Green behavioral (in)consistencies: are pro-environmental behaviors in different domains substitutes or complements?
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.03
-
Article InfoVolume 10 2019, Issue #1, pp. 23-47
- Cited by
- 778 Views
-
442 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Households’ consumption patterns and behaviors have profound influence on natural resources and environmental quality. This paper explores whether environmental behaviors and willingness to pay (WTP) in the household domains transport, energy consumption and water consumption are substitutes or complements. Using a cross-country data set from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Survey on Environmental Attitudes and Behavior from 2008, a random-effects (ordered) probit model is used to answer this question for the following countries: Australia, Canada, France, Mexico, Italy, and South Korea. It is found that in most countries, actual environmental behaviors are substitutes, while WTP for environmental public goods in different domains is mostly complementary. Grounding in these results, policies aiming to encourage overall environmentally friendly lifestyles should therefore be all-encompassing of several public domains, instead of individual ones, to avoid the risk of negative spillovers.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D12, D90
-
References49
-
Tables12
-
Figures4
-
- Figure 1а. Schematic illustrations of demand for two public goods, if they are substitutes
- Figure 1b. Schematic illustrations of demand for two public goods, if they are complements.
- Figure 2. Summary of the relation of WTP in the domains energy, transport and water in six countries. In bold is the dominating relation
- Figure 3. Summary of the relation of behaviors in the domains energy, transport and water in six countries. In bold is the dominating relation
-
- Table 1. Description of variables
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics per country (means)
- Table 3. Frequencies and medians for variables related to pro-environmental goods and behaviors in each of the domains, namely energy, transport and water
- Table 4. Average discrete effects of binary probit, dependent variable: engagement in pro-environmental behavior above the median (1), parameter estimates of ordered probit with random effects, dependent variable: WTP for pro-environmental goods (2)
- Table 5. Summary of interrelations
- Table 6. Shares of renewable energy sources in total primary energy supply and electricity supply, by country, 2016
- Table Bl. Average discrete effects of binary probit, dependent variable in model: engagement in pro-environmental acitivities above the median, base domain: energy
- Table B2. Average discrete effects of binary probit, dependent variable in model: engagement in pro-environmental acitivities above the median, base domain: transport
- Table B3. Average discrete effects of ordered probit, dependent variable: ordinal responses for WTP for pro-environmental goods, base good: renewable-energv-only
- Table B4. Average discrete effects of ordered probit, dependent variable: ordinal responses for WTP for pro-environmental goods, base good: transport
- Table B5. Countrvwise parameter estimates of ordered probit with random effects. Base domain: energy
- Table B6. Countrvwise parameter estimates of ordered probit with random effects. Base domain: transport
-
- Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.
- Beaumais, O., Briand, A., & Millock, K. (2014). What are Households willing to pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study. Climate Change and Sustainable Development Series, 24(3), 1689-1699.
- Brown, Z. (2014). Greening household Behavior: Cross-domain Comparisons in Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Using Spatial Effects (OECD Environment Working Papers) (68 p.).
- Carbone, J. C., & Gazzale, R. S. (2017). A shared sense of responsibility: Money versus effort contributions in the voluntary provision of public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 139, 74-87.
- Clot, S., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2014). Smug Alert! Exploring self-licensing behavior in a cheating game. Economics Letters, 123(2), 191-194.
- Croson, R., & Treich, N. (2014). Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 335-351.
- Cummings, R. G., Ganderton, P. T., & McGuckin, T. (1994). Substitution Effects in CVM Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(2), 205-214.
- Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441-472.
- Dolan, P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2015). Like ripples on a pond: Behavioral spillovers and their implications for research and policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 1-16.
- Dupont, D. (2005). Tapping into Consumers’ Perceptions of Drinking Water Quality in Canada: Capturing Customer Demand to Assist in Better Management of Water Resources. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30(1), 11-20.
- Ehreke, B. Jaeggi, & Axhausen, K. W. (2014). Greening Household Behavior and Transport (OECD Environment Working Papers, 77).
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: CA: Stanford University Press.
- Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2011). Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior. Management Science. Management Science, 58(1), 179-187.
- Greene, W. H. (2008). Modeling Ordered Choices. Stern School of Business.
- Guerra, E. (2015). The geography of car ownership in Mexico City: a joint model of households’ residential location and car ownership decisions. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 171-180.
- Johansson, P.-O. (1987). The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits. Cambridge University Press.
- Kashima, Y., Paladino, A., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64-75.
- Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.
- Kotchen, M. (2006). Green Markets and Private Provision of Public Goods. Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 816-834.
- Kotchen, M., & Moore, M. R. (2007). Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(1), 1-16.
- Krishnamurthy, C. K. B., & Kriström, B. (2016). Determinants of the Price-Premium for Green Energy: Evidence from an OECD Cross-Section. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(2), 173-204.
- Kriström, B., & Krishnamurthy, C. K. B. (2014). Greening Household Behavior and Energy (OECD Environment Working Papers, 68).
- Lancaster, J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
- Lange, A., Schwirplies, C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). On the interrelation between the consumption of impure public goods and the provision of direct donations: Theory and empirical evidence. Resource and Energy Economics, 47, 72-88.
- Lanzini, P., & Thögersen, J. (2014). Behavioral spillover in the environmental domain: An intervention study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 381-390.
- Margetts, E. A., & Kashima, Y. (2017). Spillover between pro-environmental behaviors: The role of resources and perceived similarity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 30-42.
- Martínez-Espiñeira, R., Garcia-Valiñas, M. A., & Nauges, C. (2014). Households’ pro-environmental habits and investments in water and energy consumption: determinants and relationships. Journal of Environmental Management, 133, 174-183.
- Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494-498.
- Millock, K., & Nauges, C. (2010). Household adoption of water-efficient equipment: the role of socio-economic factors, environmental attitudes and policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(4), 539-565.
- Nilsson, A., Bergquist, M., & Schultz, W. P. (2017). Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda. Environmental Education Research, 23(4), 573-589.
- OECD (2008a). 2008 OECD Study Household Survey on Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: Data Corroboration.
- OECD (2008b). Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators.
- OECD (2018a). Air and GHG emissions: Indicator.
- OECD (2018b). National population distribution (indicator).
- OECD (n.d.). OECD Family Database.
- Shi, L., Zhou, W., & Kriström, B. (2013). Residential demand for green electricity. Environmental Economics, 4(1), 51-62.
- Statistics Canada (2017). Journey to work: Key results from the 2016 Census.
- Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303-314.
- Thögersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 53-81.
- Thögersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93-103.
- Thögersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225-236.
- Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160-171.
- Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138.
- United Nations (2015a). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social A airs, Population Division (Custom data acquired via website).
- United Nations (2015b). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166-176.
- Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
- Whitmarsh, L., Seyfang, G., & O’Neill, S. (2011). Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public ‘carbon capable’? Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 56-65.
- Wichman, C. J. (2016). Incentives, green preferences, and private provision of impure public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 79, 208-220.