# Integrating Utopian Constructs: A Preliminary Investigation of Their Similarities and Predictive Power on Social Change Intentions

Marie Chevrier, Patricia Delhomme, Franck Zenasni, Lucia Bosone

► To cite this version:

Marie Chevrier, Patricia Delhomme, Franck Zenasni, Lucia Bosone. Integrating Utopian Constructs: A Preliminary Investigation of Their Similarities and Predictive Power on Social Change Intentions. Sustainability, 2024, 16, 10.3390/su16198320. [DOI: 10.3390/su16198320](https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198320)

HAL Id: hal-05442443

https://hal.science/hal-05442443v1

Submitted on 5 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Article

# Integrating Utopian Constructs: A Preliminary Investigation of Their Similarities and Predictive Power on Social Change Intentions

Marie Chevrier <fnref n="1" />,*, Patricia Delhomme <fnref n="1" />, Franck Zenasni <fnref n="2" /> and Lucia Bosone <fnref n="1" />

**Abstract:** In a world facing significant planetary health challenges, the power of prospection—our capacity to envision and shape future possibilities—gains importance. Recently, three conceptualizations have been introduced to measure individuals’ inclination and ability to imagine desirable societal alternatives: utopian, transformative utopian impulse for planetary health, and environmental cognitive alternatives. We propose that these constructs, founded on different theoretical bases, each offer unique perspectives on a common process: the mental simulation of societies that positively deviate from the status quo, which we refer to as collective positive prospection. Data from a correlational survey (N = 485) show that these dimensions, while distinct, are highly interrelated, supporting their potential complementarity for understanding individual differences in collective positive prospection. Results also emphasise the importance of integrating these diverse dimensions to enhance the prediction of intentions, particularly pro-environmental intentions. Furthermore, our results suggest that the precision of prospection content, alongside its compatibility with behaviours, enhances predictive accuracy. Although preliminary, these findings provide valuable insights on both theoretical and practical levels, highlighting the importance of integrating diverse conceptualizations to better understand the functioning of collective positive prospection and suggesting that an integrative scale could be beneficial for future research in this area.

**Keywords:** collective prospection; cognitive alternatives; utopian thinking; social change; sustainability

## 1. Introduction

Envisioning the future, a process known as prospection, is crucial for both individuals and society as a whole. It enables us to mentally simulate future events, possibilities, and scenarios, thus playing a critical role in decision-making and motivation by allowing for the anticipation of outcomes, goal setting, and action planning [1–3]. This cognitive ability not only allows us to imagine our personal futures but also to contemplate the future society or world state [4], thus providing a way to think about and work towards more desirable collective futures, which is crucial in today’s world where we are confronted with significant challenges to planetary health [5,6].

Recent experimental research shows that envisioning improved societal futures can inspire individuals to adopt lifestyle changes and engage in civic behaviours that align with these envisioned futures [7–11]. Fernando et al. [10], for instance, showed how envisioning an ideal society increases individuals’ intentions to engage in citizenship behaviours aimed at societal transformation. Similarly, exposure to descriptions of ecologically friendly alternative societies has been shown to effectively enhance individuals’ intention to adopt pro-environmental behaviours (PEB) [8,11].

Beyond establishing these links, there is growing attention towards individual differences in the ability and inclination to conceive better collective futures. Research has particularly focused on how individuals can imagine, value, appreciate, believe in, and conceive

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

### check for updates

**Citation:** Chevrier, M.; Delhomme, P.; Zenasni, F.; Bosone, L. Integrating Utopian Constructs: A Preliminary Investigation of Their Similarities and Predictive Power on Social Change Intentions. *Sustainability* **2024**, *16*, 8320.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198320

Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen

Received: 26 June 2024

Revised: 9 August 2024

Accepted: 9 September 2024

Published: 25 September 2024

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Univ Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris Cité, LaPEA, F-78000 Versailles, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Université Paris Cité and Univ Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: marie.chevrier@univ-eiffel.fr</footnote>
in their daily lives the possibility of changing society into a better alternative [10,12–14]. This has led to the development of three distinct conceptualizations and scales, encompassing several dimensions: utopian thinking [10], transformative utopian impulse for planetary health [12] and environmental cognitive alternatives [13,14].

Although these conceptualisations were introduced separately and under different theoretical frameworks, they all refer to the same form of prospection, which we refer to as ‘collective positive prospection’, involving the mental simulation of alternative societies deviating positively from the status quo. This form of prospection differs from autobiographical future-oriented thinking, such as episodic future thoughts [15], and leans towards a semantic form of prospection [4], focusing on mental representations of society’s or the world’s general states, specifically those envisioning positive, sustainable alternatives. Since their introduction, utopian thinking [10], transformative utopian impulse for planetary health [12] and environmental cognitive alternatives [14] have rarely been compared or studied together. Yet, with their unique characteristics, each scale could provide a complementary perspective on the functioning of collective positive prospection and its link with motivation for social change.

In this article, we aim to fill this gap by examining the empirical similarities and differences between these three approaches to collective positive prospection. More specifically, through a correlational study, we explored their interrelationships and their specific and cumulative predictive power on various social change behaviours. Considering the growing interest in how visions of positive futures influence current behaviours (e.g., [16]), it is fundamental to analyse whether these different concepts are related and how they interact. This could guide, for instance, the development of a more comprehensive scale of collective positive prospection. By integrating isolated strands of the literature, this article aims to enhance our understanding of this phenomenon and its role in promoting behavioural commitment to sustainable transitions. In the following section, we will present and compare the three conceptualizations, highlighting their similarities and differences.

## 1.1. Navigating Collective Futures: Three Approaches to Prospecting Positive Societal Change

### 1.1.1. Utopian Thinking

Utopianism, or utopian thinking, concerns the human tendency to engage in utopian thinking and to value such thoughts [10]. The “utopian society” conceptualised here is the society that individuals consider the “ideal or best possible society which is hoped or wished for” (p. 785). Through a correlational study, with three different samples, Fernando et al. [10] introduced and tested the utopianism scale, including two factors (study 1). The utopianism factor measures a person’s tendency to engage in spontaneous utopian thinking, imagining an ideal society (e.g., “I often think about what an ideal society might look like”) and holding positive attitudes toward it (e.g., “It is important that people think about an ideal version of society”). Conversely, the anti-utopianism factor measures scepticism about such thoughts, believing that they might lead to adverse outcomes or are futile (e.g., “Focusing on an ideal society can have negative consequences”). Fernando et al. [10] explored three distinct possible behavioural consequences of utopian thinking as postulated by Levitas [17]: change, criticism, and compensation. In line with Levitas’s assumptions about the functions of utopian thinking, the results showed that utopianism scale predicted individuals’ desire to act to change their current society (change function), lower satisfaction with current society, and lower levels of system justification (criticism function). In addition, it has been found that utopian thinking can also be linked to escapism (compensation function), meaning indulging in a fantasized alternative reality without attempting to realize it.

### 1.1.2. Transformative Utopian Impulse for Planetary Health

More recently, one multi-study article introduced the transformative utopian impulse for planetary health (TUIPH), defined as individuals’ propensity to have thoughts and to engage in actions whose purpose is to transform the current society into a better one in
the future by addressing existing global issues [12]. While this concept is close to utopian thinking, it focuses on individuals' tendency to think about a utopian society specifically in terms of overcoming social and environmental issues. Moreover, this tendency is considered as a multidimensional construct, including four separate factors and was validated following standard scale development steps, unlike utopian thinking. The first aspect measures individuals' "propensity" for transformative utopian thinking and action, assessing their tendency towards utopian thoughts and engagement in actions aimed at reshaping society. The second aspect gauges people's "beliefs" in transformative utopian solutions, evaluating their conviction in the existence of solutions capable of transforming society. The third aspect examines individuals' emotional responses ("affects") when encountering potential transformative solutions. Lastly, the fourth aspect focuses on individuals' decisions to purchase specific products aligned with utopian solutions ("choices"). Through several studies, Basso and Krpan [12] have demonstrated the associations between the TUIPH factors and various behaviours and attitudes geared towards social change (e.g., environmental activism, ethical consumption), as well as its longitudinal predictive power for supporting social movements (studies 2d, 3a-d, 4). Importantly, Basso and Krpan [12] were the only ones to assess the association between their scale and another one that also focuses on collective positive prospecting, namely utopianism [10]. They showed that, although the two scales were strongly correlated (study 2b), TUIPH nevertheless significantly enhanced the prediction of different social change behaviours compared to utopianism alone (study 3a).

### 1.1.3. Environmental Cognitive Alternatives

While both utopian thinking and TUIPH measure individuals' tendency to utopian thought—whether about their own ideal society or specific sustainable utopia—a third concept, environmental cognitive alternatives (ECA), explores individuals' ability to imagine alternative ecological society or world where humans live in harmony with nature [14]. As such, the ECA focuses on the prospection of another utopia, specifically focused on environmental sustainability (see also the “green utopia”) [11]. The environmental cognitive alternative scale was validated following standard scale development steps across two studies, featuring items such as “I can easily picture a world where we meet our energy needs without harming nature” and “I understand the differences between a sustainable human existence and our current state” [14]. Results indicate that higher access to ECA is linked to higher past pro-environmental behaviour and higher intentions for future environmentally friendly actions. In their recent work, Wright et al. [13] revealed that individuals adept at envisioning these alternatives were also more likely to engage in actual collective climate initiatives, such as composing and signing pro-environmental petitions to government entities.

## 1.2. *Overall Objectives*

Previous studies have established utopianism, TUIPH, and ECA as significant predictors of individuals' intentions towards sustainability and broader social change. Although these concepts share a common focus on individual differences in imagining future societal alternatives that deviate positively from the status quo, they are distinguished by their dimensions of interest (e.g., attitudes, propensity, ability) and their specific thematic orientations, ranging from broad utopian visions to focused sustainable or environmentally friendly futures. In this paper, we examined, through a correlational study, the potential complementarity of these three conceptualizations to enhance the understanding of what we called 'collective positive prospection'-the mental simulation of alternative societies deviating positively from the status quo-and its links to social change behaviours. Specifically, the first objective of this study was to assess the associations and specificity of the six different constructs of collective positive prospection scales (i.e., utopianism, anti-utopianism, TUIPH propensity, TUIPH beliefs, TUIPH affects, and ECA). We ultimately excluded the fourth factor of the TUIPH scale (TUIPH choice) from our analyses, as it was considered here to be a potential effect of engagement in prospection (i.e., social change
behaviour) rather than as a component or antecedent of it. The second objective was to compare and evaluate the cumulative predictive power of these constructs on individuals' intention to engage in (1) general social change, (2) individual pro-environmental behaviours, and (3) collective pro-environmental behaviours. The pre-registration of the study is available here: https://osf.io/pu5wm (accessed on 10 September 2024).

## 2. Methodology

### 2.1. Sample

Originally, a total of 500 individuals participated; however, 15 participants failed to correctly answer one of the two control questions checking their attention (e.g., "For this question, please choose strongly disagree") and were thus eliminated from following analyses. Thus, our total sample was composed of 485 individuals, which falls within the preregistered limits of the recommended subject-to-item ratio, i.e., between 5:1 and 10:1 for factorial analyses, since the scales are composed of 55 items [18]. The final sample was composed of 49.1% males and 49.5% females, ranging from 18 to 84 years old (M = 35–44; SD = 1.38). Of the participants, 40% were from the UK and 60% from the US. The majority of participants had achieved their highest level of education with a post-secondary education or an undergraduate degree (57%), and, on average positioned themselves slightly to the liberal side of the political spectrum (M = 3.86, SD = 2.53). Participants were recruited on Prolific, and answered the questionnaire, hosted on Qualtrics, in March 2023. Data were completely anonymous (in full respect of the General Data Protection Regulation). The data are available through open access here: https://osf.io/ymwpa/ (accessed on 10 September 2024).

### 2.2. Procedure and Material

After giving their consent, participants were asked to respond to a questionnaire by rating their agreement to different items on a 7-point scale, identical to the original scales, ranging from 1 *Strongly disagree* to 7 *Strongly agree*. It included the utopianism scale [10], with four items for the utopianism factor (α = 0.85) and four items for the anti-utopianism factor (α = 0.79); the TUIPH scale [12], with three items for the TUIPH propensity factor (α = 0.86), three items for the TUIPH beliefs factor (α = 0.89), three items for the TUIPH affects factor (α = 0.93), and three items for the TUIPH choice factor (α = 0.87); and finally, the ECA scale [14] with ten items (α = 0.92).

Then, we assessed participants' intention to engage in different social change behaviours, on a 7-point scale going from 1 *Not at all* to 7 *A great deal*. Five items measured individuals' intention to engage in action supporting general social changes to their current society (Citizenship for Change, used by Fernando et al., [10]; e.g., "How much do you want to take action to change the direction in which society is heading at this point", α = 0.91). Furthermore, twelve items asked individuals to rate to what extent they wanted to engage in ten individual (e.g., "To buy locally produced food rather than food from far away", α = 0.87) and ten collective (e.g., "To get involved with a group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment", α = 0.94) pro-environmental behaviours [19]. All items were presented in a randomised order. Finally, participants reported their age, gender, highest level of education, country of residence, and their political orientation (from 0 *Very liberal* to 10 *Very conservative*).

## 3. Results

Following our proposal that the dimensions of utopianism, anti-utopianism, TUIPH propensity, TUIPH beliefs, TUIPH affects, and ECA each represent distinct aspects of collective positive prospection, we first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate both the interdependence and the distinctive characteristics of these dimensions. Subsequently, a structural equation model (SEM) was used to analyse the predictive power of each sub-dimension of the prospection scales on three distinct behavioural intentions. Finally, to obtain an overarching view of the predictive power of the scales beyond the other scales on intentions, hierarchical regressions were conducted. Means, standard deviations
of variables, and correlations between the sub-dimensions of prospection, behavioural intentions variables, and socio-demographic variables are presented in Table 1. All analyses were run on JASP (version 0.18.1).

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Means, SD, and correlations of prospection scales, behavioural intentions, and socio-demographic variables.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Prospection scales</td><td>ECA</td><td>3.83</td><td>1.34</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Utopianism</td><td>4.35</td><td>1.34</td><td>0.51</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Anti-Utopianism</td><td>2.89</td><td>1.31</td><td>-0.31</td><td>-0.33</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TUIPH propensity</td><td>3.58</td><td>1.53</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>-0.20</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TUIPH beliefs</td><td>4.81</td><td>1.40</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.61</td><td>-0.35</td><td>0.61</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>TUIPH affects</td><td>4.65</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.66</td><td>-0.33</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.73</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Behavioural Intentions</td><td>Citizenship</td><td>4.22</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.56</td><td>-0.27</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.67</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Collective PEB</td><td>3.16</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.54</td><td>-0.27</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.74</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Individual PEB</td><td>5.05</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.42</td><td>-0.31</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Socio-demographic</td><td>Gender</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.13</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.24</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.18</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.14</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.08</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.05</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Political orientation</td><td>3.86</td><td>2.53</td><td>-0.33</td><td>-0.32</td><td>0.28</td><td>-0.31</td><td>-0.47</td><td>-0.35</td><td>-0.37</td><td>-0.41</td><td>-0.29</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.23</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.06</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes. Gender: Male = 1; Female = 2. Education: Secondary Education and Equivalent = 1; Post-Secondary Education = 2; Postgraduate Degrees and Equivalent = 3; Doctoral Degrees = 4. Age: 18–24 = 2; 25–34 = 3; 35–44 = 4; 45–54 = 5; 55–64 = 6; 65–74 = 7; 75–84 = 8. All correlation values >|0.08| are significant at *p* < 0.05.

### 3.1. CFA on the Dimensions of Collective Positive Prospection Scales

A CFA was conducted on the six identified dimensions, which were allowed to correlate with each other (see Figure 1). To evaluate the goodness of fit of the models, we used thresholds of ≥0.90 for CFI and TLI [20] and <0.08 for SRMR [21] and RMSEA [22]. The CFA demonstrated a good fit with the data: $\chi^2(309) = 1072.38, p < 0.001$; CFI = 0.913; TLI = 0.902; RMSEA = 0.071 (90% CI [.067, 0.076]); SRMR = 0.062. The analyses also revealed significant and large positive correlations between utopianism, TUIPH propensity, TUIPH beliefs, TUIPH affects, and ECA, with correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.56 to 0.80. Additionally, significant negative correlations ranging from small to medium were found with anti-utopianism, with coefficients between r = −0.23 and −0.39.

### 3.2. The Predictive Power of Collective Positive Prospection Scales on Intentions

To test the predictive power of each sub-dimension of the prospection scales on citizenship, individual pro-environmental, and collective pro-environmental intentions, while controlling for the effects of other dimensions, a SEM was employed. The initial model exhibited a poor fit to the data: $\chi^2(1238) = 3175.84, p < 0.001$; CFI = 0.892; TLI = 0.884; RMSEA = 0.057 (90% CI [0.054, 0.059]); SRMR = 0.066. An examination of the modification indices revealed high covariances in measurement errors between two pairs of items. These items had thematic similarities: one pair concerned donations (Item 4 of the citizenship and collective pro-environmental intentions scales), and the other involved government-related items from the ECA (Items 4 and 6). In the final model, these pairs of items were allowed to correlate, resulting in a significantly improved fit to the data: $\chi^2(1236) = 2899.33, p < 0.001$; CFI = 0.907; TLI = 0.901; RMSEA = 0.053 (90% CI [0.050, 0.055]); SRMR = 0.066. The final model specification and estimated pathways are depicted in Figure 2, while the full model is reported in the Supplementary File (Figure S1).

The regression coefficients from the SEM analysis showed that pro-environmental intentions were predicted by different dimensions belonging to multiple scales, while citizenship intentions were predicted by different dimensions within a single scale only. More particularly, results indicated that citizenship intentions were positively predicted by TUIPH propensity (β = 0.35, *p* < 0.001), and TUIPH affects (β = 0.28, *p* < 0.001) but not by TUIPH beliefs (β = 0.14, *p* = 0.057), ECA (β = 0.06, *p* = 0.227), utopianism
(β = 0.02, *p* = 0.768), or anti-utopianism (β = -0.03, *p* = 0.436). Individual pro-environmental intentions were positively predicted by ECA (β = 0.19, *p* = 0.002) and TUIPH affects (β = 0.40, *p* ≤ 0.001) and negatively by anti-utopianism (β = -0.13, *p* = 0.009) but not by utopianism (β = -0.13, *p* = 0.073), TUIPH propensity (β = 0.05, *p* = 0.540), and TUIPH beliefs (β = 0.13, *p* = 0.116). Finally, collective pro-environmental intentions were positively predicted by ECA (β = 0.26, *p* < 0.001) and TUIPH propensity (β = 0.46, *p* < 0.001) but not by utopianism (β = 0.04, *p* = 0.552), anti-utopianism (β = -0.06, *p* = 0.188), TUIPH beliefs (β = -0.06, *p* = 0.443), or TUIPH affects (β = 0.11, *p* = 0.165). Taken together, the predictors accounted for 60% of the variance in citizenship, 45% of the variance in individual pro-environmental intentions, and 57% of the variance in collective pro-environmental intentions.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Path diagrams of the CFA on the six sub-dimensions related to collective positive prospection.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Path diagram of the SEM of the six sub-dimensions related to collective positive prospection on intentions. *Notes*. Dashed lines represent non-significant links. All indices are standardized. For clarity's sake, items are not represented here. \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3. *Incremental Predictive Validity of Collective Positive Prospection Scales on Intentions*

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the additional predictive power of each prospection scale on intentions, beyond socio-demographic variables and other prospection scales. The first block of the regressions included socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, political orientation). The second block included two competing prospection scales for comparison, and the third block included the prospection scale for which incremental validity was being tested. Tables 2–4 present the additional variance explained at each step for citizenship, individual PEB, and collective PEB intentions. Specifically, Table 2 shows the incremental predictive validity of the utopianism scale (utopianism and anti-utopianism dimensions) on intentions, Table 3 of the TUIPH scale (TUIPH propensity, TUIPH beliefs, and TUIPH affects dimensions), and Table 4 of the ECA scale. Detailed results of the nine hierarchical regressions are provided in the Supplementary Files. Given the high correlations and conceptual overlap among the six sub-dimensions of collective positive prospection, collinearity diagnostics were conducted. The VIFs did not exceed 2.97, allowing us to retain all predictors in the regression models. As anticipated, outliers were examined using R (version 4.2.0; [23]). Only one outlier was detected in the citizenship regression, but removing this participant did not alter the interpretation of the results, so the outlier was retained in the analyses.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Incremental predictive validity of utopianism scale on intentions.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>Block 1</th><th>Block 2</th><th>Block 3</th></tr><tr><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> Socio-Demographic</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> ECAS-TUIPHS</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> Utopianism</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Citizenship</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.40 ***</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Individual PEB</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.26 ***</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Collective PEB</td><td>0.19 ***</td><td>0.35 ***</td><td>0.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes. Socio-demographic variables: gender, age, education, and political orientation. *** *p* < 0.001.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Incremental predictive validity of TUIPH scale on intentions.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>Block 1</th><th>Block 2</th><th>Block 3</th></tr><tr><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> Socio-Demographic</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> ECAS-Utopianism</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> TUIPHS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Citizenship</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.27 ***</td><td>0.14 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Individual PEB</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.19 ***</td><td>0.08 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Collective PEB</td><td>0.19 ***</td><td>0.27 ***</td><td>0.08 ***</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes. Socio-demographic variables: gender, age, education, and political orientation. *** *p* < 0.001.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Incremental predictive validity of ECA scale on intentions.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th>Block 1</th><th>Block 2</th><th>Block 3</th></tr><tr><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> Socio-Demographic</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> TUIPHS-Utopianism</th><th>ΔR<sup>2</sup> ECAS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Citizenship</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.40 ***</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Individual PEB</td><td>0.16 ***</td><td>0.25 ***</td><td>0.02 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Collective PEB</td><td>0.19 ***</td><td>0.33 ***</td><td>0.03 ***</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes. Socio-demographics variables: gender, age, education, and political orientation. *** *p* < 0.001.

The results indicate that after accounting for socio-demographic variables, and including the ECA and TUIPH scales as predictors, the utopianism scale did not significantly add explained variance in citizenship, individual PEB, and collective PEB intentions. This suggests that the influence of dimensions of utopianism and anti-utopianism on intentions is captured by other factors in the model. In contrast, the TUIPH and ECA scales significantly contributed to the variance in intentions after accounting for socio-demographic variables and the two competing prospection scales. Specifically, TUIPH and ECA scales added significant explained variance for individual and collective PEB intentions, while the TUIPH scale also added significant explained variance in citizenship intentions. However, the additional variance explained by the TUIPH and ECA scales was weak ($R^2 \ge 0.02$) to moderate ($R^2 \ge 0.13$; [24]), which is not surprising given the high correlations and conceptual overlap among the dimensions of these closely related scales (e.g., [25]).

## 4. Discussion

The present study explored empirical similarities and differences between three socio-cognitive approaches that examine individual differences in imagining future societal alternatives deviating from the status quo: utopian thinking [10,11], transformative utopian impulse for planetary health [12], and environmental cognitive alternatives [13,14]. Data from the correlational study showed that utopianism and anti-utopianism and the first three factors of the TUIPH (propensity, beliefs, and affects), as well as environmental cognitive alternatives, are highly intercorrelated but nevertheless distinctive. These results offer the first evidence that these various psychological dimensions could represent distinct, yet interconnected, aspects involved in the same process that we have termed ‘collective positive prospection’—the mental simulation of positive alternatives for society’s future.

In addition to being highly interconnected, we found that these dimensions collectively explain a substantial significant proportion of the variance in both specific and general social change intentions. This not only confirms the findings of previous studies regarding the importance of prospection in motivating individuals to act in favour of social
change [7,8,10,11,13,14] but also emphasises the value of integrating the diverse dimensions to enhance the prediction of social change intentions. Our findings indeed reveal for the first time the cumulative predictive power of different dimensions, which, to our knowledge, have not previously been combined to predict social change intentions. For instance, results showed that higher positive affective responses to transformative utopian solutions (TUIPH affects; [12]), the higher ability to imagine an environmentally sustainable society (ECA; [13]), and lower negative attitudes towards utopian thinking (Anti-Utopianism; [10]) each have an independent and cumulative predictive power on individuals' intentions to adopt private pro-environmental behaviours. From a theoretical point of view, this finding is of significance as it suggests that an integrative approach that incorporates the various conceptualizations proposed in the literature would be beneficial to better understand collective positive prospection functioning and its link to motivation for social change. From a practical point of view, this suggests that it would be useful not only to encourage individuals' tendency towards collective positive prospection, for example by promoting positive experiences of this practice and reducing scepticism towards it but also to help individuals imagine concrete alternatives.

While our results suggest that both the inclination for utopian thinking (as measured by the TUIPH and utopianism scales) and the ability to envision these ideas (ECA) are both related and important for predicting intentions to act for social change (specifically pro-environmental intentions), we do not yet understand how these aspects interact. For instance, it remains unclear if one aspect is more important than the others (e.g., valuing utopian thoughts or being able to imagine a specific utopia) or whether some aspects serve as antecedents. Only a comprehensive scale applied to the same area of collective positive prospection could facilitate the exploration of these issues. Current scales, due to their application to different areas (either free content utopia or specific thematic utopia), make direct comparison difficult and limit our understanding of their interactions.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that certain dimensions of existing collective positive prospection scales are somewhat repetitive or redundant. Consistently we observed that when simultaneously entered in the same regression model, the presumed redundant dimensions did not add explained variance to behavioural intentions. For instance, Utopianism which measures, among other things, individual's propensity for utopian thinking no longer predicted any behavioural intentions when individual's propensity for transformative utopian thinking (TUIPH propensity) was included in the model. Similarly, an individual's belief in transformative utopian solutions (TUIPH belief) was not predictive of pro-environmental behavioural intentions when individual's ability to imagine an environmentally sustainable society (ECA) was included in the model, possibly because they tap into the same conceptual area, that is, the awareness of possibles sustainable alternatives for society. Therefore, a scale that eliminates redundancies and distinctly isolates each psychological construct would significantly contribute to advancing research in this area.

The comparison of incremental predictive validity of each scale also offered new insights into the relationship between collective positive prospection and behavioural intentions. Our results suggest that, regardless of whether social change-oriented intentions are specific (e.g., pro-environmental behaviours) or general (e.g., citizenship behaviours), prospecting more strongly predicts behaviours when it is *clearly defined*, such as envisioning a particular society focused on planetary health or environmental sustainability, rather than when it is content-free, as with utopianism concepts [10]. A possible explanation is that specific visions provide clearer goals, making actions more targeted and motivating (see also [12]). Additionally, the significant variability in individual ideals and the actions required to achieve them can complicate attempts to establish a clear link between prospecting and intentions in these instances [10,26]. Therefore, as empirical studies suggest, it is essential to consider the content of these visions when predicting specific actions [11,27–29]. Finally, consistent with these insights, our analysis reveals that well-defined prospecting is not only more predictive but also exerts a greater influence when behaviours are aligned with its specific vision. This highlights the possible *domain-specific* influence of prospection
on behaviours. Specifically, regression analyses demonstrated that the ability to envision an environmentally sustainable society uniquely predicts pro-environmental behaviours. This finding emphasises the need to tailor prospecting efforts to the specific behaviours they aim to influence. Such information is important for designing targeted interventions that effectively encourage the desired social changes.

On the whole, our results suggest that the TUIPH scale [12] performs overall better than other collective positive prospection scales in predicting a wide range of social change-oriented behaviours, while the ECA scale adds significant predictive power specifically for pro-environmental behaviours. Therefore, researchers and practitioners should consider prioritising the TUIPH scale for general studies of social change and, in addition, the ECA scale for research focused on pro-environmental behaviours. These scales, which are the only ones validated by standard development stages, currently appear to offer the most relevant tools for understanding the links between collective positive prospection, social change, and pro-environmental action.

Despite these meaningful results, it is important to acknowledge that our study has several limitations that should be taken into account in future studies. First, while we found preliminary evidence of the multidimensionality of individual differences in collective positive prospection, the factor structure we obtained might also be influenced by the different application domains inherent in each approach. Therefore, it would be beneficial to conduct factor analyses on these individual differences that all target the same domain of change (e.g., a sustainable society) to ensure both their interconnectedness and distinctiveness solely on the basis of the psychological constructs that they target. Additionally, to enhance the precision and understanding of the relationships among these constructs, future research could benefit from more distinctly separating certain constructs, such as separating the propensity for prospection from the value attributed to it (e.g., in the utopianism dimension; [10]).

Secondly, while we provide evidence of the relevance of simultaneously considering multiple aspects of prospection for predicting certain intentions, it is important to realize that, even if not detected, the effects of certain variables may have been obscured due to issues of collinearity or conceptual overlap. Some variables focus on highly similar concepts, for instance targeting propensity to think about an ideal society (Utopianism, [10]) and propensity for transformative utopian thinking (TUIPH propensity; [12]), potentially leading to challenges in interpretation. This again supports the need to better delineate these variables in future studies to better understand their links with intentions.

Third, it is important to note that collective positive prospection scales have been shown to be linked to a broader set of variables than those investigated in this article. For instance, support for degrowth—a utopia of sustainable living and reduced consumption [12,30]—or criticism of current society [10] have also been associated with collective positive prospecting scales. Exploring these additional variables could provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the scales' relevance and applicability.

Lastly, the current study is constrained by limitations stemming from its design and its target population. The generalisability of our results is limited by the size of the sample as well as the fact that participants came either from the UK or the USA. This decision was taken to ensure that only native English speakers would take part in the survey, but the reduced sample we managed to collect with the funding obtained (less than 300 individuals in the US and less than 200 in the UK) prevented us from carrying out a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. However, cultural values could significantly influence future thinking or collective prospection. Research has shown for instance that cultural values can shape individuals' orientation towards the past or future, influencing how they perceive time and prioritise their goals [31]. Furthermore, cultural differences have been observed in episodic past and future thinking, indicating that cultural values play a role in shaping mental time travel [32]. Considering that collective positive prospection is a specific type of “time travelling”, towards a positive and collective future, it can be assumed that it could vary across different cultures, and further studies should check if
the multi-dimensional structure of collective positive prospection identified in the present paper fits well across different cultures. Such cultural variation could possibly be due to cultural differences in the way individuals perceive time, i.e., individuals' time perspective. One of the dimensions described in the cultural model by Hofstede [33] as being a value influencing individuals' actions is long-term versus short-term orientation, referring to the fostering of virtues either for future rewards (e.g., perseverance and thrift) or towards the present and the past (for instance, respect for traditions). In a more recent study by Milfont and Gapski [34], integrating the culture-level data of time orientations from 73 countries, the results demonstrated that individuals' future orientation is strongly associated with the countries' national wealth and level of human development. These studies are examples of cultural differences that have been found with regard to time perspective and time orientation at an individual level.

This relates to another limitation of the study described in the present paper, which did not take into account the possible influence of individual differences on collective positive prospection, notably time perspective [35,36], as well as individuals' socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, research has shown that socio-economic status is linked both to the way individuals perceive the future and regulate their behaviour towards it [37], and to cognitive biases in time preferences, leading individuals to discount long-term consequences in favour of short-term ones [38]. Future research should thus investigate further whether individual differences arise with regard to individuals' ability and inclination to imagine future sustainable societies, and its motivating role towards behavioural change.

One last limitation of the present research concerns the fact that the study analysed individuals' intentions to engage in social change or pro-environmental behaviours, without measuring actual behavioural change. As intentions are the strongest predictor of actual behavioural change [39], it can be expected that collective positive prospection will also be strongly associated with actual behavioural change. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact of collective positive prospection on actual behaviour.

**5. Conclusions**

Present findings contribute to the current research trend in social and environmental psychology investigating how envisioning collective positive futures can influence and change today's behaviours. In this research, we examined empirical similarities and differences of three conceptualizations introduced in this field: utopian thinking, transformative utopian impulse for planetary health, and environmental cognitive alternatives. The present data emphasise the significance of linking these conceptualizations, each founded on different theoretical bases, to a common process, which we refer to as collective positive prospection. We provide initial evidence suggesting its potential multidimensional structure, encompassing elements related to the propensity to imagine alternative futures, to value and respond positively on an affective level to this type of thinking, to believe in it, as well as the ability to envision such futures. Importantly, we also found that integrating these dimensions enhances the prediction of social change intentions.

Given the growing scientific interest in the mechanisms involved in individuals' prospection of alternatives positive society [7,8,11,27-29], and the applied interest in creating scenarios or visions of the future to motivate change (see [40]), our work, although preliminary, is important as it highlights the need for an integrative approach to better understand collective positive prospection functioning and its link to motivation for social change. These findings could guide the development of an integrated and comprehensive scale (which is lacking in current research) measuring collective positive prospection. By confirming the association of different prospection constructs and their cumulative predictive power on intentions, this work paves the way for further research interested in understanding how positive visions enhance motivation for social change, in order to create effective campaigns and interventions to promote prospection and thus social change behaviours.
**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16198320/s1, Figure S1, Full path diagram of the SEM of the six sub-dimensions related to collective positive prospection on intentions; Tables S1–S9, Detailed results of the nine hierarchical regressions.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.C., P.D., F.Z. and L.B.; Methodology, M.C., P.D., F.Z. and L.B.; Validation, P.D., F.Z. and L.B.; Formal analysis, M.C. and L.B.; Investigation, M.C., P.D., F.Z. and L.B.; Resources, L.B.; Data curation, M.C.; Writing—original draft, M.C. and L.B.; Writing—review & editing, M.C., P.D., F.Z. and L.B.; Supervision, P.D., F.Z. and L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, as this study involves experiments in humanities and social sciences in the field of health and is therefore not considered as research involving the human person by Article R1121-1 of the French Public Health Code.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data have been made publicly available on the Open Science Framework website: https://osf.io/ymwpa/ (accessed on 10 September 2024).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## References

1. Coughlin, C.; Robins, R.W.; Ghetti, S. Development of episodic prospection: Factors underlying improvements in middle and late childhood. *Child Dev.* **2019**, *90*, 1109–1122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. D'Argembeau, A.; Linden, M.V. Phenomenal characteristics associated with projecting oneself back into the past and forward into the future: Influence of valence and temporal distance. *Conscious. Cogn.* **2004**, *13*, 844–858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. Kvavilashvili, L.; Rummel, J. On the nature of everyday prospection: A review and theoretical integration of research on mind-wandering, future thinking, and prospective memory. *Rev. Gen. Psychol.* **2020**, *24*, 210–237. [CrossRef]

4. Szpunar, K.K.; Spreng, R.N.; Schacter, D.L. A taxonomy of prospection: Introducing an organizational framework for future-oriented cognition. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **2014**, *111*, 18414–18421. [CrossRef]

5. Fernando, J.W.; O'Brien, L.V.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. More than idyll speculation: Utopian thinking for planetary health. *Challenges* **2019**, *10*, 16. [CrossRef]

6. Kashima, Y.; Fernando, J. Utopia and ideology in cultural dynamics. *Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.* **2020**, *34*, 102–106. [CrossRef]

7. Badaan, V.; Akil, C.; Zebian, Y.; Jost, J.T. Envisioning change: An empirical test of the social psychological model of utopian thinking and collective action. *J. Soc. Psychol. Res.* **2022**, *1*, 77–96. [CrossRef]

8. Bosone, L.; Thiriot, S.; Chevrier, M.; Rocci, A.; Zenasni, F. Visioning sustainable futures: Exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a decarbonated world. *Glob. Environ. Psychol.* **2024**, *2*, 1–28. [CrossRef]

9. Daysh, S.; Thomas, E.F.; Lizzio-Wilson, M.; Bird, L.; Wenzel, M. “The Future Will Be Green, or Not at All”: How Positive (Utopian) and Negative (Dystopian) thoughts about the Future Shape Collective Climate Action. *Glob. Environ. Psychol.* **2024**, *2*, 1–28. [CrossRef]

10. Fernando, J.W.; Burden, N.; Ferguson, A.; O'Brien, L.V.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Functions of utopia: How utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. *Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.* **2018**, *44*, 779–792. [CrossRef]

11. Fernando, J.W.; O'Brien, L.V.; Burden, N.J.; Judge, M.; Kashima, Y. Greens or space invaders: Prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation. *Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.* **2020**, *50*, 278–291. [CrossRef]

12. Basso, F.; Krpan, D. Measuring the transformative utopian impulse for planetary health in the age of the Anthropocene: A multi-study scale development and validation. *Lancet Planet. Health* **2022**, *6*, e230–e242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Wright, J.D.; Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M. Access to environmental cognitive alternatives predicts pro-environmental activist behavior. *Environ. Behav.* **2022**, *54*, 712–742. [CrossRef]

14. Wright, J.D.; Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M.; Neufeld, S.D. Imagining a sustainable world: Measuring cognitive alternatives to the environmental status quo. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2020**, *72*, 101523. [CrossRef]

15. Szpunar, K.K. Episodic future thought: An emerging concept. *Perspect. Psychol. Sci.* **2010**, *5*, 142–162. [CrossRef]

16. Richter, I.; Gabe-Thomas, E.; Queiros, A.M.; Sheppard, S.R.; Pahl, S. Advancing the potential impact of future scenarios by integrating psychological principles. *Environ. Sci. Policy* **2023**, *140*, 68–79. [CrossRef]

17. Levitas, R. Educated hope: Ernst Bloch on abstract and concrete utopia. *Utop. Stud.* **1990**, *1*, 13–26.

18. Kyriazos, T.A. Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. *Psychology* **2018**, *9*, 2207. [CrossRef]

19. Schmitt, M.T.; Mackay, C.M.; Droogendyk, L.M.; Payne, D. What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2019**, *61*, 20–29. [CrossRef]
20. Bentler, P.M. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. *Psychol. Bull.* **1992**, *112*, 400. [CrossRef]

21. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. *Struct. Equ. Model.* *Multidiscip.* **J. 1999**, *6*, 1–55. [CrossRef]

22. Kline, R.B. *Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling*; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998.

23. R Core Team. *R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022.

24. Cohen, J. *Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavior Sciences*, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988.

25. Hunsley, J.; Meyer, G.J. The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. *Psychol. Assess.* **2003**, *15*, 446. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26. Sweetman, J.; Leach, C.W.; Spears, R.; Pratto, F.; Saab, R. "I have a dream": A typology of social change goals. *J. Soc. Political Psychol.* **2013**, *1*, 293–320. [CrossRef]

27. Bain, P.G.; Hornsey, M.J.; Bongiorno, R.; Kashima, Y.; Crimston, C.R. Collective futures: How projections about the future of society are related to actions and attitudes supporting social change. *Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.* **2013**, *39*, 523–539. [CrossRef]

28. Bain, P.G.; Milfont, T.L.; Kashima, Y.; Bilewicz, M.; Doron, G.; Garðarsdóttir, R.B.; Gouveia, V.V.; Guan, Y.; Johansson, L.O.; Pasquali, C.; et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. *Nat. Clim. Change* **2016**, *6*, 154–157. [CrossRef]

29. Judge, M.; Wilson, M.S. Vegetarian Utopias: Visions of dietary patterns in future societies and support for social change. *Futures* **2015**, *71*, 57–69. [CrossRef]

30. Krpan, D.; Basso, F. Keep degrowth or go rebirth? Regulatory focus theory and the support for a sustainable downscaling of production and consumption. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2021**, *74*, 101586. [CrossRef]

31. Vale, G.L.; Coughlin, C.; Brosnan, S.F. The importance of thinking about the future in culture and cumulative cultural evolution. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B* **2022**, *377*, 20210349. [CrossRef]

32. Chen, X.J.; Liu, L.L.; Cui, J.F.; Wang, Y.; Shum, D.H.; Chan, R.C. Chinese and Australians showed difference in mental time travel in emotion and content but not specificity. *Front. Psychol.* **2015**, *6*, 146114. [CrossRef]

33. Hofstede, G. *Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations*; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2001.

34. Milfont, T.L.; Gapski, E. Cross-cultural differences in time orientations: Integrating culture-level data. In *Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology*, Melbourne, Australia, 7–10 July 2010.

35. Milfont, T.L.; Wilson, J.; Diniz, P. Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. *Int. J. Psychol.* **2012**, *47*, 325–334. [CrossRef]

36. Zimbardo, P.G.; Boyd, J.N. Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. In *Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo*; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 17–55.

37. Fieulaine, N.; Apostolidis, T. Precariousness as a time horizon: How poverty and social insecurity shape individuals' time perspectives. In *Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo*; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 213–228.

38. Grandin, A.; Guillou, L.; Sater, R.A.; Foucault, M.; Chevallier, C. Socioeconomic status, time preferences and pro-environmentalism. *J. Environ. Psychol.* **2022**, *79*, 101720. [CrossRef]

39. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. *Psychol. Health* **2011**, *26*, 1113–1127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

40. IPCC. *Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*; Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.