Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40715311›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Cooperative climate action under background risk.

Hao Luo, Hanna de Boer, Oliver Musshoff, Daniel Hermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Hao LuoDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, D-37073, Göttingen, Germany. hao.luo@uni-goettingen.de.
Hanna de BoerUniversity of Bonn, D-53115, Bonn, Germany.
Oliver MusshoffDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, D-37073, Göttingen, Germany.
Daniel HermannUniversity of Bonn, D-53115, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Addressing climate change requires collective action, yet individuals face a collective-risk social dilemma: we must invest in mitigation efforts at a personal cost, with no guarantee that others will contribute, while the benefits are shared globally. Economic theory predicts that the presence of background risk, such as geopolitical instability, pandemics, and economic crises, makes individuals more cautious, potentially reducing their contributions to collective climate protection. As these uncertainties grow, concerns arise that exogenous risks may weaken climate cooperation at a time when it is most urgent. To test this prediction, we conducted an economic laboratory experiment with treatments incorporating background risk into a threshold Public Goods Game framed around climate protection, with real carbon offset purchases linked to participants' decisions in the experiment. Contrary to theoretical expectations, we find that background risk does not systematically lower the likelihood of reaching collective climate goals. This suggests that, under conditions where climate risks are well-communicated and cooperation incentives are strong, concerns about background risk undermining climate action may be less pronounced than anticipated.

Indexed as

Background riskClimate changeLaboratory experimentPublic goods game

Identifiers

PMID40715311
PMCPMC12297547

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.