Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 333

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study

Open access
Gifford, Robert, Scannell, Leila, Kormos, Christine, Smolova, Lidia, Biel, Anders, Boncu, Stefan, Corral, Victor, Güntherf, Hartmut, Hanyu, Kazunori, Hine, Donald, Kaiser, Florian G., Korpela, Kalevi, Lima, Luisa Marie, Mertig, Angela G., Mira, Ricardo Garcia, Moser, Gabriel, Passafaro, Paola, Pinheiro, José Q., Saini, Sunil, Sako, Toshihiko, Sautkina, Elena, Savina, Yannick, Schmuck, Peter, Schultz, Wesley, Sobeck, Karin, Sundblad, Eva-Lotta, Uzzell, David·2009·Journal of Environmental Psychology

Abstract

The personal assessments of the current and expected future state of the environment by 3232 community respondents in 18 nations were investigated at the local, national, and global spatial levels. These assessments were compared to a ranking of each country's environmental quality by an expert panel. Temporal pessimism (“things will get worse”) was found in the assessments at all three spatial levels. Spatial optimism bias (“things are better here than there”) was found in the assessments of current environmental conditions in 15 of 18 countries, but not in the assessments of the future. All countries except one exhibited temporal pessimism, but significant differences between them were common. Evaluations of current environmental conditions also differed by country. Citizens' assessments of current conditions, and the degree of comparative optimism, were strongly correlated with the expert panel's assessments of national environmental quality. Aside from the value of understanding global trends in environmental assessments, the results have important implications for environmental policy and risk management strategies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 333

Metadata

Authors
Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., Corral, V., Güntherf, H., Hanyu, K., Hine, D., Kaiser, F. G., Korpela, K., Lima, L. M., Mertig, A. G., Mira, R. G., Moser, G., Passafaro, P., Pinheiro, J. Q., Saini, S., Sako, T., Sautkina, E., Savina, Y., Schmuck, P., Schultz, W., Sobeck, K., Sundblad, E.-L., & Uzzell, D.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
1-12
ISSN
0272-4944 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082047059
Cited by
333
References
2
FWCI
38.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001
The paper
Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., Corral, V., Güntherf, H., Hanyu, K., Hine, D., Kaiser, F. G., Korpela, K., Lima, L. M., Mertig, A. G., Mira, R. G., Moser, G., Passafaro, P., Pinheiro, J. Q., Saini, S., . . . Uzzell, D. (2009). Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.