IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p2206-d1352356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distinguishing between Low- and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Two Complementary Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Henriette Rau

    (Chair of Sustainability Science and Applied Geography, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Susanne Nicolai

    (Chair of Sustainability Science and Applied Geography, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Philipp Franikowski

    (Institute for Educational Quality Improvement, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

  • Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

    (Chair of Sustainability Science and Applied Geography, University of Greifswald, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

Abstract

To reach sustainability goals, researchers and policymakers must focus on addressing changes toward more pro-environmental behavior (PEB). Therefore, this study shows evidence-based perceptions of low- and high-cost behaviors and deduces recommendations for PEB interventions. We applied a multi-step mixed-method approach: First, a representative online survey was conducted to collect a general quantitative overview and classify low- and high-cost behavior based on past behavior and behavioral intentions. Second, a gamification intervention that aimed to gain quantitative data about certain behaviors and perceived low- and high-costs was conducted with university students. The results of the two studies showed that PEB can easily be categorized into high-, rather-high-, rather-low-, and low-cost behavior. However, this classification is not based on emission sectors, e.g., mobility, but on the specific behavior. Interventions can be recommended according to subjective costs: For example, low-cost behavior does not need additional interventions in most cases but must be maintained as is. According to the empirical findings, high-cost behavior needs top-down interventions, while rather-high- and rather-low-cost behavior requires bottom-up interventions to achieve behavior changes. In summary, managing interventions using this classification and focusing on high-impact behavior can lead to successful behavior changes and emission reductions.

Suggested Citation

  • Henriette Rau & Susanne Nicolai & Philipp Franikowski & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, 2024. "Distinguishing between Low- and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Two Complementary Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2206-:d:1352356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2206/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2206/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matsui, Kanae & Ochiai, Hideya & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2014. "Feedback on electricity usage for home energy management: A social experiment in a local village of cold region," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 159-168.
    2. Kurz, Verena, 2018. "Nudging to reduce meat consumption: Immediate and persistent effects of an intervention at a university restaurant," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 317-341.
    3. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann & Philipp Franikowski & Susanne Nicolai, 2023. "Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess Moral Disengagement in High-Carbon Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Martina Schäfer & Melanie Jaeger-Erben & Sebastian Bamberg, 2012. "Life Events as Windows of Opportunity for Changing Towards Sustainable Consumption Patterns?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 65-84, March.
    5. Simon West & Lorrae van Kerkhoff & Hendrik Wagenaar, 2019. "Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 534-555, September.
    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. Romain Espinosa & Thibaut Arpinon & Paco Maginot & Sébastien Demange & Florimond Peureux, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients," Post-Print hal-04479493, HAL.
    2. Vega, A.M. & Santamaria, F. & Rivas, E., 2015. "Modeling for home electric energy management: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 948-959.
    3. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Chakravarty, Sujoy & Mishra, Rajan, 2019. "Using social norms to reduce paper waste: Results from a field experiment in the Indian Information Technology sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Gionata Castaldi & Grazia Cecere & Mariangela Zoli, 2021. "“Smoke on the beach”: on the use of economic vs behavioral policies to reduce environmental pollution by cigarette littering," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1025-1048, October.
    7. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2022. "How much does it take? Willingness to switch to meat substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Perino, Grischa & Schwirplies, Claudia, 2022. "Meaty arguments and fishy effects: Field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. Charlotte Klatt & Anna Schulze-Tilling, 2024. "Tastes Better than Expected: Post-Intervention Effects of a Vegetarian Month in the Student Canteen," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 315, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    12. Liu, Yinyan & Ma, Jin & Xing, Xinjie & Liu, Xinglu & Wang, Wei, 2022. "A home energy management system incorporating data-driven uncertainty-aware user preference," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    13. Kelly A. Davidson & Jaclyn D. Kropp & Conner Mullally & Md. Wakilur Rahman, 2021. "Can Simple Nudges and Workshops Improve Diet Quality? Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Bangladesh," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 253-274, January.
    14. Gravert, Christina & Olsson Collentine, Linus, 2021. "When nudges aren’t enough: Norms, incentives and habit formation in public transport usage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-14.
    15. Mar Vila & Gerard Costa, 2024. "Post-Pandemic Shifts in Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors in a Marine Protected Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-14, August.
    16. Bożena Kusz & Lucyna Witek & Dariusz Kusz & Katarzyna Chudy-Laskowska & Paulina Ostyńska & Alina Walenia, 2023. "The Effect of COVID-19 on Food Consumers’ Channel Purchasing Behaviors: An Empirical Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Anderson, Kyle & Lee, SangHyun, 2016. "An empirically grounded model for simulating normative energy use feedback interventions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 272-282.
    18. M. Penker & S. Seebauer, 2023. "“I should” Does Not Mean “I can.” Introducing Efficacy, Normative, and General Compensatory Green Beliefs," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 223-251, June.
    19. Sattlegger, Lukas & Rau, Henrike, 2016. "Carlessness in a car‐centric world: A reconstructive approach to qualitative mobility biographies research," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 22-31.
    20. Ola Andersson & Lif Nelander, 2021. "Nudge the Lunch: A Field Experiment Testing Menu-Primacy Effects on Lunch Choices," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.

    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:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2206-:d:1352356. 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.