ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2023
The Dismal State of Federal Funding for Experimental Evaluations of Interventions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Public Policy Advocacy in Behavior Analysis: Chronicles from Behavior Analysts to Guide Future Public Policy Advocacy Action.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Tutorial. A Behavioral Analysis of Rationality, Nudging, and Boosting: Implications for Policymaking.Perspectives on behavior science · 2023Article
- Climate Change and Six Americas: What Can Behavior Analysts Do?Behavior and social issues · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The threats of climate change to human well-being are well-documented and are growing in number and intensity. Despite the international community investing heavily in technological innovation and policy initiatives to solve the problem, emissions continue to rise. Experts are recognizing that eliminating emissions cannot be achieved without modifying the human behavior of which emissions are a function. However, little attention has been allocated to expanding the use of strategies developed by the behavioral-science community to reduce emissions on large scales. One possible reason is that federal funding has not been arranged to select such research. Therefore, we conducted an analysis of six sources of information about federal funding to fight climate change (the Government Accountability Office, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control) and examined the extent to which they are funding behavioral science research to reduce emissions. Our results show an appalling lack of funding for behavioral science research to reduce emissions, especially experimental evaluations of strategies for reducing them. Implications and recommendations for funding of future research are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.