Conference preferences and environmental sensitivity: Insights from participants to an Italian conference about planetary health
Keywords:
Planetary Health, Environmental sustainability, Carbon footprintAbstract
Background
Scientific conferences may substantially contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, yet they remain essential for professional development. Understanding how health professionals perceive environmentally sustainable conference practices is key to designing low-impact scientific events. This study explored knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and preferences regarding sustainable conference participation among attendees of an Italian planetary health meeting.
Methods
We administered an online survey to participants of the 2024 Public Health Residents’ Meeting “From Planet Earth to Planet Health” held in Ancona, Italy. The questionnaire assessed self-perceived environmental awareness, lifestyle behaviors, travel patterns, and preferences toward virtual, hybrid, and in-person conference formats. We evaluated associations between awareness and demographic or behavioral variables.
Results
Of 80 invited participants, 47 completed the survey. Most respondents were public health residents (70.2%) with balanced gender distribution. Environmental awareness was generally high but showed little association with demographic characteristics or lifestyle behaviors. A majority preferred in-person conferences (61.7%), perceiving them as superior for learning (68.1%) and especially for networking (87.2%). Virtual conferences were acknowledged for advantages such as lower cost, greater accessibility, and reduced environmental impact. However, environmental considerations minimally influenced conference participation decisions: only 25.5% reported considering them moderately or strongly, and just 12.8% had ever chosen a virtual format primarily for environmental reasons.
Discussion
In this exploratory study, despite high environmental awareness, limited associations were found between awareness with pro-environmental behaviors among conference participants, suggesting the complexity of sustainable decision-making in academic contexts. While participants recognized the ecological benefits of virtual formats, social and educational opportunities strongly anchored preferences toward in-person events. These insights suggest the potential value of institutional strategies, such as high-quality hybrid models and structured sustainability frameworks, to align scientific conferencing with environmental goals. Larger, multi-institutional studies are needed to validate these relationships and assess the feasibility of proposed strategies.
References
1. Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu SC, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, et al. The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: climate change action offers a lifeline. Lancet. 2025 Dec 13;406(10521):2804-57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01919-1. Epub 2025 Oct 29. Erratum in: Lancet. 2025 Dec 13;406(10521):2756. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02475-4. PMID: 41175887.
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
3. Filippini T, Paduano S, Veneri F, Barbolini G, Fiore G, Vinceti M. Adverse human health effects of climate change: an update. Ann Ig. 2024 May-Jun;36(3):281-291. doi: 10.7416/ai.2024.2595. Epub 2024 Feb 1. PMID: 38303639.
4. Setoguchi S, Leddin D, Metz G, Omary MB. Climate Change, Health, and Health Care Systems: A Global Perspective. Gastroenterology. 2022 May;162(6):1549-55. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.02.037. Epub 2022 Mar 2. PMID: 35247463.
5. Arnell NW, Brown S, Gosling SN, Gottschalk P, Hinkel J, Huntingford C, et al. The impacts of climate change across the globe: a multi-sectoral assessment. Clim Change. 2016;134:457–474. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1281-2
6. Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu SC, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, et al. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. Lancet. 2024;404:1847–96. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01822-1
7. Ethier I, Sandal S, Tarakji AR, Finkle SN, Kahlon B, Pederson K, et al. Climate change and environmentally sustainable kidney care in Canada: a knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey of kidney care providers. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2024;11:20543581241287286. doi:10.1177/20543581241287286
8. Lee HR, Pagano I, Borth A, Campbell E, Hubbert B, Kotcher J, et al. Health professional's willingness to advocate for strengthening global commitments to the Paris climate agreement: findings from a multi-nation survey. J Clim Chang Health. 2021;2:100016. doi:10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100016
9. Hung LS, Bayrak MM. Comparing the effects of climate change labelling on reactions of the Taiwanese public. Nat Commun. 2020 Nov 27;11(1):6052. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19979-0. PMID: 33247144; PMCID: PMC7699618.
10. Álvarez-Nieto C, Richardson J, Navarro-Perán MÁ, Tutticci N, Huss N, Elf M, et al. Nursing students' attitudes towards climate change and sustainability: a cross-sectional multisite study. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;108:105185. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105185
11. Aronsson J, Nichols A, Warwick P, Elf M. Nursing students' and educators' perspectives on sustainability and climate change: An integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Aug;80(8):3072-85. doi: 10.1111/jan.15950. Epub 2023 Nov 14. PMID: 37962107.
12. Pandve HT, Raut A. Assessment of awareness regarding climate change and its health hazards among the medical students. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2011 Jan;15(1):42-5. doi: 10.4103/0019-5278.82999. PMID: 21808501; PMCID: PMC3143517.
13. Müller F, Skok JI, Arnetz JE, Bouthillier MJ, Holman HT. Primary Care Clinicians' Attitude, Knowledge, and Willingness to Address Climate Change in Shared Decision-Making. J Am Board Fam Med. 2024 Mar 11;37(1):25-34. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230027R1. PMID: 37385719.
14. Baumann AAW, Conway N, Doblinger C, Steinhauser S, Paszko A, Lehmann F, et al. Mitigation of climate change in health care: a survey for the evaluation of providers' attitudes and knowledge, and their view on their organization's readiness for change. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022;173:108–15. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2022.05.013
15. André H, Gonzalez Holguera J, Depoux A, Pasquier J, Haller DM, Rodondi PY, et al. Talking about climate change and environmental degradation with patients in primary care: a cross-sectional survey on knowledge, potential domains of action and points of view of general practitioners. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:4901. doi:10.3390/ijerph19084901
16. Holden MH, Butt N, Chauvenet A, Plein M, Stringer M, Chadès I. Academic conferences urgently need environmental policies. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1211–2. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0296-2
17. Bousema T, Selvaraj P, Djimde AA, Yakar D, Hagedorn B, Pratt A, et al. Reducing the carbon footprint of academic conferences: the example of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103:1758–61. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-1013
18. Niner HJ, Johri S, Meyer J, Wassermann SN. The pandemic push: can COVID-19 reinvent conferences to models rooted in sustainability, equitability and inclusion? Socioecol Pract Res. 2020;2(3):253-6. doi: 10.1007/s42532-020-00059-y. Epub 2020 Aug 25. PMID: 34765878; PMCID: PMC7446603.
19. Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Autorino R, Amparore D, Cooperberg MR, Ficarra V, et al. Traditional and virtual congress meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and the post-COVID-19 era: is it time to change the paradigm? Eur Urol. 2020;78:301–3. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.018
20. Sharma D, Rizzo J, Nong Y, Murase LC, Fong S, Lo K, et al. Virtual learning decreases the carbon footprint of medical education. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024;14:853–9. doi:10.1007/s13555-024-01120-4
21. Paredes-Canencio KN, Lasso A, Castrillon R, Vidal-Medina JR, Quispe EC. Carbon footprint of higher education institutions. Environ Dev Sustain. 2024;26:30239–72. doi:10.1007/s10668-024-04596-4
22. Fox HE, Kareiva P, Silliman B, Hitt J, Lytle DA, Halpern BS, et al. Why do we fly? Ecologists' sins of emission. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7:294. doi:10.1890/09.WB.019
23. Orsi F. Cutting the carbon emission of international conferences: is decentralization an option? J Transp Geogr. 2012;24:462–6. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.010
24. Stroud JT, Feeley KJ. Responsible academia: optimizing conference locations to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Ecography. 2015;38:402–4. doi:10.1111/ecog.01366
25. Attari SZ, Krantz DH, Weber EU. Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Clim Change. 2016;138:325–38. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2
26. Haage V. A survey of travel behaviour among scientists in Germany and the potential for change. Elife. 2020 May 28;9:e56765. doi: 10.7554/eLife.56765. PMID: 32463357; PMCID: PMC7255798.
27. Serafini A, Pandiani P, Bruschi I, Palandri L, Baroni L. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of general practitioners about the vegetarian diet (KAVeGP). In: 98th EGPRN Meeting; European General Practice Research Network. Available from: https://meeting.egprn.org/foyer/article/d7cef8b0-bbf6-49da-94e2-b42e1401df81
28. Ambiente e salute: indagine sulle abitudini e le conoscenze dei dipendenti dell'Azienda USL di Bologna. Available from: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScCE8hTmHqArre30bVzP4jQEqd_rPzaI7n4ClwcYJd8iPxcVA/viewform
29. Hartmann C, Lazzarini G, Funk A, Siegrist M. Measuring consumers' knowledge of the environmental impact of foods. Appetite. 2021 Dec 1;167:105622. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105622. Epub 2021 Aug 4. PMID: 34363900.
30. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Off J Eur Union. 2016;L119:1–88. Available from: https://gdpr-info.eu/
31. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 2002;8:239–60. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401
32. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. 2011 May-Jun;66(4):290-302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566. PMID: 21553954.
33. Steg L, Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol. 2009;29:309–17. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
34. Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Capstick S. Behaviour change to address climate change. Curr Opin Psychol. 2021 Dec;42:76-81. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.002. Epub 2021 Apr 14. PMID: 33991862.
35. Nielsen KS, Cologna V, Lange F, Brick C, Stern PC. The case for impact-focused environmental psychology. J Environ Psychol. 2021;74:101559. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101559
36. Stern PC. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000;56:407–24. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
37. Skiles M, Yang E, Reshef O, Robalino Muñoz D, Cintron D, Lind ML, et al. Conference demographics and footprint changed by virtual platforms. Nat Sustain. 2022;5:149–56. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00823-2
38. Mitsou P, Tsakalidou NV, Vrochidou E, Papakostas GA. COVID-19 imposes rethinking of conferencing – environmental impact assessment of artificial intelligence conferences. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Vision and Computing (ICIVC 2023). Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 90–111. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71388-0_8
39. Klöwer M, Hopkins D, Allen M, Higham J. An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7816):356-9. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02057-2. PMID: 32669689.
40. Tao Y, Steckel D, Klemeš JJ, You F. Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nat Commun. 2021 Dec 16;12(1):7324. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2. PMID: 34916499; PMCID: PMC8677730.
41. Sarabipour S, Khan A, Seah YFS, Mwakilili AD, Mumoki FN, Sáez PJ, et al. Changing scientific meetings for the better. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5:296–300. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01067-y
42. Viglione G. A year without conferences? How the coronavirus pandemic could change research. Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7799):327-8. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00786-y. PMID: 32184489.
43. Moss VA, Adcock M, Hotan AW, Kobayashi R, Rees GA, Siégel C, et al. Forging a path to a better normal for conferences and collaboration. Nat Astron. 2021;5:213–6. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01325-z
44. Bottanelli F, Cadot B, Campelo F, Curran S, Davidson PM, Dey G, et al. Science during lockdown – from virtual seminars to sustainable online communities. J Cell Sci. 2020;133:jcs249607. doi:10.1242/jcs.249607
45. Puccinelli E, Zeppilli D, Stefanoudis PV, Wittische-Helou A, Kermorgant M, Fuchs S, et al. Hybrid conferences: opportunities, challenges and ways forward. Front Mar Sci. 2022;9:902772. doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.902772
46. Bamberg S, Möser G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 2007;27:14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
47. Kormos C, Gifford R. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40:359–71. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
48. Kennedy EH, Givens JE. Eco-habitus or eco-powerlessness? Examining environmental concern across social class. Sociol Perspect. 2019;62:646–67. doi:10.1177/0731121419836966
49. Fraser H, Parker T, Nakagawa S, Barnett A, Fidler F. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 16;13(7):e0200303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200303. PMID: 30011289; PMCID: PMC6047784.
50. Arsenault J, Talbot J, Boustani L, Gonzalès R, Manaugh K. The environmental footprint of academic and student mobility in a large research-oriented university. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14:095001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab33e6
51. Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health. 2010 Jun 1;10:299. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-299. PMID: 20515503; PMCID: PMC2898822.
52. Richards DA, Bellon F, Goñi-Fuste B, Grech J, Hollowood L, Mezzalira E, et al. A behaviour change strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international scientific conferences and meetings. npj Clim Action. 2024;3:95. doi:10.1038/s44168-024-00184-4
53. Cavallin Toscani A, Atasu A, Van Wassenhove LN, Vinelli A. Life cycle assessment of in-person, virtual, and hybrid academic conferences: new evidence and perspectives. J Ind Ecol. 2023;27:1461–75. doi:10.1111/jiec.13430
54. Achakulvisut T, Ruangrong T, Bilgin I, Van Den Bossche S, Wyble B, Goodman DF, et al. Improving on legacy conferences by moving online. Elife. 2020;9:e57892. doi:10.7554/eLife.57892
55. Desiere S. The carbon footprint of academic conferences: evidence from the 14th EAAE Congress in Slovenia. EuroChoices. 2015;15:56–61. doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12106
56. United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education. PRME sustainable travel and events guidance. Available from: https://www.unprme.org/sustainable-travel-and-events-guidance/
57. Jäckle S. Reducing the carbon footprint of academic conferences by online participation: the case of the 2020 virtual European Consortium for Political Research general conference. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2021;54:456–61. doi:10.1017/S1049096521000020
58. Parsons E. So you think you want to run an environmental conservation meeting? Advice on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that accompany academic conference planning. J Environ Stud Sci. 2015;5:735–44. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0327-8
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Corinna Fortunato, Corina Marjin, Giovanni Leonardo Briganti , Veronica Gallinoro , Eleonora Raso, Francesco Traglia, Vittorio Grieco, Giuseppa Minutolo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.