Previous scholarship pertaining to the social bases of proenvironmental behavior presents an equivocal picture of the influence of social class indicators. In further investigation of this possible association, the author examined municipal-level data in Massachusetts, compiled by various state agencies, exploring whether sociodemographics are associated with recycling rates, hybrid car ownership, and the presence of sustainability advocacy groups. Results indicate that the proportion of college-educated population was significantly associated with recycling and hybrid auto ownership, whereas results for the civic action group presence show population density and political voting were significant but not sociodemographics. The insignificance of economic metrics implies that policy makers and social scientists in this specific case should focus more on cultural factors than financial barriers in encouraging certain behaviors.
AbelT. D.StephanM. (2000). The limits of civic environmentalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 614-628.
2.
AlfredssonE.C. (2002). Green Consumption --No Solution for Climate Change. Energy, 29, 513-524.
3.
BarkanS. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 913-937.
4.
BeckU. (2009). World at risk. Malden, MA: Polity.
5.
BergerI. E. (1997). The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 29, 515-532.
6.
BradyH. E.VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
7.
BuddW.LovrichN.Jr.PierceJ. C.ChamberlainB. (2008). Cultural sources of variations in US urban sustainability attributes. Cities, 25, 257-267.
8.
ButtelF. H. (1987). New directions in environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 465-488.
9.
ByrneJ.HughesK.RickersonW.KurdgelashviliL. (2007). American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy, 35, 4555-4573.
DaltonR. J. (2005). The greening of the globe? Cross-national levels of environmental group membership. Environmental Politics, 14, 441-459.
12.
DerksenL.GartrellJ. (1993). The social context of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58, 434-442.
13.
Di VitaG. (2006). Exhaustible resources and secondary materials: A macroeconomic analysis. Ecological Economics, 63, 138-148.
14.
DunlapR. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3-18.
15.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). Social movement identity: Validating a measure of identification with the environmental movement. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1045-1065.
16.
EbreoA.HersheyJ.ViningJ. (1999). Reducing solid waste: Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism. Environment and Behavior, 31, 107-135.
17.
EllisR. J.ThompsonF. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897.
18.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
FranzenA. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 297-308.
20.
FranzenA.MeyerR. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26, 219-234.
21.
GalstonW. A. (2007). Civic knowledge, civic education, and civic engagement: A summary of recent research. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 623-642.
22.
GambaR. J.OskampS. (1994). Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environment and Behavior, 26, 587-612.
23.
GiddensA. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
GouldnerA. W. (1978). The new class project, I. Theory and Society, 6, 153-203.
25.
GraziF.Van Den BerghJ. C. J. M. (2008). Spatial organization, transport, and climate change: Comparing instruments of spatial planning and policy. Ecological Economics, 67, 630-639.
26.
GuagnanoG. A.SternP. C.DietzT. (1995). Influences on attitude-behaviors relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699.
27.
GuerinD.CreteJ.MercierJ. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Social Science Research, 30, 195-218.
28.
HamiltonL. C. (1992). Resistant normality check and outlier identification. STATA Technical Bulletin, 1, 15-19.
29.
HansenJ. (2007). Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 1-6.
30.
HardinG. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243.
31.
HeffnerR. R.KuraniK. S.TurrentineT. S. (2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D, 12, 396-413.
32.
HopperJ. R.NielsenJ. C. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.
33.
InglehartR. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American Political Science Review, 75, 880-900.
34.
IyerE.KashyapR. K. (2007). Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social class. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 32-47.
35.
JenkinsR. R.MartinezS. A.PalmerK.PodolskyM. J. (2003). The determinants of household recycling: A material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 294-318.
36.
KahnM. E. (2007). Do greens drive hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54, 129-145.
37.
KanjiM.NevitteN. (1997). Environment support, concern and action: An exploratory crossnational analysis. International Journal of Public Opinion, 9, 66-76.
38.
KennedyE. H.BeckleyT. M.McFarlaneB. L.NadeauS. (2009). Why we don’t “walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behavior gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16, 151-160.
39.
KinnamanT. C. (2006). Policy watch: Examining the justification for residential recycling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 219-232.
40.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environment behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260.
41.
LarocheM.BergeronJ.Barbaro-ForleoG. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 503-520.
42.
LaveL. B.MacLeanH. L. (2002). An environmental-economic evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles: Toyota’s Prius vs. its conventional internal combustion engine Corolla. Transportation Research Part D, 7, 155-162.
43.
LipmanT. E.DelucchiM. A. (2006). A retail and lifecycle cost analysis of hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research, 11, 115-132.
44.
LuedickeM. K.ThompsonC. J.GieslerM. (2009). Consumer identity work as moral protagonism: How myth and ideology animate a brand-mediated moral conflict. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1016-1032.
45.
MainieriT.BarnettE. G.ValderoT. R.UnipanJ. B.OskampS. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 189-204.
46.
MobleyC.VagiasW. M.DeWardS. L. (2009). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 42, 420-447.
47.
MoodC. (2010). Neighborhood social influence and welfare receipt in Sweden: A panel data analysis. Social Forces, 88, 1331-1356.
48.
MoserS. C. (2007). In the long shadows of inaction: The quiet building of a climate protection movement in the United States. Global Environmental Politics, 7, 124-141.
49.
OwensJ.DickersonS.MacintoshD. L. (2000). Demographic covariates of residential recycling efficiency. Environment and Behavior, 32, 637-650.
50.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
51.
PortneyK. (2005). Civic engagement and sustainable cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65, 579-591.
52.
PrincenT. (2005). The logic of sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
RobertsJ. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231.
54.
RobertsJ. A.BaconD. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40, 79-89.
55.
RoystonP. (2005). Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ICE. STATA Journal, 5, 527-536.
56.
SamdahlD. M.RobertsonR. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern-specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21, 57-81.
57.
SchultzP. W.OskampS.MainieriT. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121.
58.
SchwormP. (March14, 2010). Recycling efforts fail to change old habits; apathy, confusion cited as obstacles. Boston Globe, p. B1.
59.
SeacatJ.D.NorthrupD. (2010). An Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Assessment of Curbside Recycling Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 393-401.
60.
ShahD.V.McLeodD.M.KimE.LeeS.Y.GotliebM.R.HoS.BreivikH. (2007). Political Consumerism: How Communication and Consumption Orientations Drive ‘Lifestyle Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 217-235.
61.
SidiqueS.LupiF.JoshiS. V. (2010). The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 54, 163-170.
62.
SoronD. (2010). Sustainability, Self-Identity and the Sociology of Consumption. Sustainable Development, 18, 172-181.
63.
StarrM. (2009). The social economics of ethical consumption: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38, 916-935.
64.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
65.
SternP. C.DietzT.GuagnanoG. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743.
66.
StetsJ. E.BigaC. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21, 398-423.
67.
StraughanR. D.RobertsJ. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 558-575.
68.
TaylorD. E. (1989). Blacks and the environment: Toward an explanation of the concern and action gap between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior, 21, 175-205.
69.
TaylorD. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 508-579.
70.
TindallD. B. (2002). Social networks, identification and participation in an environmental movement: Low-medium cost activism within the British Columbia wilderness preservation movement. Canadian Review of Sociology, 39, 413-425.
71.
TolR. S. J.PacalaS. W.SocolowR. H. (2009). Understanding long-term energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in the USA. Journal of Policy Modeling, 31, 425-445.
72.
UbilavaD.FosterK. A.LuskJ. L.NilssonT. (2010). Effects of income and social awareness on consumer WTP for social product attributes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 587-593.
73.
UyekiE. S.HollandL. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environmental attitudes?American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 646-662.
74.
Van LiereK. D.DunlapR. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181-197.
75.
WhitmarshL. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 13-23.
