study lies in studying students’ nature experiences from their own authentic portrayals – and not by using retrospective designs or pre-formulated items to investigate the different dimensions of high school students’ anticipated nature experiences. This methodological approach allows for high internal validity because the students portrayed a moment in nature they remembered very well and rated the personal relevance of the same moment. Using a quantitative approach, we were then able to identify inner and outer aspects of the students’ nature experiences associated with the perceived personal relevance of the same nature experience, which we found positively correlated with the frequency of nature experiences of the same kind. From this, we derive the recommendation that outdoor educators make nature experiences personally relevant, and thus motivating for secondary students to re-engage in them to counteract the extinction of experience.

As main findings for RQ 1, age, gender, the setting of the nature experience and positive evaluations and/or descriptions of the beauty of nature were associated with the secondary school students’ perceived relevance of their nature experience (Table 19.1). In particular, younger secondary school students (10–11 years old) perceived their nature experiences more personally relevant than the two age groups of older secondary students (13–15 years old and 16–18 years old). This finding is consistent with that of Kaplan and Kaplan (2002), who argue that children attach more importance to nature than adolescents (for an extended discussion of this finding see also Price et al., 2022). Furthermore, this finding is consistent with research in school-aged children’s nature connectedness, which included students of the same age groups and found a dip in nature connectedness from age 10–12 to age 13–15, as well as a similar levels of nature connectedness between age 13–15 and age 16–18 (Richardson et al., 2019). These parallel findings are also interesting from a methodological perspective: The six-item scale for measuring nature connectedness used by Richardson et al. (2019) contained the item “Spending time in nature is very important to me”, which is similar to the item used in this study to assess the personal relevance of the nature experience portrayed by the student (“How personally relevant are such moments/situations in nature for you?”). Although the rating scales differed and the item used by Richardson et al. (2019) is formulated in a more general way than the item used in this study, further efforts need to be made to disentangle the theoretically different variables.

Table 19.1 Summary of variables associated with secondary school students’ perceived relevance of their nature experience
Full size table

Furthermore, we observed significant gender differences among children (10–11 years old), with girls reporting higher personal relevance of their nature experience than boys. This is also consistent with prior findings about gender differences (Müller et al., 2009). Contrary to expectations, however, this study did not find a significant gender difference for adolescents, perhaps because the sample size was small and the data were not normally distributed. The type of interaction with nature was not associated with students’ perceived personal relevance of the nature experience. In particular, secondary school students who described recreational activities rated their perceived personal relevance at the same level as secondary school students who described exploratory nature experiences. This is a somewhat surprising finding because Kaplan and Kaplan (2002) argue that adolescents attach less importance to nature herself and take a “time out” from nature by seeking activities with peers which are set in nature, but not directed at nature herself. In the present study, in contrast, age differences between students describing exploratory and recreational activities were not statistically significant (although the former were younger than the latter), and the relevance ratings were almost identical. In conclusion, because the personal relevance of a nature experience seems individually constructed and a function of individual and biographical factors (Gebhard, 2020), it is obviously insignificant for the perception of personal relevance as to whether nature is an essential feature of the experience – as in exploratory nature experiences – or nature sets the context for recreational nature experiences.

Concerning RQ 2, correlational analyses supported the hypothesis that secondary school students who perceive their own nature experience as personally meaningful, also report to engage in it more frequently (and vice versa) than students who do not perceive it as personally meaningful. This finding is crucial because the motivation to engage (and re-engage) in nature experiences is positively correlated with pro-environmental attitudes and behavior (Wells & Lekies, 2006; De Ville et al., 2021). Interestingly, we found a significant positive correlative relationship between personal relevance and frequency only for recreational nature activities, and not for exploratory nature activities. The reason for this may be related to a limitation of the research method we used because we asked the students to provide information about the frequency of a single experience. An unusual encounter with an animal (which we attributed to the exploratory dimension), therefore, can be rated as personally relevant, but its frequency can be rated as rare or very rare because of the scarcity of opportunities for the encounter.

Regarding educational implications, outdoor educators are recommended to seek activities that make students – in particular older secondary students – aware of the fact that nature experiences can be personally relevant and thus motivating to re-engage in them. Generally, interventions that aim at increasing the personal relevance of nature experiences need to acknowledge the diversity of personal preferences and individual experiences because the perceived personal relevance of nature experiences is subjective and probably formed through individual prior experiences in nature. For example, encouraging secondary students to self-reflect on personally relevant nature experiences – as an educational activity – may make secondary school students aware of their preferences and habits, and increase the likelihood that they re-engage with nature experiences of the same kind. Such interventions still need to be developed and evaluated, but for nature connectedness, a related construct, reflective self-attention was associated with an increase in connection to nature (Richardson & Sheffield, 2015).

Another type of intervention aiming at increasing the awareness of the personal relevance of nature experiences can involve the simple activity of noticing aspects of one’s own nature experience that make it personally relevant. Again, such aspects are subject to personal preferences and individual experiences, although this study suggests that positive evaluations (feelings, emotions), as well as the perception of beauty, are positively correlated with the perceived personal relevance of the nature experience across the different age groups of the secondary school students studied. Similar approaches have been developed in the related field of nature connectedness, where they proved effective in empirical evaluations. One of these interventions involved the simple activity of noticing the good things in nature (McEwan et al., 2019). Another intervention focused on pathways to nature connectedness, and one of the pathways – the beauty pathway – encouraged people to pay attention to beautiful surroundings and think about how what they saw made them feel when they were walking in the countryside (Lumber et al., 2017). To counteract the extinction of experience, such approaches are very valuable and congruent with the findings of this study.