ArticleScientific reports2023
Impact of physical and social living environments on pro-environmental intentions.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The living environment might play an important role in shaping the pro-environmental intentions of the people. However, there was limited research on how the living environments influenced the pro-environmental intentions of people. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the direct effects of physical and social environments on pro-environmental intentions as well as the mediating effects of environmental attitudes and life satisfaction. Structural Equation Modeling was used with data extracted from the 2020 Taiwan Social Change Survey database (n = 1671). Results showed direct positive associations of both physical and social environments with pro-environmental intentions (β = 0.133 and β = 0.076, respectively) as well as indirect positive associations via the life satisfaction-mediating pathway (β = 0.031 and β = 0.044, respectively). The physical environment negatively influenced pro-environmental intentions through the environmental attitude pathway (β = - 0.255) with unpleasant neighborhood enhancing the pro-environmental intentions of residents. Taken together, the overall effect of the physical environment was negative (β = - 0.093) while that of the social environment was positive (β = 0.109). The most important factors for the physical and social environments were disturbance and livability in north, central and south Taiwan, neighborhood pollution and interestingness in east Taiwan. Accordingly, minimizing disturbance and neighborhood pollution of the physical environment could have the highest effect on pro-environmental intentions enhancement in western and eastern Taiwan, respectively. For the social environment, improving livability in the west and interestingness in the east would have an even larger impact on pro-environmental intentions. This study emphasized the importance of neighborhood environment on the environmental intentions of the people. The study also identified the important factors for policymakers to target to achieve the best effect on improving environmental intentions.
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.