Are individuals able to self-assess the environmental impact of their behavior? To answer this question, we first analyze the different behavioral determinants of the ecological footprint (EF), an often used measure of an individual’s environmental impact. Second, we compare the individuals’ EF with self-assessments of their own environmental impact (self-assessed environmental sustainability [SAES]). We use survey data from Belgium and find that people are largely unaware of the environmental impact they have, as the correlation between the EF and the SAES is small. Finally, we find that SAES reflects, to a large extent, individuals’ attitudes toward the environment, whereas the EF is mainly explained by sociodemographic characteristics.
BarrS. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39, 435-473. doi:10.1177/0013916505283421
3.
BüchsM.SchnepfS. (2013). Who emits most? Associations between socio-economic factors and UK households’ home energy, transport, indirect and total CO2 emissions. Ecological Economics, 90, 114-123. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.007
4.
ChenS.-T.ChangH.-T. (2016). Factors that affect the ecological footprint depending on the different income levels. AIMS Energy, 4, 557-573. doi:10.3934/energy.2016.4.557
5.
Corral-VerdugoV. (1997). Dual “realities” of conservation behavior: Self-report vs. observations of re-use and recycling behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 135-145. doi:10.1006/jevp.1997.0048
6.
CsutoraM. (2012). One more awareness gap? The behavior-impact gap problem. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 145-163. doi:10.1007/s10603-012-9187-8
7.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.013
8.
FieldingK. S.HeadB. W. (2012). Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: The role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 18, 171-186. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.592936
9.
FOD Economie. (2012). Enquête naar de arbeidskrachten 2012. Brussels, Belgium: FOD Economie, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie.
10.
GardnerG.SternP. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.
11.
GaterslebenB.MurtaghN.AbrahamseW. (2014). Values, identity and pro-environmental behavior. Contemporary Social Science, 9, 374-392. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086
12.
GaterslebenB.StegL.VlekC. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 335-362. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003004
13.
GelissenJ. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39, 392-415. doi:10.1177/0013916506292014
14.
GiffordR. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. doi:10.1037/a0023566
15.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141-157.
16.
GoslingS.RentfrowP.SwannW. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
17.
HinesJ.HungerfordH. R.TomeraA. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
18.
HuffmanA. H.van der WerffB. R.HenningJ. B.Watrous-RodriquezK. (2014). When do recycling attitudes predict recycling? An investigation of self-reported versus observed behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 262-270. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.006
19.
JacksonT. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London, England: Earthscan.
20.
KennedyE. H.BeckleyT. M.McFarlaneB. L.NadeauS. (2009). Why don’t we “walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behavior gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16, 151-160.
21.
KennedyE. H.KrahnH.KrogmanN. T. (2015). Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behavior, and carbon footprint. Local Environment, 20, 220-236. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.837039
22.
KormosC.GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359-371. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
23.
MenzT.KühlingJ. (2011). Population aging and environmental quality in OECD countries: Evidence from sulfur dioxide emissions data. Population and Environment, 33, 55-79. doi:10.1007/s11111-011-0132-6
24.
MiddenC.KaiserF.McCalleyT. (2007). Technology’s four roles in understanding individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 155-174. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00501.x
25.
MostafaM. (2010). A Bayesian approach to analyzing the ecological footprint of 140 nations. Ecological Indicators, 10, 808-817. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.01.002
26.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2011). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising. Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality
27.
PelletierL.LavergneK.SharpE. (2008). Environmental psychology and sustainability: Comments on topics important for our future. Canadian Psychology, 49, 304-308. doi:10.1037/a0013658
28.
SchahnJ.HolzerE. (1990). Studies of environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786. doi:10.1177/0013916590226003
29.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
SovacoolB.BrownM. (2010). Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy Policy, 38, 4856-4869. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.001
31.
SteffenW.RichardsonK.RockströmJ.CornellS. E.FetzerI.BennettE. M.. . . SörlinS. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, Article 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855
32.
StegL. (2015). Environmental psychology and sustainable consumption. In ReischL. A.ThøgersenJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 70-83). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781783471270
33.
StegL.VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 307-317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
34.
ThøgersenJ.ÖlanderF. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225-236. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
35.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
36.
VanhonackerF.Van LooE.GellynckX.VerbekeW. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7-16. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003
37.
VerhofstadtE.Van OotegemL.DefloorB.BleysB. (2016). Linking individuals’ ecological footprint to their subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 127, 80-89. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.021
38.
VlekC.StegL. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x
39.
WaringT. M. (2010). New evolutionary foundations: Theoretical requirements for a science of sustainability. Ecological Economics, 69, 718-730. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.017
40.
WhitmarshL.O’NeillS. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305-314. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
41.
World Wildlife Fund. (2014). Living Planet Report 2014: Species and spaces, people and places. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.
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.
