Table 1
Scenarios of the experiment at glance.
| SCENARIO | REMINDER:SOCIETAL CHALLENGES | COMMUNICATION:LINK BETWEEN SOCIETAL CHALLENGES | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BIODIVERSITY LOSS | COVID-19 | WAR IN UKRAINE | ||
| 1 | X | Not applicable | ||
| 2 | X | X | No | |
| 3 | X | X | Yes | |
| 4 | X | X | No | |
| 5 | X | X | Yes | |
Figure 1
Average points across groups (a) and distribution in priority to biodiversity (b). Note: the violin plot shows the distribution of responses through a combination of a kernel density plot and a box plot.
Table 2
Influence of information on priority to biodiversity (a).
| SCENARIO | IOVERALL SAMPLE N = 1,000 | IISAMPLE WITHOUT ZEROS N = 726 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Biodiversity loss | 10.92 (15.17) | 15.94 (16.00) |
| 2 Biodiversity loss and Covid-19 | 9.76 (9.58) | 13.19 (8.87) |
| 3 Biodiversity loss and Covid-19 (containing causal link) | 9.02 (8.66) | 12.70 (7.66) |
| 4 Biodiversity loss and War in Ukraine | 9.61 (10.78) | 13.25 (10.58) |
| 5 Biodiversity loss and War in Ukraine (containing causal link) | 10.62 (9.00) | 13.79 (7.83) |
[i] (a) Mean values, standard deviations in brackets.
Table 3
Negative binomial regressions to explain priority to biodiversity (for the overall sample).
| NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | ||||
| COEF. (r.SE) | P | COEF. (r.SE) | P | COEF. (r.SE) | P | |
| Treatments | ||||||
| (2) Covid-19 | –0.112 (0.120) | 0.349 | –0.075 (0.114) | 0.514 | –0.051 (0.113) | 0.649 |
| (3) Covid-19 link | –0.191 (0.119) | 0.109 | –0.148 (0.115) | 0.196 | –0.040 (0.115) | 0.732 |
| (4) Ukraine | –0.128 (0.126) | 0.308 | –0.095 (0.120) | 0.426 | –0.009 (0.118) | 0.938 |
| (5) Ukraine link | –0.028 (0.115) | 0.805 | –0.007 (0.109) | 0.950 | 0.010 (0.109) | 0.931 |
| Risk seeking | –0.010 (0.015) | 0.496 | –0.001 (0.015) | 0.927 | ||
| Patience | 0.031 (0.015) | 0.044 | 0.020 (0.014) | 0.165 | ||
| Nfcs | –0.005 (0.004) | 0.180 | –0.007 (0.004) | 0.075 | ||
| Locus of control, internal | –0.017 (0.049) | 0.731 | –0.042 (0.047) | 0.378 | ||
| Locus of control, external | 0.094 (0.049) | 0.055 | 0.033 (0.050) | 0.512 | ||
| Extraversion | 0.032 (0.038) | 0.395 | 0.036 (0.038) | 0.343 | ||
| Agreeableness | –0.065 (0.043) | 0.132 | –0.017 (0.044) | 0.698 | ||
| Conscientiousness | 0.048 (0.043) | 0.263 | 0.069 (0.043) | 0.108 | ||
| Neuroticism | –0.002 (0.049) | 0.960 | 0.034 (0.045) | 0.455 | ||
| Openness | 0.083 (0.034) | 0.015 | 0.018 (0.035) | 0.618 | ||
| Gender | 0.120 (0.074) | 0.104 | 0.186 (0.072) | 0.010 | ||
| Education | 0.023 (0.026) | 0.381 | –0.013 (0.026) | 0.609 | ||
| Age | 0.005 (0.016) | 0.757 | –0.002 (0.016) | 0.905 | ||
| Age2 | –0.000 (0.000) | 0.789 | –0.000 (0.000) | 0.990 | ||
| Politics: right | –0.047 (0.020) | 0.021 | –0.034 (0.021) | 0.112 | ||
| Population density | 0.009 (0.017) | 0.590 | –0.0011 (0.017) | 0.492 | ||
| Income | 0.070 (0.026) | 0.007 | 0.065 (0.026) | 0.014 | ||
| Personal importance of biodiversity | 0.388 (0.035) | 0.000 | ||||
| N | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | |||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.3503 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0004 | 0.0046 | 0.0176 | |||
Table 4
Linear hurdle model to explain biodiversity prioritisation (N = 1,000).
| STAGE I: SELECTION MODEL | STAGE II: OUTCOME MODEL | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COEF. (SE) | P | COEF. (SE) | P | |
| Treatments | ||||
| (2) Covid-19 | 0.2145 (0.1419) | 0.131 | –5.2133 (2.7503) | 0.058 |
| (3) Covid-19 link | 0.0705 (0.1387) | 0.611 | –5.0220 (2.8168) | 0.075 |
| (4) Ukraine | 0.1249 (0.1413) | 0.377 | –4.0147 (2.7654) | 0.147 |
| (5) Ukraine link | 0.2284 (0.1430) | 0.110 | –4.6171 (–4.6171) | 0.085 |
| Risk seeking | –0.0216 (0.0196) | 0.273 | 0.2992 (0.3973) | 0.451 |
| Patience | 0.0327 (0.0188) | 0.082 | –0.0764 (0.3831) | 0.842 |
| Nfcs | –0.0034 (0.0050) | 0.496 | –0.2271 (0.0984) | 0.021 |
| Locus of control, internal | 0.0485 (0.0638) | 0.447 | –3.2953 (1.2737) | 0.010 |
| Locus of control, external | 0.0282 (0.0592) | 0.634 | 1.2255 (1.1625) | 0.292 |
| Extraversion | 0.0522 (0.0522) | 0.317 | –0.0253 (1.0401) | 0.981 |
| Agreeableness | –0.0162 (0.0576) | 0.778 | –0.6398 (1.106) | 0.563 |
| Conscientiousness | –0.0198 (0.0608) | 0.745 | 2.2784 (1.2015) | 0.058 |
| Neuroticism | 0.0162 (0.0587) | 0.782 | –0.0971 (1.1561) | 0.933 |
| Openness | 0.1081 (0.0519) | 0.037 | –1.1365 (1.0136) | 0.262 |
| Gender | 0.2306 (0.0981) | 0.019 | 1.2872 (1.9190) | 0.502 |
| Education | 0.0371 (0.0384) | 0.335 | –0.7903 (0.7233) | 0.275 |
| Age | –0.0287 (0.0226) | 0.204 | 0.4875 (0.4485) | 0.277 |
| Age2 | 0.0003 (0.0002) | 0.262 | –0.0051 (0.0049) | 0.296 |
| Politics: right | –0.0773 (0.0259) | 0.003 | 0.1648 (0.4798) | 0.731 |
| Population density | 0.0086 (0.0235) | 0.713 | –0.2391 (0.4607) | 0.604 |
| Income | 0.0903 (0.0358) | 0.012 | 0.9217 (0.7158) | 0.198 |
| Personal importance of biodiversity | 0.3170 (0.0446) | 0.000 | 7.9505 (1.1623) | 0.000 |
| Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | |||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0344 | |||
Table 5
OLS and Ordered logit regressions to explain personal importance of biodiversity (N = 1,000).
| LINEAR REGRESSION | ORDERED LOGISTIC REGRESSION | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COEF. (R.SE) | BETA | P | ODDS RATIO (R.SE) | P | |
| Risk seeking | –0.019 (0.015) | –0.048 | 0.189 | 0.960 (0.026) | 0.127 |
| Patience | 0.054 (0.014) | 0.140 | 0.000 | 1.109 (0.028) | 0.000 |
| Nfcs | 0.004 (0.004) | 0.043 | 0.217 | 1.011 (0.007) | 0.103 |
| Locus of control, internal | 0.119 (0.049) | 0.096 | 0.015 | 1.274 (0.108) | 0.004 |
| Locus of control, external | 0.116 (0.044) | 0.099 | 0.009 | 1.252 (0.097) | 0.004 |
| Extraversion | 0.022 (0.042) | 0.020 | 0.593 | 1.021 (0.078) | 0.789 |
| Agreeableness | –0.071 (0.047) | –0.054 | 0.133 | 0.885 (0.076) | 0.154 |
| Conscientiousness | 0.013 (0.045) | 0.010 | 0.776 | 1.050 (0.088) | 0.563 |
| Neuroticism | –0.008 (0.044) | –0.008 | 0.850 | 0.966 (0.077) | 0.663 |
| Openness | 0.182 (0.039) | 0.159 | 0.000 | 1.422 (0.105) | 0.000 |
| Gender | –0.054 (0.069) | –0.026 | 0.429 | 0.921 (0.113) | 0.501 |
| Education | 0.072 (0.026) | 0.095 | 0.006 | 1.137 (0.055) | 0.008 |
| Age | 0.003 (0.016) | 0.036 | 0.869 | 1.003 (0.028) | 0.918 |
| Age2 | –0.000 (0.000) | –0.005 | 0.983 | 1.000 (0.000) | 0.999 |
| Politics: right | –0.069 (0.019) | –0.121 | 0.000 | 0.877 (0.034) | 0.001 |
| Population density | 0.030 (0.017) | 0.056 | 0.077 | 1.061 (0.033) | 0.056 |
| Income | 0.002 (0.026) | 0.003 | 0.939 | 0.990 (0.045) | 0.824 |
| Prob > F/Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | |||
| R2/Pseudo R2 | 0.0999 | 0.0407 | |||
Figure 2
Distribution of responses to the main question in study 2: Have your experiences of the multiple challenges changed you as a person?