Earlier research has yielded contradictory results as to the main drivers of environmentally significant behavior. Intent-oriented research has stressed the importance of motivational aspects, while impact-oriented research has drawn attention to people’s socioeconomic status. In this study, we investigated the diverging role of a pro-environmental stance under these two research perspectives. Data from a German survey (N = 1,012) enabled assessment of per capita energy use, and individual carbon footprints (impact-related measures), pro-environmental behavior (an intent-related measure), and behavior indicators varying in environmental impact and intent. Regression analyses revealed people’s environmental self-identity to be the main predictor of pro-environmental behavior; however, environmental self-identity played an ambiguous role in predicting actual environmental impacts. Instead, environmental impacts were best predicted by people’s income level. Our results show that individuals with high pro-environmental self-identity intend to behave in an ecologically responsible way, but they typically emphasize actions that have relatively small ecological benefits.
AbrahamseW.StegL. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings?Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 711-720. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.05.006
2.
ArmelK. C.YanK.ToddA.RobinsonT. N. (2011). The Stanford Climate Change Behavior Survey (SCCBS): Assessing greenhouse gas emissions-related behaviors in individuals and populations. Climatic Change, 109, 671-694. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0031-y
3.
BilharzM.SchmittK. (2011). Going big with big matters. The key points approach to sustainable consumption. Gaia, 20, 232-235. Retreived from https://www.oekom.de/zeitschriften/gaia/
4.
BrekhusW. H. (2008). Trends in the qualitative study of social identities. Sociology Compass, 2, 1059-1078. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00107.x
5.
Bruderer EnzlerH.DiekmannA. (2015, November). Environmental impact and pro-environmental behavior: Correlations to income and environmental concern (ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers, No. 9), Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich.
6.
CaylaJ.-M.MaiziN.MarchandC. (2011). The role of income in energy consumption behaviour: Evidence from French households data. Energy Policy, 39, 7874-7883. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.036
7.
ClaytonS.MyersG. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
8.
CookA. J.KerrG. N.MooreK. (2002). Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 557-572. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4
9.
CsutoraM. (2012). One more awareness gap? The behaviour–impact gap problem. Journal for Consumer Policy, 35, 145-163. doi:10.1007/s10603-012-9187-8
10.
ČučekL.KlemešJ. J.KravanjaZ. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036
11.
de BoerJ.de WittA.AikingH. (2016). Help the climate, change your diet: A cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite, 98, 19-27. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.001
12.
de BoerJ.SchöslerH.BoersemaJ. J. (2013). Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.09.001
FieldingK. S.McDonaldR.LouisW. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318-326. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003
19.
GalliA.WiedmannT.ErcinE.KnoblauchD.EwingB.GiljumS. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017
20.
GaterslebenB.MurtaghN.AbrahamseW. (2014). Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9, 374-392. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086
21.
GaterslebenB.StegL.VlekC. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 335-362. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003004
German Environment Agengy. (2014). Vergleich der Emissionen einzelner Verkehrsträger im Personenverkehr—Bezugsjahr: 2011 [Comparison of emissions of different personal transport modes—Base year 2011]. Retrieved from http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/verkehr-laerm/emissionsdaten
GirodB.de HaanP. (2010). More or better? A model for changes in household greenhouse gas emissions due to higher income. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 31-47. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00202.x
28.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924-936. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.924
29.
HindsJ.SparksP. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109-120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
30.
HoldenE. (2004). Towards sustainable consumption: Do green households have smaller ecological footprints?International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7, 44-58. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2004.004983
31.
HuneckeM.HauensteinS.BöhlerS.GrischkatS. (2010). Attitude-based target groups to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environment and Behavior, 42, 3-43. doi:10.1177/0013916508319587
32.
HuneckeM.HausteinS.GrischkatS.BöhlerS. (2007). Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 277-292. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.001
33.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
34.
International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy. (2012). Der nichterneuerbare Primärenergieverbrauch des nationalen Strommix in Deutschland im Jahr 2011 [The share of non-renewable primary energy consumption on the national electricity mix in Germany in the year 2011] (Bericht Für Die Fachgemeinschaft Für Effiziente Energieanwendungen E.v. (HEA)). Darmstadt, Germany: Internationales Institut Für Nachhaltigkeitsanalysen Und -Strategien. Retrieved from http://www.iinas.org/tl_files/iinas/downloads/GEMIS/2012_KEV-Strom-2011_HEA.pdf
35.
JonesC. M.KammenD. M. (2011). Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 4088-4095. doi:10.1021/es102221
36.
JungbluthN.IttenR.StuckiM. (2012). Umweltbelastungen des privaten Konsums und Reduktionspotentiale [Environmental impact of private consumption and its reduction potentials]. Bern, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Umwelt.
37.
KastnerI.MatthiesE. (2014). Motivation and impact. Implications of a twofold perspective on sustainable consumption for intervention programs and evaluation designs. GAIA, 23, 175-185.
38.
KennedyE. H.KrahnH.KrogmanN. T. (2014). Egregious emitters: Disproportionality in household carbon footprints. Environment and Behavior, 46, 535-555. doi:10.1177/0013916512474986
39.
KennedyE. H.KrahnH.KrogmanN. T. (2015). Are we counting what counts? A closer examination of environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environment, 20, 220-236. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.837039
40.
KeuschniggM.SchubertJ. (2013, July). Münchner Umwelt-Survey: Privater Umweltverbrauch in den Bereichen Wohnen und Mobilität [Munich Environmental Survey: Private consumption in the housing and mobility domain] (Arbeitspapier Des Instituts Für Soziologie Der Ludwig-maximilians-universität Münschen No. 6), Mnschen, Germany: Institut für Soziologie.
41.
KleinhückelkottenS.NeitzkeH.-P. (2016). Berechnung individueller Pro-Kopf-Verbräuche natürlicher Ressourcen nach Konsumbereichen. Anlagenband zum Bericht Repräsentative Erhebung von Pro-Kopf-Verbräuchen natürlicher Ressourcen in Deutschland (nach Bevölkerungsgruppen) [Assessment of domainspecific, individual per-captia consumption of natural resources. Technical report of the representative survey of per capita consumptions of natural resources in Germany (with respect to population segments)] (Report No. 39). Dessau-Rosslau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt. Retrieved from https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_39_2016_anlagen_repraesentative_erhebung_von_pro-kopf-verbraeuchen_natuerlicher_ressourcen.pdf
KutznerF.HertleH.LambrechtU. (2014). Die Umweltwirkungsperspektive: Bilanzierung der persönlichen Treibhausgasemissionen in einer standardisierten Erhebung. [The environmental impact perspective: Accounting of personal greenhouse gase emissions in a standardized survey]. In HuneckeM.ToprakA. (Eds.), Empowerment von Migrant_innen zum Klimaschutz / Empowerment of migrants for climate protection (pp. 23-46). Munich, Germany: Oekom-Verlag.
NigburD.LyonsE.UzzellD. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 259-284. doi:10.1348/014466609X449395
46.
NotterD. A.MeyerR.AlthausH.-J. (2013). The western lifestyle and its long way to sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology, 47, 4014-4021. doi:10.1021/es3037548
47.
OysermanD. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 250-260. doi:10.1016/j.jeps.2009.05.008
48.
OysermanD. (2014). Identity-based motivation: Core processes and intervention examples. In KarabenickS. A.UrdanT. C. (Eds.), Motivational interventions (pp. 213-242). Bingley, U.K: Emerald Group.
49.
PoortingaW.StegL.VlekC. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior, 36, 70-93. doi:10.1177/0013916503251466
50.
ScheinerJ. (2010). Interrelations between travel mode choice and trip distance: Trends in Germany 1976–2002. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 75-84. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.01.001
51.
SeebauerS.FleissJ.SchweighartM. (2016). A household is not a person: Consistency of pro-environmental behavior in adult couples and the accuracy of proxy-reports. Environment and Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013916516663796
52.
SiegristM.VisschersV. H. M.HartmannC. (2015). Factors influencing changes in sustainability perception of various food behaviors: Results of a longitudinal study. Food Quality and Preference, 46, 33-39. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.07.006
53.
SparksP.ShepherdR. (1992). Self-Identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assesing the role of identification with “green consumerism”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 388-399. doi:10.2307/2786955
54.
StegL.BolderdijkJ. W.KeizerK.PerlaviciuteG. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002
55.
StegL.VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
56.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
57.
SternP. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. The American Psychologist, 66, 303-314. doi:10.1037/a0023235
ThøgersenJ.GrønhøjA. (2010). Electricity saving in households—A social cognitive approach. Energy Policy, 38, 7732-7743. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.025
61.
ThøgersenJ.ÖlanderF. (2006). To what degree are environmentally beneficial choices reflective of a general conservation stance?Environment and Behavior, 38, 550-569. doi:10.1177/0013916505283832
62.
TukkerA.JansenB. (2006). Environmental impacts of products: A detailed review of studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10, 159-182. doi:10.1162/jiec.2006.10.3.159
United Nations Environment Program. (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: Priority products and materials (A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management). Retrieved from http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf
65.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013a). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1258-1265. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.018
66.
van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2013b). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
WhitmarshL. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003
69.
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
70.
WiedmannT.MinxJ. (2008). A definition of “carbon footprint”. In PertsovaC. C. (Ed.), Ecological economics research trends (pp. 1-11). Happauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
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.
