From ‘Me’ to ‘We’: the psychology behind future collective action for wetland sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of socio-psychological factors on environmental sustainability, including wetlands, is widely recognized; however, in some cases, their role is overlooked. The management and protection of wetlands is considered a collective action that requires the participation of all stakeholders. Based on this, a social identity-based behavioral intention model was used to identify and analyze the social and psychological factors affecting the intention of landowners to engage in sustainable wetland use. The studied population were landowners around Kani Barazan Wetland in Iran, who were surveyed using a cross-sectional study and selection of a representative sample through simple random sampling approach. Reliability and validity of the data gathering tool were evaluated using different indices. Findings showed that the constructs of participative efficacy (Beta = 0.158; Sig = 0.003) and collective efficacy (Beta = 0.183; Sig = 0.011) towards engagement in sustainable wetland use had significant effects on the intention. Landowners' social identity had positive and significant effects on participative efficacy (Beta = 0.052; Sig = 0.007), collective efficacy (Beta = 0.045; Sig = 0.017), and intention to engage in sustainable collective management and use of the wetlands (Beta = 0.156; Sig = 0.014). Analysis of the moderating role of attitude showed that this construct positively and significantly moderates the effect of collective efficacy on the intention to engage in sustainable collective use of the wetlands (Beta = 0.070; Sig = 0.006). This study has practical contributions by providing practical suggestions for environmental policy makers, sustainable management planners of the wetlands, and decision makers at micro and macro levels. Also, by providing evidence in the field of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between collective efficacy and intention, it theoretically helps to develop the body of knowledge in the field of social-psychological indicators explaining the intention to engage in the sustainable collective management of the wetlands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".