IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/q4upd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multiple crises in mind, biodiversity out of sight? Insights from a behavioral study in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Gruener, Sven
  • Soliev, Ilkhom
  • Pirscher, Frauke

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is one of the key challenges of our time. This paper explores how negative information due to other societal challenges influences attention toward biodiversity loss. With the help of an information provision experiment, we remind experimental participants recruited from the general population of Germany of Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. We find less priority given to biodiversity loss after being reminded of these societal crises. However, this effect is both low in magnitude and not statistically significant at any conventional level. In contrast, personal importance of biodiversity to individuals is a much stronger behavioral predictor.

Suggested Citation

  • Gruener, Sven & Soliev, Ilkhom & Pirscher, Frauke, 2024. "Multiple crises in mind, biodiversity out of sight? Insights from a behavioral study in Germany," OSF Preprints q4upd, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:q4upd
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/q4upd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65b943d31a30ef01c2c33de5/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/q4upd?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Bernauer & Liam F. McGrath, 2016. "Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 680-683, July.
    2. Jurgen Meyerhoff, 2006. "Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 209-226.
    3. Merk, Christine & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2023. "German citizens’ preference for domestic carbon dioxide removal by afforestation is incompatible with national removal potential," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 270884, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    5. Jeff Tollefson, 2020. "Why deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely," Nature, Nature, vol. 584(7820), pages 175-176, August.
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2018. "Estimating Risk Preferences in the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(2), pages 501-564, June.
    7. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    8. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L. Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2021. "Food consumption behavior during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 44-81, January.
    9. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    10. Alain Cohn & Michel André Maréchal & Thomas Noll, 2015. "Bad Boys: How Criminal Identity Salience Affects Rule Violation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1289-1308.
    11. Colin Carter & Xiaomeng Cui & Dalia Ghanem & Pierre Mérel, 2018. "Identifying the Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 361-380, October.
    12. Wolfgang Buchholz & Todd Sandler, 2021. "Global Public Goods: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 488-545, June.
    13. Dunning,Thad, 2012. "Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107017665, November.
    14. Dunning,Thad, 2012. "Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107698000, November.
    15. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    16. David Kleijn & Rachael Winfree & Ignasi Bartomeus & Luísa G Carvalheiro & Mickaël Henry & Rufus Isaacs & Alexandra-Maria Klein & Claire Kremen & Leithen K M'Gonigle & Romina Rader & Taylor H Ricketts , 2015. "Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    17. Methorst, Joel & Rehdanz, Katrin & Mueller, Thomas & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Bonn, Aletta & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2021. "The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    18. Russell Golman & David Hagmann & George Loewenstein, 2017. "Information Avoidance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 96-135, March.
    19. Fernando M. Aragón & Francisco Oteiza & Juan Pablo Rud, 2021. "Climate Change and Agriculture: Subsistence Farmers' Response to Extreme Heat," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Baldwin, Kate & Bhavnani, Rikhil R., 2013. "Ancillary Experiments: Opportunities and Challenges," WIDER Working Paper Series 024, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Adam Brzezinski & Nuno Palma & François R. Velde, 2024. "Understanding Money Using Historical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 16(1), pages 571-595, August.
    4. Thomas R. Dyckman & Stephen A. Zeff, 2019. "Important Issues in Statistical Testing and Recommended Improvements in Accounting Research," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    6. Youwei Wang & Yuxin Chen & Yi Qian, 2018. "The Causal Link between Relative Age Effect and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from 17 Million Users across 49 Years on Taobao," NBER Working Papers 25318, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Peter J. Buckley, 2016. "Historical Research Approaches to the Analysis of Internationalisation," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 879-900, December.
    8. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1176-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Haoge Chang & Joel Middleton & P. M. Aronow, 2021. "Exact Bias Correction for Linear Adjustment of Randomized Controlled Trials," Papers 2110.08425, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    10. Luke N. Condra & Michael Callen & Radha K. Iyengar & James D. Long & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2019. "Damaging democracy? Security provision and turnout in Afghan elections†," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 163-193, July.
    11. Panos Sousounis & Gauthier Lanot, 2022. "Minimum Wage Effects on Reservation Wages," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 415-439, December.
    12. Paolo Pinotti, 0. "The Credibility Revolution in the Empirical Analysis of Crime," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    13. Oded Galor & Ömer Özak, 2016. "The Agricultural Origins of Time Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 3064-3103, October.
    14. Du, Yao & Sun, Guibo & Heinen, Eva, 2024. "Does subjective wellbeing modify travel behaviour changes among older people in response to a new metro line?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. repec:ags:aaea22:335522 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Catherine Welch & Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki & Rebecca Piekkari & Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, 2022. "Reconciling theory and context: How the case study can set a new agenda for international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(1), pages 4-26, February.
    17. Gregory J. Wawro & Ira Katznelson, 2020. "American political development and new challenges of causal inference," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 299-314, December.
    18. de Renzio, Paolo & Wehner, Joachim, 2017. "The impacts of fiscal openness," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 82521, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Arzi Adbi, 2023. "Financial Sustainability of For-Profit Versus Non-Profit Microfinance Organizations Following a Scandal," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 57-74, November.
    20. Pinotti, Paolo, 2020. "The credibility revolution in the empirical analysis of crime," CEPR Discussion Papers 14850, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    21. Diane Pelly & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Nudging in the workplace: increasing participation in employee EDI wellness events," Working Papers 202208, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    22. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:q4upd. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.