IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2019i1p167-d301552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building a Framework of Evaluating Human–Environment Relationships: Considering the Differences between Subjective Evaluations and Objective Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Liu

    (College of Geography and Resources, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
    Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Science, Chengdu 610041, China)

  • Wei Deng

    (College of Geography and Resources, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
    Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Science, Chengdu 610041, China
    Collage of resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100190, China)

  • Li Peng

    (College of Geography and Resources, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
    Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Science, Chengdu 610041, China)

Abstract

The human–environment relationship is bidirectional, meaning that human attitudes and behavior to nature are at the root of environmental change, while changes in the environment affect human attitudes and behavior. It is necessary to analyze the human–environment relationship from two aspects: (a) Whether there is a good objective basis for maintaining an environment, and (b) whether people report that they are satisfied with that environment. This study attempted to construct a framework to evaluate the human–environment relationship considering these two aspects. The framework consists of three parts: Traditional evaluation, indicator construction, and evaluation considering the relationship between subjective and objective assessment. Traditional evaluations consist of subjective evaluations and objective assessments. Indicator construction focuses on putting forward indicators that quantitively evaluate the human–environment relationship, considering the results of objective assessments and subjective evaluations. The indicators introduced in this study include MD (match degree) and OSC (objective assessment and subjective evaluation comparison) to explain the difference and the relationship between objective assessments and subjective evaluations of the environment. Then, based on the indicator value, a matrix containing four situations (Match-H, Match-L, H-L, and L-H) was constructed to explore why a human–environment relationship may not be harmonious. Since the upper Minjiang River basin is a typical area, because of its intensive human activity, as well as its fragile ecological environment, this study chose it as a case study and used it to verify the framework. Through the framework construction and application, this study found that: (1) The framework of this study provided a more comprehensive method to evaluate the human–environment relationship; (2) as the subjective evaluation was based on individual comprehensive tradeoffs, the evaluation combining the subjective and objective assessment was more accurate; (3) environmental conditions were the basis, and human activities were the key factors, for the coordination of human–environment relationships; so the matrix put forward in this study was necessary for finding the cause of human–environment incongruity.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Liu & Wei Deng & Li Peng, 2019. "Building a Framework of Evaluating Human–Environment Relationships: Considering the Differences between Subjective Evaluations and Objective Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:167-:d:301552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/167/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/167/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gunne Grankvist & Ulf Dahlstrand & Anders Biel, 2004. "The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 213-230, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christopher Jeffords, 2014. "Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-606, March.
    2. Sharp, Anne & Wheeler, Meagan, 2013. "Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: Carbon literacy and carbon label preferences," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 240-249.
    3. Peschel, Anne O. & Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "A Behavioral Approach to Understanding Green Consumerism Using Latent Class Choice Analysis," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202727, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Zha, Donglan & Yang, Guanglei & Wang, Wenzhong & Wang, Qunwei & Zhou, Dequn, 2020. "Appliance energy labels and consumer heterogeneity: A latent class approach based on a discrete choice experiment in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Hansla, Andre & Gamble, Amelie & Juliusson, Asgeir & Garling, Tommy, 2008. "Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 768-774, February.
    6. Soyoung Seo & Hee-Kyung Ahn & Jaeseok Jeong & Junghoon Moon, 2016. "Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Jan Fiala & Ivica Toufarová & Stanislav Mokrý & Martin Souček, 2016. "Perception of Local Food Labelling by Generation Z: Eye-Tracking Experiment," European Journal of Business Science and Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics, vol. 2(2), pages 152-159.
    8. Mohamed Akli Achabou & Adel Rink, 2014. "Barrières et motivations pour la consommation des produits de la mode éthique en France," Working Papers 2014-138, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    9. Baddeley, Shane & Cheng, Peter & Wolfe, Robert, 2011. "Trade Policy Implications of Carbon Labels on Food," Commissioned Papers 122740, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network.
    10. Lars Petersen & Jacob Hörisch & Kathleen Jacobs, 2021. "Worse is worse and better doesn't matter?: The effects of favorable and unfavorable environmental information on consumers’ willingness to pay," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1338-1356, October.
    11. Yoon-Na Cho, 2015. "Different Shades of Green Consciousness: The Interplay of Sustainability Labeling and Environmental Impact on Product Evaluations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 73-82, April.
    12. Waris, Idrees & Hameed, Irfan, 2019. "Using Extended Model of Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Purchase Intention of Energy Efficient Home Appliances in Pakistan," MPRA Paper 109612, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Küst, Philipp, 2019. "The Impact of the Organic Label Halo Effect on Consumers' Quality Perceptions, Value-in-Use and Well-Being," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 4(2), pages 241-264.
    14. S. Marette & L. Nabec & F. Durieux, 2019. "Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 377-395, September.
    15. Yao Song & Zhenzhen Qin & Zihao Qin, 2020. "Green Marketing to Gen Z Consumers in China: Examining the Mediating Factors of an Eco-Label–Informed Purchase," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    16. C. William Young & Sally V. Russell & Cheryl A. Robinson & Phani Kumar Chintakayala, 2018. "Sustainable Retailing – Influencing Consumer Behaviour on Food Waste," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Drescher, Larissa S. & Stephan, Marette & Roosen, Jutta, 2012. "Consumer’s thoughts about and willingness to pay for traffic-light labeled food and financial products," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Olivier Bos & Béatrice Roussillon & Paul Schweinzer, 2016. "Agreeing on Efficient Emissions Reduction," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 118(4), pages 785-815, October.
    19. Wallach, Karen Anne & Popovich, Deidre, 2023. "When Big Is Less than Small: Why dominant brands lack authenticity in their sustainability initiatives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Ynte Dam & Janneke Jonge, 2015. "The Positive Side of Negative Labelling," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 19-38, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:167-:d:301552. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.