IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p8218-d424180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence and Clustering Patterns of Pro-Environmental Behaviors among Canadian Households in the Era of Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Eun-Young Lee

    (School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
    Department of Gender Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada)

  • Asaduzzaman Khan

    (School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

Abstract

This study examined the prevalence and clustering patterns of pro-environmental behaviors that are conducive to socially and environmentally sustainable living among Canadians. Cross-sectional data from the 2015 Households and the Environment Survey (HES) were used. Prevalence was calculated by province and each pro-environmental behavior. Observed/expected prevalence ratios were computed to assess clustering patterns and logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the pairwise associations. Among 8816 Canadian households, prevalence of engaging in pro-environmental behaviors ranked as the following: engaging in green consumer behavior (88%), composting food/yard waste (84%), being active outdoors (82%), gardening (72%), and recycling electronics (45%). While only 14% engaged in ≤2 pro-environmental behaviors, 25.1% of Canadians engaged in all pro-environmental behaviors. By province, British Columbia was the greenest province (81%), followed by Ontario (77%) and Nova Scotia (76.9%) while the least green provinces were Newfoundland and Labrador (62.9%), Saskatchewan (69.2%), and New Brunswick (68%). The most apparent clustering of behaviors was found between recycling electronics and gardening (Observed/Expected: 3.65, 95% CI: 1.98–5.32). Pairwise associations between any two pro-environmental behaviors were statistically significant for all possible combinations (Odds ratios ranged 1.23–2.24). Prevalence of engaging in different sets of pro-environmental behaviors varied greatly by province. Sub-optimal clustering of pro-environmental behaviors and varying pairwise synergetic associations were observed in Canadian households. To promote more holistic, sustainable lifestyles and create sociocultural environments that are conducive to the environment in the era of climate change, future work should investigate barriers and opportunities in adopting more pro-environmental behaviors in Canadian households.

Suggested Citation

  • Eun-Young Lee & Asaduzzaman Khan, 2020. "Prevalence and Clustering Patterns of Pro-Environmental Behaviors among Canadian Households in the Era of Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:8218-:d:424180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/8218/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/8218/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boyce, James K., 1994. "Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 169-178, December.
    2. K. Warner & M. Hamza & A. Oliver-Smith & F. Renaud & A. Julca, 2010. "Climate change, environmental degradation and migration," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 55(3), pages 689-715, December.
    3. James Boyce, 1994. "Inequality as a Cause of Environmental Degradation," Published Studies ps1, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    4. Milou Kievik & Jan Gutteling, 2011. "Yes, we can: motivate Dutch citizens to engage in self-protective behavior with regard to flood risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 59(3), pages 1475-1490, December.
    5. Brendan Boyd, 2017. "Working Together on Climate Change: Policy Transfer and Convergence in Four Canadian Provinces," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 47(4), pages 546-571.
    6. Anne M. van Valkengoed & Linda Steg, 2019. "Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 158-163, February.
    7. Cristina Longo & Avi Shankar & Peter Nuttall, 2019. "“It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 759-779, February.
    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. Anna Justyna Parzonko & Agata Balińska & Anna Sieczko, 2021. "Pro-Environmental Behaviors of Generation Z in the Context of the Concept of Homo Socio-Oeconomicus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Marian Garcia-Valiñas & Fernando Arbués & Roberto Balado-Naves, 2023. "Assessing environmental profiles: An analysis of water consumption and waste recycling habits," Efficiency Series Papers 2023/02, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).

    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. Hyunsoo Kang, 2022. "Impacts of Income Inequality and Economic Growth on CO 2 Emissions: Comparing the Gini Coefficient and the Top Income Share in OECD Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Soumen Rej & Barnali Nag & Md. Emran Hossain, 2024. "Foreign Direct Investment, Income Inequality and Pollution Reduction: Policy Trilemma for India," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 221-248, August.
    3. Adaman, Fikret & Gökşen, Fatoş & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2003. "Political economy of citizens’ participation in environmental improvement: The case of Istanbul," MPRA Paper 375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mark Sommer & Kurt Kratena, 2016. "The Carbon Footprint of European Households and Income Distribution. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 113," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58787, August.
    5. Kristian S. Nielsen & Kimberly A. Nicholas & Felix Creutzig & Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern, 2021. "The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1011-1016, November.
    6. David Barkin, 2005. "Wealth, Poverty and Sustainable Development," Development and Comp Systems 0506003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alban Verchere, 2022. "Is social polarization bad for the planet? A theoretical inquiry," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 427-456, April.
    8. Alexandre BERTHE & Luc ELIE, 2014. "Les conséquences environnementales des inégalités économiques : structuration théorique et perspectives de recherche (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2014-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    9. Ryan Gunderson, 2019. "Work time reduction and economic democracy as climate change mitigation strategies: or why the climate needs a renewed labor movement," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(1), pages 35-44, March.
    10. Sulhi Ridzuan, 2024. "Income redistribution and carbon emissions in Portugal," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 23(3), pages 421-437, September.
    11. Andersson, Fredrik N.G., 2023. "Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States 1929–2019," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    12. Chao Zhang & Ruifa Hu, 2020. "Does Fertilizer Use Intensity Respond to the Urban-Rural Income Gap? Evidence from a Dynamic Panel-Data Analysis in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Soumyananda Dinda, 2014. "A theoretical basis for green growth," International Journal of Green Economics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(2), pages 177-189.
    14. Alassane Drabo, 2011. "Impact of Income Inequality on Health: Does Environment Quality Matter?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(1), pages 146-165, January.
    15. Kakeu, Johnson & Agbo, Maxime, 2022. "International transfer to reduce global inequality and transboundary pollution," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    16. Beacham, Austin, 2023. "Extraction, Contestation, and Conservation: Natural Resource Dependence and Protected Area Designation," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt0d40d2z8, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    17. Nam Thanh Vu & Hung Quang Bui & Tuan Anh Pham & Duc Hong Vo, 2024. "Fintech development and environmental sustainability: Does income inequality matter?," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 350-369, June.
    18. Usman Mehmood & Ephraim Bonah Agyekum & Salman Tariq & Zia Ul Haq & Solomon Eghosa Uhunamure & Joshua Nosa Edokpayi & Ayesha Azhar, 2022. "Socio-Economic Drivers of Renewable Energy: Empirical Evidence from BRICS," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-10, April.
    19. Karin Andrea Wigger & Dean A. Shepherd, 2020. "We’re All in the Same Boat: A Collective Model of Preserving and Accessing Nature-Based Opportunities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(3), pages 587-617, May.
    20. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    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:2020:i:19:p:8218-:d:424180. 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.