Civic cooperation, pro-environment attitudes, and behavioral intentions

Owen, Ann L.; Videras, Julio

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.007

Cited by 70 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relationship with National Individual environmentalism (across countries) (within country) Wealth (1) Variable, generally positive GDP or rate of economic development (Gelissen 2007;Givens & Jorgenson 2011) Personal wealth relative to the national average (Gelissen 2007;Franzen & Vogl 2013), but see Dunlap and York (2008) Trust (2) Positive Governance (Harring 2013) Interpersonal trust (Meyer & Liebe 2010;Franzen & Vogl 2013) Post-materialism (3) Positive Post-materialism (Gelissen 2007) Post-materialist values (Gelissen 2007;Franzen & Vogl 2013;Gifford & Nilsson 2014), but see Davis (2000) Awareness (4) Positive Media coverage of environmental issues (Harring et al 2011); national levels of education (Ignatow 2006) Individual levels of education (Gelissen 2007;Clements 2012;Franzen & Vogl 2013;Gifford & Nilsson 2014) Autonomy/maturity (5) Positive Years since independence (Hershfield et al 2014); autonomy, self-expression (Dobewall & Strack 2014) Sense of control, age, political engagement (Gelissen 2007;Clements 2012;Gifford & Nilsson 2014) Integration (6) Positive Integration with world polity (Boli & Thomas 1997;Frank et al 2000;Givens & Jorgenson 2013); perceived country age (Hershfield et al 2014) Sense of control; responsibility (Gifford & Nilsson 2014); civic cooperation (Owen & Videras 2006) Environmental experience Positive Level of en...…”

Section: Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiversity crisis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYGrowing concern about the biodiversity crisis has led to a proliferation of conservation responses, but with wide variation between countries in the levels of engagement and investment. Much of this variation is inevitably attributed to differences between nations in wealth. However, the relationship between environmentalism and wealth is complex and it is increasingly apparent that other factors are also involved. We review hypotheses that have been developed to explain variation in broad environmentalism and show that many of the factors that explain such variation in individuals, such as wealth, age and experience, also explain differences between nation states. We then assess the extent to which these factors explain variation between nation states in responses to and investment in the more specific area of biodiversity conservation. Unexpectedly, quality of governance explained substantially more variation in public and state investment in biodiversity conservation than did direct measures of wealth. The results inform assessments of where conservation investments might most profitably be directed in the future and suggest that metrics relating to governance might be of considerable use in conservation planning.

show abstract

Section: Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiversity crisis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As in Knack and Keefer (1997) or Owen and Videras (2006) we first construct an index that measures household environmental policy activism. This 'ACTIVISM' index takes values from 0 to 5, by adding 1 each time the individual has answered "yes" to the following five questions: i) collaborated with any environmental protection organization, ii) participated in any voluntary work to protect the environment, iii) signed a petition related with environmental protection, iv) attended any demonstration in defense of environment, and v) reported some environmental problem individually identified.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Pro-environmental Households and Energy Efficiency in Spain

Ramos

Labandeira

Löschel

2015

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Terms of use: Documents in Pro-Environmental Households and Energy Efficiency in SpainAna Ramos*, Xavier Labandeira and Andreas Löschel AbstractThe residential building sector is a major driver of current and future energy consumption and associated emissions, which can be potentially mitigated through significant energy-efficiency (EE) improvements in both emerging and developed countries. Yet, there are several persistent barriers that hinder the attainment of EE improvements in this area. Using data from a 2008 national representative survey of Spanish households, this paper is interested in the determinants of EE-related decisions. In particular, a discrete-choice model empirically analyzes whether proenvironmental households are more likely to invest in EE and to adopt daily energysaving habits. We show that households with eco-friendly behaviors are more likely to investment in well-differentiated EE measures as well as to steer daily habits towards energy savings. However, no effects are found for households with environmental attitudes based on stated willingness to pay to protect the environment. In addition to this, households belonging to higher income groups and education levels are more likely to invest in EE but not to adopt energy-saving habits; while households with older members are less likely to invest in EE and show fewer eco-friendly habits.

show abstract

“…Given that the access to and use of environmental resources have to do with issues relating to values, power, and cooperation, environmental protection is inherently political (Hampel, Holdsworth, & Boldero, 1996). Since the protection of the environment is an issue of major public concern in modern societies, politically active people are very likely to pay attention to and develop attitudes toward its preservation (Bohlen et al, 1993;Owen & Videras, 2006). Thus, political action may affect the formation of environmentalfriendly attitudes taking place at the individual level (e.g., recycling products at home), as well as the society in general (e.g., keeping the environment clean).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%