This article presents survey data from households in Alberta, Canada, examining the relationship between income and carbon footprint. Using multivariate statistics to scrutinize the role of income, the data demonstrate substantial disproportionality in the composition and size of household carbon footprints. Results show that household energy consumption (heating, cooking, cooling) comprises half of the average footprint, with automobile transportation contributing 30% and air travel another 15%. In a linear multiple regression model, the size of household carbon footprints is positively associated with income, in addition to other variables. The highest income quintile has household carbon footprints 2.2 times greater than the lowest income quintile.
BentonT. (1997). Beyond left and right? Ecological politics, capitalism, and modernity. Political Quarterly, 68(B), 34-46.
4.
BerryL. M. (2008). Inequality in the creation of environmental harm: Looking for answers from within. In WilkinsonR. C.FreudenburgW. R. (Eds.), Equity and the environment: Research in social problems and public policy (Vol. 15, pp. 239-265). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
5.
BillitteriT. J. (2010). Reducing your carbon footprint: Can individual actions reduce global warming? In RepettoD.ScrofanoN. (Eds.), Issues for debate in environmental management: Selections from CQ researcher (pp. 73-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
BladonT. (2009). The downward trend of survey response rates: Implications and considerations for evaluations. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 24, 131-156.
7.
BrownM. A.SouthworthF.SarzynskiA. (2009). The geography of metropolitan carbon footprints. Policy and Society, 27, 285-304.
8.
CattonW. R.DunlapR. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. American Sociologist, 13, 41-49.
9.
CockP. H. (2002). Partnerships for sustainability: Psychology for ecology. In SchmuckP.SchultzP. W. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (Chap. 9, pp. 175-196). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.
CordanoM.WelcomerS.SchererR. F.PradenasL.ParadaV. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environment & Behavior, 43, 634-657.
11.
CottrellS. P. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment & Behavior, 35, 347-375.
12.
CromptonT. (2010). Common cause: The case for working with our cultural values. World Wildlife Fund-United Kingdom. Available from http://www.cc-wg.org
13.
CurtinR.PresserS.SingerE. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 87-98.
14.
DalyH. E. (1972). The steady state economy. London, England: W. H. Freeman.
15.
DawsonB.SpannagleM. (2009). The complete guide to climate change. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
DruckmanA.JacksonT. (2009). The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-2004: A socio-economically disaggregated quasi-multi-regional input-output model. Ecological Economics, 68, 2066-2077.
17.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
18.
EbreoA.ViningJ. (2000). Motives as predictors of the public’s attitude toward solid waste issues. Environmental Management, 25, 153-168.
FreudenburgW. R. (2005). Privileged access, privileged accounts: Toward a socially structured theory of resources and discourse. Social Forces, 84, 89-114.
21.
FreudenburgW. R. (2006). Environmental degradation, disproportionality, and the double diversion: Reaching out, reaching ahead, and reaching beyond. Rural Sociology, 71, 3-32.
JonesC. M.KammenD. M. (2011). Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 4088-4095.
28.
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.
29.
KerkhofA. C.BendersR. M. J.MollH. C. (2009). Determinants of variation in household CO2 emissions between and within countries. Energy Policy, 37, 1509-1517.
30.
KlinskyS.SieberR.MeredithT. (2009). Creating local ecological footprints in a North American context. Local Environment, 14, 495-513.
31.
LebelL.GardenP.BanaticlaR. N.LascoR. D.ContrerasA.MitraA. P.SariA. (2007). Integrating carbon management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11, 61-81.
32.
LeeM. (2010). By our own emissions: The distribution of GHGs in BC. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
NowakP.BowenS.CabotP. E. (2006). Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and biophysical systems. Society & Natural Resource, 19, 153-173.
38.
PadgettJ. P.SteinemannA. C.ClarkeJ. H.VandenberghM. P. (2008). A comparison of carbon calculators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 106-115.
39.
ReesW. E. (2000). Eco-footprint analysis: Merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics, 32, 371-374.
40.
SandL. K. (1999, April). 1999 Earth day poll: Environmental concern wanes. The Gallup Poll Monthly, pp. 38-44.
41.
SchorJ. (2010). Plenitude: The new economics of true wealth. New York, NY: Penguin.
42.
SchultzJ.YorkR. (2011). Recognizing overshoot: Succession of an ecological framework. Human Ecology Review, 18, 139-146.
43.
SchultzP. W.ZeleznyL. (1998). Values and pro-environmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 540-558.
44.
ScottD.WillitsF. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment & Behavior, 26, 239-260.
45.
SovacoolB. K.BrownM. A. (2010). Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy Policy, 38, 4856-4869.
SternP. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 303-314.
51.
SzaszA.MeuserM.AronsonH.FukuraiH. (1993, August). The demographics of proximity to toxic releases: The case of Los Angeles county. Paper presented at 1993 Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Miami, FL.
52.
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.
53.
ViningJ.EbreoA. (2002). Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In BechtelR.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), The new handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 541-558). New York, NY: John Wiley.
WackernagelM.SchultzN. B.DeumlingD.LinaresA. C.JenkinsM.KaposV.RandersJ. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 9266-9271.
56.
WallR.Devine-WrightP.MillG. A. (2007). Comparing and combining theories to explain pro-environmental intentions: The case of commuting-mode choice. Environment & Behavior, 39, 731-753.
57.
WebbJ. (2012). Climate change and society: The chimera of behaviour change technologies. Sociology, 46, 109-125.
58.
WeberC. L.MatthewsH. S. (2008). Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecological Economics, 68, 379-391.
59.
WeisburdD. L.MazerolleL. G. (2000). Crime and disorder in drug hot spots: Implications for theory and practice in policing. Police Quarterly, 3, 331-349.
60.
WilsonJ.GrantJ. L. (2009). Calculating ecological footprints at the municipal level: What is a reasonable approach for Canada?Local Environment, 14, 963-979.
61.
WrightL.KempS.WilliamsI. (2011). Carbon footprinting: Towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Management, 2, 61-72.
62.
YorkR.RosaE. A.DietzT. (2003). Footprints on the Earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68, 279-300.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
