MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416976839 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1712588

Influencing pro-environmental behaviors through visual arts: a scoping review of research designs and state of knowledge

2025· article· en· W4416976839 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly Gbeve, Virginie Francoeur, Sophie Bernard, Louis Tanguay

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureQuebec Network for Research on AgingPolytechnique Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsState (computer science)Visual methodsThe artsResearch design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Collaboration between scientists and artists is a growing trend driven notably by the need to take action against climate change. Consequently, the role of art is evolving to serve purposes beyond communication in the scientific community. With artistic projects increasingly becoming a form of intervention to influence pro-environmental behaviors, diverse methods are being deployed to assess their influence on behavior, yet little effort has been made to document coherently this emerging diversity of research designs and learnings. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore methodological approaches used to assess the effects of visual arts in promoting pro-environmental behaviors to fight climate change and determine whether some general trends can be observed. Methodology: We conducted a scoping review to identify empirical papers published between 2001 and 2024, from which 8 studies were selected. The selected papers assessed the influence of artistic intervention on pro-environmental behaviors and its defining variables. Results: We found six redundant attributes in research designs. Four of them (mixed-method approach, literature-based conceptual basis, longitudinal studies, baseline environmental profiles) can help support better research designs, while two others (supplementary material, co-creation) can enhance the influence of science-art projects on behavior. We also found that, among the diverse types of art forms (movies, festivals, exhibitions, murals, immersive installation), none were able to directly and significantly affect behaviors, but they could all affect environmental attitudes or awareness to some degree. Originality: This scoping review stands out from prior studies by highlighting the challenges and opportunities in assessing the influence of art on pro-environmental behaviors, as well as by exploring the role of visual arts for engaging the public in such behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.215
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.215
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0270.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207