Do countries with similar environmental impact share values? An integrated analysis to inform environmental education

IF 5.5 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Ana Fernández-Aballí Altamirano , Carlos Fernández-Aballí Altamirano
{"title":"Do countries with similar environmental impact share values? An integrated analysis to inform environmental education","authors":"Ana Fernández-Aballí Altamirano ,&nbsp;Carlos Fernández-Aballí Altamirano","doi":"10.1016/j.indic.2025.101068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding which values associate with sustainable outcomes is essential for rethinking environmental education (EE). This study investigates whether countries with high human development but low environmental impact share distinctive value patterns that could inform EE frameworks. Using an integrative approach, we combined data from two sustainability databases –the Global Footprint Network and the Sustainable Development Index– with the European Values Study/World Values Survey (2017–2022). A total of 591 categorical variables were analysed using Cramér's V to identify significant differences between low, medium, and high environmental impact country groups, selected among countries with high and very high human development.</div><div>Results show that religiosity, spirituality, and intergenerational household structures associate with lower environmental impact, while secular-rational and individualistic orientations align with higher impact. Non-denominational spirituality also emerges as significant across contexts, suggesting that spiritual and relational worldviews may be overlooked resources for sustainability policy and education. By contrast, pro-environmental attitudes and indicators of subjective well-being, such as happiness, freedom, and health, do not consistently differentiate between impact groups. Additional factors such as insularity and average national temperature further relate to sustainability outcomes, highlighting the interplay of cultural and structural dimensions.</div><div>These findings suggest that current EE frameworks may be too narrowly focused on cognitive and attitudinal factors. To be effective, EE must incorporate spiritual, moral, and communal dimensions, engaging with the plurality of worldviews that guide human–environment relations. More nuanced sustainability indicators, sensitive to cultural and contextual diversity, are needed to better understand and foster comprehensive pathways towards sustainability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 101068"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972725004891","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding which values associate with sustainable outcomes is essential for rethinking environmental education (EE). This study investigates whether countries with high human development but low environmental impact share distinctive value patterns that could inform EE frameworks. Using an integrative approach, we combined data from two sustainability databases –the Global Footprint Network and the Sustainable Development Index– with the European Values Study/World Values Survey (2017–2022). A total of 591 categorical variables were analysed using Cramér's V to identify significant differences between low, medium, and high environmental impact country groups, selected among countries with high and very high human development.
Results show that religiosity, spirituality, and intergenerational household structures associate with lower environmental impact, while secular-rational and individualistic orientations align with higher impact. Non-denominational spirituality also emerges as significant across contexts, suggesting that spiritual and relational worldviews may be overlooked resources for sustainability policy and education. By contrast, pro-environmental attitudes and indicators of subjective well-being, such as happiness, freedom, and health, do not consistently differentiate between impact groups. Additional factors such as insularity and average national temperature further relate to sustainability outcomes, highlighting the interplay of cultural and structural dimensions.
These findings suggest that current EE frameworks may be too narrowly focused on cognitive and attitudinal factors. To be effective, EE must incorporate spiritual, moral, and communal dimensions, engaging with the plurality of worldviews that guide human–environment relations. More nuanced sustainability indicators, sensitive to cultural and contextual diversity, are needed to better understand and foster comprehensive pathways towards sustainability.
环境影响相似的国家有共同的价值观吗?为环境教育提供信息的综合分析
了解哪些价值观与可持续成果相关,对于重新思考环境教育(EE)至关重要。本研究调查了人类发展水平高但环境影响低的国家是否具有独特的价值模式,这些模式可以为环境绩效框架提供信息。我们采用综合方法,将两个可持续发展数据库(全球足迹网络和可持续发展指数)的数据与欧洲价值观研究/世界价值观调查(2017-2022)相结合。在人类发展水平高和非常高的国家中选定的低、中、高环境影响国家组共分析了591个分类变量,以确定它们之间的显著差异。结果表明,宗教信仰、灵性和代际家庭结构对环境的影响较小,而世俗理性和个人主义取向对环境的影响较大。在不同的背景下,非宗派的灵性也显得很重要,这表明精神和关系世界观可能是可持续性政策和教育中被忽视的资源。相比之下,亲环境态度和主观幸福感指标,如幸福、自由和健康,在不同影响群体之间并没有一致的区别。其他因素,如岛国和平均国家温度,进一步与可持续性成果相关,突出了文化和结构维度的相互作用。这些发现表明,当前的情感表达框架可能过于狭隘地关注认知和态度因素。为了有效,电子商务必须结合精神、道德和公共维度,与指导人类与环境关系的多种世界观相结合。为了更好地理解和促进实现可持续发展的综合途径,需要更细致入微、对文化和环境多样性敏感的可持续发展指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
57 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书