Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37230999›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

An examination of how six reasons for valuing nature are endorsed and associated with pro-environmental behavior across 12 countries.

Izzy Gainsburg, Sukanya Roy, Julia Lee Cunningham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Izzy GainsburgRoss School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. izzyg@umich.edu.
Sukanya RoyRoss School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Julia Lee CunninghamRoss School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Balanced samples from 12 countries (N = 12,000) were surveyed about their reasons for valuing nature and pro-environmental behaviors. Results showed that people were least likely to endorse moral-based reasons for valuing nature, as compared to five other reasons (wellbeing benefits, nature's intrinsic value, health benefits, economic value, identity-based reasons). However, moral- and identity-based reasons (relative to the other four reasons) for valuing nature were the strongest predictors of pro-environmental behavior across three different methods (correlations, linear mixed models, and relative importance analysis) and two pro-environmental behavior categories (consumer behavior and activism). In other words, the reasons for valuing nature most associated with pro-environmental behavior also garnered the weakest support, presenting a potential dilemma for those hoping to leverage values to promote pro-environmental behavior. We also identify a possible mechanism (awareness of one's environmental impact) to explain why moral- and identity-based reasons for valuing nature best predict behavior. Finally, we examine between-country variability in the endorsement of the six reasons and the reasons' associations with pro-environmental behaviors, and country-level factors that may explain between-country variability in these outcomes. We discuss these results in the context of broader literature that has focused on an intrinsic vs. instrumental valuation of nature dichotomy.

Indexed as

EnvironmentMoralsConsumer BehaviorHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37230999
PMCPMC10209929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.