Towards an Ethical Consensus for Sustainable Development: An Integrative Review on the Role of Values, Morals, and Norms in Shaping Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Abstract

Background: This integrative review investigates how behavioural and psychological factors shape non-market environmental valuation within the scope of sustainable development. Unlike traditional technical-economic approaches, the novelty of this work lies in reframing socio-cultural drivers of pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) within macro sustainability paradigms and proposing a socially and ethically grounded framework. The review has three objectives: (i) to incorporate psychological and socio-cultural dimensions into the sustainable development agenda; (ii) to demonstrate how values, norms, and perceptions drive PEBs; and (iii) to call for an ethical consensus across socio-economic and environmental sustainability. Methods: The review follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines and synthesises English-language empirical and conceptual studies (2010–2025) from Scopus and Web of Science, supplemented by Google Scholar. The literature search was conducted in December 2025, and rigorous screening and exclusion criteria were applied to ensure methodological reliability. Results: The review includes 69 interdisciplinary studies and 2 reports. The synthesis yields a framework on ethics that integrates psychological, behavioural, and economic perspectives in non-market environmental valuation and informs the weak vs. strong sustainability debate. Discussion: The findings connect sustainability debates to socio-cultural theories to explain how values, norms, and perceptions shape PEBs and valuation-relevant preferences. The review is limited by its integrative (non-meta-analytic) design, which relies on qualitative synthesis and expert judgement across heterogeneous theoretical and empirical traditions; therefore, a formal risk-of-bias assessment was not conducted. The review protocol was registered on OSF (registration ID W9Y8T).

1. Introduction

“Ethics in Action is an initiative designed to answer this question by assessing the degree of consensus … on the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and to mobilize this consensus into moral capital that can be deployed to help each nation-state and the collection of nation-states to achieve the SDGs” [1].

Unlike traditional approaches that prioritise mainly technical and economic solutions, the novelty of this work lies in reframing sustainability through a deeply social and ethical approach [2,3]. Accordingly, within the scope of sustainable development, policymakers and academics call for integrative approaches to capture the complex interlinkages between socio-economic, psychological, cultural, and environmental factors. These factors can be understood through inner values (e.g., personal or communal), opinions, and general capacities [4,5], offering a conceptual framework that links psychological dimensions with nature, communal cohesion, and economic systems. The combination of internal and external factors would allow the formulation of an adaptive and inclusive approach for an ethical consensus toward sustainable development that can support the non-market valuation of goods and services.

From a macro-scale perspective, one of the central debates in environmental science concerns the extent to which natural capital can be substituted with other forms of capital (e.g., produced and human) [6]. This ethical debate is shaped by diverse perspectives, including ecological, managerial, psychological, and ethical viewpoints. For example, this behavioural change can also be associated with the shift from a linear to a circular economy concept [7,8,9,10], and its schools of thought that assimilate the natural phenomena as a basis for the structure of a sustainable future, like biomimicry [11] or as a closed loop economy that promotes novel ideas such as the cradle-to-cradle design for the production of goods [12,13]. Circular economy refers to an economic model that aims to minimise waste and keep materials in use by designing products and processes for reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling. It contrasts with the traditional linear economy (“take-make-dispose”), by creating closed-loop systems that reduce environmental impacts and promote sustainability [7,8]. Despite this macro-scale perspective, it is important to identify the more covert parameters that belong to intrinsic psychological or socio-ethical aspects that compose the micro-scale perspective.

From a micro-scale perspective, the understanding and guiding of behavioural change is essential for promoting sustainable development. White et al. [14] identified five key behavioural factors to uncover barriers and guide solutions in shifting people’s mindsets toward pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). A growing influence on such behaviour is climate anxiety (or eco-anxiety), which primarily affects younger individuals, those with pre-existing generalised anxiety, and environmental information-seekers [15]. Hence, this emotional response, while challenging, can also serve as a catalyst for action. Wamsler and Bristow [16] further explored the intersection of the “mind” and climate crisis from the perspective of policymakers, highlighting how shifts in conceptual frameworks can disrupt destructive cycles and create virtuous ones. Supporting this, Ecer et al. [17] found a positive relationship between eco-anxiety and sustainable consumption, indicating that emotional engagement with climate issues may drive environmentally responsible behaviour. These interconnected insights culminate in what Azam et al. [18] term “consumer psychological resilience,” a concept that provides both conceptual and practical implications for green and social marketing, environmentally conscious consumption, and sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [19]; moreover, it balances economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity to ensure long-term wellbeing and resource sustainability.

The scope of the review is the integration of micro-scale (i.e., psychological and cultural) parameters with the macro-scale (i.e., environmental economics) parameters, offering a more adaptive and inclusive approach that fosters an ethical consensus and accelerates the global transition toward sustainable development. This integration is particularly important because macro-scale sustainability paradigms and environmental valuation methods (e.g., revealed or stated preferences) can shape what societies consider acceptable, or not, trade-offs (e.g., sustainability versus critical natural capital, intergenerational welfare, etc.), while micro-scale behavioural and socio-cultural characteristics explain people’s preferences that are of interest for policymakers. Therefore, the review synthesises behavioural theories (e.g., TPB, VBN), climate-related psychological factors such as eco-anxiety, and culturally rooted practices such as biomimicry, which introduce a novel multidimensional perspective on sustainable transformation.

The objective is to cover three important issues: (i) the review highlights the importance of integrating psychological and socio-cultural parameters into development strategies, (ii) advocates a collective ethical leadership across the fabric of society (e.g., economic, social, cultural, etc.), and (iii) demonstrates how human values, norms, and perceptions can shape PEBs and policy responses for sustainable development. Hence, the review expands beyond existing syntheses of PEBs by explicitly linking macro-level sustainability debate and environmental valuation that also considers the micro-level socio-cultural aspects. Overall, this integrative approach aims to foster more inclusive, resilient, and ethically grounded pathways toward sustainable development.

Given the above objectives of the review, three research questions (RQs) can be posed:

RQ1:

How do weak and strong sustainability paradigms conceptualise the substitutability of natural capital, and how do these differences influence approaches to non-market environmental valuation?

RQ2:

How do psychological and behavioural factors (e.g., values, norms, perceptions, and emotions) shape pro-environmental behaviour within the scope of environmental valuation?

RQ3:

How can the integration of macro-scale sustainability frameworks with micro-scale psychological and behavioural dimensions support the development of an ethical consensus for sustainable development and more robust environmental valuation practices?

The review is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the methodology. Section 3 categorises the parameters of the external macro-scale environment that affect individuals’ choices, whereas Section 4 delves into the internal micro-scale dimensions of individuals’ behavioural aspects. Section 5 and Section 6 demonstrate the interlinkages between personality traits theoretically and practically, respectively. Section 7 discusses the limitations of the review and identifies directions for future research. Section 8 concludes the paper and presents policy implications for an ethical consensus for sustainable development.

2. Materials and Methods

A review compiles and assesses existing knowledge, providing well-founded policy recommendations supported by robust and comprehensive arguments that satisfy eligibility criteria and address multiple research goals. Specifically, the present integrative review demonstrates the combination of environmental psychology and environmental economics by synthesising 42 and 27 published articles, respectively. The protocol was developed in line with PRISMA-P (Supplementary Materials) and registered on OSF (registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W9Y8T), and the review is reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 (see Figure 1) [20,21,22]. The reason for using an integrative review is that the study aims to integrate and highlight the significance of socio-cultural and psychological dimensions within environmental science, with a particular focus on building an ethical consensus that integrates individuals’ values, norms, and perceptions. Therefore, the role of integrative reviews is to combine different research strands and pave the way for future research on such crucial thematic fields.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

This integrative review adheres to the PRISMA 2020 Statement. The literature search was conducted in December 2025 using the Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases, applying a Boolean search strategy. These databases were used because they are widely adopted in similar reviews and provide a rich bibliography on psychological, social, cultural, and environmental issues.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Regarding eligibility criteria, past and recent publications were synthesised to show both historical and state-of-the-art trends in the academic literature. The publications have undergone an extensive and independent cross-checking process by the authors, leading to dependable and precise outcomes.

Eligible studies were written in English between 2010 and 2025 and included empirical or conceptual contributions that supported the aims of the review by providing explicit evidence at either the micro-scale (psychological or behavioural) or the macro-scale (weak vs. strong sustainability) framework. Grey literature consisted of two important reports that capture evidence not well represented in existing publications; these sources were included only if they met the inclusion criteria.

Additionally, exclusion criteria encompassed studies with an irrelevant behavioural focus (e.g., organisational behaviour unrelated to environmental or ethical dimensions), articles in press, conference abstracts, editorials, book reviews, duplicate records, and publications in languages other than English. All records were independently screened for both the inclusion criteria and data collection process by two researchers (P.-S.C.A. and P.G.H.) and supervised by a professor (G.E.H.) to ensure consistency and methodological reliability and to reduce the risk of bias. The Boolean search strategy is presented in Appendix A (

Table A1. Initial document search strategy and screening results for the theme of “weak vs. strong sustainability” from Scopus and Web of Science, covering the period 2010–2025.

Thematic: Weak vs. Strong Sustainability
Database	Boolean Search	Doc.	Research Fields
Scopus	ALL (capital substitutability) AND (Techno-optimism) OR (Ecological limits) OR (Critical natural capital recognised) OR (Ecological thresholds respected) OR (No capital substitutability) OR (Intrinsic ecological value) AND (Ethical ecology) AND (Economic growth)	51	Social Sciences Economics, Econometrics, and Finance Business, Management, and Accounting Environmental Science Agricultural and Biological Sciences Earth and Planetary Sciences
WOS	(Full OR high capital substitutability) AND (Techno-optimism) AND (Economic growth priority) AND (Ecological limits weak OR ignored) OR (Restricted capital substitutability) AND (Critical natural capital recognised) AND (Ecological thresholds respected) OR (No capital substitutability) AND (Intrinsic ecological value) AND (Ethical ecology) AND (Economic growth)	23	Environmental Sciences Ecology Business Economics Geography Biodiversity Conservation Development Studies Anthropology Social Issues Social Sciences Other Topics Water Resources

and

Table A2. Initial Document Search Strategy and Screening Results for the theme of “environmental psychology” articles in English, from Scopus and Web of Science, covering the period 2010–2025.

Thematic: Environmental Psychology
Database	Boolean Search	Doc.	Research Fields
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY (“pro-environmental behavior” OR “pro-environmental behaviour” OR PEB) AND (“theory of planned behavior” OR TPB OR “value-belief-norm” OR VBN OR “norm activa-tion model” OR NAM OR “new environmental paradigm” OR NEP OR “theory of normative conduct” OR TNC OR “social cognitive theory” OR SCT) OR (“ethically minded consumer behaviour” OR EMCB OR “ecologically conscious consumer behaviour” OR ECCB OR “voluntary environmental behaviour” OR VEB) AND (ethics OR morality OR values OR norms) OR (“climate anxiety” OR eco-anxiety OR psy-chological wellbeing) AND (pro-environmental behavior OR climate action OR environmental engagement) OR (“corporate social respon-sibility” OR CSR OR “environmental social governance” OR ESG) AND (“voluntary environmental behavior” OR employee pro-environmental behavior) AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND PUBYEAR > 2009 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “ECON”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “PSYC”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “EART”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Pro-environmental Behavior”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Sustainable Development”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Pro-environmental Behaviors”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Article”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Climate Change”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Environmental Values”))	348	Social Sciences Economics, Econometrics, and Finance Business, Management, and Accounting Environmental Science Agricultural and Biological Sciences Earth and Planetary Sciences Psychology
WOS	(“pro-environmental behavior” OR “pro-environmental behaviour” OR PEB) AND (“theory of planned behavior” OR TPB OR “value-belief-norm” OR VBN OR “norm activation model” OR NAM OR “new environmental paradigm” OR NEP OR “theory of normative conduct” OR TNC OR “social cognitive theory” OR SCT) OR (“ethically minded consumer behaviour” OR EMCB OR “ecologically conscious consumer behaviour” OR ECCB OR “voluntary environmental behaviour” OR VEB) AND (ethics OR morality OR values OR norms) OR (“climate anxiety” OR eco-anxiety OR psychological wellbeing) AND (pro-environmental behavior OR climate action OR environmental engagement) OR (“corporate social responsibility” OR CSR OR “environmental social governance” OR ESG) AND (“voluntary environmental behavior” OR employee pro-environmental behavior)	1021	Environmental Sciences Environmental Studies Green Sustainable Science Technology Psychology Multidisciplinary Business Economics Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Ecology Ethics Geography Psychology

).

2.3. Study Selection and Screening Process

The screening process resulted in 14 final records from Scopus and WOS, which were supplemented by 55 articles and 2 reports identified via Google Scholar, resulting in a final sample of 69 publications and 2 reports. The synthesis comprised 42 studies from the environmental psychology literature and 27 studies from the environmental economics literature, reflecting the integrative scope of the review. Therefore, the results outline a framework that provides inclusive, resilient, and ethically grounded pathways to non-market environmental valuation, as sustainable development is not only a techno-economic challenge but also a deeply socio-ethical endeavour.

Moreover, the researchers predefined outcome domains and extracted all compatible results where possible, especially for the domains of weak vs. strong sustainability, PEBs, environmental attitudes, and psychological parameters. For each outcome, all compatible results were extracted with the predefined plan. In addition to outcome data, the following variables were extracted from each included study: (i) study characteristics (authors, year of publication), (ii) study design, (iii) theoretical framework, and (iv) key contextual elements, either psychological or environmental-economic elements.

2.4. Methodological Considerations and Limitations

Regarding risk of bias assessment, given the inclusion of diverse study designs and conceptual papers, a formal risk of bias assessment tool was not applied. Instead, studies were meticulously screened to ensure methodological transparency and relevance. Moreover, effect measures were not specified as this integrative review did not involve quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis.

Similarly, regarding the synthesis methods, the studies were grouped and synthesised according to the two thematic domains (i.e., environmental psychology and environmental economics) relevant to the review objectives. It should be noted that no data transformations were required, as synthesis was based on reported findings and concepts. All records were summarised in an Excel file and underwent a narrative synthesis by the researchers, where the integrative synthesis compares conceptual information across the two thematic fields. Again, given the qualitative nature of this review, there was no (i) statistical exploration of heterogeneity, (ii) sensitivity analysis, or (iii) reporting bias.

3. The Macro-Scale Perspective: From Weak to Strong Sustainability

“The protection and improvement of the human environment … is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments” [23]. The foundations of sustainable development are traced in the Brundtland Report, which raised awareness regarding intra- and inter-generational equity [19]. This can be linked to Rawls’ [24] concept of intergenerational distributive justice or the more recent leaving-no-one-behind (LNOB) idea [25].

Environmental frameworks are based, according to Soto [26], on two contradictions: first, the right of each country to exploit its natural resources; second, the duty not to damage its natural environment. However, the aim of the environmental economic framework through an institutional perspective is to disincentivise countries from becoming “free-riders” [27] and benefit from collective action in which they do not take part, such as climate action. In essence, the present review proposes a holistic approach that integrates macro- and micro-scale dimensions of environmentally-driven ethical and behavioural aspects in environmental valuation of goods and services, as shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2, the macro-scale framework influences individuals’ preferences indirectly, whereas the micro-scale framework influences them directly. Therefore, the present study builds upon [3] by examining how individuals’ preferences are monitored under the scope of environmental psychology, behavioural economics, and environmental economics. Hence, the aim is to propose an integrative perspective that future research can build on to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in the valuation of environmental goods and services.

Initially, one of the most prominent debates in the environmental economics literature is the substitutability between natural (e.g., ecosystems), human (e.g., values and ethics), and man-made (e.g., machinery) capital [6]. On the one hand, supporters of substitutability align with weak sustainability (or Solow–Hartwick sustainability); on the other hand, strong sustainability holds that there is no substitutability between these forms of capital [28,29,30].

The reason why natural capital is distinguished from the other forms of capital is the concept of “critical natural capital”, due to its uniqueness and significance for ecosystem stability (e.g., irreplaceability, multifunctionality, and natural hazards protection, etc.) [7,29,31,32,33,34,35]. A brief overview of differences across the spectrum from very weak to very strong sustainability is presented in

Table 1. Differences in the spectrum from very weak sustainability to very strong sustainability.

Dimension	Very Weak Sustainability	Weak Sustainability	Strong Sustainability	Very Strong Sustainability	References
Ecology	Abundance (Cornucopian)	Shallow Ecology	Eco-Modernism	Deep Ecology	[36,37,38,39,40]
MEA Scenarios	Order from Strength	Global Orchestration	Adapting Mosaic	Technogarden	[41]
Economy	Linear Economy (Fordism)	Follows Reluctantly Circular Economy	Follows Circular Economy	Circular & Green Economy	[7,8,42,43]
Environment & Natural Resources	Over-exploitation	Stewardship	Conservation	Preservation	[31,33,44,45,46,47,48]
Managerial Approach	Obstinate Technocratic	Flexible Econocentric	Decoupling	Ecocentric
Ethics	Techno-optimism (Environmental & Social)		Ecological Thresholds	Deep Ecological Ethics	[38,49,50,51,52,53,54]
Conclusion	Full Substitutability	Substitutability is allowed	Substitutability is restricted	Substitutability is forbidden

. The discussion on the substitutability between natural capital and other forms is developed under different ecological, environmental economics, managerial, psychological, and ethical lenses.

3.1. Ecological Aspects

Cornucopianism is the belief that human ingenuity and technological progress can overcome natural limits, ensuring continual economic growth and abundance [36]. However, this view is historically rooted in myths of abundance tied to natural philosophy, frontier expansion, and industrial development, though these have proven temporary. In contrast, neo-Malthusians argue that unchecked economic growth risks surpassing environmental limits, potentially causing existential threats to humanity [55,56]. They emphasise, drawing on some reformed interpretations of Malthus’ ideas, the finite nature of Earth’s resources and the challenges of climate change, pollution, and ecological degradation. The debate reflects a broader tension between “optimism in technological solutions” (or techno-optimism) and caution about ecological constraints on human survival. Therefore, the cornucopian theory can be linked to the very weak sustainability framework.

The shallow ecology movement aims to deal with environmental pollution and depletion of resources by also covering some health-related issues, mainly in developed countries [37]. However, it is argued that other important social issues are neglected (e.g., social justice) [38]. Thus, the shallow ecology includes aspects of the weak sustainability framework.

For the eco-modernism theory, there is ambivalence between ecological crisis and the revolution of technology, because technological (e.g., circular economy) solutions can alleviate several environmental challenges, but technological progress is also linked to resource depletion [39,40]. This is the reason why eco-modernism can be linked to strong sustainability but not to a very strong sustainability framework. Lastly, again based on Naess’ theory, deep ecology covers the ethical concerns on all parameters of sustainable development (i.e., social, economic, and environmental) challenges [38]. This is the reason why the deep ecology movement should be linked to a very strong sustainability framework, as it reflects the core idea of non-substitutability between the forms of capital.

3.2. The Four MEA Scenarios

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) [41] outlines four global scenarios: (i) Order from Strength, (ii) Global Orchestration, (iii) Adapting Mosaic, and (iv) Technogarden to explore future human–environment interactions across a sustainability spectrum. These scenarios differ based on their proactive or reactive stance, regional or global orientation, and demographic-economic projections.

From a weak sustainability perspective, the Order from Strength is reactive and regionally oriented, with low economic growth and high population increase, aligning with very weak sustainability. Additionally, Global Orchestration, though reactive and global, features high economic growth and low demographic change, representing weak sustainability. Moving to strong sustainability frameworks, Adapting Mosaic is proactive and regional, with moderate economic and high demographic trends, fitting strong sustainability. Lastly, Technogarden is proactive and global, with rising economic growth and moderate population increases, reflecting very strong sustainability.

These scenarios highlight the risks of over-relying on substituting natural capital with other capital forms, which can threaten ecological stability. They also offer insights into the potential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), suggesting that proactive scenarios, i.e., Adapting Mosaic and Technogarden, are better aligned with long-term sustainability and environmental preservation than the reactive ones.

3.3. The Transition from Linear to Circular Economy

The transition from the linear economy model to the circular economy emerged gradually between the 1960s and 1990s, driven by economic crises, environmental warnings, and global policy shifts [7,8]. From this moment, the transition from a throwaway mentality towards an eco-conscious mentality was apparent [42]. Therefore, the linear economy is, in essence, a very weak sustainability approach.

Regarding the debate between weak and strong sustainability, it is important to show the impact of the circular economy [28,29,30]. Essentially, the transition from linear to circular economy is burdened by different psychology-related or socio-cultural aspects, including individuals’ reluctance to change their mentality. This is why the circular economy is placed between the weak and strong sustainability frameworks, depending on the extent to which people really want to change their consumption mentality [3]. Lastly, the combination of circular economy principles and green economy, as presented by Pearse [43], can lead to a very strong sustainability framework.

3.4. Environmental Economics and Managerial Decision-Making

The interconnectedness between natural, man-made, and human capital can be pivotal for sustainable development. In the environmental economics literature, weak sustainability allows the substitution between these forms of capital [33,44,45,46], without recognising the uniqueness and importance of natural capital [31]. This aligns with an obstinate technocratic approach, focusing on techno-optimism as noted before and is linked to very weak sustainability. Moreover, weak sustainability supporters argue that technological advancements can allow for the substitutability among these capitals [47], which is referred to as an “econocentric” approach, and belongs to the frameworks of very weak and weak sustainability.

The decoupling of economic growth from the exploitation of natural capital is also an interesting debate in environmental economics. However, criticism has been raised regarding the possibility of decoupling due to factors such as rising energy prices, rebound effects in markets, and the limited adoption of circular economy solutions [57]. Therefore, the decoupling approach could be placed in the strong sustainability framework due to its challenges. Nevertheless, under restricted natural capital substitution, this is not the case in the “ecocentric” approach [48], which is linked to the strong and very strong sustainability framework. It should be noted that, depending on the scale of econocentrism and ecocentrism, these approaches might belong to more than one category. To conclude, from a managerial perspective, a pure technocratic approach is linked to very weak sustainability, whereas a pure ecocentric approach is placed in the very strong sustainability framework.

3.5. Ethical and Psychological Aspects

This chapter is not developed in depth, as the behavioural and psychological factors are developed in the next chapters. However, this specific chapter is going to present some more abstract ideas regarding the impact of generic communal-level ethics on the weak/strong sustainability debate. The denial as a coping mechanism seems to stem mainly from uncertainty regarding the causes, impacts, and imminent risks due to climate change [58] that can be escalated into a broader lack of trust in the scientific community [59]. Moreover, the behaviour-driven climatic scepticism reflects the interplay between different emotions and climate denial that are driven mainly due to fear (i.e., ostrich effect) [60].

On an ethical level, techno-optimism aligns with the core principles of weak sustainability. Environmental techno-optimism suggests that technological advancements can significantly mitigate negative environmental externalities, particularly through three key domains: economic, food, and resource-related innovations [50,51]. In this sense, techno-optimism can be associated with very weak sustainability based on two issues: (i) regarding its ability to overcome the carrying capacity of the Earth and establish long-term growth, and (ii) regarding its impact on the status quo through the entropy argument. However, these statements may be challenged on the basis that, on the one hand, techno-optimism is not entirely connected with the growth model that affects the carrying capacity, and on the other hand, there are scientific limitations on the impact of techno-optimism on the entropy challenge [49].

Next, respecting ecological thresholds is essential for sustainable management, as their exceedance can result in severe consequences such as biodiversity loss, climate deregulation, or the collapse of ecosystems that human societies depend on. For instance, one of the most influential contributions on ecological thresholds is the nine planetary boundaries framework that regulates and maintains the planet’s stability and resilience [52,53]. The ecological thresholds framework can be developed under the strong sustainability approach because it demonstrates the reasons why natural capital is important.

As mentioned previously, environmental economics should tip the balance between the parameters of sustainable development by questioning the orthodox economic schools of thought that focus mainly on monetary aspects, ultimately leading to the creation of heterodox schools of thought that observe mainly the non-marketed aspects, such as deep ecology [38]. This inclusion of non-marketed criteria can expand the economics literature towards ethical ecology [54]. To conclude, the deep ecology approach aligns more with the very strong sustainability in comparison with the also important approach of ecological thresholds.

4. The Micro-Scale Perspective: Values, Norms, Ethics, and Perceptions

Sustainable development is not solely based on tangible aspects, but is highly connected to intangible issues such as socio-cultural and psychological elements [3]. In this sense, the personal and social values, morals, and perceptions can shape norms and intentions that ultimately translate into PEBs supporting sustainable development. In essence, incorporating ethical and moral considerations challenges the homo economicus assumption and better reflects real-world decision-making.

Over the past decades, several developments in environmental psychology and behavioural science have paved the way for the inclusion of intangible characteristics in environmental science. An overview of this environmental psychology and behavioural framework is presented in

Table 2. Framework overview for environmental, psychological, and social behaviours.

Model/Theory	Aim	References
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)	TPB explains behaviour through behavioural intention, which is shaped by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control.	[61]
Value Theory (VT)	The “value theory” shows that the PEB is highly linked to individuals who focus on more intellectual aspects (e.g., altruism, pro-social behaviour, and nature-related values as biospheric values).	[62,63]
New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)	NEP is utilised as “a gold standard measure” of environmental beliefs and to affirm other related aspects such as ecological identity.	[64,65,66]
Norm-Activation Model (NAM)	The NAM showcases the importance of moral obligations in underpinning environmental action.	[67,68]
Value-Belief-Norm (VBN)	The VBN explains how people’s (e.g., altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic) values influence their beliefs, which in turn shape their personal norms and ultimately drive their PEB.	[69,70,71]
Theory of Normative Conduct (TNC)	The TNC incorporates the injunctive and descriptive norms; the former is focused on how behaviours are acceptable or non-tolerated, while the latter refers to the commonness of a norm in comparison with others.	[72,73]
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)	The SCT is based on the “self-efficacy” concept that reflects an individual’s belief in their capability to act pro-socially and, in extension, pro-environmentally.	[74,75]

, whereas the categorisation of their cognitive and motivational issues, normative components, and behavioural outcomes is presented in

Table 3. Conceptual similarities and differences in environmental, psychological, and social behaviours.

Model/Theory	Cognitive & Motivational Issues	Normative Components	Behavioural Outcomes
TPB	Beliefs, behavioural intentions & attitudes	Subjective norms	Intentional behaviour (e.g., PEB, EMCB, ECCB)
Value Theory	Values influence how people interpret environmental issues (e.g., seeing climate change as a moral concern)	Value orientations (e.g., altruistic/biospheric/egoistic) shape moral concern and behavioural priorities	Personal guide of behaviour across life, including PEBs (e.g., environmental activism and ethical consumption, etc.)
NEP	General pro-environmental worldview and moral concern	Supports and also feeds into personal norms (via VBN/NAM pathways)	Belief foundation (input to VBN/NAM)
NAM	Awareness of consequences (e.g., personal responsibility)	Personal moral obligation	Norm-driven pro-environmental and altruistic/pro-social behaviour
VBN	Environmental beliefs (via NEP)	Personal moral norms	Norm-based PEB
TNC	Conformism to social expectations driven by the need for social acceptance or moral alignment	Descriptive norms (what is done) and injunctive norms (what ought to be done) may conflict or reinforce each other	Behaviour aligned with an individual’s norms, either positive (e.g., recycling) or negative (e.g., littering)
SCT	External learning (mimicking others’ behaviour) and internal learning (e.g., self-efficacy, capability to perform a PEB)	Social influence via modelling, social reinforcement, and norms may be internalised indirectly	Behavioural change through learning (e.g., environmental and ethical actions)

. We selected these theories and frameworks because they represent the dominant explanatory families for PEBs, and together they cover cognitive, normative, and learning pathways that are most commonly used in empirical environmental behaviour research. The following text delves into the interconnectedness of psychological and communal elements that can create an ethical consensus for sustainable development.

The connection between environmental science, behavioural, and psychological sciences can be traced to three strands: (i) the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [61], the Norm Activation Model (NAM) [67], and the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory [70]. These frameworks have been widely used to explain human behaviour in an environmental action context [76]. Together, they provide a framework for understanding humanity’s connection to the natural environment and the way people value the environment and its potential degradation.

Initially, the TPB explains and predicts behaviour through behavioural intention, which is shaped by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control [61]. This theory has contributed to environmental research by examining how behavioural, normative, and control beliefs shape attitudes and subjective norms which in turn influence intentions and subsequent PEBs, as well as ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) and ethically minded consumer behaviour (EMCB) [77,78,79,80].

Interestingly, VBN integrates aspects from value theory, NAM, and the NEP. The NEP is widely used to capture pro-environmental worldviews and beliefs (e.g., environmental attitudes) and is often used as an input into belief-norm pathways (e.g., in VBN-type frameworks), linking environmental concern to norms and PEBs [64,65]. Moreover, the value theory shows how PEBs are affected by the personal altruistic, pro-social, or even environmental concerns [62,63], and additionally, the NAM further includes the moral obligation towards environmental action [67,68]. Together, these have greatly influenced VBN theory, which explains how people’s (e.g., altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic) values influence their beliefs, which in turn shape their personal norms and ultimately drive their PEB [69,70,71].

Furthermore, two more theories have shed light on environmental psychology and behavioural science regarding the need to focus more on environmental aspects. The social cognitive theory (SCT) presented the significance of a person’s capacity to overcome their difficulties and ultimately adopt a pro-social and environmentally conscious behaviour. This is achieved through a dual transformation: an internal component focuses on “self-efficacy” and external learning by observing and mimicking others’ PEBs; hence, SCT is pivotal in environmental education [74,75]. In addition, there is also the theory of normative conduct (TNC) that includes two forms of norms, i.e., the injunctive norms, which reflect perceptions of what people ought to do or what is socially approved, and the descriptive norms that a person understands whether their behaviour is common among others, hence, how a personal norm assimilates the broader social conformity [72,73].

The previous psychological and behavioural theories have been expanded in the environmental science literature. For example, recent environmental research has extended earlier models using additional frameworks such as stimulus-organism-response (SOR) theory and the goal-framing (GFT) theory, as well as behavioural constructs such as the voluntary environmental behaviour (VEB), ethically minded consumer behaviour (EMCB), and ecologically conscious consumer behaviour (ECCB) to further underpin sustainable development.

In the business sector, managerial decision-making has adopted the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental and social governance (ESG) that are focused both on internal (e.g., employees) and external (e.g., consumers) stakeholders. It has been shown, for example, that employees’ VEB can strengthen and support a company’s strategy [81].

Policymakers, academicians, and other stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the need for a socio-environmental consensus for ecological-focused and ethical-driven consumption. Under the scope of the circular economy, the SOR theory has evaluated how ethical concerns can be raised through communication initiatives (i.e., media richness and content trustworthiness) and how these can affect consumers’ plastic waste recycling behaviour [82]. Moreover, the SOR theory has been used alongside GFT to examine how environmental concerns are raised due to the impact of different factors (e.g., vividness) on eco-tourism [83].

An interesting ethical parameter is collectivism, which seems to influence the EMCB of consumers in Vietnam [77]. A study based on VBN showed that the environmental and religious concerns play an important role in consumers’ EMCB for fashion products in Pakistan; more specifically, the ethical concerns are based on the sentiments of empowerment and self-transformation [79]. Another study focused on how TPB and NEP can affect ECCB regarding the measurement of ethical consumption, suggesting that policymakers and practitioners should account for moral intuition [80]. Furthermore, under the scope of social responsibility, the impact of pro-sociality moderates the interlinkages between eco-responsibility, eco-attitude, and ecological purchasing behaviour [78].

To recapitulate, theories like VEB, EMCB, and ECCB expand earlier models to promote sustainable development and ethical employees’ and consumers’ behaviour (see Figure 3). It is important to mention that these frameworks are highly relevant for environmental valuation because they explain how individuals’ preferences and policy acceptance are formed. TPB and SCT capture cognitive-intentional and capability pathways (including self-efficacy) that determine whether PEBs can be implemented in the broader sustainability debate. Moreover, NAM and VBN capture moral obligation and value-based norm activation that can influence the ethical content of preferences for the valuation of environmental goods or services, while NEP and TNC capture pro-environmental worldviews and the influence of norms that can be expressed through stated preferences. Finally, CSR and ESG principles shape business strategies, with evidence showing employees’ VEB enhances corporate sustainability efforts. In essence, recent studies highlight the role of ethics, collectivism, religion, and pro-sociality in driving eco-conscious behaviour, which is important for environmental valuation because these factors affect WTP or WTA. These findings urge policymakers to consider moral intuition and communication in fostering ecological responsibility for sustainable development.

5. The Aspects of Big Five Personality Traits in Environmental Science

In this chapter, we additionally review personality-based evidence as stable individual differences that condition value-, norm-, and intention-based behavioural pathways. To begin with, the basis of the Big Five Personality Traits (BFPTs) (or Five Factor Model, FFM) is based on Fiske’s work, which initially concluded that four aspects can be distinguished in a personality: (i) social adaptability, (ii) emotional control, (iii) conformity, and (iv) inquiring intellect [84]. A fifth dimension, not included in Fiske’s work, based on a later-published review, seems to be the “will to achieve” [85,86]. An interesting review for the BFPTs has been presented in [87], while important applications are, inter alia, in [86,88,89]. It should be noted that the BFPTs approach has been extended with the incorporation of individuals’ traits of “honesty and humility” under the acronym HEXACO [90].

Early five-factor work used somewhat different labels for the broad trait dimensions, for example, emotionality and cultural factors as pivotal elements [91,92]. The BFPTs have been presented as (i) surgency, (ii) agreeableness, (iii) dependability, (iv) emotional stability, and (v) culture [91], or similarly, (i) surgency, (ii) agreeableness, (iii) consciousness, (iv) emotionality, and (v) culture [92]. Furthermore, an interesting BFPT included (i) neuroticism, (ii) extraversion, (iii) openness to experience, (iv) agreeableness, and (v) conscientiousness (i.e., the OCEAN framework) [93,94]. The OCEAN framework complements and expands trait approaches beyond earlier models such as Eysenck’s three-factor framework on “the structure of human personality,” which is known as the PEN framework (i.e., psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism) [95]. Therefore, the BFPTs categorise important factors of an individual’s characteristics under the scope of pure psychological elements. However, these aspects do not cover the needed environmental dimensions; so, more recent publications have addressed this gap.

Over the last three decades, several publications have incorporated environmental-related aspects into the structure of human personality (see Figure 4). For instance, BFPTs approach has been linked with environmental concern [96], with consumerism or environmentalism [97], and environmental engagement [98].

The influence of BFPTs factors on household energy-saving behaviours has been studied in China, using an extension of the TPB framework, showing the complex interplay between personality and socio-psychological elements in shaping PEBs in order to enhance energy efficiency in residential settings [99,100,101]. Personality traits (particularly openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness) can significantly impact eco-consumerism, PEBs, green finance choices, and circular economy engagement, with effects varying by age and gender. A study employed the HEXACO personality traits to examine the interlinkages between PEBs and efforts to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, where, among the HEXACO attributes, the most influential factors were openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion [102]. Other interesting results showed that Generation Y, particularly females, are influenced mainly by agreeableness, conscientiousness, and attitudes towards intention to purchase eco-products, whereas non-Generation Y individuals or males are affected mainly by extraversion and openness-to-experience attitudes [103].

The OCEAN framework has also been applied to find how personality traits can explain non-marketed economic valuation of individuals’ WTP or WTA for environmental goods or services, showing the rising trend of combining psychologically related and environmental valuation studies [104]. Similarly, the BFPTs can explain individuals’ financial choices between traditional and green shares [105]; therefore, practitioners in financial markets should observe eco-consumer attitudes more closely. In a similar way, consumers’ engagement with circular economy aspects seems to be higher among younger people or women, when the 3M (Meta-theoretic Model of Motivation) Model is applied [106]. This study highlights the importance of changing an individual’s mentality for the transition from linear to circular economy, based on Stahel’s [42,113] proposition. Regarding the 3M Model, it highlights how enduring personality traits influence motivation, which in turn affects attitudes and behaviours, including eco-consumerism, and it places emphasis on deeper psychological traits. For example, the 3M Model is based on other theories in the psychology literature [114].

Psychological and socio-cultural aspects can also impact eco-consumerism in specific sectors, such as eco-tourism. An interesting study showed the extension of SOR theory based on BFPTs factors, especially extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness [107]. Another study in Cyprus shed light on how BFPTs can be linked to touristic environmentalism. More specifically, tourists’ PEBs are influenced by agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism; however, openness did not show potential linkages with ecological action [108]. In addition, the BFPTs framework was combined with sentiment analysis and machine-learning models to identify tourists’ personality traits [109], revealing the potential advantages of using the BFPTs framework with other technical tools to improve decision-making in tourism management.

6. Monitoring the Structure of Psychological-Oriented Frameworks: Three Cases

In this section, three case studies are presented to show how the combination of behavioural barriers can strengthen the current sustainability policy and environmental valuation. For policymakers and practitioners, the following three cases provide concrete examples of (i) what to measure, (ii) how to track behavioural change over time, and (iii) how to connect individuals’ preferences into policy design. The case studies show key aspects that should be dealt with (e.g., behavioural barriers), individuals’ emotions driven by climate change, and the notion of the “green citizen”. The synthesis of the review in the previous sections is complemented by the following influential empirical work to clearly explain factors that affect environmental valuation within the scope of the weak vs. strong sustainability debate.

In the first case study, White et al. [14] monitored primary and secondary barriers of consumers regarding the five most impactful behaviour-change challenges, i.e., energy conservation, transportation choices, food choices, waste disposal, and material purchases, by reviewing 320 articles, of which 40 were used to introduce the need for such a scheme and the remaining 280 to represent, analyse, and blueprint the core SHIFT (i.e., social, habit, individual self, feelings and cognition, and tangibility) factors. More specifically, the terms primary and secondary barriers refer to the strongest and the next strongest avoidance response regarding the SHIFT scheme.

For each primary and secondary barrier, a respective toolbox of solutions has been created by addressing each SHIFT category. Firstly, the social parameter contains issues such as boosting healthy competition, reminding people of descriptive and injunctive social norms, and the impact of public commitments to behavioural change (inter alia: [115,116,117]). Characteristically, descriptive norms reflect perception of what other people commonly do and can, in some contexts, be more influential than other drivers (e.g., self-interest) in shaping sustainable consumer behaviour [73,118], whereas injunctive norms refer to perceptions of which behaviours others approve or disapprove (i.e., what people think one should do) [117].

Additionally, the habit-related factor is linked to undoing bad habits [119], such as unwanted daily routine-related actions [120], making the sustainable solution seem like the only logical and “default option” [121,122], and promoting the use of incentives or disincentives (inter alia: [119,123]).

Moreover, the third, individual-oriented parameter contained solutions such as to appeal to self-interest [124,125], self-efficacy [126], and individual differences [127,128] by highlighting how personal choices can be pivotal or detrimental for consumer behaviour. For example, women or younger people tend to have more agreeable and pro-environmental attitudes [129,130].

The fourth parameter, feelings and cognition, can also be linked to the previous factors, as feelings of guilt, especially the “collective guilt” (as disincentive or loss-frame), when paired with scrutiny, redirect unsustainable behaviour towards a more pro-environmental attitude [129,131]. Similarly, promoting feelings of pride or warm-glow effects as incentives (or gain-frames) can boost the acceptance of sustainable consumption (inter alia: [132,133]).

The tangibility factor is used to instil the core sustainability ideas of a “future” and “long-lasting” mentality by providing practical solutions such as realistic symbolism and well-known facts (e.g., statistics (inter alia: [134,135,136])). Therefore, the SHIFT framework can address potential behavioural barriers by leveraging social norms, habit change, self-interest, emotions, and tangible interventions to promote sustainable consumer behaviour.

In the second case study, Whitmarsh et al. [15] monitored a sample of 1338 participants regarding climate anxiety (or eco-anxiety) based on thirteen factors related to several demographic (e.g., income), psychological (e.g., nature connectedness), experiential (e.g., direct or indirect), mental health, environmental values, and PEB (e.g., visiting nature) parameters, as shown in

Table 4. Measures in Whitmarsh et al. [15] rely on previous studies.

Notion	References
Climate change concern, energy reliability, and energy affordability (% very/extremely worried). Moreover, other issues covered in the specific references also included personal norms, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy.	[137]
Thirteen items constituted the climate change anxiety scale (CCAS) (8 items represented cognitive-emotional impairment, while 5 measured functional impairment), 3 items measured experience of climate change, and 6 items measured behavioural engagement.	[138]
The Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) is a valid and efficient tool for screening GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research based on the 7-item anxiety scale.	[139]
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is a widely used mindfulness measure that includes five subscales: Act with Awareness, Describe, Nonjudge, Nonreact, and Observe.	[140]
Environmental values were measured with a short version of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale.	[65]
Nature relatedness was measured using the NR-6.	[141]
Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) was measured by summing the frequency of eight pro-environmental actions and one more high-impact environmental action regarding red meat consumption.	Authors’ input [15] and only for red meat consumption: [142]
Generic questions regarding (1) visit to green space, (2) experience of climate impacts, (3) information exposure, and (4) information seeking.	Authors’ input [15]

. The results shed light on different aspects; inter alia, climate anxiety affected younger people, people with existing generalised anxiety, and environmental information-seekers. Thus, the findings show how eco-anxiety can be a driving force for change and action. In essence, Whitmarsh et al. [15] alerted to the need to prioritise understanding of the psychological implications of eco-anxiety by monitoring the links between psychological health and the climate emergency. We report Whitmarsh’s measures because they provide a widely used operationalisation of key constructs discussed in Table 2 and Table 3 (e.g., environmental concern, identity and behavioural indicators). This helps link the conceptual frameworks to measurable variables used in empirical studies, including those in our review.

In the third case study, Wamsler and Bristow [16] conducted a survey based on 76 in-depth responses from high-level active or ex-policymakers, revealing findings on how the human–mind is perceived both as a victim of the climate crisis and as a factor in climate change, as well as a barrier to action. In addition, the notion that a vicious cycle exists between personal or communal choices (i.e., mind) and climate change is not mirrored in the current policymaking process, which may fail to follow a sustainable development route. The conclusion is that policymaking processes should also focus on the environmental aspects that affect people, and not solely on other important but widely acknowledged fields such as education and health. Wamsler and Bristow [16] presented three categories regarding the intersection between the mind and climate change, showing that the mind (i) can be a victim of climate change, (ii) can be a root cause of climate change, and (iii) can be a barrier to climate action, resulting in a fourth category on the need to dismantle the vicious cycle of the first category.

The first category, i.e., mind as a victim of climate change, includes “climate anxiety”, as the climate crisis can impact inner lives by making people feel powerless. This category also includes “burnout and overwhelm,” mainly reflecting indirect mental effects, as well as links to anxiety due to discontentment with current climate action.

The second category, i.e., mind as a root cause of climate change, focuses on its role in destroying the environment as the “heart of the climate crisis,” and on the “disconnection” from it, as this alienation has led to growing fear and inner crisis. Moreover, these aspects can be linked to a third important phenomenon, i.e., “the current economic paradigm,” in which the “endless pursuit of material possessions,” driven by commercialisation, has further alienated people from inner values and capacities.

The third category, i.e., the mind as a barrier to climate action, sheds light on biases (e.g., interpersonal relations and bias towards specific social groups), climate avoidance and denial (e.g., people cannot accept the “climate crisis is the ultimate existential crisis”), and short-term thinking (e.g., an inability to cope with long-term phenomena such as climate change, overconsumption, or pandemics).

Regarding the final category, the vicious cycle and how to disrupt it, powerful feedback loops include “the sense that we’re on the wrong track,” which can be explained by the structure of the current linear economy model that neglects the importance of the environment. This vicious cycle imposes the inability to shift to a circular model that respects the finite raw material stocks of the Earth.

Having all the parameters in mind, the shift from a vicious to a virtuous cycle of mind and climate change requires an integrating framework for dismantling mental-related barriers and strengthening climate actions. For instance, addressing climate change or other social phenomena (e.g., poverty or social exclusion) can alleviate eco-anxiety, resulting in a virtuous cycle. Another example is mainstreaming approaches from policymakers to the wider public to establish a common understanding of eco-anxiety, making the problem more apparent and easier to address. It ought to be mentioned that this example has proved extremely difficult to achieve due to limited understanding and denial.

7. Limitations and Future Research

It should be noted that the evidence synthesised in the last sections is subject to several limitations. First, a substantial proportion of the included studies relied on environmental economics literature, which constrains causal interpretation and may introduce social desirability bias. Second, the psychological parameters in Section 5 and Section 6 were unevenly distributed across conceptual contexts (e.g., BFPTs, HEXACO, OCEAN, etc.), with a predominance of studies from the psychology literature, potentially limiting generalizability to other socio-economic and cultural settings. Third, key dimensions such as values, norms, and PEBs in Section 4 were operationalised inconsistently with those in the environmental economics studies in Section 3, complicating direct comparison and integration within the review’s scope.

However, these limitations also highlight important directions for future research. The proposed framework is crucial for future research on environmental valuation that accounts not only for economic parameters but also psychological, behavioural, and socio-cultural ones. Moreover, cross-cultural evidence would strengthen the understanding of how psychological and ethical factors influence environmental valuation and pro-environmental behaviour. Another underexplored dimension in environmental valuation is the contribution of neuroeconomics. The present review does not include aspects of neuroeconomics but addresses this gap as a future research direction, highlighting that little is known about how neural processes can be monitored within the scope of individuals’ environmental preferences, particularly when those preferences are driven by climatic shocks. Furthermore, future reviews may benefit from mixed-method or quantitative synthesis approaches where sufficient homogeneity of outcomes exists.

8. Conclusions and Policy Implications

The present review investigates how environmental valuation has expanded by integrating behavioural and psychological factors. Given that sustainable development is not only a techno-economic challenge but also a socio-ethical endeavour, the review synthesises evidence across macro-scale sustainability debates (e.g., weak-strong sustainability, circular economy transitions, and ecological thresholds) and micro-scale behavioural mechanisms (values, norms, perceptions, and personality-related heterogeneity) to explain how pro-environmental behaviour and valuation outcomes are formed.

Across the reviewed behavioural frameworks, a consistent conclusion is that environmental action and valuation-relevant preferences are shaped by (i) attitudes and perceived control, (ii) moral and personal norms, and (iii) social influence and learned efficacy. Regarding RQ1, future research on non-market valuation should consider strong or very strong sustainability approaches that incorporate deep ecological and ethical aspects. Regarding RQ2, psychological and behavioural factors (e.g., values, norms, etc.) play a crucial role in shaping PEBs that influence how environmental goods are perceived and valued. Regarding RQ3, the integration of macro-scale sustainability frameworks with micro-scale behavioural insights supports the policy relevance of environmental valuation practices within the sustainability agenda.

These pathways imply that valuation exercises and sustainability policies that ignore norms, moral obligation, self-efficacy, and social context risk systematic bias and weaker behavioural uptake. Climate-related emotions (e.g., eco-anxiety) also emerge as a double-edged determinant: they can motivate sustainable consumption and engagement, yet they may generate overwhelm and avoidance when efficacy and coping resources are missing. This strengthens the case for policies that combine environmental communication with efficacy-building and psychologically informed support mechanisms, rather than relying on awareness-raising alone.

Based on these conclusions, the review proposes the following policy implications. First, behaviourally informed policy design should operationalise established intervention levers (e.g., SHIFT) by targeting social norms (public commitments), habits, self-efficacy, and the tangibility of climate action. In practice, normative feedback can be embedded in valuation instruments so that these align directly with documented behavioural barriers and solution toolkits.

Second, participatory governance is relevant not as a generic principle but as a mechanism for scaling norm change and disrupting mind-climate “vicious cycles.” Participatory processes can strengthen legitimacy, surface local moral priorities, and accelerate diffusion of pro-environmental norms through social learning and commitment effects. They can also reduce disengagement by improving collective efficacy and shared problem framing among local communities. Thus, citizens’ assemblies can support the co-design of climate action at the communal level.

Third, economic and institutional instruments (e.g., circular economy-aligned incentives or disincentives) should complement, not substitute for, psychological and social levers, because the macro-scale sustainability context constrains the feasibility of individual-level change. Policy mixes are more credible when they jointly address structural conditions (institutions, market signals, ecological thresholds) and the behavioural mechanisms governing adoption and compliance. Implementation should align structural enablers with behavioural levers and specify responsible actors (e.g., local leaders) to support long-term adoption of circular solutions rather than short-lived compliance.

For environmental valuation, the evidence implies that analysts and decision-makers should measure value orientations and climate-related behaviours alongside standard socio-economic controls, as these factors condition WTP, acceptability of instruments, and preference stability relevant to sustainable development decisions. Policymakers and practitioners should specify the target mechanism (e.g., norms, efficacy, etc.), select an appropriate environmental valuation method (e.g., stated or revealed preferences), and monitor indicators (e.g., norms, commitment, eco-anxiety) to verify that interventions operate through intended behavioural pathways.

To recapitulate, true progress toward sustainable development requires a socio-cultural and economic transformation that challenges orthodox economics by integrating heterodox perspectives and insights from the behavioural and psychological sciences, alongside a renewed ethical foundation that supports collaborative, responsible action for environmental protection and equitable growth under the LNOB principle. In this context, the review shows that values, norms, ethics, and perceptions shape both individual behaviour and broader environmental outcomes, influencing how societies understand environmental challenges, prioritise the SDGs, and respond to policy measures. Incorporating psychological and cultural factors can make environmental valuation and policy more inclusive, legitimate, and adaptable by helping build ethical consensus around shared sustainability goals.