Anthropause appreciation, biophilia, and ecophilosophical contemplations amidst a global pandemic

Abstract

In 2020, COVID-19 mitigation measures, including lockdowns and travel bans to curtail disease transmission, inadvertently led to an “Anthropause” – a unique global pause to anthropogenic activities. While there was a spike in ecological studies measuring Anthropause effects on environmental indicators, people's experiences of the Anthropause or its potential to inspire change were hardly considered. Hence, we aimed to measure people's appreciation of the environmental outcomes of the Anthropause, ecophilosophical contemplations about the pandemic, and experiences of lockdown-triggered biophilia (human's innate love for and draw towards nature) and test the hypothesis that these experiences would be consistently more prominent among the already environmentally inclined. To that end, we developed and tested three measures on a representative sample of 993 New Zealanders. Anthropause Appreciation received the highest overall mean ratings, followed by Lockdown-Biophilia and Eco-Contemplation. Pre-existing pro-environmental dispositions and behaviours did not consistently influence our three measures as expected. Demographic variables had little influence, while experiences of financial and mental health impacts due to COVID-19 had no influence. We interpreted the limited influence of explanatory variables as indicative of a degree of uniformity in people's experiences. High appreciation of Anthropause benefits suggests that the public may be supportive of policies and ways of living that can lead to similar outcomes post-pandemic – offering environmental policymakers and communicators a basis for action. Ecophilosophical contemplations and biophilic draw among the public suggest an awareness of the significance of the human-nature relationship – offering a symbolic global keystone for communicating and advocating conservation and the many values of pauses in life to connect with nature. Building women's environmental leadership capabilities and the ongoing greening of Christianity may be essential steps for global post-pandemic environmental behaviour transformations.

1. Background

While the present study aimed to measure environmental perceptions and experiences within the context of the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we first acknowledge the immeasurable ensuing global suffering. For humans, it is not just illness and countless deaths but also distress over extensive social disruptions and economic slowdowns (Katz, McInerney, Ravindran, & Gold, 2021; Nicola et al., 2020). Non-human animals endured a more silent suffering in the form of abandonment and neglect due to being perceived as virus transmitters and death through hasty mass culling due to being detected with virus mutations (Fantini, Devaux, Yahi, & Frutos, 2022; Frutos & Devaux, 2020; Parry, 2020).

With an estimate of 3.4 billion single-use facemasks being discarded daily, the pandemic has also been environmentally detrimental (Benson, Bassey, & Palanisami, 2021). However, the unique global cessation of human activities due to COVID-19 mitigation measures (lockdowns and travel restrictions), coined as the “Anthropause” by Rutz et al. (2020), led to favourable environmental outcomes such as reduced air pollution and environmental noise (Sarkar, Debnath, & Reang, 2020; Zambrano-Monserrate, Ruano, & Sanchez-Alcalde, 2020). A quieter and less polluted environment; the increased presence of birdlife; and nature's opportunity to regenerate were among the positive aspects of the pandemic identified by survey respondents in the US and New Zealand (Every-Palmer et al., 2020; Haasova, Czellar, Rahmani, & Morgan, 2020; M. Jenkins et al., 2021) – providing some indication of public appreciation of the Anthropause.

Ecophilosophical musings, defined as contemplations about nature and our relationship with it (Fairweather, 1993), became pronounced during the pandemic. For instance, that the pandemic is an ‘Earth-cleansing blessing in disguise’ that would allow plant and animal life to reclaim their land and ‘Mother Earth to heal, recharge, replenish and rebalance’, were among metaphors and expressions referring to the need to end unkind treatment of animals and mitigate anthropogenic damage to ecosystems (Choudhary, 2020; Kamdi & Deogade, 2020; Khan & Yadav, 2020).

Biophilia, the innate emotional affiliation that humans have with non-human life forms (Wilson, 1984, 2017), became indirectly evident during lockdowns. Globally, there was an increase in demand for urban parks during the pandemic (Geng, Innes, Wu, & Wang, 2020). Increased visits to densely covered trails, forest reserves, and other green spaces were recorded in Norway, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, and Seoul (Derks, Giessen, & Winkel, 2020; Lu, Zhao, Wu, & Lo, 2021; Venter, Barton, Figari, & Nowell, 2020), and also reported in public surveys in the US and the UK (Grima et al., 2020; Robinson, Brindley, Cameron, MacCarthy, & Jorgensen, 2021). Inability to access desired nature venues during lockdowns led to feelings of nature deprivation, which was in turn associated with reduced emotional health and wellbeing (Tomasso et al., 2021; Wheaton, Waiti, Olive, & Kearns, 2021) – suggesting signs of unfulfilled biophilia (Wilson, 1984, 2017).

Within ecological and conservation sciences, the Anthropause was regarded as a natural experiment, offering scientists an unprecedented opportunity to measure changes in natural ecosystems and animal behaviour in the absence of environmentally damaging human activity (Bates, Primack, Moraga, & Duarte, 2020; Montgomery, Raupp, & Parkhurst, 2021) – partly explaining the spike in studies documenting lockdown effects on environmental indicators (see Loh et al., 2021). By comparison, within the social sciences, there is a dearth of studies examining public appreciation of the Anthropause. While lockdown-related ecophilosophical musings were expressed by scholars, we have little understanding of the extent to which members of the public experienced similar contemplations. Increased green space visits during the pandemic implied a biophilic draw – the innate love and attraction that humans have for nature and non-human lifeforms (Wilson, 1984, 2017). However, experiences of lockdown-related biophilia were hardly directly measured. At the time of research conceptualisation, we did not identify any preceding research that had considered New Zealanders' views in these regards. A strict nationwide COVID-19 lockdown was implemented between March 25 and April 27, 2020 in New Zealand – providing its residents 33 days of complete Anthropause. This was followed by less restrictive lockdowns from April 28 to May 13, 2020 nationwide and between August 12 and 30, 2020 in Auckland (New Zealand's largest city), where some movement was allowed – providing additional days of partial Anthropause. We developed three item-sets to measure people's appreciation of the positive environmental outcomes of the Anthropause, COVID-19-related ecophilosophical contemplations, and experiences of biophilia during lockdown. The item-sets (presented as matrix questions) were added to the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) Environment questionnaire, which measured general environmental perceptions, values, and behaviour, while also eliciting an extensive range of demographic details (see Supplementary Document 1). In this paper, we consider how these unique COVID-19-related environmental perceptions and experiences, and the associated predictors might help shape post-pandemic environmental behaviour change.

2. Preceding research, measures, and hypotheses

In this section, we first describe recent and past research that guided our development of items to measure people's appreciation of the Anthropause, ecophilosophical contemplations about the COVID-19 pandemic, and feelings of biophilia during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. Next, we present a set of theory-based hypotheses about how the sample might respond to these item-sets.

2.1. Beneficial outcomes of the anthropause

The most notable Anthropause outcome was an 8.8% reduction in global carbon emission in the first half of 2020, coinciding with COVID-19 lockdowns (Liu et al., 2020). Decreases in vehicular traffic and industrial activity reduced atmospheric pollutants and particulate matter concentrations in heavily populated cities and regions (Kumari & Toshniwal, 2020; Le et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020), including in the city of Auckland, New Zealand (H. Patel, Mondal, & Ghosh, 2020). Walking and cycling increased during periods of lockdown (Morse, Gladkikh, Hackenburg, & Gould, 2020; van Leeuwen, Klerks, Bargeman, Heslinga, & Bastiaansen, 2020), suggesting a positive change in mobility behaviour. In some regions, reduced industrial discharge, tourism activities and motorboat use led to cleaner rivers and waterways (Braga, Scarpa, Brando, Manfè, & Zaggia, 2020; Patel, Mondal, & Ghosh, 2020), improved coastal water quality, and cleaner beaches (Cherif et al., 2020; Coll, 2020; Okuku et al., 2020; Ormaza-Gonzaìlez, Castro-Rodas, & Statham, 2021). Noise pollution, regarded by the World Health Organization as the third most harmful type of environmental pollution, lessened – benefitting humans and wildlife (Bahukhandi, Agarwal, & Singhal, 2020; Basu et al., 2021; Coll, 2020). Increased terrestrial wildlife movement observed in different parts of the world; reduced roadkill; changes in birdlife communication behaviour and higher breeding success; and increased sightings of marine and freshwater species during the Anthropause were indicative of nature's restorative capacity and how a better environment for wildlife can be achieved with reduced vehicles, human presence, human mobility, and anthropogenic noise (Bar, 2021; Coll, 2020; Derryberry, Phillips, Derryberry, Blum, & Luther, 2020; Manenti et al., 2020; Silva-Rodríguez, Gálvez, Swan, Cusack, & Moreira-Arce, 2020). Albeit temporary, the Anthropause offered real environmental outcome indicators that may affect how people respond to environmental issues post-pandemic. We designed eight items to measure Anthropause Appreciation (see Section 3.2).

2.2. COVID-19-related ecophilosophical contemplations

Ecophilosophy may be defined as “thinking about nature and our relationship with it, and as such has been the intellectual underpinning of environmentalism” (Fairweather, 1993, p. 5). Contemplative attention to the natural world is not only a spiritually significant act in its own right but can also engender ethical actions (Eggemeier, 2014). Reflecting on the pandemic, scholars from different disciplines called for a rethinking of people's relationship with and treatment of nature and animals:

• •“To my introspective mind, this chapter of COVID-19 pandemic … represents … a reflective and contemplative moment of our collective consciousness to ponder on the symbiotic interconnectedness of human environment-animal (wildlife) interface and in a broader perspective ‘The Earth-Human System’ interactions. We need to question the “human hubris of anthropocentrism,” the very purpose of human existence, in relation to ecosystems health, and realize how we are on a collision course between the human species and environmental and nature's ecosystems.” Bhaskara Shelley, Physician (Shelley, 2020, p. 2).
• •Running out of patience with us, I imagine Mother Nature saying to us, “… I'm sending a lethal virus to remind you of the unitary nature of your consciousness and its inseparability with the natural world. Perhaps these life-and-death conditions will shock you into an awakening. Under social lockdown and isolation, perhaps you will rediscover your capacity to communicate beyond the reach of your senses.” Larry Dossey, Physician (Dossey, 2020, p. 345).
• •The COVID-19 pandemic “shows the impacts of the ‘human-nature’ dichotomy of the Anthropocene era. Therefore, it calls for personal, societal, and global changes and transformations.” Anastasia Zabaniotou, Chemical engineer (Zabaniotou, 2020, p. 122).
• •Considering how past calls for lifestyle changes have not been taken seriously despite ongoing environmental deterioration, “nature herself has forced humans through COVID-19 to adjust in favour of environmental health.” Peter Bisong, Philosophy and business management scholar (Bisong, 2020, p. 126).

Open-ended responses in a New Zealand-based survey also hinted at ecophilosophical contemplations, with participants expressing hope that the positive environmental outcomes of COVID-19 would be long-lasting and that the pandemic would prove to be a blessing for humankind (M. Jenkins et al., 2021). Among Indigenous communities in Australia, references to ‘Mother Earth’ resurged, emphasising the essentiality of nature for not only human wellbeing but also human survival (Weckert, 2020). The idea that COVID-19 is nature's message to humankind was a metaphor directing attention to ecological symptoms that call for a more careful treatment of nature – in other words, a wake-up call to humanity (Weckert, 2020). In the US, some survey respondents held perceptions of the pandemic as bearing a higher-order purpose (i.e. a message that humans are not in control over nature, a warning from nature, and punishment for humankind's transgressions) (Haasova et al., 2020). They also identified strengthened social ties with family and friends, and collective values such as altruism and being helpful, as positive outcomes of the pandemic (Haasova et al., 2020) – values that are known contributors to human happiness (Kesebir & Diener, 2009; Post, 2005). The distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” services in official communications and the closure of shopping outlets during mandated lockdowns may have provided people with a never-before-experienced “pause” to reflect on actual needs and happiness. People may have mused over non-material sources of happiness – distinguishing it from the fleeting happiness gained from commercially-induced needs-transcending consumption (Binswanger, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009; Lane, 1994; Ricard, 2017; Sachs, 2012). This was regarded as an important contemplation, considering that escalating production and consumption is a major contributor to environmental decline (IPBES, 2019; Lorek & Vergragt, 2015) and materialism has been associated with environmental apathy (Good, 2007; Kilbourne & Pickett, 2008).

Scholars also proposed that lessons learned from the pandemic, that can be used for addressing global environmental problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss, include the value of collective and early action (Bouman, Steg, & Dietz, 2020; Jin, 2020; Perkins, Munguia, Ellenbecker, Moure-Eraso, & Velazquez, 2021; Rousseau & Deschacht, 2020). Collective behaviours were pivotal for the success of COVID-19 mitigation measures, and official public health messages emphasised shared responsibility and collective action (Sutton, Renshaw, & Butts, 2020; Wolf, Haddock, Manstead, & Maio, 2020).

Our second item-set thus aimed to measure COVID-19-related Ecophilosophical Contemplation (Eco-Contemplation) during lockdown (see Section 3.2).

2.3. Lockdown-triggered biophilia

The biophilia hypothesis, which posits that humans have an innate emotional affiliation with non-human life forms (Wilson, 1984, 2017), has been supported by a considerable number of studies (see, Annerstedt & Währborg, 2011; Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Joye, 2007). The biophilic draw becomes particularly pronounced during disasters and hazardous situations, as humans seek doses of nature-connectedness to establish resilience to cope with the calamity they face (Tidball, 2012). People thus feel an immediate biophilic draw toward nature following mandated COVID-19 lockdowns (Gillis, 2020) – which likely explains the global increase in visits to urban parks and green spaces during the pandemic (Derks et al., 2020; Geng et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Venter et al., 2020). This increase would be unsurprising to Eco-Existential Positive Psychology proponents, who have contended that cultivating the innate biophilic tendency through nature-connectedness helps address six fundamental existential anxieties: meaning in life, death, isolation, freedom, identity, and happiness (Passmore & Howell, 2014).

In the US and the UK, people reported enhanced feelings of nature-connectedness and awareness of nature's importance for coping with the pandemic and maintaining mental wellbeing (Grima et al., 2020; Lemmey, 2020; Morse et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2021). The importance of urban green spaces for the psychological wellbeing of city dwellers (Barton & Rogerson, 2017; Houlden, Weich, Porto de Albuquerque, Jarvis, & Rees, 2018; McCunn, 2020; Ugolini et al., 2020) became notable as access to such spaces helped people better cope with mandated stay-at-home orders (Dzhambov et al., 2021; Pouso et al., 2021).

We developed a third item-set to measure Lockdown-triggered Biophilic draw (Lockdown-Biophilia) during a period of mandated stay-at-home order (see Section 3.2).

2.4. Research objectives and hypotheses

First, we aimed to gauge the extent to which people (i) appreciated the positive outcomes of the Anthropause and experienced (ii) Eco-Contemplations and (iii) Lockdown-Biophilia during lockdown. Second, we aimed to test six theory-based hypotheses.

Considering observations in preceding studies, we expected pre-existing pro-environmental dispositions and behaviour to be consistently associated with higher Anthropause Appreciation (H1), Eco-Contemplation (H2), and Lockdown-Biophilia (H3) ratings. In the US, nature-connectedness was associated with positive thoughts about the pandemic's environmental benefits (Haasova et al., 2020), and in Italy, a pro-environmental attitude was associated with a tendency towards making sustainable purchases during the pandemic (Peluso, Pichierri, & Pino, 2021). To test H1–H3, we selected nine ISSP variables to represent multiple domains of pro-environmental dispositions and behaviours (Larson, Stedman, Cooper, & Decker, 2015; Truelove & Gillis, 2018) – attitude towards environmental problems (environmental concern), connectedness with nature (nature enjoyment, engagement in nature activities), private environmental behaviour (recycling, product avoidance, non-consumption of meat), public environmental behaviour (past-5-year environmental actions, environmental group membership), and political orientation (voting for the Green party).

In view of the influence of self-efficacy and scepticism on collective environmental actions (Bamberg, Rees, & Seebauer, 2015; Lauren, Fielding, Smith, & Louis, 2016; Zhou, 2014), we expected that environmental self-inefficacy (H4) and scepticism (H5) would be negatively associated with Eco-Contemplation-item#3 (contemplations about collective action for nature protection as a learning from COVID-19 responses). We examined this item separately, considering that the efficacy of quick and collective action against the global threat of COVID-19 was a unique learning from COVID-19 with implications for addressing global issues such as climate change and biodiversity (Bouman et al., 2020).

Not being able to shop and the opportunity to self-reflect on essential needs and happiness under lockdown (Eco-Contemplation-item#4) was another unique COVID-related experience that we sought to examine in more depth, considering that needs-transcending consumption is often the root cause of environmental problems (Lorek & Vergragt, 2015). As women tend to shop as a pastime and are more prone to compulsive buying (Black, 2007; Campbell, 2000; Neuner, Raab, & Reisch, 2005; Tarka, Harnish, & Babaev, 2022), we hypothesised that women (vs men) would have experienced a greater degree of personal reflections concerning shopping during lockdown as described in Eco-Contemplation-item#4 (H6).

The influences of demographic variables on environmental attitudes and behaviour have been mixed and, to some extent, dependent on the specificity of outcomes being measured (Fisher, Bashyal, & Bachman, 2012; Jones & Dunlap, 1992). Although most studies show females to be more inclined towards environmentally-conscious behaviour than males, a few show the opposite trend or a lack of gender difference (see Fisher et al., 2012; Hunter, Hatch, & Johnson, 2004). Given the novelty of the Anthropause Appreciation, Lockdown-Biophilia and Eco-Contemplation item-sets, we explored the influence of demographic variables (gender, ethnicity, area of dwelling, religion, age, and qualification) without prior hypotheses. Additionally, considering the scale of economic (Brodeur, Gray, Islam, & Bhuiyan, 2021; Nicola et al., 2020) and mental health impacts of COVID-19 (Rajkumar, 2020; Xiong et al., 2020), we explored if personal experiences of impact on income and mental health due to COVID-19 affected ratings on our three item-sets.

3. Method

3.1. Survey implementation and sample

Data were collected between February 22 and June 30, 2021, primarily using a mail survey method with the option of completing the survey online. Invitations with an information sheet, the questionnaire, and pre-paid return envelopes were sent to a stratified random sample of 5388 individuals selected from the New Zealand Electoral Roll, which resulted in 993 responses. Responses were weighted to represent the population (see von Randow, Kolandai, & Milne, 2021 for details). The questionnaire (see Supplementary Document 1) and research methods were approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Ref. 3136). Appendix A provides the descriptive statistics of our sample.

3.2. Dependent variables

We used a deductive approach (based on recent and past literature detailed in Section 2) for item generation (see Table 1 ). For each item-set, a 10-point anchored rating scale was used with a “can't choose” answer option added to ensure elicitation of actual experiences and perceptions. The Anthropause Appreciation item-set asked respondents to rate the value of eight environmental outcomes during COVID-19 lockdowns. In the Eco-Contemplation item-set, respondents indicated the extent to which four ecophilosophical statements concerning the pandemic represented their perceptions. In the Lockdown-Biophilia item-set, respondents indicated the extent to which three statements denoting biophilia were reflective of their feelings.

Table 1.

Dependent variables.

Anthropause Appreciation	Eco-Contemplation	Lockdown-Biophilia
1 = Not at all valuable,10 = Highly valuable	1 = Not at all,10 = To a great extent	1 = Not at all,10 = To a great extent
#1 Reduced carbon emissions	#1 I believe the COVID-19 pandemic is Mother Nature's way of forcing us to stop and contemplate our existence	#1 I felt a greater need to be in nature (e.g. park, beach, community garden) during COVID-19 lockdown
#2 Cleaner air	#2 I believe the COVID-19 pandemic is proof that our wellbeing is linked with that of other lifeforms	#2 I felt a stronger connection to nature during COVID-19 lockdown
#3 Increased sustainable travel (e.g. walking, cycling)	#3 I believe the COVID-19 crisis showed us that collective action works, and we should do the same to protect nature	#3 Being in nature during COVID-19 lockdown contributed to my feelings of mental/emotional wellbeing
#4 Cleaner rivers/waterways	#4 Not being able to go shopping under COVID-19 lockdown made me reflect on real needs and happiness
#5 Cleaner beaches
#6 Reduced noise pollution (e.g. lack of traffic noise)
#7 Better environment for wildlife
#8 Restoration of ecological systems

Given the reliable internal consistency of the Anthropause Appreciation (α=0.953, n=841), Eco-Contemplation (α=0.771, N=861), and Lockdown-Biophilia item-sets (α=0.919, N=933), these were treated as scales in our analyses.

3.3. Independent variables

Adding our item-sets to the ISSP Environment questionnaire enabled us to examine responses based on two types of predictor variables – pre-existing pro-environmental dispositions and behaviour (Table 2 ) and demographics to which we added measures on COVID-19 financial and mental health impacts (Table 3 ).

Table 2.

Environmental predisposition variables.

Variable	Description
Environmental concern	“How concerned are you about environmental issues?”, elicited response in a 5-point scale anchored by 1, not at all concerned and 5, very concerned
Nature enjoyment	“How much, if at all, do you enjoy being outside in nature?”, elicited ranked ordinal responses: not at all, to a small extent, to some extent, to a great extent, to a very great extent. Considering the small number of “not at all” responses (n = 6), these were merged with the “to a small extent” group, creating four categories.
Engagement in nature activities	“In the last twelve months, how often if at all have you engaged in any leisure activities outside in nature, such as hiking, bird watching, swimming, skiing, other outdoor activities, or just relaxing?”, elicited ranked ordinal responses: never, several times a year, several times a month, several times a week, daily.
Recycling	“How often do you make a special effort to sort glass or tins or plastic or newspapers and so on for recycling?”, elicited ranked ordinal responses: never, sometimes, often, always. Considering the small number of “never” responses (n = 13), these were merged with the “sometimes” group creating three categories.
Product avoidance	“How often do you avoid buying certain products for environmental reasons?”, elicited ranked ordinal responses: never, sometimes, often, always.
Meat consumption	“In a typical week, on how many days do you eat beef, lamb, or products that contain them?”, elicited responses on a 0–7 scale. Responses were recoded to a dichotomous variable: yes (1–7), no (0).
Past-5-year environmental actions	A set of three yes/no dichotomous questions asked respondents if “in the last five years” they had “signed a petition about an environmental issue”, “given money to an environmental group”, “taken part in a protest or demonstration about an environmental issue”. These were summed into a single variable indicating the number of actions ranging from zero to three.
Environmental group member	“Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment?”, elicited a dichotomous response: yes, no
Green Partyvoter	“For which party did you cast your party vote at the 2020 General Election?”, requested respondents to select from a list of six New Zealand political parties, specify a different party, or indicate if they had chosen not to vote or were not eligible to vote. Responses were recoded to a dichotomous variable: yes, no.
Environmental self-efficacy	Two items measuring self-efficacy (see Pisano & Lubell, 2015), “It is just too difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment” and “I find it hard to know whether the way I live is helpful or harmful to the environment”, elicited Likert scale responses: agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly.
Environmental scepticism	Two items measuring scepticism (see Zhou, 2014), “Many of the claims about environmental threats are exaggerated”, and “There are more important things to do in life than protect the environment”, elicited Likert scale responses: agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, disagree strongly.

Table 3.

Demographic variables and personal impact of COVID-19 measures.

Variable	Description
Gender	Responses to an open-ended question, “What is your gender?” were transformed into a dichotomous variable: female, male.
Ethnicity	A multiple select question, “To which of the following ethnic groups do you belong”, enabled respondents to select one or more of twelve ethnicities – a method that complies with the Statistical Standard for ethnicity in New Zealand. These were recoded into five non-mutually exclusive dummy variables: New Zealand Māori, European, Pacific, Asian, Other.
Dwelling	A single select question, “Would you describe the place where you live as …”, asked respondents to select from five categories: a big city, the suburbs or outskirts of a big city, a town or small city, a country village, a farm or home in the country. Responses were recoded to a dichotomous variable: country (the first three categories), city (the last two categories).
Religion	A single select question, “Which one of these categories describes your current religion?”, elicited nominal responses: No religion, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Another religion. The small number of “Jewish” responses (n = 2) were merged with the “Another religion” category.
Age	Respondents were asked to indicate their year of birth. Age was calculated and categorised into four age bands for analysis: 19–24, 25–44, 45–64, and ≥65.
Qualification level	A single selection question, “Which one of these categories best describes your highest formal qualification?”, asked respondents to select from eight ranked categories ranging from no formal qualification through to postgraduate or higher. These were re-grouped into six ordered categories: no formal qualification; primary school completed; secondary school qualification; trade or professional certificate or diploma below degree level; undergraduate degree; postgraduate or higher.
COVID-19 financial and mental health impacts	“How would you rate the impacts COVID-19 has had on you personally?: (1) Impact on my usual income, (2) Impact on my emotional/mental wellbeing”, elicited ranked ordinal responses: very negative, slightly negative, neither negative nor positive, slightly positive, very positive.

3.4. Analyses

Analyses were performed with Stata-SE17 and SPSS 27, using survey weights in all instances (see von Randow et al., 2021). First, to provide an overview of the extent to which people appreciated the Anthropause and experienced Eco-Contemplations and Lockdown-Biophilia, we considered the overall mean ratings for the three scales. We also considered the percentage of respondents providing high (mean ≥ 8), moderate (mean 3.1–7.9), and low (mean ≤ 3) ratings in the 1–10 scales of our measures.

Next, Spearman's correlations were used to assess the collinearity of all explanatory variables except for the nominal variable, religion (see the bivariate correlation matrix in Appendix B). The association strengths between some pre-existing environmental disposition variables were moderate (0.3–0.4), while most other associations were low (<0.3). Then, multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses that pre-existing pro-environmental dispositions and behaviours would be consistently associated with higher Anthropause Appreciation, Eco-Contemplation, and Lockdown-Biophilia (H1–H3), and to explore the influence of demographic and COVID-19 personal impact variables on the scales' ratings. All nine environmental predisposition and eight demographic predictor variables were entered into the models simultaneously. A backwards-elimination approach of sequential removal of the least significant variable at each stage was used to generate the final models. Missing values were not included as categories in the models for dichotomous and ranked ordinal predictor variables. For the nominal variable, religion, which had 27 missing values, missing was treated as a category in the models, and regression-based pairwise comparisons were examined. Squared semi-partial correlation coefficients (sr²) were computed for the final models to provide indications of the unique amount of variance contributed by each independent variable.

To give an overview of the raw relationships between each predictor variable and our three dependent measures, plots based on bivariate regression analyses are provided in Supplementary Document 2 – these detail the most significant predictors as well as less significant and non-significant predictors, the inspection of which is instrumental for an accurate interpretation of the multivariable analysis (Gilliver & Valveny, 2016).

Bivariate linear regression models were used to test H4 and H5, which posited that higher environmental self-efficacy and lower environmental scepticism would be associated with stronger reflections about collective environmental action as a learning from COVID-19 (Eco-Contemplation-item#3). We tested H4 with two predictor variables denoting environmental self-efficacy, and H5 with two variables denoting environmental scepticism individually rather than as scales. Although measuring similar constructs (see Table 2), they showed low reliability with coefficients of 0.442 and 0.636, respectively, when tested with Spearman-Brown reliability tests for two-item scales (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013).

An independent-samples t-test (and Cohen's D as an effect size measure) was used to test H6, which proposed that women would provide higher Eco-Contemplation item#4 ratings than men.

4. Results

4.1. Overall responses

Anthropause Appreciation received the highest overall mean ratings (M = 8.02), followed by Lockdown-Biophilia (M = 6.27) and Eco-Contemplation (M = 6.18) (see Appendix C for descriptive statistics). Anthropause Appreciation ratings were high (mean ratings ≥8) among a majority (61.3%) and moderate (mean ratings 3.1–7.9) in over a third (36.1%) – suggesting a prominent appreciation of Anthropause-related environmental outcomes. Over a third (35%) experienced an extreme biophilic draw during the lockdown, while close to half (47.5%) experienced this at a moderate level. Over a quarter (26.8%) experienced high Eco-Contemplations about the pandemic, while a majority (62.6%) experienced this moderately. Only a minority provided low-end ratings (mean ratings ≤3) in the three scales – 2.6%, 10.6%, and 17.4%, respectively.

4.2. Hypothesised predictors

Collectively, the predictor variables accounted for 25.7% (F (11, 902) = 22.66, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.2566) of the variance in the Anthropause Appreciation ratings. There was little support for H1 as only three environmental predisposition variables retained significance in the final multiple regression model (see Table 4 ). Increases in environmental concern, in particular, and frequency of engagement in nature-based activities, and frequency of product avoidance were associated with increases in Anthropause Appreciation.

Table 4.

Multiple regression associations of Anthropause Appreciation with environmental predisposition and demographic variables.

Predictor variables	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	sr2
Constant	4.622	0.694	6.66	<0.001	3.259, 5.984
Environmental concern	0.625	0.143	4.37	<0.001	0.344, 0.906	0.0916
Nature-based activities frequency	0.171	0.071	2.42	0.016	0.032, 0.311	0.0089
Product avoidance frequency	0.307	0.108	2.84	0.005	0.095, 0.520	0.0155
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)	0.595	0.177	3.37	0.001	0.248, 0.942	0.0241
Age	−0.327	0.070	−4.67	<0.001	−0.465, –0.190	0.0237
Religion: Hindu vs No religion	0.975	0.263	3.71	<0.001	0.460, 1.490	0.0064
Religion: Hindu vs Christian	0.908	0.266	3.42	0.001	0.387, 1.429	0.0055
Religion: Hindu vs Another religion	1.182	0.482	2.45	0.014	2.128, 0.236	0.0178
Religion: Buddhist vs No religion	0.399	0.204	1.95	0.051	0.002, 0.800	0.0008

An interesting observation when we consider the bivariate associations (Fig. S1, Supplementary Document 2) was the relatively high Anthropause Appreciation ratings (Means between 6.7 and 8.3) even among those with lower or lowest-end environmental predispositions in all predictor scenarios except for environmental concern where the mean rating among those in the “not at all” category was 4.8.

Overall, predictor variables accounted for 20.5% (F (7, 904) = 15.05, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.2049) of the variance in Eco-Contemplation ratings. There was little support for H2. Only environmental concern, nature-based activities, and product avoidance retained significance in the final multiple regression model with increases in these scales associated with increases in Eco-Contemplation ratings (see Table 5 ).

Table 5.

Multiple regression associations of Eco-Contemplation with environmental predisposition and demographic variables.

Predictor variables	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	sr2
Constant	5.709	0.866	6.59	<0.001	4.009, 7.410
Environmental concern	0.654	0.106	6.17	<0.001	0.446, 0.862	0.0652
Nature-based activities frequency	0.266	0.081	3.27	0.001	0.106, 0.425	0.0132
Product avoidance frequency	0.392	0.151	2.6	0.009	0.096, 0.687	0.0171
Ethnicity: Māori (0 = yes, 1 = no)	−0.583	0.255	−2.28	0.023	−1.084, –0.082	0.0085
Ethnicity: Pacific (0 = yes, 1 = no)	−0.793	0.316	−2.51	0.012	−1.414, –0.173	0.0055
Ethnicity: Asian (0 = yes, 1 = no)	−1.314	0.231	−5.68	<0.001	−1.768, –0.860	0.0318
Ethnicity: Other (0 = yes, 1 = no)	−1.821	0.616	−2.95	0.003	−3.031, –0.612	0.0124

Interestingly, Eco-Contemplation ratings were moderate (Means between 3.9 and 6.1) even among those with lower or lowest-end environmental predispositions in all predictor scenarios when we consider the bivariate associations (Fig. S3, Supplementary Document 2).

Predictor variables accounted for 28.6% (F (14, 874) = 25.18, p < 0.001, R² = 0.2856) of the variance in Lockdown-Biophilia ratings. Increases in the environmental concern, nature enjoyment, nature-based activities, and product avoidance scales were associated increases in Lockdown-Biophilia (see Table 6 ). Contrary to expected, an increase in recycling frequency was associated with a decline in Lockdown-Biophilia. Hence, H3, as well, was hardly supported.

Table 6.

Multiple regression associations of Lockdown-Biophilia with environmental predisposition and demographic variables.

Predictor variables	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	sr2
Constant	−0.305	0.702	−0.43	0.664	−1.683, 1.073
Environmental concern	0.492	0.152	3.23	0.001	0.193, 0.790	0.0248
Nature enjoyment	0.620	0.175	3.54	<0.001	0.276, 0.963	0.024
Nature-based activities frequency	0.507	0.114	4.46	<0.001	0.284, 0.731	0.0295
Recycling frequency	−0.415	0.176	−2.36	0.018	−0.759, –0.070	0.0083
Product avoidance	0.506	0.147	3.44	0.001	0.217, 0.795	0.019
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)	0.923	0.217	4.26	<0.001	0.498, 1.348	0.0278
Ethnicity: Asian (0 = yes, 1 = no)	−0.835	0.273	−3.06	0.002	−1.370, –0.299	0.0076
Qualifications	0.188	0.089	2.12	0.035	0.014, 0.363	0.0066
Religion: Buddhist vs No religion	1.127	0.542	2.08	0.038	0.062, 2.191	0.003
Religion: Muslim vs No religion	1.651	0.640	2.58	0.01	0.395, 2.908	0.0031
Religion: Muslim vs Christian	1.326	0.638	2.08	0.038	0.074, 2.577	0.002

Those whose pre-existing pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour were at the low or lowest end levels provided moderate Lockdown-Biophilia ratings (means between 3.4 and 6.2) in all predictor scenarios (see Fig. S5, Supplementary Document 2). Particularly interesting was that those who indicated “not at all/small extent” for nature enjoyment provided a 5.2 Lockdown-Biophilia mean rating (panel (b), Fig. S5).

We found no support for H4, which posited a negative linear association between environmental self-inefficacy and contemplations about collective action for nature protection as a learning from COVID-19 responses (Eco-Contemplation-item#3 rating). As shown in Fig. 1 , although significant in the model, the perception that it is too difficult to do much about the environment (F(1, 966) = 7.35, p < 0.01) showed more of a U-shaped association with collective action for nature protection and explained just 1.37% of the variance in ratings. The second self-inefficacy variable, on uncertainty about the environmental impacts of one's own lifestyle, did not influence contemplations about collective action (F(1, 954) = 0, p = 0.9586, R ² = 0).

Fig. 1.

Mean scores, confidence intervals and regression trendlines for the Eco-Contemplation-item#3 scale (0–10) by environmental self-efficacy: “It is just too difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment”.

We found some support for H5 that environmental scepticism would be negatively associated with contemplation about collective action for nature protection (Eco-Contemplation-item#3 rating). As shown in Fig. 2 , a perception of exaggerated environmental threats (F(1, 945) = 36.46, p < 0.001) was associated with decline in collective action mean ratings, as expected. This environmental scepticism explained 10.7% of the variability in contemplation about collective action. However, although significant in the model, a substantial deviation of one point from the trend line weakened the association between the perception that there are more important things to do in life than protect the environment (F(1, 956) = 48.89, p < 0.001) and collective action mean rating. This second measure of environmental scepticism explained 8.5% of the variability in contemplation about collective action.

Fig. 2.

Collective action as learning from COVID-19 responses (Eco-Contemplation-item#3) by environmental scepticism. Panels show mean scores, confidence intervals and regression trendlines for the Eco-Contemplation-item#3 scale (1–10) by (a) “Many of the claims about environmental threats are exaggerated” and (b) “There are more important things to do in life than protect the environment”.

As hypothesised (H6), reflections concerning real needs and happiness from the inability to shop during lockdown (Eco-Contemplation-item#4) was significantly higher for women (M = 6.02, SD = 3.029) than men (M = 5.20, SD = 2.777), t(954) = 4.368, p < 0.001, d = 0.283).

4.3. Demographic predictors

Only gender, age and religion were predictive of Anthropause Appreciation (see Table 4). Women provided higher Anthropause Appreciation ratings than men while appreciation declined with increased age. Hindus’ Anthropause Appreciation was significantly higher than those identifying as Christians, another religion, and having no religion. Albeit less significantly, the rating by Buddhists was associated with higher Anthropause Appreciation than those indicating no religion.

Ethnicities were the only demographic variables that retained significance in the final multiple regression model for Eco-Contemplation (Table 5). Māori, Pacific, Asian and Other ethnicities were associated with higher Eco-Contemplation ratings relative to those not identifying with these ethnicities.

Gender, ethnicity, qualifications, and religion were predictive of Lockdown-Biophilia (Table 6). Women provided higher Lockdown-Biophilia ratings than men, while ratings by Asians were higher compared to non-Asians. Increase in qualification levels was associated with increase in Lockdown-Biophilia. Buddhists' and Muslims’ ratings were higher than the ratings of those indicating no religion. Ratings by Muslims was higher than ratings by Christians.

5. Discussion

This study retrospectively assessed the prevalence and predictors of, (i) Anthropause Appreciation, (ii) COVID-19-related Ecophilosophical Contemplation, and (iii) Lockdown-triggered Biophilia during the 2020 pandemic. Pre-existing pro-environmental dispositions and behaviour did not lead to consistently higher ratings on the three scales’ ratings as we hypothesised. Demographic variables had limited influence while experiences of financial and mental health impacts due to COVID-19 had no bearings on the scales. This limited influence of explanatory variables suggests that Anthropause appreciation and experiences of ecophilosophical musings and biophilic draw during the COVID-19 lockdown were not restricted to those who were already environmentally inclined, but rather occurred broadly across society.

Over half of our survey respondents (61.3%) expressed a high degree of Anthropause Appreciation (a rating of 8 or higher on a 1–10 scale) and this appreciation was high even among those with low pro-environmental dispositions and behaviour. Having directly observed the benefits of a pause to environmentally detrimental activities, it is likely that the public may be supportive of policies and ways of living that can lead to similar outcomes post-pandemic. For instance, in Australia, COVID-19-related anthropomorphism (ascribing human characteristics to non-human entities) was predictive of support for pro-environmental pandemic recovery policies and travel restrictions (Borovik & Pensini, 2022; Pensini & McMullen, 2022). In Borovik and Pensini's (2022) study, support was unexpectedly stronger among those experiencing financial insecurity during the pandemic – suggesting a shift in how people typically prioritise their needs. Hence, rather than solely focusing on economic recoveries, “policymakers should acknowledge and attempt to preserve societal changes which have simultaneously benefited human wellbeing and biodiversity” (Cooke et al., 2021, p. 113). The environmental indicators data collected during the Anthropause could guide pandemic recovery plans. With careful consideration, the Anthropause may serve as a widely resonating and effective metaphor that inspires conservation actions because its symbolic undertone “that humans have taken too much from nature and set the relationship out of balance” holds an appeal that crosses cultural boundaries (Young, Kadykalo, Beaudoin, Hackenburg, & Cooke, 2021, p. 275). The Anthropause has made environmental solutions less abstract (Young et al., 2021) and reduced the temporal psychological distance typically associated with environmental outcomes being in the future or for future generations (Sparkman, Lee, & Macdonald, 2021). Albeit momentary, the Anthropause offered a taste of possibilities, by bringing ecological benefits and better life quality to the here and now (Young et al., 2021). It thus offers the opportunity for impactful science communication based on the efficacious environmentally relevant behavioural adaptations during the Anthropause and optimism about nature's recovery (Forti, Japyassú, Bosch, & Szabo, 2020; Riera, Rodríguez, McAfee, & Connell, 2022).

Although only 26.8% in our study experienced strong ecophilosophical contemplation during lockdown, a majority (62.6%) experienced this at a moderate level. Comparable contemplations were noted in other countries. When asked if lockdowns affected their views about nature, UK respondents reported enhanced affinity with and appreciation of nature, increased motivation towards environmental preservation, a realisation of human impacts on the environment, and optimism about the efficacy of collective changes (Lemmey, 2020). Similarly, in Vermont, participants' valuing of nature during lockdown included nature's contribution to mental wellbeing and feelings of nature connectedness (Morse et al., 2020). These observations emphasise the value of pauses in life to contemplate our relationship with nature. The Anthropause, if preserved as a global keystone to symbolically promote human and environmental wellbeing, could lead to “a greater appreciation for noise reduction, tranquillity, and reflection (a collective physical and spiritual ‘pause’), and to underlining the benefits of a radical break with past practices” (Young et al., 2021, p. 276). The cultivation of Anthropause-like contemplative practice could thus be an impactful addition to current environmental conservation tools.

Environmental scepticism is likely to be a persisting barrier, as demonstrated in the lower ratings for contemplations about ‘collective nature protection actions as a learning from COVID-19’, by those holding this disposition in our study. Addressing this dilemma would require mitigating factors such as alarmist media communication, perceptions about expert disagreement, and scientific and political uncertainty that contribute to scepticism (Corner, Whitmarsh, & Xenias, 2012; Whitmarsh, 2011). Contrary to our expectation, environmental self-efficacy was not meaningfully associated with contemplation about COVID-inspired collective nature protection actions. Nevertheless, another New Zealand survey showed that socio-political efficacy (group efficacy) increased after lockdown, and in turn increased pro-environmental attitudes (Milfont, Osborne, & Sibley, 2022). Hence, considering the role of social norms and collective efficacy for enhancing self-efficacy and pro-environmental behaviour appear critical (Doherty & Webler, 2016; Jugert et al., 2016).

An extreme Lockdown-triggered biophilic draw was experienced by 35.1%, while 47.5% experienced this moderately. What was a more interesting observation was that the biophilic draw experience was relatively high even among those whose pre-existing level of nature enjoyment was lowest. Observations of green space visit increases in New Zealand and elsewhere during lockdown, indirectly corroborate our findings (Derks et al., 2020; MacKinnon et al., 2022; Venter et al., 2020). The stronger biophilic draw felt by those with higher frequency of engagement in nature activities in our study may be partly explained by New Zealand's lockdown policies, which did not permit risky nature-based activities like ocean swimming or tramping. Nature deprivation was felt particularly strongly in New Zealand by surfers, who realised the importance of their previously taken-for-granted access to coasts for their wellbeing (Wheaton et al., 2021).

In the present study, area of dwelling (city-based vs. country-based) did not affect the degree of biophilic draw experienced during lockdown. This may be partly explained by New Zealand's lockdown policies which permitted driving to an outdoor space such as urban parks for exercise, which, in turn, may partly explain the lack of association between mental health and Lockdown-triggered Biophilia in our study. Mental wellbeing, being the most frequently cited reason for visiting a green space during lockdown in Wellington, New Zealand, was regarded as a sign of ‘urgent biophilia’ (MacKinnon, MacKinnon, Pedersen Zari, Glensor, & Park, 2022). Studies elsewhere demonstrated how access to such spaces, even a window view of greenery, helped people better cope mentally with mandated social isolation during lockdowns (Dzhambov et al., 2021; Pouso et al., 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2021). In Israel inequities in access to green spaces during lockdown due to location meant that some suffered wellbeing declines more than others (Colléony, Clayton, & Shwartz, 2022). Similarly, inequities in access to urban green spaces for the psychological wellbeing of city dwellers in Croatia, Israel, Italy, Slovenia, Lithuania, and Spain became more notable during mandated social isolation (Ugolini et al., 2020). Collectively, these findings reiterate the importance of human-nature relationships for wellbeing and town planning that ensures conservation and equitable access to urban green and blue spaces (Astell-Burt & Feng, 2021; Ribeiro et al., 2021; Seymour, 2016). It also suggests an opportunity to encourage a more reciprocal relationship with nature. This may require public awareness of biophilia. It may be that the public experience biophilia but do not define it as an ‘innate affinity with nature’. Further development and testing of inventories to measure biophilic attitudes (Letourneau, 2013) and biophilic draw within and beyond the context of lockdowns appear warranted.

Women provided higher Anthropause Appreciation and Lockdown-Biophilia ratings than men. Additionally, in our sample, the inability to shop during lockdown was associated with reflection on real needs and happiness for women more so than men. The overall gender difference appears in line with findings from most of the literature examining environmental attitudes and behaviour (Dhenge, Ghadge, Ahire, Gorantiwar, & Shinde, 2022; Fisher et al., 2012). While this may suggest the importance of female environmental advocates, change agents, and decision-makers, from a global standpoint, such responsibility placed on women's shoulders is laden with challenges, given women's social positions in society and vulnerabilities (for in-depth discussions, see Nasrin, 2012; Resurrección, 2013; Shanley, Silva, Trilby, & Silva, 2018; Shinbrot, Wilkins, Gretzel, & Bowser, 2019; Tran, 2021). In addition to patriarchal structures, hidden aspects such as a lack of self-confidence can impede women's access to environmental leadership roles (Shinbrot et al., 2019). Nevertheless, research suggests that better environmental decisions tend to be made when women are in decision-making positions alongside men, in some contexts (Glass, Cook, & Ingersoll, 2016; Hollindale, Kent, Routledge, & Chapple, 2019). Hence, education and training to build women's environmental leadership capabilities (Segovia-Pérez, Laguna-Sánchez, & de la Fuente-Cabrero, 2019) may be an important step in actualising a greener post-COVID world.

Those identifying as Christian or as having no religion provided lower Anthropause Appreciation and Lockdown-Biophilia ratings than those identifying with other major religions. We interpret our religion-related findings with caution, given the relatively small representations of non-Christian religions in our sample (between 1.1 and 2.5%). Nevertheless, it appears to reflect studies in the US and Australia, which concluded that compared to non-Christians, Christians have lower levels of environmental concern (Clements, McCright, & Xiao, 2013; Reid, 2014). Literal beliefs in the Bible were associated with lower general and ecocentric environmental concern in a multinational study (Schultz, Zelezny, & Dalrymple, 2000). However, there were some denominational differences within Christianity, with Orthodox Christians and Catholics being the most concerned (Reid, 2014). Since earlier condemnations of the dominion theory in the Book of Genesis as being responsible for environmental decline (Toynbee, 1972; White, 1967), Christian environmental ethics and values concerning environmental guardianship and stewardship have prompted support for environmental causes, including environmental education (see Bouma-Prediger, 2016; Cass, 2020; Hitzhusen, 2007; W. Jenkins, 2013; Wardekker, Petersen, & van Der Sluijs, 2009). With Christianity being the world's largest religion (Pew Research Centre, 2017), its ongoing greening appears important for global post-pandemic environmental behaviour transformations. Theology scholars examining the religion-environment interface could consider the underlying contexts that contribute to denominational differences in COVID-related environmental concern, to provide transformative insights for greening Christianity.

Advocates of a greener post-pandemic recovery could consider religious leaders for the role of change agents. This is already occurring to some extent. Churches in New Zealand and other Pacific nations, already advocating environmental care, are now calling for a green COVID-19 recovery (Cass, 2020). In the US, Pope Francis's words significantly influenced public perceptions about a moral obligation to expedite climate change action (Schuldt, Pearson, Romero-Canyas, & Larson-Konar, 2017; Shin & Preston, 2019), and environmental actions among Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people appear partly shaped by the beliefs and practices of their respective religious institutions (Vaidyanathan, Khalsa, & Ecklund, 2018). This suggests a valuable arena for values-based environmental advocacy, considering that many religious values (e.g. selflessness, gratitude, empathy, non-violence, compassion) are relevant to reciprocal human-nature relationships and dispositions of care towards nature (Abu-Hola, 2009; Dien, 1997; Gross, 1997; Guelke, 2004; Kureethadam, 2016; Renugadevi, 2012; Sahni, 2007; Woodhouse, Mills, McGowan, & Milner-Gulland, 2015). Such advocacy appears promising, considering how environmental attitudes were influenced by religious attitudes and awareness of faith-based environmental stewardship (Crowe, 2013; Simeon, 2021). Merging of religious and environmental values may lead to enduring self-transcending environmental motivations based on benevolence, altruism, and concern for the wellbeing of others and of nature (Schwartz, 2012) – universal values that are essential for sufficiency as a basis for reducing environmental impacts alongside efficiency (Kurz, 2019).

The Anthropause was experienced globally and appears to be a defining event in the 21st century which evidenced how “relatively minor changes to our lifestyles can potentially have major benefits for ecosystems”, wildlife, and humans (Rutz et al., 2020, p. 1158). Its many lessons offer practicable approaches for sustaining the ecological benefits of lockdowns (Celin, Bhanot, & Kalsi, 2022). It may be seen as an opportunity for a post-pandemic new normality – a departure from the old routines of ecologically destructive living (Searle, Turnbull, & Lorimer, 2021) and the present study suggests public support for such an outcome.

Our study was limited in several ways. First, although nationally representative by age, gender, and ethnicity, relationships with predictors may have been missed due to the relatively small sample size. Second, as the beneficial outcomes of the Anthropause were measured retrospectively, post-lockdown, there may have been an element of recall bias. Due to the already-extensive ISSP questionnaire and the need to minimise respondent burden, we did not measure direct experiences of lockdown-related ecological benefits. Repetition of the Anthropause Appreciation scale in future research would benefit from additional questions measuring knowledge about Anthropause environmental outcomes and the sources of that knowledge. Space constraints also limited the scope of our COVID-related Eco-Contemplation and Lockdown-Biophilia scales. Pensini and McMullen's (2022) items for assessing anthropomorphism within the context of COVID-19, Haasova and colleagues' (2020) items on higher-order beliefs about the pandemic and the present Eco-Contemplation items could be merged to form a more comprehensive item-set in future research. Finally, given the low COVID-19 case numbers at the time of data collection in New Zealand, we did not consider COVID-19 contraction as a potential predictor variable in our study. This variable may need to be accounted for when considering our measures in jurisdictions with higher COVID-19 severity.

Despite limitations, our study offers a preliminary account of possible relationships and the lack thereof between measures of Anthropause Appreciation, COVID-19-related Ecophilosophical Contemplations, and Lockdown-triggered Biophilia, and demographic characteristics and environmental predispositions. Similar research carried out internationally might help shed light on unique Anthropause-related perceptions and values that have strong implications for human-nature relationships, and the choices we might make to prevent future pandemics and achieve a greener post-pandemic world.

Funding

This study was partly funded by the Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland Performance-Based Research Funds.

Credit author statement

Komathi Kolandai: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Project Administration, Writing – original draft. Barry Milne: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Investigation, Supervision; Writing – review & editing. Jessica McLay: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Martin von Randow: Methodology, Investigation, Project Administration, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Roy Lay-Yee: Funding acquisition; Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Handling Editor: W. Schultz

Appendix A. Sample statistics

Variables	Description	N (%)
Gender	Male	485 (48.9)
	Female	507 (51.1)
	Excluded: One respondent indicating a non-binary gender
Age	19–24 years	92 (9.4)
	25–44 years	314 (32.2)
	45–64 years	321 (32.9)
	≥65 years	250 (25.6)
	Excluded: 16 missing
Ethnicity	Māori	160 (16.4)
	European	743 (76.1)
	Pacific	50 (5.1)
	Asian	127 (13.0)
	Other	20 (2.0)
	Excluded: 16 missing
Qualification level	No formal qualification	22 (2.3)
	Primary school completed	53 (5.4)
	Secondary school qualification	305 (31.3)
	Trade or Professional Certificate or Diploma below degree level	271 (27.8)
	Undergraduate degree	182 (18.7)
	Postgraduate or higher	141 (14.5)
	Excluded: 19 missing
Dwelling	Country	150 (15.3)
	City	830 (84.7)
	Excluded: 13 missing
Religion	No religion	465 (46.8)
	Christian	418 (42.1)
	Buddhist	23 (2.3)
	Hindu	25 (2.5)
	Muslim	11 (1.1)
	Another religion	24 (2.4)
	Missing	27 (2.8)

Appendix B. Bivariate correlation matrix (predictor variables)

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)	(14)	(15)	(16)	(17)	(18)	(19)	(20)
(1) Environmental concern	1
(2) Nature enjoyment	.194**	1
(3) Nature activities	.100**	.439**	1
(4) Recycling	.201**	.140**	.095**	1
(5) Product avoidance	.434**	.147**	.106**	.267**	1
(6) Meat consumptiona	.137**	−.02	−.063*	.01	.188**	1
(7) Environmental actions	.343**	.271**	.157**	.131**	.301**	.087**	1
(8) Environmental group memberb	.210**	.144**	.105**	.096**	.190**	.038	.340**	1
(9) Green Party voterc	.212**	.066*	−.057	.042	.171**	.188**	.257**	.086*	1
(10) Genderd	.080*	.088**	.077*	.045	.066*	.016	.048	−.022	.004	1
(11) Ethnicity: Māorie	−.038	.026	.037	.123**	.027	.062	−.122**	−.029	.003	−.029	1
(12) Ethnicity: Europeane	.033	−.197**	−.236**	−.171**	−.01	.138**	−0.03	−.057	−.075*	−.001	−.093**	1
(13) Ethnicity: Pacifice	.003	−.007	.037	.126**	.015	.008	−0.015	−.003	.042	−.02	−.054	−.290**	1
(14) Ethnicity: Asiane	.004	.222**	.280**	.098**	.01	−.203**	.116**	.064*	.043	−.002	−.167**	−.685**	−.042	1
(15) Ethnicity: Othere	−.012	−.002	−.051	.045	.053	.047	.054	.052	.012	.025	−.062	−.234**	−.03	−.056	1
(16) Dwelling	.013	−.059	−.198**	.008	.017	.037	.038	−.078*	.026	.029	.007	.169**	−.077*	−.152**	−.06	1
(17) Age	.046	−.047	.096**	.177**	.083**	−.063*	−.116**	−.016	−.182**	−.042	.157**	−.148**	.059	.128**	.068*	−.192**	1
(18) Qualifications	.078*	.055	−.046	.002	.079*	.097**	.119**	.072*	.127**	.108**	.046	.122**	.089**	−.210**	−.118**	.099**	−.173**	1
(19) COVID-19 financial impacts	.028	.018	−.011	−.042	.055	.098**	.038	−.023	−.035	.078*	−.033	.085**	.016	−.03	−.003	.003	.025	.028	1
(20) COVID-19 mental health impacts	−0.036	.052	−.018	.014	.034	.05	−.048	.007	−.082*	−.015	−.124**	.033	−.026	−.011	.076*	−.03	.091**	−.104**	.283**	1

Note: ^aMeat consumption: 0 = yes, 1 = no. ^bEnvironmental group member: 0 = no, 1 = yes. ^cGreen Party voter: 0 = no, 1 = yes.^dGender: 0 = male, 1 = female. ^eEthnicity: 0 = yes, 1 = no. Bolded values show moderate associations. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Appendix C. Frequency of mean ratings for the Anthropause Appreciation, Eco-Contemplation, and Lockdown-Biophilia scales

Appendix D. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article: