Table 1.
Comparison between total MIPP/InNat Volunteers and survey respondents: descriptive statistics about reports submitted.
Table 2.
Performance of RI’s values in classifying respondents. The first column reports the value of the threshold, the second column reports the F1 value, the third column represents the average number of years in Class CV, and the fourth column refers to the average number of total reports computed over all the volunteers in Class CV. The underlined values show the thresholds established.
Table 3.
The five areas summarizing potential enablers recorded through 15 variables considered for the present paper. A general overview of the results is provided, as well as the main differences identified between the two classes of participants (n = 364), i.e., class CV – Consistent Volunteers (n = 94) and class NCV – Non-Consistent Volunteers (n = 270).
Fig 1.
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale analysis: agreement and disagreement levels (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree) about eight selected NEP Items.
NEP1: we are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support (Ecocentrism); NEP2: humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs (Prometheanism); NEP3: if humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences (Ecocentrism); NEP4: human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the Earth unlivable (Prometheanism); NEP5: humans are seriously abusing the environment (Ecocentrism); NEP6: the Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to use them (Prometheanism); NEP7: the so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (Prometheanism); NEP8: humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it (Prometheanism).
Table 4.
Contingency analysis of promethean and ecocentric attitudes in classes: comparison between participants.
Table 5 .
Risk analysis on the variable “sociability”:
comparison of OR and RR between Class CV and Class NCV participants concerning the involvement of other people in the activities proposed by MIPP/InNat. * = significant value for χ², above critical value 3.80, and valid confidence interval, minimum extreme above 1.
Table 6.
Contingent analysis between participants Classes about their affective commitment to the project during Covid-19-related restrictions (χ² = 16.01, p = 0.001; Kendall’s Tau-b = −0.186, p < 0.001).
Table 7.
Mode of first contact with MIPP/InNat initiative for the two classes of participants (χ² = 6.69, p = 0.082; Kendall’s Tau-b = −0.116, p = 0.038).