Imagine you are asked to judge the availability of fresh drinking water or the degree of biodiversity in your local area, your country, and globally on a scale ranging from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Do you think your scores would be comparable across these three geographic levels? Research findings indicate that when making comparative judgments between geographically distant places, individuals tend to rate the severity of environmental problems as worse in distant locations than in more proximal ones. Why is this the case, and what are the implications for addressing environmental problems? In this half-day workshop, I will combine icebreaker activities, group discussions, academic articles, and PowerPoint presentations to help you learn about the nature and consequences of place-enhancement bias. I will review how the literature has conceptualized and measured this bias, its relationship to psychological distance, and implications for delaying pro-environmental actions. Given the conference theme, I will focus on how this bias is linked to self-enhancement, arguing that it reflects a place-serving motivation to defend one’s view of a close, valued place by downplaying environmental risks there compared to a distant location. I recommend attendees read this Social Psychological Bulletin article before the workshop.