IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v145y2018icp170-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Work-life Balance Affect Pro-environmental Behaviour? Evidence for the UK Using Longitudinal Microdata

Author

Listed:
  • Melo, Patricia C.
  • Ge, Jiaqi
  • Craig, Tony
  • Brewer, Mark J.
  • Thronicker, Ines

Abstract

The environmental challenges we face today have made the need to behave pro-environmentally increasingly salient. Many believe that the modern day “busyness” of life and lack of spare time have kept people from acting according to their values and behaving more pro-environmentally. This study uses microdata from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to investigate the relation between pro-environmental behaviour, environmental self-perception and work-life balance. Pro-environmental behaviour covers 21 behaviours relating to home energy, personal transport, recycling and shopping. Work-life balance is defined with relation to the availability of discretionary time using both objective and subjective measures. The results from the regression models of overall pro-environmental behaviour suggest that work-life imbalance does not appear to affect, neither directly nor indirectly through environmental values and attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour. The main factors determining the extent of pro-environmental behaviour relate to individual's attitudes towards the environment, age, educational attainment, household income and the presence of young children. The sensitivity analysis looking at differing time demanding behaviours reveals that actual availability of discretionary time does not seem to affect pro-environmental behaviour, while the subjective experience of work-life imbalance can have a negative direct effect particularly for more time demanding pro-environmental behaviours.

Suggested Citation

  • Melo, Patricia C. & Ge, Jiaqi & Craig, Tony & Brewer, Mark J. & Thronicker, Ines, 2018. "Does Work-life Balance Affect Pro-environmental Behaviour? Evidence for the UK Using Longitudinal Microdata," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 170-181.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:145:y:2018:i:c:p:170-181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916309223
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ekin Akdeniz, 2023. "Toward a Sustainable Human Resources Management: Linking Green Human Resources Management Activities with ISO Standards," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    2. Daniel, Carole & Gentina, Elodie & Kaur, Tavleen, 2023. "Mindfulness and green purchase intention: A mediated moderation model uncovering the role of ethical self-identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Leonhard K. Lades & Kate Laffan & Till O. Weber, 2020. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Working Papers 202003, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Huang, Liqiao & Long, Yin & Chen, Jundong & Yoshida, Yoshikuni, 2023. "Sustainable lifestyle: Urban household carbon footprint accounting and policy implications for lifestyle-based decarbonization," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Martin Binder & Ann-Kathrin Blankenberg & Heinz Welsch, 2020. "Pro-environmental Norms, Green Lifestyles, and Subjective Well-Being: Panel Evidence from the UK," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 1029-1060, December.
    6. Echeverría, Lucía & Gimenez-Nadal, J. Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto, 2022. "Green mobility and well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Qianchun Dai & Kequn Cheng, 2022. "What Drives the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies? An Extension of TAM in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Zheng, Chundong & Liu, Xinru & Liu, Shuqin, 2024. "How to make busy individuals donate more? The matching effect of charitable appeals and busyness on willingness to donate," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Babutsidze, Zakaria & Chai, Andreas, 2018. "Look at me Saving the Planet! The Imitation of Visible Green Behavior and its Impact on the Climate Value-Action Gap," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 290-303.
    10. Patrick Bottazzi, 2019. "Work and Social-Ecological Transitions: A Critical Review of Five Contrasting Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Alhusen, Harm, 2019. "On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 350, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics, revised 2019.
    12. Chiara Franco & Claudia Ghisetti, 2022. "What shapes the “value-action” gap? The role of time perception reconsidered," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 1023-1053, October.
    13. Bob Foster & Zikri Muhammad & Mohd Yusoff Yusliza & Juhari Noor Faezah & Muhamad Deni Johansyah & Jing Yi Yong & Adnan ul-Haque & Jumadil Saputra & Thurasamy Ramayah & Olawole Fawehinmi, 2022. "Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Workplace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Bader Alhafi Alotaibi & Azhar Abbas & Raza Ullah & Roshan K. Nayak & Muhammad I. Azeem & Hazem S. Kassem, 2021. "Climate Change Concerns of Saudi Arabian Farmers: The Drivers and Their Role in Perceived Capacity Building Needs for Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Lades, Leonhard K. & Laffan, Kate & Weber, Till O., 2021. "Do economic preferences predict pro-environmental behaviour?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    16. Ponce, Pablo & Alvarado, Rafael & Ponce, Katerine & Alvarado, Raquel & Granda, Danny & Yaguana, Karen, 2019. "Green returns of labor income and human capital: Empirical evidence of the environmental behavior of households in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 105-113.
    17. Hugo Hanbury & Christoph Bader & Stephanie Moser, 2019. "Reducing Working Hours as a Means to Foster Low(er)-Carbon Lifestyles? An Exploratory Study on Swiss Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    18. Dongyi Ji & Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp & Pimlapas Pongsakornrungsilp & Vikas Kumar, 2025. "When Mindful Consumption Meets Green Purchase Intention: Empirical Evidence on How a Mindful Mindset Influences Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-22, February.
    19. Jiatong Dai & Guanghua Sheng, 2022. "Advertising strategies and sustainable development: The effects of green advertising appeals and subjective busyness on green purchase intention," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3421-3436, November.
    20. Welsch, Heinz & Binder, Martin & Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin, 2021. "Green behavior, green self-image, and subjective well-being: Separating affective and cognitive relationships," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pro-environmental behaviour; Work-life balance; Environmental attitudes; Longitudinal microdata;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:145:y:2018:i:c:p:170-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.