• Energy Research

Adverse consequences of climate change often affect people and places far away from those that have the greatest capacity for mitigation. Several correlational and some experimental studies suggest that the willingness to take mitigation actions may diminish with increasing distance. However, the empirical findings are ambiguous. In order to investigate if and how socio-spatial distance to climate change effects plays a role for the willingness to engage in mitigation actions, we conducted an online experiment with a German population sample (n = 383). We find that the willingness to sign a petition for climate protection was significantly reduced when a person in India with a name of Indian origin was affected by flooding, as compared to a person in Germany with a name of German origin. Distance did not affect donating money to climate protection or approving of mitigation policies. Our results provide evidence for the existence of a negative effect of distance to climate change consequences on the willingness to engage in low-cost mitigation actions. Investigating explanations for such an effect, we find that it can be attributed to the spatial rather than the social dimension of distance. Moreover, we find some cautious evidence that people with strong racist attitudes react differently to the distance manipulations, suggesting a form of environmental racism that could also reduce mitigation action in the case of climate change.

Prior evidence suggests that perspective-taking may promote pro-environmental behavior, at least for low-cost behaviors or local environmental problems. Climate change, however, requires costly mitigation efforts and is a global problem. Thus, in this study, we examine whether perspective-taking in the context of climate change is effective in promoting mitigation behaviors, including actual and/or costly behaviors, the mechanisms through which perspective-taking works, and if the distance to the person adversely affected by climate change matters for the effect. We conducted an online experiment with a non-student sample from Germany (n = 557), utilizing a 2 × 2 factorial design, to investigate the impact of perspective-taking and distance on three outcome measures: a climate donation, signing a petition, and approval of mitigation policies. We find that perspective-taking does not promote these mitigation behaviors, yet it raises the degree perspective-takers value and – for close others – feel connected with the affected person. Exploratory analysis shows that dispositional perspective-taking and empathic concern are correlated with mitigation behaviors.

Modern environmental thought has always involved normative claims about the values needed for sustainability. This has often played out in debates between proponents of anthropocentric and ecocentric ways of valuing nature. More recently, there has been a flourishing of interest in relational and pluricentric ways of valuing nature, coinciding with a “turn to values” in the sustainability literature. In this paper we explore the meaning and use of the term “sustainability-aligned values.” Following the 2022 IPBES Values Assessment we consider these as values that are crucial for shaping decisions that will help bring about sustainability. Our characterization of sustainably-aligned values assumes inherent pluralism because of diverse interpretations of sustainability and of pathways toward it. Nevertheless, a review of three bodies of literature suggests that there is considerable agreement about the kinds of values that align with sustainability. In particular, the nurturing of certain relational values is now widely seen as supportive of sustainability, including values regarding what matters in human interactions with nature (such as stewardship), and values regarding relationships between humans (such as collectivism). We proceed to pose critical questions about the proposition that certain values support sustainability. We ask whether this emerging body of thought is consistent with pluralist requirements to foster values diversity, whether an agenda to nurture values aligned with sustainability is actionable, and how mobilizing sustainability-aligned values entails addressing power imbalances.

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.