# Concerned yet polluters: A survey on French research personnel and climate change

Marianne Blanchard, Milan Bouchet-Valat, Damien Cartron, Jérôme Greffion, Julien Gros

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

## To cite this version:

Marianne Blanchard, Milan Bouchet-Valat, Damien Cartron, Jérôme Greffion, Julien Gros. Concerned yet polluters: A survey on French research personnel and climate change. 2022. halshs-03567136

HAL Id: halshs-03567136

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03567136

Preprint submitted on 11 Feb 2022

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Concerned yet polluters:
A survey on French research personnel
and climate change

Marianne Blanchard¹,², Milan Bouchet-Valat², Damien Cartron³, Jérôme Greffion⁴, Julien Gros⁵

1. CERTOP, Université de Toulouse - Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, France

2. Institut national d'études démographiques (INED), Aubervilliers, France

3. CMH, CNRS, Paris, France

4. IDHES, Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France

5. LEST, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

Abstract:

We present a survey on the French research community and climate change carried out in 2020. It is one of the largest surveys ever conducted on this issue: it is based on a sample of more than 6,000 respondents representative of the French public sector research community, regardless of their status and discipline. On the one hand, it measures practices that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, such as air travel, and addresses the differences between disciplines and within them according to different individual characteristics (gender, status, location, etc.). On the other hand, it questions the representations of research actors concerning the climate emergency, and what they are willing to do to reduce their emissions.

The survey highlights three results: first, an acute awareness of environmental and climate issues widely shared by members of the scientific community; second, a willingness to implement changes; and third, a clear gap between these attitudes and practices that still emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. This raises the question of the role of research institutions, whose support is required to implement profound reforms in the organization of research activities.

Keywords: climate change; research; survey; flying; IT equipment; ecology
**Introduction**

For several decades, researchers have highlighted the role played by human activities in greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change. With the academic community working more than ever on these issues, researchers from several countries have in the last few years been investigating the environmental impact of their own occupational activities. These initiatives were initially led by climate and environmental scientists, underscoring the seeming paradox [1], or even hypocrisy [2], of polluting as part of their research while insisting that the population change its behaviour. Several studies have demonstrated that scientists emit more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than the average citizen [3,4], notably owing to their frequent use of air travel.

Climate and environmental researchers stand apart from other researchers as their credibility and ability to raise awareness of the urgency of reducing GHG emissions might hinge on their own behaviour [5]. But researchers in other disciplines are also paying increasing attention to the impact of their occupational activities ([6] in geography, [7] in astronomy, [8] in the history of transport).

As more such initiatives are rolled out, a better understanding is being forged of the actual impact of research activities on GHG emissions. But much remains to explore concerning differences between disciplines, and within the same discipline, stemming from individual characteristics (such as sex, status, and location), which is essential for implementing appropriate and effective changes. In addition, research on how research personnel perceive climate urgency, and what they are willing to do to reduce their emissions, is thin on the ground. In short, knowledge is lacking on the practices and characteristics of the groups with the highest GHG emissions, and on their perceptions, including their opinions on and understanding of climate issues and the reforms they deem acceptable or unacceptable.

The survey "Research personnel and climate change" we present here seeks to shed light on these grey areas. Conducted in 2020, it addresses practices before 2020 (pre-COVID) as well as perceptions. It is based on a large sample of over 6,000 respondents representative of French research personnel, regardless of their status or discipline (covering more than 70 disciplines). This article introduces the main themes and the initial results. Following a review of the literature, we present the survey questionnaire, the protocol, and the response rates obtained. We then focus on a few fundamental findings of the collected data concerning the opinions of research personnel on climate change, their GHG emissions, and the solutions that they are willing to implement to reduce those emissions.

**State of the literature and contributions of the survey**

For a little over a decade, a growing number of members of the academic community have explored the environmental impact of their research activities, from the standpoint of individuals [9], research programmes [10,11], and institutions [12,13].

While some works have addressed issues such as waste management, and in particular the pollution generated by plastic waste in laboratories [14,15], or, more globally, the concept of 'green campuses' [16], in this article we focus on the GHG emissions stemming from research activities and the effect of the latter on climate change.

Despite the growing interest in these issues, resulting from increasing awareness of the risks and the mounting urgency of taking action, the research published thus far provides what remains a fragmented review of the practices and perceptions of researchers.
## Literature focused on air travel

Almost all the studies on the environmental impact of research concern the use of air travel [4,8,17]. This is justified by the fact that flights generate a large share of the GHG emissions of research activity. The University of British Columbia in Canada has estimated that flights account for 63% to 73% of total emissions [18]. At École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), air travel accounts for one-third of total GHG emissions, equivalent to all the emissions generated by electricity consumption, heating, and commuting [12].

Many publications focus on the carbon impact of conferences [19], one of the main reasons for air travel. The GHG emissions generated by air travel range considerably, from 500 kg CO₂e per participant [20] to 950 kg CO₂e [21,22]. To put this into context, the European Commission objective to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030 relative to 1990 corresponds to 2.1 t CO₂e/year/inhabitant [23].

Solutions have been proposed [24] to reduce emissions, such as organizing fewer conferences, optimizing venue access, implementing regional hubs hosting participants at the same time, and increasing the use of videoconferencing.

But the emphasis placed on air travel should not obscure other sources of the GHG emissions generated by research, including IT equipment, commuting, the use of office space, catering (canteens and food stands), heating, the consumption of electricity (lighting, power for machines), and digital technology [25,26]. In some disciplines, scientific equipment stands as a major source of emissions, for example in astronomy [7], with its energy-intensive supercomputers.

While we have devoted considerable attention to the use of air travel in our survey, notably through a special bloc of questions (see next section), we have also addressed other GHG-emitting practices, such as commuting and the use of experimental equipment and IT equipment, for which it appears possible to initiate discussions and short-term actions.

## The contributions of a large-scale survey

Literature review shows that most existing research is limited to specific populations, be they members of the same institution [12,27,28], discipline [3,7], department [29], or working group [11]. The homogeneity of the population studied in these cases prevents taking simultaneous account of characteristics such as status, discipline, or geographical location to measure their impact on GHG-emitting practices. Furthermore, the sample sizes are often modest.

Exceptions exist, among them a study conducted in 2017 with 1,400 scientists from a range of disciplines in several countries [30], which demonstrated that climatologists often fly more than their peers from other disciplines for occupational reasons but less for personal reasons.

The limited scope of most studies largely results from the conditions in which they are produced. Many of them are undertaken by researchers on the margins of their main research activities, as part of their own examination of their environmental impact, and/or in the context of a given institution, as a preliminary medium for implementing measures to reduce environmental impact. In short, few dedicated and wide-ranging research projects have focused on this issue.

To our knowledge, our survey is the largest ever to be conducted in terms of sample size (over 6,000 respondents) and scale, as it covers all types of status and disciplines in French research. It is also the sole sociological study of these questions and includes an array of variables for characterizing individuals, serving ultimately to understand – looking beyond discipline and status – variations in practices and opinions, as well as their determinants. Among other aspects, we take account of sex, age, seniority and career stage, occupational activity venue, number of children, living standard, awareness of environmental issues, and international aspects.
## The interest of considering practices and opinions

Some of the existing research is devoted solely to practices, notably the use of air travel. Several studies have drawn on the processing of data collected by the institution funding air travel (laboratories, universities, research consortiums) to quantify its GHG emissions [10,31]. While this approach serves to accurately measure travel, it is not always able to identify the reason for travel or to put into perspective the use of air travel and knowledge of and opinions on climate issues. More broadly, these studies do not help us to understand the meaning placed by individuals in their practices or their more general opinions on climate change and the necessity, or otherwise, of implementing change.

Research on the overall population suggests a weak link between knowledge of environmental issues and practices [32,33]. This result has been verified for researchers in the environment, economics, and health based on their personal practices (personal use of air travel, consumption of meat, etc.) [34].

## The questionnaire

Our survey was designed as part of Labos 1point5, an interdisciplinary collective created in March 2019 bringing together research professionals with the objective goal of reducing the environmental footprint of research activities (https://labos1point5.org/).

The survey questionnaire was disseminated online from June to December 2020, immediately after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. To reduce any COVID-19 disruptions on occupational practices, the respondents were asked about their practices in 2019. The survey does not aim to describe changes in the world of research generated by the epidemic.

The survey is based on a questionnaire administered online using the LimeSurvey software. The aims of the questions are to:

1. Measure practices generating substantial GHG emissions, both individually and collectively (primarily transport, equipment, and energy consumption): understand their contexts and determinants, differentiate between uses according to their motives and the interest for the respondents, and identify changes in practices having already been made for environmental reasons.

2. Explore solutions and their acceptability: gather the opinions of research personnel on the transformations to be implemented in the world of research to reduce GHG emissions, based on their opinions on regulatory and organizational proposals and on reductions they deem possible at an individual level.

3. Gather the perceptions of research personnel on environmental issues, climate change and ecology in general, identify any occupational or personal commitments to ecology, and assess knowledge of GHG emissions generated by occupational practices.

4. Assess the occupational and personal situation of the respondents: identify the position of respondents in the scientific field and in their career (discipline, status, publications, funding, internationalization) and determine the social position of respondents and their household.

The questionnaire was designed to take a reasonable amount of time to complete, at around 30 minutes. To prevent excessive completion times, two sets of questions identified as more time-consuming and unlikely to be crossed in the same analysis (professional flights on the one hand, and commuting and IT equipment on the other) were put in modules. Each respondent had to answer only one of the two modules, drawn at random. To limit the risk of respondents stopping the survey at an early stage, it begins with more consensual questions on occupational activity, and ends with more potentially sensitive questions concerning
personal aspects. The questions were organized into nine groups, overviewed below (for more details, see the English translation of the questionnaire in S3 Appendix).

## Position relative to the environment and research

The aim with this group of questions is to quickly identify the position and mindset of the respondents relative to climate issues and their research practices. An initial series of questions serves to identify any potential climate skeptics and measure how concerned the respondents are about climate issues. A second set of questions concerns the respondent's position as a researcher, addressing aspects such as environment-linked research themes and having forgone research topics for ecological reasons.

## Individual and laboratory practices

This section seeks to measure the efforts made collectively at laboratories and individually by respondents to shrink their carbon footprint. Some of the questions address daily behaviour (such as sorting waste, buying locally, and double-sided printing) that may admittedly have only a modest effect on emissions but indicates an initial engagement.

Further questions in this section address practices that generate more emissions, including the purchase and use of IT equipment, and the use, for the personnel concerned, of experimental equipment of varying size. A table aims to assess changes in emissions in different fields over the last five years.

## Transports in an occupational setting

These questions aim to identify transport practices in two areas that we can expect to have a heavy impact on the GHG emissions of research personnel: air travel (see Appendix S2) and commuting. Owing to their length, the most detailed questions in this section are organized into two separate modules posed randomly to one respondent in two. The more general questions were posed to the entire sample.

Besides precisely measuring these polluting practices, the objective is to determine the underlying reasons, such as the subjective interest in conferences or congresses abroad and obstacles to favouring the use of trains and carpooling.

Since international conferences have become an increasingly important reason for air travel in the last few decades, we ask the respondents about what value they found in their last conference abroad. For those having forgone an international trip, we seek to identify the reasons, notably environmental.

Regarding commuting, the questionnaire serves to precisely review the transport modes and times of the interviewees and identify the extent of teleworking (in the pre-lockdown period).

## Use of videoconferencing

The objective of this section is to estimate the use of videoconferencing and audioconferencing (and the reluctance of using these media) as well as the effect of the lockdown on these uses and how they are perceived. We notably seek to determine whether the respondents extended their use of videoconferencing after the lockdown.

To that end, we measure the degree of use (before and after the lockdown) and the diversity of use (meetings, conferences, juries, etc.), along with changes in the personal opinion of the
respondents regarding videoconferencing. We aim to precisely determine any obstacles to extending the use of videoconferencing beyond lockdown situations.

## Concrete solutions in research

This set of questions collects the opinions of respondents on solutions seen as possible and desirable for reducing GHG emissions. The questions concern individual changes (what the interviewee is willing to do) and collective changes.

## Personal opinions on ecology in general

These questions aim to forge a deeper understanding of the respondents' positions on ecology in general, based among others on standard questions from the 'environmental attitudes inventory' [35], addressing how individuals feel about environmental risks, their commitment to environmental protection, their personal use of air travel, and global changes that they see as desirable or useful.

## Personal activity and situation

Questions on key personal information (sex, age, status, discipline, etc.) are asked at the start of the questionnaire, other aspects being covered at the end. The questions concern variables likely to increase climate impact (particularly owing to travel), including access to extensive funding or an extremely international profile. The number of publications of the respondent, particularly in English, serves to test the existence of a relationship between the frequency of trips and the production of researchers.

Further questions help to measure the occupational situation of the respondent (career advancement, job situation, and whether the individual is at a strategic moment in their career, for example seeking a new position or promotion). Questions are asked on part-time work and sick leave to account for the fact that reduced working time likely corresponds to a reduction in GHG-emitting activities.

Questions are asked to specify the respondent's personal situation (socio-demographic variables, couple, children, income, education level of parents, etc.) with the assumption that opinions and behaviour depend in part on the socio-demographic characteristics of the individuals and on their socialization in their youth. A question on household income serves to determine living conditions and gauge whether the latter are related to occupational practices.

Lastly, information on the places of residence and work is collected to better understand commuting distances and measure differences in behaviour according to the type of area in which the individual works (Paris region, large city, average sized town). Only derived data are disseminated in the survey database (department, size of urban unit, part of the catchment area of a town, etc.).

## Quiz on GHG emissions

This quiz was given on an optional basis to respondents having finished the rest of the questionnaire. The aim is to assess the respondent's understanding of how much emissions need to be reduced if we are to limit climate change and their perception of the largest sources of emissions. This information is important for testing the relationship between individual behaviour, the sense of climate urgency, and the perception of how much individual activities emit greenhouse gases.
# Sample and non-response bias

## Building the sample: draw and reminders

The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (national scientific research centre, CNRS) is the largest public-research institution in France. Working alone or together with other institutions, such as universities, the CNRS coordinates the activity of over 1,100 research laboratories across the country. Our population includes all the employees of CNRS regardless of their activity (including technical and administrative staff), as well as researchers and professors from other institutions (universities, private and public research institutes, etc.), PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, and any other type of personnel who are members of these structures.

To build a representative sample of this population, we used the CNRS directory, Labintel, which includes the 130,000 people affiliated with a CNRS unit or service. In all, it covers around half of the 250,000 public-research employees listed in 2018 in France by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research (including part-time employees; authors calculations based on [36]).

In June 2020, 30,000 email addresses were drawn at random (simple random sample) and the address holders were sent a message at the end of June asking them to respond to the questionnaire, along with a unique access link. Out of the 30,000 addresses, 4.6% generated an error when the questionnaire invitation was sent. However, it is probable that a much higher proportion of the invitations was never received, as servers do not systematically issue an error message when an email is unable to be delivered, anti-spam filters may block messages, and some email accounts are not used (notably those of non-permanent personnel, whose addresses do not appear to be systematically withdrawn or updated when they leave or change status). The quality of the survey database varies according to the status of personnel. It is excellent for paid CNRS staff, good for regular staff not paid by the CNRS, and average for other personnel, notably PhD students.

Ultimately, 6,723 people, corresponding to 23.6% of the invitations sent without error, went beyond the homepage of the questionnaire and 6,469 people (or 22.7% of invitations) completed the first page of questions. This is a relatively high response rate for a self-completed online questionnaire. The result is all the more satisfying as the respondents were notified that the time required to fill in the questionnaire was fairly long (estimated at 15 to 20 minutes on the homepage). To convince the individuals drawn to respond, in our initial message we stressed how important their participation was to fully reflect the 'diversity of practices and opinions' and to 'find answers to environmental issues by reflecting the multiplicity of viewpoints', while at the same committing to the anonymity of responses. To fully guarantee future respondents of the serious nature of the survey, we also stressed our institutional affiliations (CNRS, universities), the structure in which the questionnaire was built (Labos 1point5), and the context in which the data would be processed (a CNRS-Inrae research network, GDR).

The response rate, quite low following the initial message (10%), was improved by issuing four reminders to the people having failed to respond to the questionnaire, in July, September, October, and November. In those reminders, we reiterated the interest of the survey and reassured recipients that the message was not spam or a phishing attempt (first reminder). The third reminder proved particularly effective, the number of new responses being two and a half times higher than after the second reminder. This may be explained by the change in tone of the message, with less academic and more natural wording. The subject ('Survey on research and climate change: your participation counts!') and content ('We need you to top the mark of 5,000 respondents, ensure representativeness and reflect the diversity of practices and opinions') had been adjusted to attract the attention of the recipients, mention being made
of a 'last-chance reminder' and a questionnaire that would 'soon be closed'. In addition, the
email was no longer sent from an impersonal address associated with the collective
(enquete@labos1point5.org), but from the institutional address of the sole woman in the design
team. This personalization, and perhaps the female first name, may also have further
encouraged the recipients to respond [37]. The last reminder, also more effective than the
second, adopted a similar tone. Specific reminders for people having started but not finished
the questionnaire were sent at the same frequency, with a supplementary reminder at the end
of November.

The relevance of this series of reminders was reflected in the fact that most responses were
obtained on the day that each message was sent (nearly 80%), this trend having clearly
accentuated over time.

Despite the long response time (median of 28 minutes and average of 40 minutes for those
reaching the last page and excluding those having responded over several days), few
respondents gave up along the way (15%). The good response rate for a self-completed online
questionnaire, along with the low abandon rate, likely reflect both an interest in the topic from
research personnel and the successful design of the online questionnaire, which was tested on
numerous people before the survey was publicly launched.

## Response rate by status and discipline

The information available in the CNRS directory can be used to calculate the response rates,
which vary according to status, discipline, and sex. We will focus here on the response to the
first page of the questionnaire. Regarding status, researchers, research engineers and
research support engineers stood apart with a response rate of 30% to 36%, while just 17% of
fully funded PhD students, 15% of technicians, and 17% of other personnel responded (Fig 1).
The response rate of non-permanent personnel was probably under-estimated given that the
information concerning them in the database is not always up to date.

These differences also applied in terms of discipline (approached by CNRS institutes), the
response rate standing at 31% for personnel working in earth sciences, astronomy, and
astrophysics, 26% to 28% for physics and ecology personnel, and 20% to 21% for personnel in
the human and social sciences, chemistry, biology, and information and engineering sciences
(Fig 2). Women responded slightly more than men (25% and 22%), which can be attributed to
their greater sensitivity to ecology [38]. The trends indicated here using raw percentages are
confirmed when estimating a logistic regression controlling for these three variables and the
region (see section 1.1 in S1 Appendix).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig 1. Response rate to the first page of the questionnaire by respondent status</figcaption></figure>

Several tenure statuses exist in France for personnel carrying out research at a public education and/or research institution. Researchers perform this activity on a full-time basis, while professors devote half of their working hours to teaching.

See S4 Appendix for the French version of statuses. The CNRS directory uses a slightly less precise set of statuses than the one used in the survey questionnaire.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Response rate to the first page of the questionnaire by respondents' disciplinary institute at CNRS</figcaption></figure>
Differences between early and late respondents

One method of analyzing non-response biases consists in examining the trend over time in the characteristics of respondents. This aspect has been analyzed in several studies (for example, [39–42]). By identifying who participated in the survey at a later stage, after several reminders, we can attempt to understand who did not respond. The underlying reasoning is that late respondents would have been non-respondents if reminders had not been sent [42].

By means of a question on how concerned the respondent is about climate change, we can note that more early respondents than late respondents say they are 'Extremely concerned' by climate change (33% of respondents before the first reminder compared with 27% after the last reminder). More early respondents say they 'strongly agree' that a major ecological catastrophe is going to occur (61% compared with 50% after the last reminder). More early respondents had also carried out a carbon assessment. The greater concern for the environment on the part of early respondents is also reflected in a greater propensity to fully complete the questionnaire, which appears to suggest that they are more motivated to respond to the survey. The phenomenon of late respondents providing more incomplete data has already been identified in other surveys [43,44].

Overall, early respondents are more in favour than late respondents of introducing regulatory constraints to protect the environment (respectively, 47% and 40% 'strongly agree'). The former are also more inclined to think that we need to protect the environment more than economic growth (58% versus 47%). Concerning research specifically, early respondents think more often that this sector should set an example in terms of reducing GHG emissions (50% vs 42%). Early respondents are more inclined to consider many of the collective solutions proposed in the questionnaire as a priority, such as limiting air travel (56% vs 51%), reducing the weight of international conferences in career assessments, funding train tickets (64% vs 56%), and integrating GHG emissions into project-funding criteria.

But the distinction between early and late respondents is not systematic, whether in terms of opinions or ecological commitment. Only a small percentage of both groups think it is pointless to take steps to protect the environment if others fail to do so. They also share the same opinion on taking ecology into account when voting or joining or donating to an environmental protection organization. Members of each of the two groups are divided regarding the ability of more and better technology to solve environmental problems.

These observations are valid when controlled for age, sex, discipline, and status (see linear regression results in section 1.2 of S1 Appendix). Age is one of the characteristics with the greatest impact on response time. The youngest individuals required a half reminder message less than the oldest individuals. Differences between disciplines are slighter and, for the most part, not statistically significant. Differences in status could in part be related to differential variations in the workload over time, as occupations with the fastest response times at the end of the university year were not the same in the back-to-school period.

Lastly, a set of indicators suggests that the individuals most engaged in their work environment or those feeling the happiest about their work are more inclined to respond. The individuals with the fastest response times work less on a part-time basis and have had more work published in the last three years. They also see themselves more as being in a moment in their career in which they are seeking to be promoted, recruited or tenured, and consider that they are paid better. In a further observation, non-French nationals respond later to the questionnaire.
## Comparison with other surveys

A final method for assessing non-response biases is to compare our survey with others that have no reason to suffer from the same bias. This is true of the 'Styles de vie et environnement' (lifestyles and environment) survey based on the ELIPSS panel, which is a random sample panel of individuals living in France who have committed to respond to a broad variety of subjects, not limited to ecology. 90% of individuals with higher-level occupations in the civil service said they were somewhat or very concerned by climate change (compared with 93% in our survey, including when considering solely the sub-sample of higher-level occupations). 42% of them strongly agree with the statement, 'If things continue at the current pace, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe' (compared with 59% in our survey). These comparisons do not appear to reveal a major bias in our survey, as the latter difference could reflect, at least in part, a real difference between individuals with higher-level occupations in the civil service in general and researchers in particular, who as scientists are potentially more familiar with ecological issues.

Another survey, administered in spring 2020 among European demography researchers [45], may also be used as a reference as ecology was not its main theme. 91% of respondents said they were somewhat, very, or extremely concerned by climate change and 69% very or extremely concerned. These figures are very close to those obtained in our survey (93% and 71%, respectively, and 97% and 82% for researchers in sociology and demography).

## Results

### Consensus on the gravity of climate issues

A strong consensus exists on the reality, causes, and consequences of climate change among French research personnel. 99% of the respondents think that 'the climate of the planet is changing' and 95% think that human activity plays a major role in, or is the only cause of, climate change (Table 1). This result can be compared with the fact that 80% of French people think that 'global warming is caused by human activity' and just 66% of them consider that climate change is a certainty for most scientists [46].

This consensus on the reality of the situation and the underlying reasons is accompanied by an equally unanimous sense of concern. A full 99% of the respondents say they are concerned about climate change, 72% of them very or extremely concerned (including 32% extremely concerned). The concern of research personnel observed in our survey has increased in the last few years, with 80% of respondents saying they are more concerned than five years ago (including 45% much more concerned). And regarding the consequences of global warming, 90% of the respondents agree with the statement, 'If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe'. 74% of them even think that 'this type of catastrophe could cause a collapse of our societies'.

This vision of reality and the concerns of the respondents come hand in hand with a widely held expectation for changes in practices in their occupational activity. A full 88% of the respondents say they agree with the statement, 'Climate urgency calls for profound changes in the practice of our professions' (47% saying they strongly agree). This strong desire for change is confirmed when the question is asked in a more concrete fashion, referring to the objective in France's Low-Carbon Strategy on a one-third reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. A full 91% of respondents agree with the objective of reducing carbon emissions from research by one-third by 2030. And 48% even want to set an example by reducing them by more than one-third.
Opinions on climate change differ little from one discipline to the next. In general, there are no more than five percentage points of variation from the average between disciplines. All disciplines agree on the certainty of climate change, the role played by human activities in that change, and the demand for radical changes in our professions. However, individuals in some disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, medical research, and biology, are less convinced that research should set an example in the reduction of GHG emissions (around 40% compared with an average for all disciplines of 48%). In contrast, oceanographers, meteorologists, environmental physicists, population biologists, and ecologists are more firmly convinced that the situation is urgent and action needs to be taken.

The status of personnel plays an important role in the responses. Surprisingly, while PhD-level positions (including PhD students) are more concerned about climate change than support staff, the latter are more willing to change research conditions to reduce GHG emissions. Just 62% of research support assistants say they are very or extremely concerned about climate change, compared with 76% of researchers. Conversely, 48% of research support engineers strongly agree with the idea that climate change calls for profound changes in our professions, compared with 40% of senior researchers or full professors.

<table><caption>Table 1. Opinions regarding climate and ecological issues</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Do you think the climate of the planet is changing (rise in temperatures in the last century)?</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Yes, definitely</th><th>Yes, probably</th><th>No, probably not</th><th>Non, definitely not</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>5756</td><td>535</td><td>18</td><td>6</td><td>31</td><td>6346</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>91</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="7">To what degree are you concerned about climate change?</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Extremely concerned</th><th>Very concerned</th><th>Somewhat concerned</th><th>Slightly concerned</th><th>Not at all concerned</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>1994</td><td>2534</td><td>1335</td><td>367</td><td>60</td><td>52</td><td>6342</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>31</td><td>40</td><td>21</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="7">Are you more or less concerned than 5 years ago?</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Much more</th><th>Somewhat more</th><th>Neither more nor less</th><th>Somewhat less</th><th>Much less</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>2806</td><td>2254</td><td>1069</td><td>96</td><td>42</td><td>20</td><td>6287</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
In your opinion, are human activities the cause of this climate change?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, they are the only cause</th><th>Yes, they play a major role</th><th>Yes, they play a small role</th><th>No, they play no role</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>1159</td><td>4871</td><td>197</td><td>9</td><td>46</td><td>6282</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>18</td><td>78</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Do you think that climate urgency calls for profound changes in the practice of our professions?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, strongly agree</th><th>Yes, somewhat agree</th><th>No, somewhat disagree</th><th>No, strongly disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>2996</td><td>2594</td><td>397</td><td>107</td><td>247</td><td>6341</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>47</td><td>41</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, strongly agree</th><th>Yes, somewhat agree</th><th>No, somewhat disagree</th><th>No, strongly disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>3337</td><td>1788</td><td>198</td><td>97</td><td>265</td><td>5685</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>59</td><td>31</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

This type of catastrophe could cause a collapse of our societies: the basic needs (food, energy, health, etc.) will no longer be assured for the majority of the population

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, strongly agree</th><th>Yes, somewhat agree</th><th>No, somewhat disagree</th><th>No, strongly disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>2045</td><td>2105</td><td>489</td><td>361</td><td>605</td><td>5605</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

France has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by one third by 2030. In this respect, do you think that public research must reduce its emissions by

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>More than one-third</th><th>Around one-third</th><th>More than one-third</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Frequency</th><td>2717</td><td>2423</td><td>495</td><td>5635</td></tr><tr><th>%</th><td>48</td><td>43</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
High-emissions practices: air travel and IT equipment

The respondents agree on the climate situation and share the same concerns. But the practices and habits of the research sector emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases, notably through air travel, experimental equipment, buildings and infrastructure, IT equipment and its renewal, and receptions at conferences. To explore how research personnel aim to reduce these emissions, and to understand any reticence on their part, we need to know how much greenhouse gas is emitted and why, as emissions levels and reasons differ according to discipline and status. To that end, we will focus on two sources of emissions: air travel and IT equipment.

Excluding the research sector and at global level, the GHG emissions generated by air travel result from a minority of individuals (11% of the world population took a plane in 2018, 4% for an international flight), which explains in part why they account for just 2% of worldwide emissions [47]. But air travel is a widespread practice in research, constituting the sector's number-one source of emissions (see above).

Professional travel is part and parcel of today's research work, notably for conferences abroad, fieldwork or observations in distant countries, research stays, teaching, and participation on juries or in international research programmes. As they are faster than trains, sometimes cheaper, and can be used to travel to far-flung destinations, planes are often the preferred means of transport for research personnel. As research support personnel have more modest travel requirements, we are limiting our analysis here to PhD-level positions (including PhD students), who account for 77% of our sample.

58% of PhD-level respondents travelled by plane for professional reasons in 2019. By way of comparison, in France in 2017, one person in five with an occupation of the same level travelled by plane at least once for professional reasons; this was the case for individuals with higher-level occupations in the civil service and similar sectors (teachers and artistic occupations) and for individuals with higher-level occupations in the private sector. Yet these are the professions that fly the most, and by far, as only 7% of the economically active population flying for professional reasons in the same year ('Styles de vie et environnement' survey, ELIPSS 2017, processed by the authors). Research personnel, then, are heavy users of air travel. On average, they flew 9,000 km in the year preceding the survey, emitting approximately 2 tonnes of CO2e, and those having flown at least once travelled 15,500 km (the method for calculating distances and GHG emissions is detailed in S2 Appendix).

But the use of air travel varies considerably according to academic discipline. In some disciplines, where air travel is common, a researcher flies an average 10,000 km to 15,000 km a year (Fig 3). This is the case for astronomy, geology, anthropology, and mathematics, as well as for some disciplines focused on research on the environment and climate, which explains why researchers in the latter two fields were the first to question themselves on their paradoxical use of air travel [1]. Air travel is less frequent in other disciplines such as biology, chemistry, the human sciences, and medical research, the distance traveled being three times lower on average.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Distance traveled by plane in 2019 by discipline of respondents</figcaption></figure>

These differences in the use of air travel do not simply concern its intensity. Depending on the discipline, professionals do not fly for the same reasons. Geologists travel extensively for field studies, the production and collection of data, or research stays, but not so much to attend conferences. In contrast, astrophysicists, though flying as much as anthropologists, do so twice as less for data but twice as much for conferences. That being so, whether the individual belongs to a discipline that makes little or extensive use of air travel or to a discipline in which empirical activity requires them to fly or not to fly, in almost all cases conferences are the main reason for air travel. They account for roughly 40% of the distance travelled by all respondents. Data production and collection (11% of the total distance) and research stays (18%) account for far fewer flights.

Naturally, such variations exist not just between disciplines but between different statuses. Research personnel travel more as their careers advance (Fig 4), which confirms results in the literature and generalizes them to multiple disciplines and institutions [7, 12, 28, 30]. Also, researchers travel more than professors, the latter devoting half of their work time to teaching. While senior researchers fly an average 15,000 km a year, full professors fly only slightly over 10,000 km. Tenured researchers fly an average 10,000 km a year, associate professors around 7,000 km, and research engineers 5,500 km. Among young researchers, postdoctoral researchers travel nearly 8,000 km by air a year, twice as much as fully funded PhD students, with adjunct lecturers falling in between.

The reasons for air travel are fundamentally similar across statuses. While air travel distances differ, the reasons for flying vary relatively little. 40% to 50% of the air travel of the respondents is for conferences, apart from research engineers, who travel much less for this reason, and postdoctoral researchers, who travel much more for it. Research engineers, PhD students and adjunct lecturers devote a larger proportion of their flying distances to fieldwork and data. Conversely, the distance travelled for research stays increases as individuals advance in their careers, with the exception of PhD students who are the status with the highest proportion of distances flown for this motive. Logically, air travel for teaching concerns professors (both associated and full) more than other statuses.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 4. Distance traveled by plane in 2019 by status of respondents</figcaption></figure>

See S4 Appendix for the correspondence with French statuses.

IT equipment is another major source of the GHG emissions and, more broadly, the pollution of the research sector. This equipment emits less pollution than air travel, the functioning of buildings, and heavy scientific equipment used in some disciplines, but it is interesting because it concerns all disciplines and may be measured relatively reliably through an individual questionnaire. It is also a field in which emissions reduction initiatives may potentially be implemented as regards the frequency of equipment replacements, without necessarily impacting core research activities.

To estimate the environmental cost, and notably the GHG emissions of IT, the focus is often placed exclusively on the energy consumed by equipment use. Yet the lifecycle (‘cradle to grave’) of the equipment also needs to be considered. The production of IT equipment accounts for over half of the total GHG emissions [48] and consumes extensive resources, notably rare-earth metals. In addition, IT equipment produces a substantial quantity of hazardous waste at end of life (waste electrical and electronic equipment, or WEEE), which is complex and costly to recycle.

To give an idea of scale, over its life cycle, a laptop emits approximately 150 kg of CO2e, a desktop computer 200 kg, a high-performance computer 400 kg, and a 21.5-inch screen 250 kg [48]. Lengthening the lifespan of equipment would sharply reduce the corresponding emissions.

Our survey shows that most research personnel are equipped with IT devices (a computer or tablet purchased with professional financing) under five years old (62% of respondents). More importantly, 42% of the respondents have several devices, and among the latter 40% (or 17% of the total sample) consider that some of those devices are not indispensable. This suggests that there is some scope for reducing the emissions generated by IT equipment, through the more frugal management of devices.

Major differences are observed between disciplines and statuses. The share of respondents with a device aged under five years old is higher in the natural sciences, mathematics, and computer science (between 60% and 73%) than in humanities and social sciences (47% to 55%). The same trend is observed regarding the proportion of respondents with several devices. The share of respondents considering that all these devices are not indispensable
varies little from one discipline to the next. Lastly, and unsurprisingly, the number and
recentness of devices increases in step with professional status (30% of adjunct lecturers
have a device aged under five years old compared with 69% of senior researchers). The
same trend can thus be observed as with air travel.

The fact that personnel possess devices that they do not consider as indispensable can be
attributed in part to project-based research funding, which may lead to expenditure of
questionable usefulness to use up any credits that have not been spent before the end of
the contract. 60% of the respondents say they have already had some leftover money to
spend. Of this 60%, 35% say they had already used leftover money to buy IT equipment
that was not indispensable.

However, only 6% of the respondents concerned report having used leftover budget money to buy plane tickets considered as non-essential. Air transport emissions being particularly high, the GHG emissions of this expenditure, seen as non-essential, may nevertheless be substantial. These results underscore some of the perverse effects of funding research on a project-by-project basis or via non-extendable annualized credits. They call at the very least for new mechanisms enabling personnel to use the funds granted in a manner that they see as more productive for their research.

Scientific community willing to change practices

So what needs to be done? How is this strong ecological sensibility reflected in the perceptions research personnel have of their profession? What do they see as the necessary changes required for reducing the GHG emissions of their research activity?

Several questions serve to identify the fields (air travels, experiments, etc.) in which respondents are willing to make the effort to reduce their emissions by 2030 and those in which they are less inclined to do so. Since the time horizon calls for medium-term planning, questions concerning individual efforts were asked only to permanent personnel. However, more general questions, with no specified time frame, and regarding the solutions to be rolled out and the risks involved, were asked to all the respondents.

Regardless of the field, most respondents say they are willing to reduce their emissions by at least one-third by 2030 (Fig 5). This is particularly true concerning air travel for conferences and IT equipment, with just 2% and 7%, respectively, of the respondents saying they are opposed to reducing the related emissions. And while a few variations were observed depending on status and discipline, the percentage remains under 10% in almost all cases (results detailed in S1 Appendix).

Opposition is stronger for changes regarding core research activities. 14% of concerned respondents are opposed to reducing emissions stemming from travel for fieldwork, observation, and data collection. Similarly, nearly one-quarter are against reducing the emissions generated by scientific experiments and observations. This reluctance is even stronger concerning the concrete means for achieving these reductions, being expressed by 42% of the sample when envisioning a reduction in their use of equipment for experiments and observations.

A willingness to limit emissions does not imply that one believes it is without consequences or without danger. We asked the respondents to assess the risks that could be involved in the reduction of professional air travel (regardless of the reason) and the reduction of emissions generated by experimental equipment in the next ten years.

While the respondents are globally in favour of a reduction in professional air travel, many of them say it could engender some of the risks we presented to them and that these risks are problematic. For example, many of the respondents (54%) are afraid that it poses a risk to the professional integration of young researchers. In something of a paradox, this fear is
expressed slightly more by people further along in their careers than the young researchers themselves. Many of the respondents (44%) are also afraid that this could increase bureaucracy. Further concerns among the respondents are that initiatives to reduce emissions could harm the dissemination of their work (36%) and isolate French research from the rest of the world (43%), the latter being more of an issue for researchers and professors for PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, adjunct lecturers, and support staff. Fears that these actions could hinder access to funding (16%) and eliminate some of the advantages of the profession (like travelling and discovering other countries...) (11%) are less frequent. Regarding this last point, most respondents think that cutting down on air travel will eat away at what they see as the innate advantages of the profession, but that this does not pose a problem. This result can be interpreted as a sign of willingness consistent with the strong convictions in favour of the climate expressed in response to the other questions.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig 5. Willingness to reduce GHG emissions by 2030 in various areas</figcaption></figure>

The proportion of respondents concerned varies according to the question.

These risks affect the functioning of research as currently organized (career paths, administrative and financial framework, etc.). But what about when the measures suggested in the questionnaire affect the scientific approach in itself (data production, experiments, etc.)?

Surprisingly, very few respondents (18%) are worried about the harmful impact of the reduction of professional air travel on the quality of scientific work. The level of concern in this respect varies substantially according to the discipline, with no relation to the distance traveled. However, of the half of the respondents who use air travel to access some field sites or to collect/produce some data, many (47%) think that implementing a policy on the reduction of air travel would hinder them in this regard and that it is a problem. This risk is seen as greater in disciplines where it is common to travel long distances by plane to produce or collect data (this is the case for 72% of historians, geographers, urbanists and anthropologists, 73 % of geologists and 61 % of population biologists and ecologists).

Generally speaking, where the empirical approach, data and experiments are affected, the respondents are more concerned about the risks associated with a decrease in emissions, which is consistent with their being less willing to reduce their emissions in these areas. When we suggested to respondents using experimental and observation equipment (60% of the sample) that they reduce the emissions generated by this equipment, half of them said it would probably impact the quality of their work. Much mention is also made of the risks
stemming from competition-based research, with 44% of respondents fearing that it would set them back relative to rival teams, 33% that it would reduce their access to funding, and 29% that it would lead to a decline in their number of publications.

These fears being so, what type of collective solutions should be implemented? A large majority of the respondents agree with the solutions suggested in the questionnaire (Fig 6). Almost all the respondents agree with the measures providing simply for a review (carbon assessment) or those coming at no cost for institutions, such as financing train travel where more expensive than plane travel, preferring to buy energy-efficient equipment even where more expensive, and funding carbon offsetting initiatives. Even measures that transform some career organization aspects are accepted by most respondents, as are others having a greater impact on the daily lives of the respondents. These include favouring local or vegetarian food stands, not replacing IT equipment before five years, and prohibiting air travel for journeys that take under six hours by train. Ultimately, the respondents express relatively strong opposition to just two measures: capping the number of flights per person (22%) and integrating carbon emissions into the selection criteria when financing projects (28%). These two initiatives, among the most radical, may for some disciplines impact the core of scientific data production.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig 6. Support to institutional actions to reduce GHG emissions</figcaption></figure>
## Conclusion

Our survey highlights three results. First, members of the scientific community are acutely aware of environmental issues. Second, they are willing to implement change. And third, there is a substantial divide between these attitudes and practices emitting large quantities of greenhouse gas. In today's post-health crisis environment, many research personnel have already tried out new working methods, particularly with the unprecedented increase in the use of videoconferencing [49]. A mere 8% of our respondents used videoconferencing several times a week before the lockdowns; 72% of them did so during the lockdowns. Most importantly, 68% of the respondents said they had a more positive image of videoconferencing following their lockdown experience despite the particularly trying situation and a lack of preparation. This result shows that new work organization methods acceptable to personnel may be implemented quickly where collective action is taken. More broadly, the pandemic demonstrated that individuals and organizations alike were able, when faced with a threat, to radically change their way of working. The lessons of the pandemic should inspire us to rethink the way research works [50].

The key now is for institutions to drive and support profound change to fight against climate change. The scientific community is ready to make these changes but, for now, its members are unable to implement them individually without running the risk of being negatively impacted owing to the way the research sector operates (promotion of mobility in career assessments, project-by-project funding, competition, etc.). Failing this institutional action, the necessary changes will not take place [51].

As an occupation with a highly developed awareness of climate issues, and one that generates high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, the research community is currently facing regulatory issues that all sectors will soon have to deal with.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the members of the Labos 1point5 collective whose suggestions helped improve the questionnaire, as well as all the volunteers who tested it. Support from the CNRS was also key to the success of the survey.

## References

1. Grémillet D. Paradox of flying to meetings to protect the environment. Nature. 2008;455: 1175. doi:10.1038/4551175a

2. Kevin Anderson. Hypocrites in the air: should climate change academics lead by example? In: Comment on climate [Internet]. 12 Apr 2013 [cited 21 Jul 2020]. Available: http://kevinanderson.info/blog/hypocrites-in-the-air-should-climate-change-academics-lead-by-example/

3. Fox HE, Kareiva P, Silliman B, Hitt J, Lytle DA, Halpern BS, et al. Why do we fly? Ecologists's sins of emission. Front Ecol Environ. 2009;7: 294. doi:10.1890/09.WB.019

4. Spinellis D, Louridas P. The carbon footprint of conference papers. PLOS One. 2013;8: 1–8. doi:10/ggbs2j

5. Le Quéré C, Capstick S, Corner A, Cutting D, Johnson M, Minns A, et al. Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the 21st Century. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research; 2015 Mar. Report No.: 161. Available: https://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/twp161.pdf

6. Nevins J. Academic Jet-Setting in a Time of Climate Destabilization: Ecological Privilege and Professional Geographic Travel. Prof Geogr. 2014;66. doi:10.1080/00330124.2013.784954

7. Stevens ARH, Bellstedt S, Elahi PJ, Murphy MT. The imperative to reduce carbon
emissions in astronomy. ArXiv191205834 Astro-Ph. 2020 [cited 30 Jun 2020]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05834

8. Passalacqua A. The carbon footprint of a scientific community: A survey of the historians of mobility and their normalized yet abundant reliance on air travel. J Transp Hist. 2021;42: 121–141. doi:10.1177/0022526620985073

9. Kjellman SE. As a climate researcher, should I change my air-travel habits? Nature. 2019 [cited 21 Jul 2020]. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01652-2

10. Waring T, Teisl M, Manandhar E, Anderson M. On the Travel Emissions of Sustainability Science Research. Sustainability. 2014;6: 2718–2735. doi:10.3390/su6052718

11. Quéré CL, Capstick S, Corner A, Cutting D, Johnson M, Minns A, et al. Towards a culture of low-carbon research for the 21st Century. 2015. Available: https://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/twp161.pdf

12. Ciers J, Mandic A, Toth LD, Op 't Veld G. Carbon Footprint of Academic Air Travel: A Case Study in Switzerland. Sustainability. 2019;11: 80. doi:10.3390/su11010080

13. ETH Zürich. Flugreisen Studierender an der ETH Zürich 2006 und 2015. Resultate, Methodik und Diskussion. Zürich; 2017 Oct. Available: https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/associates/services/organisation/Schulleitung/mobilitaetsplattform/Report%20Studierendenreisen%20ETH%20Z%C3%BCrich%202006%20und%202015.pdf

14. Howes L. Can Laboratories Move Away from Single-Use Plastic? ACS Cent Sci. 2019;5: 1904–1906. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.9b01249

15. Madhusoodanan J. What can you do to make your lab greener? Nature. 2020;581: 228–229. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01368-8

16. Choi YJ, Oh M, Kang J, Lutzenhiser L. Plans and Living Practices for the Green Campus of Portland State University. Sustainability. 2017. doi:10.3390/su9020252

17. Glover A, Strengers Y, Lewis T. The unsustainability of academic aeromobility in Australian universities. Sustain Sci Pract Policy. 2017;13: 1–12. doi:10.1080/15487733.2017.1388620

18. Wynes S, Donner SD. Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from business-related air travel at public institutions: a case study of the University of British Columbia. Victoria: Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions; 2018 Jul. Available: pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/AirTravelWP_FINAL.pdf

19. Hischier R, Hilty L. Environmental impacts of an international conference. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2002;22: 543–557. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00027-6

20. Desiere S. The Carbon Footprint of Academic Conferences: Evidence from the 14th EAAE Congress in Slovenia. EuroChoices. 2016;15: 56–61. doi:10.1111/1746-692X.12106

21. Vandepaer L. Environmental footprint Sustainable Summits Conference 2018. Chamonix-Mont-Blanc; 2018. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.26703.53929

22. Astudillo MF, AzariJafari H. Estimating the global warming emissions of the LCAXVII conference: connecting flights matter. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2018;23: 1512–1516. doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1479-z

23. European Union. 2030 climate & energy framework. 2021 [cited 8 Dec 2021]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2030-climate-energy-framework_en

24. Klöwer M, Hopkins D, Allen M, Higham J. An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature. 2020;583: 356–359. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02057-2

25. Achten WMJ, Almeida J, Muys B. Carbon footprint of science: More than flying. Ecol Indic. 2013;34: 352–355. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.025

26. Song G, Che L, Zhang S. Carbon footprint of a scientific publication: A case study at Dalian University of Technology, China. Ecol Indic. 2016;60: 275–282. doi:10/f75dj2

27. Storme T, Beaverstock JV, Derrudder B, Faulconbridge JR, Witlox F. How to cope with mobility expectations in academia: Individual travel strategies of tenured academics at Ghent University, Flanders. Res Transp Bus Manag. 2013;9: 12–20.
doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.05.004

28. Wynes S, Donner SD, Tannason S, Nabors N. Academic air travel has a limited influence on professional success. J Clean Prod. 2019;226: 959-967.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.109

29. Cluzel F, Vallet F, Leroy Y, Rebours P. Reflecting on the environmental impact of research activities: an exploratory study. Procedia CIRP. 2020;90: 754-758.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.129

30. Whitmarsh L, Capstick S, Moore I, Köhler J, Le Quéré C. Use of aviation by climate change researchers: Structural influences, personal attitudes, and information provision. Glob Environ Change. 2020;65: 102184. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102184

31. Stohl A. The travel-related carbon dioxide emissions of atmospheric researchers. Atmospheric Chem Phys. 2008;8: 6499-6504. doi:10.5194/acp-8-6499-2008

32. Howarth C, Waterson B, Mcdonald M. Public understanding of climate change and the gaps between knowledge, attitudes and travel behavior. Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting. Washington DC; 2009. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313211885_Public_understanding_of_climate_change_and_the_gaps Between_knowledge_attitudes_and_travel_behavior

33. Alcock I, White MP, Taylor T, Coldwell DF, Gribble MO, Evans KL, et al. 'Green' on the ground but not in the air: Pro-environmental attitudes are related to household behaviours but not discretionary air travel. Glob Environ Change. 2017;42: 136-147.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.005

34. Balmford A, Cole L, Sandbrook C, Fisher B. The environmental footprints of conservationists, economists and medics compared. Biol Conserv. 2017;214: 260-269.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.035

35. Milfont TL, Duckitt J. The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30: 80-94.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001

36. SIES. L'état de l'emploi scientifique en France. Paris: Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l'innovation; 2020. Available: https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid154848/l-etat-de-l-emploi-scientifique-en-france-edition-2020.html

37. Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26: 132-139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

38. Pearson A, Ballew MT, Naiman S, Schuldt JP. Race, class, gender and climate change communication. Oxf Encycl Clim Change Commun. 2017.
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.412

39. Chen R, Wei L, Syme PD. Comparison of early and delayed respondents to a postal health survey: a questionnaire study of personality traits and neuropsychological symptoms. Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18: 195-202. doi:10.1023/A:1023393231234

40. Gummer T, Struminskaya B. Early and Late Participation during the Field Period: Response Timing in a Mixed-Mode Probability-Based Panel Survey. Sociol Methods Res. 2020;Online First. doi:10.1177/0049124120914921

41. Olowokure B, Caswell M, Duggal HV. Response patterns to a postal survey using a cervical screening register as the sampling frame. Public Health. 2004;118: 508-512.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2003.12.013

42. Rao K, Pennington J. Should the Third Reminder be Sent? The Role of Survey Response Timing on Web Survey Results. Int J Mark Res. 2013;55: 651-674.
doi:10.2501/IJMR-2013-056

43. Friedman EM, Clusen NA, Hartzell M. Better Late? Characteristics of Late Respondents to a Health Care Survey. ASA Proc Jt Stat Meet. 2003; 992-998.

44. Kennickell AB. Analysis of nonresponse effects in the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances. J Off Stat. 1997;15: 283-304.

45. van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Population and Climate Change: Consensus and Dissensus among Demographers. Eur J Popul. 2021. doi:10.1007/s10680-021-09580-6

46. ADEME. Les représentations sociales du changement climatique. 21° vague, Juillet
2020. 2020. Available: https://librairie.ademe.fr/changement-climatique-et-energie/4057-representations-sociales-du-changement-climatique-21-eme-vague.html

47. Gössling S, Humpe A. The global scale, distribution and growth of aviation: Implications for climate change. Glob Environ Change. 2020;65: 102194.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102194

48. ADEME. Modélisation et évaluation du poids carbone de produits de consommation et biens d'équipements. Paris; 2018. Available: https://librairie.ademe.fr/cadic/1193/poids_carbone-biens-equipement-201809-rapport.pdf

49. Glausiusz J. Rethinking travel in a post-pandemic world. Nature. 2021;589: 155-157.
doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03649-8

50. Jordan CJ, Palmer AA. Virtual meetings: A critical step to address climate change. Sci Adv. 2020;6: eabe5810. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe5810

51. Nursey-Bray M, Palmer R, Meyer-Mclean B, Wanner T, Birzer C. The Fear of Not Flying: Achieving Sustainable Academic Plane Travel in Higher Education Based on Insights from South Australia. Sustainability. 2019;11: 2694. doi:10.3390/su11092694

52. Jungbluth N, Meili C. Recommendations for calculation of the global warming potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2019;24: 404-411.
# S1 Appendix. Additional tables and plots

* 1 Sample and non-response bias

* 1.1 Response rate by status and discipline

* 1.2 Distribution of sample by discipline and status

* 1.3 Differences between early and late respondents

* 2 Opinions

* 2.1 Overview

* 2.2 Human activities and climate change

* 2.3 Concern about climate change

* 2.4 Change in degree of concern

* 2.5 Opinions on ecology in general

* 2.6 Profound changes in our professions

* 2.7 Reduction in emissions by one-third by 2030

* 3 Practices

* 3.1 Flights

* 3.1.1 Reasons for flying by discipline

* 3.1.2 Reasons for flying by status

* 3.2 IT equipment

* 3.3 Leftover budget money

* 4 Solutions

* 4.1 Reductions in personal GHG emissions in a professional setting by 2030

* 4.2 Risks associated with reduced flying

* 4.3 Reductions in personal GHG emissions of experimental equipment by 2030

* 4.4 Risks associated with reduced emissions of experimental equipment

* 4.5 Institutional solutions
# 1 Sample and non-response bias
## 1.1 Response rate by status and discipline

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Proportion of sent invitations</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Proportion of sent invitations</figcaption></figure>

Logistic regression on the probability of response:
<table><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Odds ratio</th><th>95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Institute</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>INSU (earth and universe sciences)</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>INEE (ecology and environment)</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.76, 1.01</td></tr><tr><td>INP (physics)</td><td>0.81**</td><td>0.70, 0.93</td></tr><tr><td>IN2P3 (nuclear and particle physics)</td><td>0.69***</td><td>0.58, 0.83</td></tr><tr><td>Chairmanship and general management</td><td>0.63***</td><td>0.53, 0.75</td></tr><tr><td>INSMI (mathematical sciences)</td><td>0.73***</td><td>0.62, 0.86</td></tr><tr><td>INSIS (engineering and systems sciences)</td><td>0.65***</td><td>0.57, 0.74</td></tr><tr><td>IN2I (information sciences)</td><td>0.66***</td><td>0.57, 0.76</td></tr><tr><td>INSB (biological sciences)</td><td>0.56***</td><td>0.50, 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>INC (chemistry)</td><td>0.60***</td><td>0.53, 0.68</td></tr><tr><td>INSHS (human and social sciences)</td><td>0.65***</td><td>0.58, 0.73</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Region</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>01, Ile-de-France Villejuif</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>02, Paris-Centre</td><td>1.06</td><td>0.92, 1.23</td></tr><tr><td>04, Ile-de-France Gif-sur-Yvette</td><td>1.20*</td><td>1.03, 1.40</td></tr><tr><td>05, Ile-de-France Meudon</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.97, 1.38</td></tr><tr><td>06, Centre-Est</td><td>1.21*</td><td>1.02, 1.44</td></tr><tr><td>07, Rhône Auvergne</td><td>1.25**</td><td>1.08, 1.46</td></tr><tr><td>08, Centre-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes</td><td>1.37**</td><td>1.13, 1.66</td></tr><tr><td>10, Alsace</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.94, 1.36</td></tr><tr><td>11, Alpes</td><td>1.70***</td><td>1.45, 2.00</td></tr><tr><td>12, Provence et Corse</td><td>1.29**</td><td>1.10, 1.52</td></tr><tr><td>13, Occitanie Est</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.95, 1.34</td></tr><tr><td>14, Occitanie Ouest</td><td>1.18*</td><td>1.01, 1.38</td></tr><tr><td>15, Aquitaine</td><td>1.26*</td><td>1.06, 1.51</td></tr><tr><td>16, Paris Michel-Ange</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.86, 1.41</td></tr><tr><td>17, Bretagne et Pays de la Loire</td><td>1.25**</td><td>1.07, 1.46</td></tr><tr><td>18, Hauts-de-France</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.82, 1.20</td></tr><tr><td>19, Normandie</td><td>1.54***</td><td>1.22, 1.93</td></tr><tr><td>20, Côte d'Azur</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.74, 1.16</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>0.55***</td><td>0.48, 0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>1.27***</td><td>1.11, 1.45</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>0.73***</td><td>0.64, 0.82</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.96, 1.31</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>0.49***</td><td>0.39, 0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>0.47***</td><td>0.42, 0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.81, 1.08</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>0.70***</td><td>0.59, 0.83</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Odds ratio</th><th>95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technician</td><td>0.38***</td><td>0.33, 0.45</td></tr><tr><td>Temp on fixed-term contract</td><td>0.59***</td><td>0.51, 0.68</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>0.47***</td><td>0.39, 0.56</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sex</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Man</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Woman</td><td>1.31***</td><td>1.23, 1.39</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.2 Distribution of sample by discipline and status

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>364</td><td>5.6</td><td>6.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>508</td><td>7.9</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>535</td><td>8.3</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>351</td><td>5.4</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>395</td><td>6.1</td><td>6.5</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>540</td><td>8.4</td><td>8.9</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>669</td><td>10.3</td><td>11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>246</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>235</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>206</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>572</td><td>8.8</td><td>9.4</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>708</td><td>10.9</td><td>11.6</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>547</td><td>8.5</td><td>9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>221</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>370</td><td>5.7</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>612</td><td>9.5</td><td>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>588</td><td>9.1</td><td>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>741</td><td>11.5</td><td>11.5</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>1085</td><td>16.8</td><td>16.8</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>603</td><td>9.3</td><td>9.3</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>252</td><td>3.9</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>64</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>938</td><td>14.5</td><td>14.5</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>629</td><td>9.7</td><td>9.7</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>41</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>327</td><td>5.1</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>225</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>46</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>315</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>1</td><td>0.0</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 1.3 Differences between early and late respondents

To what degree are you concerned about climate change?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Not at all concerned</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Slightly concerned</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat concerned</td><td>20</td><td>23</td><td>19</td><td>21</td><td>23</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Very concerned</td><td>39</td><td>40</td><td>44</td><td>42</td><td>41</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Extremely concerned</td><td>34</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td>27</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Completely agree</td><td>61</td><td>59</td><td>61</td><td>55</td><td>51</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>29</td><td>31</td><td>31</td><td>33</td><td>39</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

I agree with having regulatory constraints (quotas, bans) put in place to protect the environment, even if it limits my comfort

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Completely agree</td><td>47</td><td>46</td><td>49</td><td>41</td><td>38</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>40</td><td>42</td><td>37</td><td>45</td><td>50</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Protecting the environment is more important than protecting economic growth
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Completely agree</td><td>58</td><td>56</td><td>58</td><td>51</td><td>47</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>31</td><td>33</td><td>31</td><td>36</td><td>39</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

France has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2030. In this respect, do you think that public research should:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Set an example (reduce emissions by more than one-third)</td><td>50</td><td>49</td><td>49</td><td>46</td><td>42</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce emissions by around one-third</td><td>42</td><td>44</td><td>41</td><td>44</td><td>47</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Benefit from an exemption (reduce emissions by less than one-third)</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>9</td><td>11</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

What actions should research institutions and laboratories take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

* Impose a cap on the number of flights per person

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>It is a priority</td><td>56</td><td>54</td><td>53</td><td>51</td><td>51</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>It is secondary</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>18</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>It should not be implemented</td><td>21</td><td>22</td><td>20</td><td>24</td><td>23</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

* Add carbon emissions to the main selection criteria for project funding

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>It is a priority</td><td>36</td><td>35</td><td>37</td><td>32</td><td>34</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>It is secondary</td><td>30</td><td>31</td><td>29</td><td>31</td><td>32</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>It should not be implemented</td><td>27</td><td>27</td><td>26</td><td>29</td><td>26</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

* Reduce the importance of conferences and presentations abroad in career assessments
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>After the first message</th><th>After the first reminder</th><th>After the second reminder</th><th>After the third reminder</th><th>After the fourth reminder</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>It is a priority</td><td>64</td><td>62</td><td>63</td><td>57</td><td>56</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>It is secondary</td><td>20</td><td>23</td><td>23</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>It should not be implemented</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Linear regressions on the number of reminders sent before the questionnaire was completed:
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Model 1</th><th colspan="2">Model 2</th><th colspan="2">Model 3</th><th colspan="2">Model 4</th><th colspan="2">Model 5</th><th colspan="2">Model 6</th></tr><tr><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Intercept)</td><td>2.4***</td><td>0.053</td><td>2.3***</td><td>0.093</td><td>2.4***</td><td>0.096</td><td>2.2***</td><td>0.101</td><td>2.1***</td><td>0.112</td><td>2.4***</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sex</strong></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>Man</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>Woman</td><td>0.08*</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.039</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.040</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.042</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.042</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.419</td><td>-0.30</td><td>0.419</td><td>-0.32</td><td>0.419</td><td>-0.31</td><td>0.432</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.432</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.430</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></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>50-54 years old</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>Under 29 years old</td><td>-0.35***</td><td>0.066</td><td>-0.43***</td><td>0.096</td><td>-0.41***</td><td>0.097</td><td>-0.45***</td><td>0.103</td><td>-0.44***</td><td>0.105</td><td>-0.44***</td><td>0.104</td></tr><tr><td>30-34 years old</td><td>-0.23**</td><td>0.078</td><td>-0.28**</td><td>0.088</td><td>-0.26**</td><td>0.089</td><td>-0.33***</td><td>0.094</td><td>-0.33***</td><td>0.096</td><td>-0.32***</td><td>0.094</td></tr><tr><td>35-39 years old</td><td>-0.20**</td><td>0.073</td><td>-0.20**</td><td>0.078</td><td>-0.19*</td><td>0.079</td><td>-0.23**</td><td>0.082</td><td>-0.21*</td><td>0.085</td><td>-0.21*</td><td>0.083</td></tr><tr><td>40-44 years old</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.070</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.074</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.075</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.078</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.080</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.078</td></tr><tr><td>45-49 years old</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.071</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.074</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.075</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.078</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.080</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.078</td></tr><tr><td>55-64 years old</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.068</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.071</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.071</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.075</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.077</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.076</td></tr><tr><td>65 years and older</td><td>0.34**</td><td>0.112</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.117</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.120</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.126</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.131</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Status</strong></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>Associate Professor</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>Senior researcher</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.083</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.086</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.084</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.084</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.086</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.084</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>-0.15*</td><td>0.071</td><td>-0.15*</td><td>0.071</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.073</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.075</td><td>-0.18*</td><td>0.074</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.077</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.078</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.081</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.084</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.082</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.113</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.113</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.119</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.122</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.197</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.206</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.208</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.205</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.098</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.099</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.104</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.106</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.106</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.079</td><td>-0.16*</td><td>0.080</td><td>-0.18*</td><td>0.083</td><td>-0.19*</td><td>0.085</td><td>-0.18*</td><td>0.083</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.237</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.246</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.251</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.254</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.257</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.102</td><td>-0.15</td><td>0.104</td><td>-0.14</td><td>0.108</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.114</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.110</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SE = Standard Error</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Model 1</th><th colspan="2">Model 2</th><th colspan="2">Model 3</th><th colspan="2">Model 4</th><th colspan="2">Model 5</th><th colspan="2">Model 6</th></tr><tr><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Technician</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.06</td><td>0.117</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.120</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.127</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.135</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.130</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.03</td><td>0.288</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.299</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.341</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.341</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.360</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.33**</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.40***</td><td>0.103</td><td>0.43***</td><td>0.111</td><td>0.44***</td><td>0.114</td><td>0.41***</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Discipline</strong></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>Physics</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>Law, economics, management</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.101</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.105</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.108</td><td>0.23*</td><td>0.106</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.097</td><td>0.20*</td><td>0.100</td><td>0.23*</td><td>0.097</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.18*</td><td>0.091</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.21*</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.098</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.097</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.100</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.101</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.106</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.108</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.097</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.097</td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.101</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.103</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.101</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.085</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.085</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.092</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.090</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.112</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.113</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.117</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.120</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.117</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.114</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.114</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.117</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.120</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.118</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.119</td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.120</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.125</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.127</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.126</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.088</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.089</td><td>0.25**</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.23*</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.094</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.084</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.084</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.088</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.088</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.089</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.096</td><td>0.22*</td><td>0.094</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.116</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.117</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.122</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.125</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.123</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Degree of concern about climate change</strong></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>Very concerned</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>Not at all concerned</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.247</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.08</td><td>0.343</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slightly concerned</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.085</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.104</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SE = Standard Error</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Model 1</th><th colspan="2">Model 2</th><th colspan="2">Model 3</th><th colspan="2">Model 4</th><th colspan="2">Model 5</th><th colspan="2">Model 6</th></tr><tr><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Somewhat concerned</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.051</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.058</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Extremely concerned</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.14**</td><td>0.045</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.050</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.325</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.403</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Desirable GHGs emission reduction target for public research by 2030</strong></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>Set an example (reduce emissions by more than one-third)</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>Reduce emissions by around one-third</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.10*</td><td>0.041</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Benefit from an exemption (reduce emissions by less than one-third)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.21**</td><td>0.072</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>A major ecological catastrophe is going to occur</strong></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>Completely agree</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>Somewhat agree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.13*</td><td>0.050</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td>0.125</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.30</td><td>0.208</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.14</td><td>0.109</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Regulatory constraints to protect the environment</strong></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>Completely agree</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>Somewhat agree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.02</td><td>0.048</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.09</td><td>0.090</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.144</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.12</td><td>0.159</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SE = Standard Error</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Model 1</th><th colspan="2">Model 2</th><th colspan="2">Model 3</th><th colspan="2">Model 4</th><th colspan="2">Model 5</th><th colspan="2">Model 6</th></tr><tr><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Protecting the environment is more important than protecting economic growth</strong></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>Completely agree</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>Somewhat agree</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>Somewhat disagree</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>Completely disagree</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>No opinion</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><strong>Desirable GHG emission reduction target for public research by 2030</strong></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>Set an example (reduce emissions by more than one-third)</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>Reduce emissions by around one-third</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>Benefit from an exemption (reduce emissions by less than one-third)</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><strong>Impose a cap on the number of flights per person</strong></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>It is a priority</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>It is secondary</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>It should not be implemented</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>No opinion</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><strong>Add carbon emissions to the main selection criteria for project funding</strong></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>It is a priority</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>It is secondary</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></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SE = Standard Error</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristic</th><th colspan="2">Model 1</th><th colspan="2">Model 2</th><th colspan="2">Model 3</th><th colspan="2">Model 4</th><th colspan="2">Model 5</th><th colspan="2">Model 6</th></tr><tr><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th><th>Beta<sup>1</sup></th><th>SE<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>It should not be implemented</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.058</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.06</td><td>0.090</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Reduce the importance of conferences and presentations abroad in career assessments</strong></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>It is a priority</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>It is secondary</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.12*</td><td>0.051</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>It should not be implemented</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.24**</td><td>0.077</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.088</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Being in a moment in one's career in which one is seeking to be promoted, recruited or tenured</strong></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>No</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>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.09*</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Feeling underpaid</strong></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>No</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>Yes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.07</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Born abroad</strong></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>Yes</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>No</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.14*</td><td>0.060</td></tr><tr><td>No. Obs.</td><td>6,429</td><td>6,065</td><td>5,926</td><td>5,318</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,051</td><td>5,212</td><td>5,212</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.014</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.031</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.032</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.012</td><td>0.019</td><td>0.021</td><td>0.024</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.025</td><td>0.025</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²SE = Standard Error</footnote>
2 Opinions
## 2.1 Overview

Opinions of respondents on a selection of questions by discipline et status (%):

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Climate is definitely changing</th><th>Very or extremely concerned</th><th>Much more concerned than 5 years ago</th><th>Human activites cause climate change</th><th>Calls for profound changes in our professions</th><th>We will soon experience an ecological catastrophe</th><th>It could cause a collapse of our societies</th><th>Research must reduce its emissions by more than one-third</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>92</td><td>71</td><td>50</td><td>95</td><td>90</td><td>91</td><td>74</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>90</td><td>75</td><td>46</td><td>97</td><td>86</td><td>91</td><td>72</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>92</td><td>74</td><td>45</td><td>95</td><td>88</td><td>90</td><td>75</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>92</td><td>72</td><td>45</td><td>96</td><td>81</td><td>89</td><td>69</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>89</td><td>72</td><td>42</td><td>97</td><td>90</td><td>92</td><td>70</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>90</td><td>73</td><td>41</td><td>96</td><td>83</td><td>87</td><td>74</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>88</td><td>67</td><td>45</td><td>96</td><td>87</td><td>88</td><td>73</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>95</td><td>76</td><td>41</td><td>99</td><td>89</td><td>91</td><td>71</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>92</td><td>74</td><td>40</td><td>97</td><td>90</td><td>89</td><td>68</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>95</td><td>84</td><td>39</td><td>99</td><td>96</td><td>95</td><td>80</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>93</td><td>67</td><td>50</td><td>96</td><td>90</td><td>94</td><td>79</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>90</td><td>70</td><td>47</td><td>96</td><td>88</td><td>89</td><td>75</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>88</td><td>70</td><td>44</td><td>96</td><td>90</td><td>92</td><td>77</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>95</td><td>83</td><td>42</td><td>97</td><td>93</td><td>95</td><td>81</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>91</td><td>72</td><td>45</td><td>96</td><td>88</td><td>90</td><td>74</td><td>48</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Climate is definitely changing</th><th>Very or extremely concerned</th><th>Much more concerned than 5 years ago</th><th>Human activites cause climate change</th><th>Calls for profound changes in our professions</th><th>We will soon experience an ecological catastrophe</th><th>It could cause a collapse of our societies</th><th>Research must reduce its emissions by more than one-third</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>90</td><td>76</td><td>47</td><td>95</td><td>83</td><td>88</td><td>69</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>89</td><td>71</td><td>44</td><td>94</td><td>80</td><td>84</td><td>68</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>92</td><td>77</td><td>44</td><td>96</td><td>88</td><td>92</td><td>76</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>90</td><td>74</td><td>42</td><td>96</td><td>86</td><td>90</td><td>74</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>90</td><td>70</td><td>41</td><td>96</td><td>90</td><td>90</td><td>74</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>93</td><td>75</td><td>45</td><td>98</td><td>92</td><td>96</td><td>75</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>95</td><td>76</td><td>42</td><td>100</td><td>87</td><td>95</td><td>75</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>95</td><td>75</td><td>53</td><td>98</td><td>92</td><td>94</td><td>76</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>90</td><td>65</td><td>41</td><td>96</td><td>94</td><td>90</td><td>76</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>92</td><td>74</td><td>53</td><td>100</td><td>97</td><td>94</td><td>66</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>87</td><td>62</td><td>40</td><td>94</td><td>93</td><td>88</td><td>79</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>86</td><td>53</td><td>44</td><td>95</td><td>93</td><td>88</td><td>74</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>80</td><td>37</td><td>44</td><td>90</td><td>88</td><td>80</td><td>70</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>93</td><td>70</td><td>45</td><td>95</td><td>86</td><td>90</td><td>75</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>91</td><td>71</td><td>45</td><td>96</td><td>88</td><td>90</td><td>74</td><td>48</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.2 Human activities and climate change

Are human activities the cause of climate change (rise in temperatures in the last century)?

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

For 95.1% of respondents, human activities play a major role or are the only cause of climate change.

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=6337)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes, they are the only cause</td><td>1159</td><td>17.9</td><td>18.3</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, they play a major role</td><td>4871</td><td>75.3</td><td>76.9</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, they play a small role</td><td>197</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>No, they play no role</td><td>9</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Climate change does not exist</td><td>24</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>77</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>130</td><td>2.0</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, they play a major role or are the only cause</th><th>Yes, they play a small role</th><th>No, they play no role</th><th>Climate change does not exist</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>94</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>96</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>94</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>94</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>96</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>95</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>98</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>95</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>99</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>95</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>95</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>97</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, they play a major role or are the only cause</th><th>Yes, they play a small role</th><th>No, they play no role</th><th>Climate change does not exist</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>92</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>96</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>98</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>97</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>100</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>93</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>93</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>90</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>93</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>95</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.3 Concern about climate change

To what degree are you concerned about climate change?

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Proportion of respondents

Interpretation: 31.7% of respondents are extremely concerned about climate change

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=6287)

<table><thead><tr><td></td><td>n</td><td>%</td><td>val%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Not at all concerned</td><td>60</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Slightly concerned</td><td>367</td><td>5.7</td><td>5.8</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat concerned</td><td>1335</td><td>20.6</td><td>21.1</td></tr><tr><td>Very concerned</td><td>2534</td><td>39.2</td><td>40.0</td></tr><tr><td>Extremely concerned</td><td>1994</td><td>30.8</td><td>31.4</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>52</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>125</td><td>1.9</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Not at all concerned</th><th>Slightly concerned</th><th>Somewhat concerned</th><th>Very concerned</th><th>Extremely concerned</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>22</td><td>36</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>19</td><td>39</td><td>36</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>21</td><td>37</td><td>36</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>19</td><td>43</td><td>29</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>19</td><td>42</td><td>30</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>18</td><td>39</td><td>34</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>24</td><td>44</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>39</td><td>37</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>19</td><td>35</td><td>38</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>13</td><td>40</td><td>44</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>24</td><td>40</td><td>27</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>22</td><td>39</td><td>31</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>24</td><td>40</td><td>30</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>13</td><td>41</td><td>42</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>21</td><td>40</td><td>32</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Not at all concerned</th><th>Slightly concerned</th><th>Somewhat concerned</th><th>Very concerned</th><th>Extremely concerned</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>39</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>19</td><td>38</td><td>33</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>40</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>20</td><td>39</td><td>35</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>22</td><td>43</td><td>27</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>19</td><td>40</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>23</td><td>48</td><td>27</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>42</td><td>33</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>27</td><td>42</td><td>23</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>26</td><td>42</td><td>32</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>1</td><td>11</td><td>26</td><td>41</td><td>21</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>36</td><td>32</td><td>21</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>2</td><td>12</td><td>49</td><td>27</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>22</td><td>37</td><td>33</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>21</td><td>40</td><td>31</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.4 Change in degree of concern

Are you more or less concerned about climate change than 5 years ago?

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Interpretation: 44.6% of respondents are much more concerned about climate change than 5 years ago

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=6287)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Much more</td><td>2806</td><td>43.4</td><td>44.6</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat more</td><td>2254</td><td>34.9</td><td>35.9</td></tr><tr><td>Neither more nor less</td><td>1069</td><td>16.5</td><td>17.0</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat less</td><td>96</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Much less</td><td>42</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>20</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>180</td><td>2.8</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Much more</th><th>Somewhat more</th><th>Neither more nor less</th><th>Somewhat less</th><th>Much less</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>50</td><td>34</td><td>14</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>46</td><td>37</td><td>14</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>42</td><td>39</td><td>18</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>41</td><td>36</td><td>20</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>45</td><td>38</td><td>15</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>41</td><td>37</td><td>20</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>40</td><td>36</td><td>23</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>39</td><td>31</td><td>27</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>50</td><td>31</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>47</td><td>33</td><td>18</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>44</td><td>40</td><td>13</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>42</td><td>36</td><td>19</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Much more</th><th>Somewhat more</th><th>Neither more nor less</th><th>Somewhat less</th><th>Much less</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>47</td><td>32</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>44</td><td>32</td><td>22</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>44</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>42</td><td>38</td><td>19</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>41</td><td>39</td><td>19</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>42</td><td>34</td><td>19</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>53</td><td>33</td><td>10</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>41</td><td>39</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>53</td><td>32</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>18</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>44</td><td>38</td><td>14</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>44</td><td>41</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>45</td><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.5 Opinions on ecology in general

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Completely agree</th><th>Somewhat agree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Somewhat disagree</th><th>Completely disagree</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe</td><td>59</td><td>31</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>This type of catastrophe could cause a collapse of our societies*</td><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>11</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Protecting the environment is more important than protecting economic growth</td><td>55</td><td>33</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>I agree with having regulatory constraints put in place to protect the environment, even if it limits my comfort</td><td>45</td><td>42</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Degrowth is necessary to face environmental challenges</td><td>34</td><td>31</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Most environmental problems can be solved by applying more and better technology</td><td>10</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>35</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>There is no point in me making an effort for the environment if others do not do the same</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>36</td><td>45</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Completely agree</td><td>3337</td><td>51.6</td><td>58.7</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>1788</td><td>27.6</td><td>31.5</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>198</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td>97</td><td>1.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>265</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>782</td><td>12.1</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>* Respondents disagreeing with previous question are classified as "Strongly disagree".</footnote>

<footnote>* Respondents disagreeing with previous question are classified as "Strongly disagree".</footnote>

<footnote>Interpretation: 59% of respondents completely agree with the statement that we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe</footnote>

<footnote>Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020</footnote>

<footnote>Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=5685)</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Completely agree</th><th>Somewhat agree</th><th>Somewhat disagree</th><th>Completely disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>59</td><td>32</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>64</td><td>27</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>61</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>55</td><td>33</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>62</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>57</td><td>30</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>54</td><td>34</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>65</td><td>26</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>58</td><td>31</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>68</td><td>27</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>59</td><td>35</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>56</td><td>33</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>55</td><td>36</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>66</td><td>29</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>59</td><td>31</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Completely agree</th><th>Somewhat agree</th><th>Somewhat disagree</th><th>Completely disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>53</td><td>35</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>48</td><td>36</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>59</td><td>33</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>62</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>57</td><td>33</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>66</td><td>30</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>59</td><td>36</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>68</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>58</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>54</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>55</td><td>33</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>51</td><td>37</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>30</td><td>50</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>61</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>59</td><td>31</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

This type of catastrophe could cause a collapse of our societies: the basic needs (food, energy, health, etc.) will no longer be assured for the majority of the population
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Completely agree</td><td>2045</td><td>31.6</td><td>36.5</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat agree</td><td>2105</td><td>32.5</td><td>37.6</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat disagree</td><td>489</td><td>7.6</td><td>8.7</td></tr><tr><td>Completely disagree</td><td>361</td><td>5.6</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>605</td><td>9.4</td><td>10.8</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>862</td><td>13.3</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Completely agree</th><th>Somewhat agree</th><th>Somewhat disagree</th><th>Completely disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>35</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>42</td><td>31</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>14</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>40</td><td>35</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>30</td><td>39</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>35</td><td>36</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>37</td><td>37</td><td>7</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>33</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>35</td><td>36</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>35</td><td>33</td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>44</td><td>36</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>39</td><td>40</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>35</td><td>40</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>36</td><td>41</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>42</td><td>38</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Completely agree</th><th>Somewhat agree</th><th>Somewhat disagree</th><th>Completely disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>34</td><td>36</td><td>11</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>26</td><td>42</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>39</td><td>37</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>39</td><td>36</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>42</td><td>35</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>36</td><td>40</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>31</td><td>34</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>41</td><td>38</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>35</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>27</td><td>43</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>39</td><td>35</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
(Respondents disagreeing with previous question are classified as "Strongly disagree")
## 2.6 Profound changes in our professions

Do you think that climate urgency calls for profound changes in the practice of our profession

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Proportion of respondents

Interpretation: 47% of respondents think that climate urgency calls for profound changes in the practice of our professions

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=6341)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes, strongly agree</td><td>2996</td><td>46.3</td><td>47.2</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, somewhat agree</td><td>2594</td><td>40.1</td><td>40.9</td></tr><tr><td>No, somewhat disagree</td><td>397</td><td>6.1</td><td>6.3</td></tr><tr><td>No, strongly disagree</td><td>107</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>No opinion</td><td>247</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>126</td><td>1.9</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, strongly agree</th><th>Yes, somewhat agree</th><th>No, somewhat disagree</th><th>No, strongly disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>52</td><td>37</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>50</td><td>36</td><td>8</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>48</td><td>40</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>41</td><td>39</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>50</td><td>41</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>45</td><td>38</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>40</td><td>46</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>50</td><td>39</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>51</td><td>40</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>65</td><td>31</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>45</td><td>45</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>49</td><td>40</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>41</td><td>49</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>58</td><td>35</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>47</td><td>41</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, strongly agree</th><th>Yes, somewhat agree</th><th>No, somewhat disagree</th><th>No, strongly disagree</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>40</td><td>43</td><td>10</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>44</td><td>44</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>46</td><td>41</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>47</td><td>42</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>50</td><td>41</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>47</td><td>40</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>55</td><td>36</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>51</td><td>42</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>55</td><td>42</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>48</td><td>45</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>46</td><td>46</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>32</td><td>56</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>54</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>47</td><td>41</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.7 Reduction in emissions by one-third by 2030

France has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2030.

In this respect, do you think that public research should:

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Interpretation: 48% of respondents think that public research should reduce its emissions by more than one-third by 2030

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=5635)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>More than one-third</td><td>2717</td><td>42.0</td><td>48.2</td></tr><tr><td>Around one-third</td><td>2423</td><td>37.5</td><td>43.0</td></tr><tr><td>Less than one-third</td><td>495</td><td>7.7</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>832</td><td>12.9</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>More than one-third</th><th>Around one-third</th><th>Less than one-third</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>58</td><td>35</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>53</td><td>43</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>50</td><td>44</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>51</td><td>43</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>53</td><td>39</td><td>8</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>39</td><td>44</td><td>17</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>42</td><td>46</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>50</td><td>40</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>41</td><td>46</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>52</td><td>42</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>42</td><td>49</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>52</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>43</td><td>48</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>54</td><td>39</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>48</td><td>43</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>More than one-third</th><th>Around one-third</th><th>Less than one-third</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>38</td><td>48</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>42</td><td>46</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>44</td><td>47</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>48</td><td>45</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>47</td><td>44</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>49</td><td>42</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>56</td><td>36</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>52</td><td>39</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>56</td><td>37</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>51</td><td>46</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>53</td><td>40</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>54</td><td>41</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>33</td><td>60</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>54</td><td>40</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>48</td><td>43</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 3 Practices
## 3.1 Flights

Analyses in this section cover only PhD-level positions (researchers, professors, research engineers and PhD students).
## 3.1.1 Reasons for flying by discipline

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Distance travelled by plane in 2019 (km):

<table><thead><tr><th>Discipline</th><th>Fieldwork, data</th><th>Research stay</th><th>Meeting, workshop</th><th>Teaching, training</th><th>Others</th><th>Conference, presentation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>1052</td><td>1225</td><td>807</td><td>844</td><td>150</td><td>2980</td><td>7133</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>660</td><td>1491</td><td>428</td><td>810</td><td>202</td><td>3529</td><td>7459</td></tr><tr><td>History, geogr., urbanism, anthropol.</td><td>3491</td><td>1863</td><td>1383</td><td>1225</td><td>1376</td><td>2986</td><td>12685</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>0</td><td>4416</td><td>1053</td><td>673</td><td>570</td><td>5280</td><td>12125</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>71</td><td>1274</td><td>606</td><td>1074</td><td>778</td><td>5545</td><td>9347</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>346</td><td>1838</td><td>1409</td><td>356</td><td>414</td><td>4513</td><td>9050</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>178</td><td>867</td><td>697</td><td>427</td><td>270</td><td>2947</td><td>5485</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>1318</td><td>3043</td><td>2268</td><td>56</td><td>628</td><td>6642</td><td>13964</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>4981</td><td>1697</td><td>1837</td><td>1427</td><td>505</td><td>3265</td><td>13872</td></tr><tr><td>Meteo., oceano., environmental physics</td><td>3036</td><td>1676</td><td>2619</td><td>110</td><td>235</td><td>3511</td><td>11187</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>316</td><td>246</td><td>582</td><td>312</td><td>250</td><td>2545</td><td>4347</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>137</td><td>1676</td><td>628</td><td>792</td><td>471</td><td>4336</td><td>8324</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>421</td><td>1341</td><td>184</td><td>328</td><td>242</td><td>3483</td><td>6020</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>3195</td><td>1293</td><td>2965</td><td>1667</td><td>1263</td><td>2762</td><td>13445</td></tr></tbody></table>

Distance travelled by plane in 2019 (row %):
<table><thead><tr><th>Discipline</th><th>Fieldwork, data</th><th>Research stay</th><th>Meeting, workshop</th><th>Teaching, training</th><th>Others</th><th>Conference, presentation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>47</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geogr., urbanism, anthropol.</td><td>28</td><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>24</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>0</td><td>36</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>59</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>4</td><td>20</td><td>16</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>50</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>3</td><td>16</td><td>13</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>54</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>9</td><td>22</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>48</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>36</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>24</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteo., oceano., environmental physics</td><td>27</td><td>15</td><td>23</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>31</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>59</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>2</td><td>20</td><td>8</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>52</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>7</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>58</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>24</td><td>10</td><td>22</td><td>12</td><td>9</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.1.2 Reasons for flying by status

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Distance travelled by plane in 2019 (km):

<table><thead><tr><th>Status</th><th>Fieldwork, data</th><th>Research stay</th><th>Meeting, workshop</th><th>Teaching, training</th><th>Others</th><th>Conference, presentation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>1507</td><td>3309</td><td>2357</td><td>907</td><td>960</td><td>6731</td><td>16101</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>863</td><td>2817</td><td>754</td><td>1396</td><td>750</td><td>5005</td><td>11866</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>1508</td><td>1902</td><td>1643</td><td>683</td><td>718</td><td>5275</td><td>12136</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>594</td><td>928</td><td>1046</td><td>943</td><td>250</td><td>2911</td><td>6699</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>1068</td><td>1044</td><td>677</td><td>290</td><td>697</td><td>1685</td><td>5542</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>1041</td><td>881</td><td>552</td><td>121</td><td>78</td><td>5025</td><td>7698</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>1736</td><td>614</td><td>244</td><td>0</td><td>581</td><td>2979</td><td>6154</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>697</td><td>1061</td><td>152</td><td>247</td><td>122</td><td>1980</td><td>4290</td></tr></tbody></table>

Distance travelled by plane in 2019 (row %):

<table><thead><tr><th>Status</th><th>Fieldwork, data</th><th>Research stay</th><th>Meeting, workshop</th><th>Teaching, training</th><th>Others</th><th>Conference, presentation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>9</td><td>21</td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>7</td><td>24</td><td>6</td><td>12</td><td>6</td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>12</td><td>16</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>14</td><td>4</td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>19</td><td>19</td><td>12</td><td>5</td><td>13</td><td>30</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>14</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>65</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>28</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>48</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>16</td><td>25</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>46</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.2 IT equipment

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>At least one device under 5 years old</td><td>1838</td><td>28.4</td><td>62.2</td></tr><tr><td>No device under 5 years old</td><td>1115</td><td>17.2</td><td>37.8</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>3514</td><td>54.3</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No device or a single device</td><td>1701</td><td>26.3</td><td>57.6</td></tr><tr><td>Several devices</td><td>1252</td><td>19.4</td><td>42.4</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>3514</td><td>54.3</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>All devices considered essential</th><th>Some devices considered non-essential</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No device or a single device</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>83 100</td></tr><tr><td>Several devices</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>59 100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>27</td><td></td><td>73 100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>At least one device under 5 years old</th><th>No device under 5 years old</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>55</td><td>45</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>47</td><td>53</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>49</td><td>51</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>62</td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>73</td><td>27</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>68</td><td>32</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>67</td><td>33</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>73</td><td>27</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>69</td><td>31</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>63</td><td>37</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>61</td><td>39</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>68</td><td>32</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>62</td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>66</td><td>34</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>62</td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>No device or a single device</th><th>Several devices</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>70</td><td>30</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>63</td><td>37</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>68</td><td>32</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>57</td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>52</td><td>48</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>52</td><td>48</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>60</td><td>40</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>56</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>43</td><td>57</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>48</td><td>52</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>56</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>55</td><td>45</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>54</td><td>46</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>56</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>57</td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>All devices considered essential</th><th>Some devices considered non-essential</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>77 100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>72 100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>25</td><td></td><td>75 100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>25</td><td></td><td>75 100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>72 100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>72 100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>76 100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>23</td><td></td><td>77 100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>31</td><td></td><td>69 100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>70 100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>28</td><td></td><td>72 100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>70 100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>24</td><td></td><td>76 100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>34</td><td></td><td>66 100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>27</td><td></td><td>73 100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>At least one device under 5 years old</th><th>No device under 5 years old</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>69</td><td>31</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>65</td><td>35</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>67</td><td>33</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>67</td><td>33</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>68</td><td>32</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>43</td><td>57</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>29</td><td>71</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>56</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>67</td><td>33</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>53</td><td>47</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>64</td><td>36</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>54</td><td>46</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>43</td><td>57</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>41</td><td>59</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>62</td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>No device or a single device</th><th>Several devices</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>40</td><td>60</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>41</td><td>59</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>54</td><td>46</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>53</td><td>47</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>51</td><td>49</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>84</td><td>16</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>79</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>77</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>58</td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>79</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>53</td><td>47</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>64</td><td>36</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>57</td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>81</td><td>19</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>58</td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.3 Leftover budget money

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Has had leftover budget money to spend</td><td>3642</td><td>56.3</td><td>60.1</td></tr><tr><td>Has not had leftover budget money to spend</td><td>2419</td><td>37.4</td><td>39.9</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>406</td><td>6.3</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Having used leftover budget money to buy IT equipment considered as non-essential:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1241</td><td>19.2</td><td>20.5</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>2302</td><td>35.6</td><td>38.0</td></tr><tr><td>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</td><td>2517</td><td>38.9</td><td>41.5</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>407</td><td>6.3</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1241</td><td>19.2</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>2302</td><td>35.6</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>2924</td><td>45.2</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>15</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>54</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>24</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>45</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>19</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>42</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>24</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>41</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>30</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>40</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>22</td><td>45</td><td></td><td>33</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>14</td><td>42</td><td></td><td>43</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>20</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>41</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>18</td><td>45</td><td></td><td>37</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>24</td><td>37</td><td></td><td>39</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>14</td><td>40</td><td></td><td>46</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>23</td><td>39</td><td></td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>19</td><td>42</td><td></td><td>39</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>27</td><td>35</td><td></td><td>38</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>20</td><td>38</td><td></td><td>41</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>25</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>21 100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>32</td><td>46</td><td></td><td>22 100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>22</td><td>51</td><td></td><td>28 100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>28</td><td>42</td><td></td><td>31 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>22</td><td>43</td><td></td><td>35 100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>9</td><td>21</td><td></td><td>70 100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>14</td><td>17</td><td></td><td>69 100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>6</td><td>19</td><td></td><td>76 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>21</td><td>34</td><td></td><td>45 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>0</td><td>30</td><td></td><td>70 100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>19</td><td>33</td><td></td><td>48 100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>24</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>44 100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>18</td><td>32</td><td></td><td>50 100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>11</td><td>29</td><td></td><td>60 100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>20</td><td>38</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Having used leftover budget money to buy plane tickets considered as non-essential:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>192</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>3275</td><td>50.6</td><td>54.4</td></tr><tr><td>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</td><td>2554</td><td>39.5</td><td>42.4</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>446</td><td>6.9</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>val%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yes</td><td>192</td><td>3.0</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>3275</td><td>50.6</td><td>94.5</td></tr><tr><td>NA</td><td>3000</td><td>46.4</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>5</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>55 100</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>3</td><td>51</td><td></td><td>45 100</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>5</td><td>52</td><td></td><td>44 100</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>7</td><td>49</td><td></td><td>43 100</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>5</td><td>53</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>2</td><td>65</td><td></td><td>34 100</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>2</td><td>55</td><td></td><td>43 100</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>6</td><td>52</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>3</td><td>62</td><td></td><td>35 100</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>6</td><td>52</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>2</td><td>51</td><td></td><td>47 100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>2</td><td>58</td><td></td><td>40 100</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>1</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>39 100</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>2</td><td>60</td><td></td><td>38 100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>3</td><td>55</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>I have not had leftover budget money to spend</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>4</td><td>75</td><td></td><td>21 100</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>4</td><td>73</td><td></td><td>23 100</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>3</td><td>69</td><td></td><td>27 100</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>4</td><td>64</td><td></td><td>31 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>3</td><td>62</td><td></td><td>36 100</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td></td><td>69 100</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>3</td><td>22</td><td></td><td>74 100</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>3</td><td>21</td><td></td><td>76 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>1</td><td>53</td><td></td><td>46 100</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>3</td><td>27</td><td></td><td>70 100</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>3</td><td>47</td><td></td><td>50 100</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>4</td><td>48</td><td></td><td>47 100</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>6</td><td>50</td><td></td><td>44 100</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>2</td><td>36</td><td></td><td>62 100</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>3</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>42 100</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 4 Solutions
## 4.1 Reductions in personal GHG emissions in a professional setting by 2030

Are you willing to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in the following areas?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, by at least one-third</th><th>Yes, but by less than one-third</th><th>No, as they are already very low</th><th>No opinion</th><th>No</th><th>Not concerned</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Flights for conferences, meetings, and congresses</td><td>44</td><td>11</td><td>27</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>IT equipment and its replacement rates</td><td>31</td><td>20</td><td>36</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Commuting to work by car, motorbike, scooter or plane</td><td>38</td><td>27</td><td>19</td><td>1</td><td>13</td><td>2</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Travel for fieldwork, observation or data collection (by plane, car or boat)</td><td>13</td><td>9</td><td>20</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>49</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific experiments and observations</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>14</td><td>40</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Proportion of “No” answers, excluding those not concerned:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Scientific experiments and observations</th><th>Travel for fieldwork, observation or data collection (by plane, car or boat)</th><th>Commuting to work by car, motorbike, scooter or plane</th><th>IT equipment and its replacement rates</th><th>Flights for conferences, meetings, and congresses</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>19</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>18</td><td>13</td><td>22</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>16</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>32</td><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>26</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>24</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>32</td><td>26</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>27</td><td>22</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>19</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>26</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>6</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>23</td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>23</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Scientific experiments and observations</th><th>Travel for fieldwork, observation or data collection (by plane, car or boat)</th><th>Commuting to work by car, motorbike, scooter or plane</th><th>IT equipment and its replacement rates</th><th>Flights for conferences, meetings, and congresses</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>29</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>23</td><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>27</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>19</td><td>13</td><td>13</td><td>6</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>22</td><td>15</td><td>17</td><td>8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>22</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>16</td><td>14</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>20</td><td>11</td><td>13</td><td>5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>14</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>13</td><td>8</td><td>21</td><td>3</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>17</td><td>9</td><td>17</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>23</td><td>14</td><td>14</td><td>7</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Are you willing to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in the following areas?</figcaption></figure>

Note: the proportion of people concerned varies according to the question
Interpretation: 32% of respondents say they are unable to reduce the emissions they generate by flying to conferences as they are already very low

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=4107)
## 4.2 Risks associated with reduced flying

What would be the risks of implementing a policy on the reduction of professional air travel in research?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>It is unlikely</th><th>It is likely but it is not a problem</th><th>No opinion</th><th>It is likely and it is a problem</th><th>Not concerned</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hinder the integration of young researchers</td><td>30</td><td>5</td><td>9</td><td>51</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Hinder your access to some field sites or the collection/production of certain data</td><td>19</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>26</td><td>45</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Increase bureaucracy</td><td>26</td><td>13</td><td>16</td><td>42</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Isolate French research from the rest of the world</td><td>43</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>41</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce the dissemination of your work</td><td>37</td><td>19</td><td>4</td><td>34</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce the quality of your work</td><td>65</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce your access to funding</td><td>57</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>14</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce some of the advantages offered to you by your profession</td><td>19</td><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

What would be the risks of implementing a policy on the reduction of professional air travel in research?

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Note: the proportion of people concerned varies according to the question
Interpretation: 54% of respondents think it likely that a reduction in the number of flights would negatively impact the integration of young researchers and that it is a problem
Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020
Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=4760)

Proportion of "It is likely and it is a problem" answers, excluding those not concerned:
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Reduce the quality of your work</th><th>Hinder your access to some field sites or the collection/production of certain data</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Law, economics, management</td><td>26</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Other humanities and social sciences</td><td>24</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>History, geography, urbanism, anthropology</td><td>34</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>27</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Computer science</td><td>16</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Physics</td><td>15</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Chemistry</td><td>12</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Astronomy</td><td>20</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Geology</td><td>25</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>Meteorology, oceanology, environmental physics</td><td>13</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Health and medical research</td><td>10</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Engineering</td><td>14</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Biology</td><td>13</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Population biology and ecology</td><td>18</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>18</td><td>47</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Isolate French research from the rest of the world</th><th>Hinder the integration of young researchers</th><th>Reduce the dissemination of your work</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Senior researcher</td><td>49</td><td>60</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Full professor</td><td>53</td><td>62</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Tenured researcher</td><td>43</td><td>56</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Associate professor</td><td>42</td><td>57</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Research engineer</td><td>41</td><td>46</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Postdoctoral researcher</td><td>35</td><td>56</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Adjunct lecturer</td><td>36</td><td>46</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Fully funded PhD student</td><td>38</td><td>49</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Research support engineer</td><td>37</td><td>34</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Research assistant/Project manager</td><td>38</td><td>42</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Engineer assistant</td><td>36</td><td>38</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>39</td><td>40</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Technical assistant</td><td>20</td><td>25</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Other personnel</td><td>39</td><td>51</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>All</td><td>42</td><td>53</td><td>36</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4.3 Reductions in personal GHG emissions of experimental equipment by 2030

Are you willing to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the production and operation of equipment for your scientific experiments and observations by the following means?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, by at least one-third</th><th>Yes, but by less than one-third</th><th>No, as they are already very low</th><th>No opinion</th><th>Not concerned</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Replacing the equipment at a slower rate</td><td>25</td><td>19</td><td>31</td><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Using or developing simpler systems (low-tech)</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>10</td><td>19</td><td>8</td><td>19</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Using equipment less frequently or less intensively</td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>32</td><td>4</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Using less equipment in experimental setups</td><td>9</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>34</td><td>5</td><td>18</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

Are you willing to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the production and operation of equipment for your scientific experiments and observations by the following means?

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Note: the proportion of people concerned varies according to the question.

Interpretation: 34% of respondents say they are unable to reduce their emissions by replacing equipment at a slower rate because they are already very low.

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel associated with a CNRS unit and using experimental equipment (n=2257)
## 4.4 Risks associated with reduced emissions of experimental equipment

What would be the risks of a policy on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the production and operation of equipment for scientific experiments and observations?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>It is unlikely</th><th>It is likely but it is not a problem</th><th>No opinion</th><th>It is likely and it is a problem</th><th>Not concerned</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Require you to change research themes</td><td>51</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>16</td><td>10</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce your number of publications</td><td>32</td><td>20</td><td>11</td><td>25</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce your access to funding</td><td>38</td><td>7</td><td>14</td><td>29</td><td>11</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Set you back compared with rival teams</td><td>24</td><td>16</td><td>11</td><td>40</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce the quality of your work</td><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>7</td><td>45</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

What would be the risks of a policy on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the production and operation of equipment for scientific experiments and observations?

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Note: the proportion of people concerned varies according to the question
ents think it likely that a reduction in the number of flights would negatively impact the integration of young researchers and that it is a problem.

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel associated with a CNRS unit and using experimental equipment (n=3173)
## 4.5 Institutional solutions

What actions should research institutions and laboratories take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>It is a priority</th><th>It is secondary</th><th>No opinion</th><th>It should not be implemented</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>When replacing equipment, prefer those consuming less energy even if more expensive</td><td>75</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>When organising events, prefer service providers offering local or vegetarian food</td><td>63</td><td>29</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Finance train tickets even if more expensive or requires a longer stay</td><td>72</td><td>17</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Do not renew functional computer equipment before a minimum of 5 years of age</td><td>69</td><td>20</td><td>3</td><td>8</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Prohibit air travel when the same journey takes less than 6 hours by train</td><td>73</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Regularly draft and disseminate detailed carbon assessments</td><td>51</td><td>36</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce the importance of conferences and presentations abroad in career assessments</td><td>61</td><td>22</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Finance carbon offsetting initiatives</td><td>39</td><td>33</td><td>16</td><td>13</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Impose a cap on the number of flights per person</td><td>54</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>22</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Add carbon emissions to the main selection criteria for project funding</td><td>35</td><td>30</td><td>8</td><td>27</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

What actions should research institutions and laboratories take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Interpretation: 75% of respondents think that choosing more energy-efficient equipment is a priority

Source: "Research personnel and climate change" survey, Labos 1point5, 2020

Coverage: personnel affiliated with a CNRS unit (n=5698)
# S2 Appendix. Calculation of air travel distances and the corresponding GHG emissions

The questionnaire includes questions on air travel for professional reasons in 2019 through two distinct sets of questions. The first set, concerning the number of flights and total flight time (to pick among four possible ranges), was asked to all respondents. This information was not used here; instead, we used information generated by a second set of more detailed questions posed to half of the respondents in a random manner.

The latter set of questions consists of a table in which respondents were asked to enter all the airplane journeys taken in 2019 (up to a maximum of 5 journeys), specifying for each one the number of times the journey was taken, the city of departure and arrival, the number of days spent at the destination, the main reason and any secondary reason for the trip. This approach encouraged respondents to recount in detail their professional trips in 2019 rather than give an approximate total number. A list of the main French and international airports was provided to the respondents, helping them to select the cities (without forcing them to choose from the list) and serving to limit manual recoding and ambiguous names. The GPS coordinates of the corresponding airports were obtained from a list of world airports and the orthodromic distance between the place of departure and arrival was calculated using the haversine formula. The distances reported are thus theoretical, the real journeys necessarily being longer, notably for flights involving stopovers.

Limiting the number of journeys to 5 implies an under-estimation of flying on the part of the respondents with the most air miles. Each of these 5 journeys is defined by a combination of departure, arrival, time spent at destination, and reason, but the number of flights that could be reported per journey is unlimited. Only 4% of respondents in PhD-level positions reported a fifth journey in the table. Of this 4%, 60% reported more round-trip flights in the simplified question than in the table, for an average of 10.6 round trips, compared with 6.2. Overall, the under-estimation of air travel in the table therefore appears to be limited.

The calculation of GHG emissions generated by air travel is subject to uncertainty depending on the way in which the radiative forcing resulting from factors other than CO₂ (vapour trails, etc.) is considered. These factors are not taken into account by some GHG calculators, while the literature suggests that in all likelihood they double the emissions factors of flights [52]. Based on [24], we can select emissions factors of between 200 g CO₂e/passenger/km (for short-haul flights) and 300 g CO₂e/passenger/km (for long-haul flights). The detailed data on flights collected in the survey could be used to establish precise estimates of the emissions corresponding to each flight, but for the sake of simplicity we report distances, and only a rough estimate of the average emissions is provided here.
S3 APPENDIX. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Text of the invitation message :

Title message: [National survey] Research personnel faced with climate change

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Dear colleague,

You have been selected to participate in the first large-scale survey of research staff's opinions and professional practices regarding climate change. The survey is open to all staff, regardless of **their status, discipline and level of familiarity with environmental issues**.

**Your participation in this questionnaire is essential to reflect the diversity of practices and opinions of** those who make up the world of research, and to find answers to environmental issues while respecting the multiplicity of points of view.

The answers to the questionnaire will be used **anonymously in the framework of the future CNRS research group GDR-1point5**. This questionnaire was designed by researchers within the multidisciplinary collective [Labos 1point5](https://cnrs-fr3464Labos1point5), which analyses the impact of research staff activities on the environment and climate (see here on [CNRS Info](https://cnrs-fr3464Labos1point5.org)).

**You can fill in the questionnaire at this address:**

https://www.enquetes.mate-shs.cnrs.fr/index.php/113464?token=[% user.gecos %]

It is possible to answer in several times, by following again this same link.

**The answers are strictly confidential** (**GDPR information notice here**).

**We thank you in advance for your participation.** If you have any questions, please contact us at enquete@labos1point5.org.

Labos 1point5
Reminder message text :

Title message: [National survey: reminder] Research personnel faced with climate change

Labos 1point5

Dear colleague,

A week ago, you received a message inviting you to participate in a study on the opinions and professional practices of research staff in relation to climate change.

Some of you have told us that you are afraid that this is spam or phishing. We would like to reaffirm that this is a study coordinated by researchers, within the Labos 1.5 collective, which brings together research staff with the aim of analysing the impact of research activities on the environment and the climate. You will find more information on this collective in the June 2019 CNRS Info :

http://www.cnrs.fr/fr/cnrsinfo/recherche-et-environnement-le-collectif-labos-1point5-promeut-une-recherche-respo
nsable

We are sending you this invitation to participate in this study, reminding you that it is intended for all staff,
regardless of their status, discipline or degree of familiarity with environmental issues. Your participation
in this questionnaire is essential to reflect the diversity of practices and opinions of those who make up the
world of research, and to find answers to environmental issues while respecting the multiplicity of points of view.

You can fill in the questionnaire at this address :

https://www.enquetes.mate-shs.cnrs.fr/index.php/113464?token=[% user.gecos %]

It is possible to answer them in several times, by following again this same link. You are of course free not to
answer them or to answer only part of the questions if you wish.

The answers are strictly confidential (<a href="http://gdpr.information-notice.here">GDPR information notice here</a>).

**We thank you in advance for your participation.** If you have any questions, please contact us at
enquete@labos1point5.org.

For Labos 1point5,

Milan Bouchet-Valat (INED), Marianne Blanchard (Toulouse Jean-Jaurès University, CERTOP), Damien Cartron (CNRS, CMH), Jérôme Greffion (Paris Nanterre University, IDHES), Julien Gros (CNRS, LEST)
Text of the reminder message for incomplete responses :

Title message: [National survey: reminder] Research personnel faced with climate change

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Dear colleague,

You have started to answer the questionnaire entitled "Researchers and climate change". Thank you very much for your time!

We have noticed that you have stopped filling in the questionnaire. However, complete answers to the questionnaire are very valuable to us. For example, the questions at the end allow us to understand your opinion on the concrete solutions to be implemented and to correctly understand your personal situation.

Also, if you have the opportunity, we would be very grateful if you could finish filling out the questionnaire. This will greatly improve the quality of our study.

**You can continue to respond at this address:**

https://www.enquetes.mate-shs.cnrs.fr/index.php/113464?token=[% user.gecos %]

**Your previous answers have been retained.**

If you have any questions, you can contact us at enquete@labos1point5.org.

For Labs 1point5,

Milan Bouchet-Valat (INED), Marianne Blanchard (Toulouse Jean-Jaurès University, CERTOP), Damien Cartron (CNRS, CMH), Jérôme Greffion (Paris Nanterre University, IDHES), Julien Gros (CNRS, LEST)
First page of the questionnaire :

This questionnaire is the first large-scale study of research personnel's opinions and professional practices regarding climate change. It is intended for all staff, regardless of **their status, discipline and level of familiarity with environmental issues**.

You have been selected at random from among all research personnel. **Your participation in this questionnaire is essential to reflect the diversity of practices and opinions** of those who make up the world of research, and to find answers to environmental issues while respecting the multiplicity of points of view.

The answers to the questionnaire will be used **anonymously within the future CNRS research group GDR-1point5**. This questionnaire was designed by researchers within the multidisciplinary collective [Labos 1point5](https://labos1point5.org), which brings together research personnel to analyse the impact of research activities on the environment and climate.

This questionnaire is about your professional situation and practices, as well as your representations and opinions on research and the environment. It includes some optional questions about personal opinions that are considered sensitive data under the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). You are free to continue without answering them, as with most questions. **The answers are strictly confidential.**

The questionnaire takes about 15-20 minutes to complete. It is possible to answer it in several times, by following the same link again. **We thank you very much for your time!**

The aggregated statistical results of this research will be disseminated in professional and scientific conferences, in professional and academic journals, in reports for authorities or research organizations, in media for the general public, and on social networks.

**Initial results will be given at the end of the questionnaire.** If you are interested in the more detailed results of the survey, you can ask to be kept informed.

Contact: [enquete@labos1point5.org](mailto:enquete@labos1point5.org)

The data collected in the context of this project have been declared to the CNRS Data Protection Officer at the following address CNRS-Service Protection des Données - 2 rue Jean Zay - 54500 - Vandoeuvre lès Nancy, [dpd.demandes@cnrs.fr](mailto:dpd.demandes@cnrs.fr). You can access the information relating to this declaration [here](https://CNRS-DATA-Protection-DONNEES.html).

☐ By checking this box, I acknowledge that I have read the information regarding data collection for this project and agree to participate in this study
## General information

To begin, we would like to gather some information about your situation in the research community.

1. Are you... ☐ a woman ☐ a man ☐ other

2. How old are you?
☐ Under 18 years ☐ 18-24 years ☐ 25-29 years ☐ 30-34 years ☐ 35-39 years
☐ 40-44 years
☐ 45-49 years ☐ 50-54 years ☐ 55-59 years ☐ 60-64 years ☐ 65-69 years
☐ 70 years or older

3. Currently, are you a PhD student? ☐ Yes ☐ No

4. What is your primary employment status? [REQUIRED]
☐ Civil servant ☐ Permanent contract ☐ Fixed-term contract ☐
Self-employed
☐ Unemployed/no job ☐ Retired ☐ Other

5. What is (or was) your primary employment status? [MANDATORY]

<table><tr><td>☐ Full professor</td><td>☐ Associate professor</td><td>☐ Adjunct lecturer</td><td>☐ PhD student with funding</td><td>☐ CIFRE doctoral contract</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Senior research</td><td>☐ Tenured researcher</td><td>☐ Research assistant/ Project manager</td><td>☐ Postdoctoral researcher</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>☐ Research engineer</td><td>☐ Research support engineer</td><td>☐ Engineer assistant</td><td>☐ Technician</td><td>☐ Technical assistant</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Other: _________</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

6. IF PhD STUDENT != YES and (UNEMPLOYED (question 4) or RESEARCH ASSISTANT/PROJECT MANAGER/TECHNICIAN/TECHNICAL ASSISTANT/OTHER (question 5)) : Are you currently associated with (primarily or secondarily) or member of a public research institution? [REQUIRED]
☐ Yes ☐ No

7. FOR PhD STUDENTS OR RESEARCHERS: What is your main research discipline? Please choose from the following National Council of Universities (CNU) sections. You can type the first characters or the number to start a search. (list of CNU sections)

FOR SUPPORT PERSONNEL: To which branch of professional activity (BAP) do you belong? ([list BAP](#) + Other + DK) [MANDATORY]

FOR SUPPORT PERSONNEL and OTHER NON-PhD STUDENTS: Are you close to one of the following disciplines? Please choose among the CNU sections. You can type the first characters or the number to launch a search. (list of CNU sections)

Filter for those in BAP E-F-G-J (excluding A-B-C-D who are involved in research activities): short questionnaire (questions marked with an * are skipped)
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Yes, I already have</th><th>I thought about it</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reoriented your research towards themes more related to ecology, the environment or climate</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Forgone research programs/themes due to their negative impact on the environment</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

16. Do you think that climate urgency calls for profound changes in the practice of our professions?

☐ Yes, strongly agree

☐ Yes, somewhat agree

☐ No, somewhat disagree

☐ No, strongly disagree

☐ No opinion

Your practices and those of your laboratory (management of equipment, energy, etc.)

We will now discuss your professional practices and those of your laboratory to limit the impact of research on the environment.

17. In your laboratory (or in the unit or team in which you work):

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>I don't know</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>No, but the issue has been discussed</th><th>Not concerned</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>You can recycle your paper waste</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>You are encouraged to take the train rather than the plane even if it is more expensive or longer</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>There is a charter, a working group or a person designated to reduce the ecological footprint of research activities</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>
18. In your laboratory (or in the unit or team in which you work), collective measures have been implemented to:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>I don't know</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th><th>No, but the issue has been discussed</th><th>Not concerned</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Limit the environmental impact of drinks and buffets (reducing plastic waste, offering organic, local or vegetarian menus, etc.)</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Limit the generation of waste from experiments</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from observation and data collection trips</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Reduce the power consumption of servers (storage, calculation...)</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

19. As an individual, when technically possible:

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Always or often</th><th>Sometimes</th><th>Rarely or never</th><th>I don't have control, not concerned</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Do you turn off or suspend the computer you use at work when you leave the office at night?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>During the winter, do you turn down the heating in your office outside of working hours?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Do you limit the sending of large attachments in your emails?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>Do you print on both sides?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>
## MODULE 2: IT EQUIPMENT

20. For your work, you use (leave blank the boxes that do not concern you or that would be 0) :

<table><thead><tr><td></td><td>Number</td><td>How many are less than 5 years old?</td><td>How many do you consider essential?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Shared computers in the lab</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Personal desktop computers purchased with professional funding</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Personal desktop computers purchased by you</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Personal laptops purchased with professional funding</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Personal laptops purchased by you</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tablets purchased with professional funding</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tablets purchased by you</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

21. The last time you changed the computer you use for your work, for what reasons did you do so? (Multiple answers possible.)

☐ I never changed my computer for professional use

☐ I got a new job contract

☐ It was stolen, I lost it

☐ It didn't work at all anymore

☐ It didn't work very well anymore

☐ It wasn't powerful enough

☐ It couldn't be updated anymore

☐ I wanted a new one

☐ I wanted a better one (better autonomy, screen, etc.)

☐ It was proposed to me/I had the opportunity to do it

☐ I was forced to do it

☐ Other

## END OF MODULE 2: IT