IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v196y2022ics0921800922000611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of scarcity perception on people's pro-environmental behavior and their readiness to accept new sustainable technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Berthold, Anne
  • Cologna, Viktoria
  • Siegrist, Michael

Abstract

Experts worldwide point to the challenges our world is facing (e.g., land degradation, resource scarcity, global warming) as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Many studies have analyzed how to cope with these challenges. Aside from promoting pro-environmental behaviors, it was proposed that technological innovations might provide the potential to cope with and compensate for natural resource scarcity. We conducted an online survey (N = 404) investigating how people's scarcity perception is related to their willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors and their openness to new sustainable technologies. Regression analyses demonstrate that the anticipated future unavailability of resources is more crucial for predicting pro-environmental behavior than the perceived current resource availability. The expected reduced future availability of natural resources goes along with increased openness to sustainable energy (renergy = −0.32) and food technologies (rfood = −0.22). Moreover, a t-test provides evidence for the causal influence of scarcity perception by showing that pro-environmental behavior was higher following our scarcity salience manipulation (Cohen's d = 0.27). Further bootstrapping analyses showed that the salience affected individuals' technology openness via pro-environmental behavior. Also, pro-environmental behavior and openness to sustainable food and energy technologies were amplified when people believed that fewer resources will be available due to an increased concern about scarcity.

Suggested Citation

  • Berthold, Anne & Cologna, Viktoria & Siegrist, Michael, 2022. "The influence of scarcity perception on people's pro-environmental behavior and their readiness to accept new sustainable technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:196:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922000611
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922000611
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107399?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    2. Rebecca Hamilton & Debora Thompson & Sterling Bone & Lan Nguyen Chaplin & Vladas Griskevicius & Kelly Goldsmith & Ronald Hill & Deborah Roedder John & Chiraag Mittal & Thomas O’Guinn & Paul Piff & Car, 2019. "The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 532-550, May.
    3. Prediger, Sebastian & Vollan, Björn & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2014. "Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Kelly S. Fielding & Sara Dolnicar & Tracy Schultz, 2019. "Public acceptance of recycled water," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 551-586, July.
    5. Oses-Eraso, Nuria & Viladrich-Grau, Montserrat, 2007. "Appropriation and concern for resource scarcity in the commons: An experimental study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 435-445, August.
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    7. Kelly Goldsmith & Caroline Roux & Anne V. Wilson, 2020. "Can Thoughts of Having Less Ever Promote Prosocial Preferences? The Relationship between Scarcity, Construal Level, and Sustainable Product Adoption," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 70-82.
    8. Ravi Mehta & Meng Zhu, 2016. "Creating When You Have Less: The Impact of Resource Scarcity on Product Use Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 767-782.
    9. Romain Hugonnet & Robert McNabb & Etienne Berthier & Brian Menounos & Christopher Nuth & Luc Girod & Daniel Farinotti & Matthias Huss & Ines Dussaillant & Fanny Brun & Andreas Kääb, 2021. "Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7856), pages 726-731, April.
    10. Baumgartner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Faber, Malte & Manstetten, Reiner, 2006. "Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 487-498, October.
    11. Bretschger, Lucas, 2005. "Economics of technological change and the natural environment: How effective are innovations as a remedy for resource scarcity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 148-163, August.
    12. Daly, Herman E, 1974. "The Economics of the Steady State," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 15-21, May.
    13. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Drupp, Moritz A. & Meya, Jasper N. & Munz, Jan M. & Quaas, Martin F., 2017. "Income inequality and willingness to pay for environmental public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 35-61.
    14. Distefano, Tiziano & Kelly, Scott, 2017. "Are we in deep water? Water scarcity and its limits to economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 130-147.
    15. Sahu, Nirmal Chandra & Nayak, Bibhudatta, 1994. "Niche diversification in environmental/ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 9-19, September.
    16. Korhonen, Janne M., 2018. "Overcoming Scarcities Through Innovation: What Do Technologists Do When Faced With Constraints?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 115-125.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Zahra Fozouni Ardekani & Seyed Mohammad Javad Sobhani & Marcelo Werneck Barbosa & Ehsan Amiri-Ardekani & Samaneh Dehghani & Najmeh Sasani & Hans De Steur, 2024. "Determinants of household food waste behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: an integrated model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 26205-26235, October.
    2. Grolleau, Gilles & Meunier, Luc & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2023. "Polluting for (higher) profits: Does an economic gain influence moral judgment of environmental wrongdoings?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Zargar, Faisal Nazir & Mohnot, Rajesh & Hamouda, Foued & Arfaoui, Nadia, 2024. "Risk dynamics in energy transition: Evaluating downside risks and interconnectedness in fossil fuel and renewable energy markets," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Melanie Dunger & Janina Kraus, 2024. "Bridging Individual Behavior and Technological Solutions in Climate Change Mitigation," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2401, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    5. Oskar Lindgren & Erik Elwing & Mikael Karlsson & Sverker C. Jagers, 2024. "Public acceptability of climate-motivated rationing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. R. Bret Leary & Rhiannon MacDonnell Mesler & Bonnie Simpson & Matthew D. Meng & William Montford, 2022. "Effects of perceived scarcity on COVID‐19 consumer stimulus spending: The roles of ontological insecurity and mutability in predicting prosocial outcomes," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 1046-1061, September.
    2. Daoud, Adel, 2018. "Unifying Studies of Scarcity, Abundance, and Sufficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 208-217.
    3. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    4. Zhicheng Lai & Lei Li & Zhuomin Tao & Tao Li & Xiaoting Shi & Jialing Li & Xin Li, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Ecological Well-Being Performance from the Perspective of Strong Sustainability: A Case Study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Tang, Honghong & Li, Lin & Su, Song, 2022. "Experiencing less leads to the use of more: The effect of a scarcity mindset on product usage," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 139-148.
    6. Garrone, Paola & Grilli, Luca & Marzano, Riccardo, 2019. "Price elasticity of water demand considering scarcity and attitudes," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Astrid Dannenberg & Charlotte Klatt & Pia Pico, 2024. "The Effects of Growing Groups and Scarcity on the Use of a Common Pool Resource – a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment with Lake Victoria Fishers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(11), pages 2833-2858, November.
    8. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Gong, Xiushuang & Zhang, Honghong & Fan, Yafeng, 2021. "To conform or deviate? The effect of resource scarcity on consumer preference for minority-endorsed options," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 437-446.
    10. Sarah-Louise Ruder & Sophia Rose Sanniti, 2019. "Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-29, March.
    11. Blanco, Esther & Lopez, Maria Claudia & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio, 2015. "Exogenous degradation in the commons: Field experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 430-439.
    12. Sol, Joeri, 2019. "Economics in the anthropocene: species extinction or steady state economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Gatiso, Tsegaye T. & Vollan, Björn & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2015. "Resource scarcity and democratic elections in commons dilemmas: An experiment on forest use in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 199-207.
    14. Nie, Zihan & Yang, Xiaojun & Tu, Qin, 2020. "Resource scarcity and cooperation: Evidence from a gravity irrigation system in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    15. Hoenow, Nils Christian & Kirk, Michael, 2021. "Does competitive scarcity affect the speed of resource extraction? A common-pool resource lab-in-the-field experiment on land use in northern Namibia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha, 2019. "Irrigation Water Scarcity and Antisocial Behavior: Experimental Evidence from Communal Irrigation Water," Working Paper Series 5-2019, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    17. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    19. Ling Bai & Tianran Guo & Wei Xu & Kang Luo, 2022. "The Spatial Differentiation and Driving Forces of Ecological Welfare Performance in the Yangtze River Economic Belt," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-21, November.
    20. Alcott, Blake, 2008. "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 770-786, February.

    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:196:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922000611. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.