Responding to the Climate Crisis: The Importance of Virtual Conferencing Post-Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a massive shift to virtual conferences in 2020, upending the typical ways in which academics interact and share their work. Researchers and academic societies are now asking what conferences will look like in a post-COVID age (Niner et al., 2020) — when people feel safe traveling again, to what extent will we return to the previous, in-person, conference model? This question is linked to a growing awareness among scientists of the negative environmental and social impacts of academic mobility, particularly academic conference travel (Aron et al., 2020; Glover et al., 2017; Nevins, 2014; Rosen, 2017). Toward answering what the future of conferencing should be, we surveyed scientists studying human behavior and cognition about their conference travel and their attitudes toward proposed changes to the standard conference format.

Academic mobility can account for a sizable proportion of a university’s carbon footprint (Arsenault et al., 2019). In addition, the pre-COVID conference model, constructed around in-person exchange and mobility, exacerbates disparities in who can access scientific knowledge and community (Niner et al., 2020). Previously, individuals were barred from fully participating in academic networking if they had caregiving responsibilities, health challenges, significant teaching duties, fewer financial resources, or if they lived outside North America and Europe (especially in countries subject to visa restrictions). Despite these issues, social and institutional structures and interpersonal dynamics within academia have hindered shifts towards better conference models, ranging from expectations of hypermobility, the imperative to cultivate an international reputation, and the value of face-to-face interaction (Caset et al., 2018; Glover et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2016; Nursey-Bray et al., 2019).

Much of the prior discussion of these issues has appeared in journals devoted to ecology, geography, and transportation. Scientists working on human behavior and cognition, however, are no less responsible for the environmental harm of their travel, and we believe no less interested in working toward inclusive and equitable scientific exchange. Decisions about the structure of conferences are made within individual academic fields — nonetheless, we are not aware of previous studies that have specifically asked researchers in our field about their conference travel, what they value in conferencing, and what solutions they prefer for making conferences more sustainable. To address this gap, from March through May of 2020 we surveyed 489 scientists across the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics (among others) about these issues. Respondents were recruited via Twitter and email listservs (e.g., the Cognitive Science Society and Cognitive Development Society listservs).¹ We report the main findings of our survey here; a detailed description of methods and results can be found at: https://cogscitravel.github.io/survey/. Participants’ ages and career stages spanned a wide range, with 84% between the ages of 25 and 55. Respondents were primarily based in North America (52%) or Europe (32%).

We found that respondents’ conference travel from 2019 was environmentally unsustainable. In 2019, respondents attended an average of 2.93 conferences and the median annual distance traveled was 2800 kilometers. Respondents’ individual trips took place primarily via plane (54%), car (12%) and train (18%).² Our respondents’ mean carbon footprint from conference travel in 2019 was 1.06 metric tons³ per person.⁴ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in 2018 that to avoid warming over 1.5°C, global emissions will need to fall 45% from 2010 levels by 2030.⁵ Consequently, assuming that global annual per capita emissions (i.e., an individual’s carbon footprint from all their activities in a single year) will need to fall to 2.6 metric tons by 2030⁶, an average respondent’s three conference trips make up 40% of this per capita emissions goal.

Previous criticisms of in-person conferencing were echoed in a free response question asking participants to “elaborate on [their previous] responses.” Across 150 responses, 47% described virtues of the previous format, including the enjoyment of meeting with colleagues, the importance of networking, and the enrichment of global travel. 65% of respondents criticized the previous format, describing a range of burdens: “traveling is exhausting, expensive, and difficult for caretakers” … “so many hours lost in the actual process of getting from one place to another” … “conferences continue to proliferate and the resulting impact on climate change increases. We often don’t get that much out of them but we are expected to attend.” 30% of respondents argued that environmental impacts should be considered when making decisions about conferences, while only 3% argued against this view. Beyond the free response question, survey participants expressed a desire to address negative aspects of in-person conferencing: on average, participants favored enacting policies that would reduce the negative environmental impact of conference travel (mean rating of 76.3 on a scale from 0 to 100). These perspectives, along with the unsustainability of the average researcher’s conference travel, point to a clear conclusion: our field should not return to the conference model that was in place pre-COVID.

What types of conference models should we pursue instead? Figure 1 shows respondents’ attitudes towards specific solutions that would reduce the negative environmental impact of conference travel. On average (relative to a baseline of 50 on a scale from 1 to 100), respondents were positively inclined toward collocating small workshops with large conferences (mean = 66.7, 95% CI [64.3, 69.0]), encouraging regional conferences (mean = 61.1, 95% CI [58.6, 63.6]), requiring ground transit for short distances (mean = 60.9, 95% CI [58.0, 63.9]),⁷ and requiring carbon offsetting (mean = 60.2, 95% CI [57.5, 62.9]). Attitudes were also positive toward hybrid virtual/in-person conferences (mean = 59.4, 95% CI [56.8, 62.0]), international conferences held at multiple satellite locations (mean = 57.4, 95% CI [55.0, 59.8]), and reducing the number of conferences (mean = 55.4, 95% CI [53.0, 58.6]). Critically, attitudes were neutral or negative toward top-down restrictions such as instituting carbon taxes (mean = 50.1, 95% CI [47.2, 53.0]) or emissions limits (mean = 43.5, 95% CI [40.6, 46.4]). The unpopularity of these restrictions suggests that for conference travel to become environmentally sustainable, researchers must elect to substitute some in-person attendance with virtual attendance, attend conferences closer to home, or take less carbon-intensive modes of transit.⁸ In the absence of top-down restrictions on emissions, conference organizers will play a leading role in determining whether conferences become environmentally sustainable — organizers will need to enable and encourage environmentally sustainable choices.