Virtual reality is only mildly effective in improving forest conservation behaviors

Banerjee, Sanchayan and Ferreira, Alipio (2024): Virtual reality is only mildly effective in improving forest conservation behaviors. Published in: Scientific Reports No. 14 (5 December 2024)

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) enables immersive experiences that can enhance awareness about environmental problems. We measure the effectiveness of VR versus 2D in an environmental campaign using a field experiment in Brazil. 617 passers-by at a mall were randomly assigned to watch a video clip about the Amazon Forest through VR or a traditional 2D device, with some being randomly interviewed before watching the movie (control group). We find that both the 2D and VR interventions increase individuals’ propensity to (i) contribute to an Amazonian humanitarian campaign, (ii) share contact information, (iii) interact with a conservation campaign, and (iv) state pro-conservation opinions. We find no additional impact of VR compared to 2D, but VR participants were more likely to engage with pro-conservation content online 3 months later. Our findings provide cautionary evidence about the additional potential of using immersive technologies, like VR, to improve conservation behaviors compared to 2D methods.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Virtual Reality, Behavior, Environment
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General > Q01 - Sustainable Development; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics

References

1. Thoma, S. P. et al. Increasing awareness of climate change with immersive virtual reality. Front. Virtual Real. 4, 897034 (2023).

2. Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. C. M., & Bailenson, J. N. Virtual reality as a promising tool to promote climate change awareness. In J. Kim & H. Song (Eds.), Technology and health: Promoting attitude and behavior change (pp. 91–108). Elsevier Academic Press. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816958-2.00005-8 (2020).

3. Nelson, K. M., Anggraini, E. & Schlüter, A. Virtual reality as a tool for environmental conservation and fundraising. PLoS ONE 15, e0223631 (2020).

4. Plechatá, A., Morton, T., Perez-Cueto, F. J. & Makransky, G. A randomized trial testing the effectiveness of virtual reality as a tool for pro-environmental dietary change. Sci. Rep. 12, 14315 (2022).

5. Plechatá, A., Morton, T., Perez-Cueto, F. J. & Makransky, G. Why just experience the future when you can change it: Virtual reality can increase pro-environmental food choices through self-efficacy. Technol. Mind Behav. 3(4: Winter). https://doi.org/10.1037/tm b0000080 (2022).

6. Hofman, K., Walters, G. & Hughes, K. The effectiveness of virtual vs real-life marine tourism experiences in encouraging conservation behaviour. J. Sustain. Tour. 30, 742–766 (2022).

7. Pimentel, D. & Kalyanaraman, S. The effects of embodying wildlife in virtual reality on conservation behaviors. Sci. Rep. 12, 6439 (2022).

8. Mol, J. M., Botzen, W. W. & Blasch, J. E. After the virtual flood: Risk perceptions and flood preparedness after virtual reality risk communication. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17, 189–214 (2022).

9. Martingano, A. J., Konrath, S., Henritze, E. & Brown, A. D. The limited benefits of using virtual reality 360 videos to promote empathy and charitable giving. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 52, 1434–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221125804 (2023).

10. Gürerk, Ö. & Kasulke, A. Does virtual reality increase charitable giving? An experimental study. An Experimental Study (August 19, 2021) (2021).

11. Breves, P. Bringing people closer: The prosocial effects of immersive media on users’ attitudes and behavior. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 49, 1015–1034 (2020).

12. Li, B. J. & Kyung Kim, H. Experiencing organ failure in virtual reality: Effects of self-versus other-embodied perspective taking on empathy and prosocial outcomes. New Media Soc. 23, 2144–2166 (2021).

13. Van Horen, F. et al. Observing the earth from space: Does a virtual reality overview effect experience increase pro-environmental behaviour?. PLoS ONE 19, e0299883 (2024).

14. Kaplan, A. D. et al. The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A metaanalysis. Human Factors 63, 706–726 (2021).

15. Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77, 1–19 (2010).

16. Allcott, H. & Rogers, T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3003–3037 (2014).

17. Torres, M. M. J. & Carlsson, F. Direct and spillover effects of a social information campaign on residential water-savings. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 92, 222–243 (2018).

18. Banerjee, S. et al. Thinking about default enrollment lowers vaccination intentions and public support in G7 countries. PNAS Nexus 3, 093 (2024).

19. Thamer, P., Banerjee, S. & John, P. Pledging after nudging improves uptake of plant-based diets: A field experiment in a German university cafeteria. Environ. Res. Commun. (2023).

20. Banerjee, S., Galizzi, M. M., John, P. & Mourato, S. Sustainable dietary choices improved by reflection before a nudge in an online experiment. Nat. Sustain. 6, 1632–1642 (2023).

21. Banerjee, S. & Picard, J. Thinking through norms can make them more effective. Experimental evidence on reflective climate policies in the UK. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 106, 102024 (2023).

22. Douenne, T. & Fabre, A. Yellow vests, pessimistic beliefs, and carbon tax aversion. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 14, 81–110 (2022).

23. Douenne, T. & Fabre, A. French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106496 (2020).

24. Young, A. Channeling fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. Q. J. Econ. 134, 557–598 (2019).

25. Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R. & Leach, C. W. Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage?. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 353–372 (2008).

26. Casas, A. & Williams, N. W. Images that matter: Online protests and the mobilizing role of pictures. Political Res. Q. 72, 360–375 (2019).

27. Gulliver, R., Chapman, C. M., Solly, K. N. & Schultz, T. Testing the impact of images in environmental campaigns. J. Environ. Psychol. 71, 101468 (2020).

28. Bolderdijk, J. W., Steg, L., Geller, E. S., Lehman, P. K. & Postmes, T. Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 413–416 (2013).

29. Jacobsen, G. D. The Al Gore effect: an inconvenient truth and voluntary carbon offsets. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61, 67–78 (2011).

30. Tu, M., Zhang, B., Xu, J. & Lu, F. Mass media, information and demand for environmental quality: Evidence from the “Under the Dome’’. J. Dev. Econ. 143, 102402 (2020).

31. Pons, V. Will a five-minute discussion change your mind? A countrywide experiment on voter choice in France. Am. Econ. Rev. 108, 1322–1363 (2018).

32. Baul, T., Karlan, D., Toyama, K., & Vasilaky, K. Improving smallholder agriculture via video-based group extension. J. Dev. Econ. 169, 103267. (2024).

33. Pereira, M. M., Giger, N., Perez, M. D. & Axelsson, K. Encouraging politicians to act on climate. A field experiment with local officials in six countries. Am. J. Polit. Sci. (2024).

34. Angrist, N., Winseck, K., Patrinos, H. A. & Zivin, J. G. Human capital and climate change. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1–28 (2024).

35. Sussmann, S. & Vanhegan, H. Virtual reality and the tourism product substitution or complement? ECIS 2000 Proceedings (2000).

36. Rauscher, M. Virtual reality in tourism: Is it ‘real’enough? Acad. Tur. Tour. Innov. J. 13 (2020).

37. Sarkady, D., Neuburger, L. & Egger, R. Virtual reality as a travel substitution tool during COVID-19. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2021: Proceedings of the ENTER 2021 eTourism Conference, January 19–22, 2021, 452–463 (2021).

38. Hehir, C., Scarles, C., Wyles, K. J. & Kantenbacher, J. Last chance for wildlife: Making tourism count for conservation. J. Sustain. Tour. 31, 1271–1291 (2023).

39. Tang, H., Chen, L., Liu, S., Tan, X. & Li, Y. Reconsidering the effectiveness of fear appeals: An experimental study of interactive fear messaging to promote positive actions on climate change. J. Health Commun. 1–11 (2024).

40. Weinstein, N., Rogerson, M., Moreton, J., Balmford, A. & Bradbury, R. B. Conserving nature out of fear or knowledge? Using threatening versus connecting messages to generate support for environmental causes. J. Nat. Conserv. 26, 49–55 (2015).