Promoting Sustainable Consumption Behaviors

680264
research-article2016
EABXXX10.1177/0013916516680264Environment and BehaviorWang
Article
Environment and Behavior
1–29
Promoting Sustainable © 2016 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Consumption Behaviors: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916516680264
The Impacts of eab.sagepub.com
Environmental Attitudes
and Governance in a
Cross-National Context
Yan Wang1
Abstract
This article assesses the impacts of individual-level environmental attitudes
and national-level environmental governance on individual sustainable
consumption. Multilevel analysis based on data from 31 countries shows that
three key environmental attitudes, environmental concern, environmental
efficacy, and perceived environmental impact, are all positively associated
with sustainable consumption behavior. Environmental governance is found
to have different impacts in high-income compared with other countries
analyzed. In high-income countries, effective environmental governance
encourages people to participate in sustainable consumption, whereas it
discourages people’s participation in other countries. In addition, in high-
income countries, people with strong proenvironmental attitudes are more
likely to consume sustainably in the face of weak environmental governance; in
other countries, however, the attitude–behavior association is strengthened
in the face of effective governance. The results highlight the importance of
individual attitudes and the broader context in influencing proenvironmental
behaviors, and suggest that sustainable consumption should be understood
1Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Corresponding Author:
Yan Wang, Department of Sociology, Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University,
Room 542, 38 Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Tianjin 300353, China.
Email: wang-yan@nankai.edu.cn
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 10, 2016
2 Environment and Behavior
as a social process accomplished through collaboration between individual

consumers and institutions.
Keywords
sustainable consumption, environmental governance, attitude–behavior gap,
multilevel analysis, cross-national research, crowding out effect
Introduction
Consumption is an important economic and social activity. It has grown at an
unprecedented pace, reaching $43 trillion US dollars in 2013, accounting for
more than 60% of GDP worldwide (World Bank, 2015). Behind this large-
scale consumption, massive natural resources are being depleted, local and
global environments are being polluted, and biodiversity of many habitats is
in danger. Sustainable consumption is thus proposed as a replacement for
traditional consumption patterns that are unequally distributed and result in
significant environmental damage (United Nations, 1998). In recent years, a
growing emphasis has been placed on individual attitudes and intentions
toward sustainable consumption and their impacts on actual consumption
behaviors; however, many previous studies have failed to find the link
between environmental motivation and sustainable consumption behaviors
(SCBs; Davies, Foxall, & Pallister, 2002; Moisander, 2007).
Some argue that the individualist perspective, to a large extent, may over-
shadow the importance of institutional driving forces and barriers; as such,
there has been a call for research on broader institutional contexts that con-
struct expectation, social norms, and material infrastructure for successful
implementation of sustainable consumption (Peattie, 2010; Spaargaren,
2011). Empirical studies provide strong evidence of the effect of context on
SCBs and other environmentally friendly practices. Macias and Williams
(2016) found that after accounting for environmental concern and back-
ground characteristics, individuals living in closely connected neighborhoods
are more likely to purchase chemical-free produce, use less water and house-
hold energy, and drive less due to exposure to a variety of perspectives. Based
on a survey in the United States, Schultz, Bator, Large, Bruni, and Tabanico
(2013) revealed that litter rates significantly dropped in locations where trash
receptacles were available and sufficient, and less litter was present in the
site. Recent community-based social marketing programs also illustrate the
effectiveness of sustainable behavior change within communities (McKenzie-
Mohr, 2011). Most research concerning the contextual effect primarily
Wang 3
focuses on the community level, yet only a few studies take a further step and
examine a broader geographical scale. This is surprising, given that the envi-
ronmental context within neighborhoods or communities is largely con-
structed and influenced by institutional forces such as government policy,
market strategies, and civic participation at the societal level.
The aim of this study is to address these gaps in the literature and examine
how individual attitudes and institutional context work together to affect indi-
viduals’ engagement in sustainable consumption. More specifically, multilevel
modeling techniques and data from 31 countries were used to investigate the
relationship between environmental attitudes and SCBs, and to explicitly
explore the role of environmental governance—one of the fundamental institu-
tional driving forces that affect human–environment relationships involving a
wide range of actors—in influencing individual SCB. Although many previous
studies have been conducted concerning the attitude–behavior gap within sus-
tainable consumption, no definitive answers have been found. This may be
partly due to the fact that much research is based on experimental and ethno-
graphic data from one specific country. The use of a cross-national data set in
this study provides an opportunity to quantitatively assess this relationship
across countries and mitigate potential bias within particular economic and cul-
tural backgrounds. In addition, by focusing on the extent to which national-level
environmental governance shapes individual consumption decision making and
is involved in the attitude–behavior transition, the current research responds to
the current lack of incorporating contextual influence into the analysis. Thus,
this study contributes to current scholarship by increasing the understanding of
sustainable consumption as a social process, suggesting integrating top-down
and bottom-up strategies constructed systematically by agents at multiple levels,
and pointing the way to more balanced social and environmental development
through collaboration between institutional practices and individual efforts.
Individual Environmental Attitudes

Environmental social psychologists and sociologists have examined a wide range
of factors internal to the individual that may stimulate SCBs, such as environ-
mental knowledge, awareness, experience, efficacy, and values. Numerous stud-
ies have shown that some of these factors (e.g., environmental knowledge) are
not necessarily prerequisites for environmentally friendly behavior (Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). Therefore, this study focuses on three
environmental attitudes that are likely to be more relevant to SCB: environmental
concern, environmental efficacy, and perceived environmental impact.
The impact of environmental concern on SCB is one of the most widely
studied topics in environmental studies, with some research concluding that
environmental concern is positively associated with SCBs (Minton & Rose,

1997; Roberts & Bacon, 1997), and others suggesting that high environmental
concern alone does not always result in engagement in sustainable consumption
(Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, & Traichal, 2000; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002;
Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004). In a qualitative study of sustainable consumers
in Ireland, Connolly and Prothero (2008) found that consumers often fail to
maintain a “green” lifestyle even with strong concern for the environment due to
everyday dilemmas and situational choice. Recent studies also report that the
relationship between environmental concern and SCBs is mediated through
other mechanisms such as environmental efficacy and social norms (Oreg &
Katz-Gerro, 2006; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006).
According to Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior and Stern’s
(2000) value-belief-norm theory, in addition to environmental concern, envi-
ronmental efficacy (or perceived consumer effectiveness) is also critical in
determining actual environmental behavior. Environmental efficacy is based
on the evaluation of individual capability and the opportunities and resources
embedded in the individual’s social context. It captures the extent to which
individuals believe their efforts can make a difference in environmental
improvement (Ellen, Wiener, & Cobb-Walgren, 1991), thus making it a nec-
essary belief that directs consumers toward actual SCBs. Previous studies
from different countries demonstrate that high perceived consumer effective-
ness promotes the purchase of environmentally safe products as well as recy-
cling behaviors (Ellen et al., 1991; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008; Vicente-Molina,
Fernández-Sáinz, & Izagirre-Olaizola, 2013). In fact, some studies found that
perceived environmental efficacy is the strongest predictor of SCBs com-
pared with other demographic characteristics and psychological attributes
(Roberts, 1996; Straughan & Roberts, 1999).
Perceived environmental impact on everyday life is another important
predictor of SCBs at the individual level, as it evokes emotional reactions
toward environmental degradation and increases individual commitment to
environmental protection (Chawla, 1999). Many people engage in sustain-
able consumption, such as purchasing organic food and using efficient means
of energy, not because they are concerned about the environment in a broader
sense, but rather that a polluted environment may pose threats to their well-
being (Baldassare & Katz, 1992; Fransson & GäRling, 1999).
Environmental Governance
Lemos and Agrawal (2006) defined environmental governance as “the set of
regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations through which political
actors influence environmental actions and outcomes,” involving state,
Wang 5
businesses, communities, mass media, nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs), and other stakeholders (p. 298). Built upon the alliance of multiple
agents, environmental governance is designed to address the externalities
associated with the consumption of natural resources and formulates environ-
mental discourse and material infrastructure that mobilize individual incen-
tives in favor of responsible environmental outcomes (Lemos & Agrawal,
2006; United Nations Environmental Programme, 2016).
Previous studies have found that environmental governance is important in
solving and mitigating environmental problems such as resource waste, eco-
system degradation, climate change, and ozone depletion (Betsill & Bulkeley,
2004; Dauvergne, 2011; Prakash & Potoski, 2006; Robertson, 2004). Similarly,
environmental governance may also have a positive influence on individual
sustainable consumption. World polity, or world society, scholars emphasize a
global cultural model of universalism, individualism, cosmopolitanism, and
rational progress as well as the transnational penetrating influence of interna-
tional organizations in modern society (Boli & Thomas, 1997; Meyer, Boli,
Thomas, & Ramirez, 1997). They apply this neoinstitutional approach to the
study of nature–society interaction and note that the proliferation of a global
environmental regime characterized by highly interconnected international
nongovernmental associations, intergovernmental organizations, and treaties
calling for balanced social development significantly contributes to sustain-
able development at multiple levels (Frank, Hironaka, & Schofer, 2000b;
Meyer, Frank, Hironaka, Schofer, & Tuma, 1997).
Researchers identify two ways through which world polity boosts environ-
mental practices: the transnational diffusion of cultural principles and codes of
ethics, and the global mobilization of associational resources (Frank et al.,
2000b; Longhofer & Schofer, 2010). The world environmental regime con-
structs and spreads environmental culture globally, increases people’s aware-
ness and concern for the environment, and legitimizes an international value
system on environmental protection (Boli & Thomas, 1997; Frank, Hironaka,
& Schofer, 2000a; Wapner, 1996). Givens and Jorgenson (2013) assessed the
impact of world polity on individual environmental concern in 37 countries
and conclude that the presence of environmental international NGOs
(EINGOs) and environmental ministries reinforces environmental attitudes at
the individual level. The global environmental regime also directly funds and
organizes local environmental activities and movements; lobbies and moni-
tors governments, businesses, and other social actors on environmental issues;
promotes sustainable production–consumption systems; and fosters networks
among organizations (Longhofer & Schofer, 2010; Shandra, 2007; Shandra,
Leckband, McKinney, & London, 2009). Different from assumptions of the
old institutionalism, world polity is built upon autonomous and purposive
collective as well as individual agents, who are willing and able to transcend
their personal interests for the common good and take agentic responsibility
(Meyer, 2010). Accordingly, world polity theory predicts that under the influ-
ence of a world environmental regime, environmental governance increases
individuals’ participation in sustainable consumption, especially those who
already embrace environmental values and norms.
In addition to the institutional effect penetrating down to individuals,
Gardner and Stern (1996) reviewed four specific intervention approaches that
facilitate individuals’ proenvironmental behavior: (a) institutional efforts to
improve the material incentive structure through rewards and penalties, (b)
education to change attitudes and deliver knowledge and information, (c)
small group or community management to establish shared norms and expec-
tations, and (d) moral, religious, and/or ethical appeals that strengthen envi-
ronmental values and beliefs. Combing the world polity theory and the four
approaches, environmental governance may affect individual SCBs in vari-
ous ways. To begin with, by shaping environmentally friendly discourse and
offering organizational support, effective environmental governance encour-
ages green production and imposes environmental taxes on industries and
products that have, historically, been heavy polluters. For example, taxes
account for between 40% and 60% of the sales price of motor fuels in
European nations, which is substantially higher than their equivalent in the
United States. This has changed both producer and consumer behavior toward
environmentally friendly innovation and purchasing decisions, resulting in
emissions of carbon dioxide from transport in Europe that are 2 to 3 times
lower than in the United States (European Environment Agency, 2006). The
use of market incentives has been found to stimulate the invention, applica-
tion, and spread of sustainable technology and utilities, a process that gradu-
ally discards inefficient energy and environmentally unfriendly commodities
and provides opportunities to incorporate sustainable consumption into indi-
viduals’ everyday routines (Van Vliet, Chappells, & Shove, 2005).
In addition to the fiscal approach, environmental governance reforms con-
sumption habits by enhancing “soft” instruments such as educational pro-
grams and community norm cultivation (Macias & Williams, 2016) and
internalizing environmental preferences. Based on a study of a local organic
food network in the United Kingdom, Seyfang (2006) found that sustainable
food consumption is possible through the promotion of ecological citizenship
and the development of informed, educated communities about food through
education, farm visits, outreach, and websites. Liu, Wang, Shishime, and
Fujitsuka (2012) revealed that urban residents in China participate more in
sustainable consumption when provided with accurate and sufficient prod-
uct-related environmental information. It is not uncommon to observe that
Wang 7
environmental governance works through a hybrid of these approaches. For

instance, the media coverage of sustainable resource use may increase indi-
viduals’ environmental literacy and contribute to the development of social
norms and expectations on relevant issues.
Some research suggests that environmental governance may decrease
individuals’ involvement in sustainable consumption. The crowding out
effect, first discovered by economists (Titmuss, 1972) and applied later in
environmental studies (e.g., Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997), implies that
institutional intervention designed to motivate prosocial behavior some-
times actually leads to the crowding out of an individual’s sense of public
spiritedness and decreased participation. It takes place through two mecha-
nisms: financial compensation and responsibility shift. First, by using mon-
etary rewards to compensate for people’s time and effort devoted to public
good, external incentives turn voluntary goodwill into economic calculation
and reduce individuals’ willingness to proactively behave sustainably (Deci,
1971; Frey & Jegen, 2001). In a survey study based on a community in cen-
tral Switzerland, Frey and colleagues (Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997; Frey,
Oberholzer-Gee, & Eichenberger, 1996) find that in the reward-free sce-
nario, around half of the respondents agree to accept nuclear waste disposal
in their community, hoping to promote public good; however, when pro-
vided with financial compensation, the level of acceptance dropped by half
(from 51% to 25%).
Second, in the study of common pool resources, researchers find that insti-
tutional intervention shifts responsibility from individuals to institutions and
generates self-interested behaviors (Ostmann, 1998). If environmental gover-
nance is perceived to be well-functioning, consumers will increasingly
ascribe the responsibility of environmental protection to formal organizations
such as governments, corporations, and NGOs rather than individuals. These
organizations, as opposed to autonomous individuals, are perceived to have
more power and resources with which to address environmental problems.
Through coordination and cooperation, these institutional actors are also per-
ceived to be more effective and efficient in reducing consumption-related
resource depletion and pollution (Fahlquist, 2009). If these institutional
actors recognize the significance of sustainability, take environmentally
friendly actions, and make progress toward a cleaner environment and well-
maintained ecosystem, it may disqualify individual efficacy and even exempt
individuals from moral obligations regarding the environment. Cardenas,
Stranlund, and Willis (2000) performed a series of experiments in rural
Colombia, and reveal that institutional regulation encourages residents to
pursue self-interests that often lead to environmental degradation and aban-
don group-oriented strategies.
Whether external intervention affects individual behavior positively or neg-

atively depends on two conditions: (a) whether the external intervention is per-
ceived to be supportive or controlling, and (b) whether the individuals affected
have high or low degree of self-determination, self-esteem, and possibility for
expression (Frey, 2012; Frey & Jegen, 2001). Empirical evidence supports the
argument. For example, drawing on common pool resource games conducted
in four villages in Cambodia, Travers, Clements, Keane, and Milner-Gulland
(2011) found that treatments that create opportunities for self-organization and
local decision making among resource users promote cooperation and reduce
individual extraction. A field experiment in Mexico reveals that a history of
institutional corruption leads to low trust in community leaders and low partici-
pation rate in collecting litter from village streets (Kerr, Vardhan, & Jindal,
2012). In their study of modernization and values across the world, Inglehart
and his collaborators (Inglehart, 2003; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart &
Welzel, 2003) suggest that compared with lower income countries, high-
income countries are more likely to have democratic institutions, and citizens
in general show higher levels of self-expression and political activism.
Therefore, the impact of external intervention such as environmental gover-
nance on individual SCBs may be divergent in countries with different income
levels depending on the smoothness of interactions between institutions and
individuals as well as citizens’ levels of self-determination and self-expression.
In high-income countries where negotiations between institutions and individ-
uals are thorough and democratic and the level of expression and self-determi-
nation is high, environmental governance is likely to encourage individual
engagement, whereas the opposite is true in other countries.
Like other contextual factors, the impact of environmental governance on
SCBs is also likely to be contingent on individuals’ attitudes or beliefs. If
environmental governance facilitates SCBs, then this may have a stronger
influence on individuals with proenvironmental attitudes than those without
due to increased convenience and affordability in a supportive context. In
fact, using data from three areas in Canada, Derksen and Gartrell (1993) sup-
ported this existence of an interaction effect of context between attitude and
recycling behavior. In their study, an environmentally friendly attitude trans-
lates into recycling behavior only among residents with easy access to a
structured recycling program. Similarly, if environmental governance dis-
courages individual engagement in sustainable consumption, then this sup-
pressing effect may be more obvious among people who are less concerned
for the environment because they are not internally motivated enough to
overcome the contextual barriers.
Taken together, previous studies have identified important predictors of
SCBs and discussed underlying influential mechanisms. Most research
Wang 9
focused on the individualist explanation and ignored, to a large extent, the

impact of the institutional context. The practices of sustainable consumption
are deeply embedded in the social sphere (rather than being isolated individual
behaviors); therefore, it is critical to examine how macrolevel factors such as
environmental governance either facilitate or mitigate sustainable consump-
tion. In addition, even though acknowledging the importance of environmen-
tal governance, the existing, limited relevant studies have not attained
consensus about how it influences individual sustainable consumption. To
address these gaps in existing literature, this study empirically examines three
research questions based on cross-national data in the following sections:
Research Question 1: How do environmental attitudes influence SCBs in

a cross-national context?
Research Question 2: How does national-level environmental gover-
nance influence individual SCBs in countries of different income levels?
Research Question 3: To what extent does environmental governance
encourage or inhibit the transition from environmental attitudes to SCBs?
Data and Method

Three data sets are combined for this analysis. The individual-level data are
from the most recent wave of three surveys on the environment module
launched by the International Social Survey Programme 2010 on Environment
III (ISSP2010). The ISSP2010 survey investigates a series of environmental
attitudes and behaviors in 32 societies. The national-level variable, environ-
mental governance, was obtained from the Environmental Sustainability
Index (ESI; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for
International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University,
World Economic Forum, & Joint Research Centre of European Commission,
2005), one of the most acknowledged global environmental indices and
widely used in environmental studies (Parris & Kates, 2003). All national-
level control variables are from the World Development Indicators (World
Bank, 2015). Taiwan is excluded from the analysis due to missing data on
national-level variables. The final analytical sample includes 39,496 respon-
dents from 31 countries. It is important to note that despite the large sample
size at the individual level, there are only 31 observations at the national
level. Therefore, findings from the current research should be used with cau-
tion when analyzing similar phenomena in countries outside of the current
sample. Online Appendix Table S1 reports all countries in the analysis.
Six items evaluate SCBs in ISSP2010; however, the frequency of respon-
dents’ reduction in driving a car for environmental reasons was excluded
from the index because around one-quarter of the respondents do not own or
cannot drive a car. The remaining five items ask about the frequency of
respondents’ special efforts to do the following for environmental reasons:
(a) sort glass or tins or plastic or newspapers, and so on, for recycling; (2) buy
fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals; (c) reduce the
energy or fuel used at home; (d) choose to save or reuse water; and (e) avoid
buying certain products. Answers were given along a 4-point scale, ranging
from 1 (always) to 4 (never). The second and fifth items measure purchase
behavior, the third and fourth items measure resource use behavior, and the
first item measures postuse behavior (Peattie, 2010). Together, these items
evaluate important aspects of the sustainable consumption process. The
Cronbach’s alpha value of the five items is .74, indicating an acceptable level
of internal consistency. The dependent variable, the SCB index, is derived
from these five items by reversing the values and taking their average, with
higher values indicating a higher level of SCB.
The following three variables were used to measure environmental atti-
tudes: environmental concern, environmental efficacy, and perceived environ-
mental impact. The corresponding question in the survey for environmental
concern is “Generally speaking, how concerned are you about environmental
issues,” which is measured on a 5-point rating scale varying from 1 (not at all
concerned) to 5 (very concerned). The variable of environmental efficacy is a
constructed index from respondents’ agreement on six statements: (a) It is too
difficult for someone like me to do much about the environment; (b) I do what
is right for the environment, even when it costs more money or takes more
time; (c) there are more important things to do in life than protect the environ-
ment; (d) there is no point in doing what I can for the environment unless
others do the same; (e) many of the claims about environmental threats are
exaggerated; and (f) I find it hard to know whether the way I live is helpful or
harmful to the environment. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the six items is
.67, which is not optimal but sometimes used in the literature focused on simi-
lar contexts (e.g., Bland & Altman, 1997; Howell, Shaw, & Alvarez, 2015;
Poortinga et al., 2016). A further factor analysis shows that there is one factor
underlying the items on the efficacy scale (eigenvalue = 2.29, percentage vari-
ance = 38.11). The second item is reverse-coded, and then the average values
are calculated. The third variable, perceived environmental impact, is derived
from respondents’ agreement on the statement, “Environmental problems
have a direct effect on my everyday life,” with its 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). For all three vari-
ables, higher values indicate stronger proenvironmental attitudes.
As mentioned, environmental governance is a multidimensional con-
cept, making it difficult to capture its complex nature using a single variable.
Wang 11
Table 1. Variables Constructing the Environmental Governance Indicator.
Variable description Source

Percentage of total land area under United Nations Environment Program—
protected status World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP-WCMC), plus country data.
Ratio of gasoline price to world World Bank.
average
Percentage of variables missing Consultative Group on Sustainable
from the CGSDI “Rio to Joburg Development Indicators (CGSDI).
Dashboard”
Knowledge creation in Yale Center for Environmental Law and
environmental science, technology, Policy (YCELP) Knowledge Divide Project,
and policy plus country data.
IUCN member organizations per Internatioanl Union for Conservation of
million population Nature (IUCN)-The World Conservation
Union.
Local Agenda 21 initiatives per International Council for Local
million people Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Corruption measure World Bank.
Rule of law World Bank.
Civil and political liberties Freedom House.
WEF Survey on environmental World Economic Forum (WEF).
governance
Government effectiveness World Bank.
Democracy measure Polity IV Project, University of Maryland.
Source. Environmental Sustainability Index 2005 Data Dictionary.
Therefore, the key national-level predictor, environmental governance, is an

indicator built upon 12 carefully selected variables constructed by the ESI
research team (see Table 1; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
et al., 2005). By incorporating variables such as level of environmental protec-
tion, innovation in environmental studies, EINGO participation, and institu-
tional effectiveness, this indicator provides a comprehensive evaluation of the
level of environmental governance in a given country. One common critique
against the use of a composite measure is that the application of nontranspar-
ent or unsound methods may affect its validity. Fortunately, to ensure reliabil-
ity and validity of the indicators, the ESI team provides in-depth descriptions
of the statistical techniques used to calculate the indicators and has carried out
a series of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses (see Appendix A in the ESI
report). More importantly, the data are standardized and transformed to
facilitate cross-national comparison, making them suitable for the current

analysis. The most recent version is available for the year 2005; regardless,
this variable is used in this study to predict behavior in 2010, considering the
potential lagged impact of governance on individual behavior.
To further differentiate the impact of environmental governance in nations
of varying stages of economic development, a dummy variable is used to
indicate whether the country is a high-income country or not, defined by the
World Bank (2016). Depending on the fiscal-year gross national income
(GNI) per capita, there is a change in the classification of some countries.
More specifically, five countries, Argentina, Chile, Latvia, Lithuania, and the
Russian Federation, are affected in the sample. For instance, Latvia was clas-
sified as high income in 2009, upper middle income in 2010 and 2011, and
then again high income since 2012. Because the environmental culture is not
likely to change as quickly, only countries that have never been classified as
high-income countries are considered as non-high-income countries to ensure
analytical rigidity. In addition, a robustness test was conducted later by
including the country classification using the income group threshold specifi-
cally in 2010.
This study controls for both individual- and national-level variables that
may influence focused relationships. The individual-level control variables
include gender, age, and education level. Previous studies, in general, found
that individuals who are female, younger, and highly educated are more likely
to be sustainable consumers (Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Wang, Liu, & Qi,
2014). In this study, gender is measured as a dummy variable (female = 1).
Age is a continuous variable based on the self-reported age of respondents. In
a preliminary analysis, age is also included in the models as seven categorical
variables (15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70 and above) to
examine the presence of curvilinear relationships. Results are essentially the
same. Education level is measured by four dichotomous variables: less-than-
secondary qualification, intermediate secondary completed, higher secondary
completed, and university degree (incomplete or completed).
Two variables are controlled at the country level and transformed into a
natural logarithm to correct for excessive skewness: GDP per capita and pop-
ulation density. Prior literature found that GDP per capita has a substantial yet
varied impact on environmental outcomes, with some studies suggesting that
national affluence increases people’s awareness and ability to afford choices
that enable a cleaner environment (e.g., Ewers, 2006), whereas others argue
the opposite—that it weakens people’s environmental attitudes and leads to
environmental degradation (Givens & Jorgenson, 2011; Parikh & Shukla,
1995; York, Rosa, & Dietz, 2003). Despite the controversial effects, this vari-
able is included considering the complex and important interaction between
Wang 13
economy and environment. Based on the neo-Malthusian perspective, many

previous studies emphasize the importance of population density to explain
environmental impacts (Vasi, 2007; York et al., 2003), so it is also controlled
at the national level.
Multilevel modeling techniques are used to adjust for correlated errors and
unequal error variance associated with the nesting data structure (Raudenbush
& Bryk, 2002). As the dependent variable is a continuous variable and there
are no theoretical reasons to assume that each country has a separate regres-
sion model with its own intercept and slope, hierarchical linear models with
random intercepts are estimated. To better identify cross-level interactions,
the three variables of substantial interest that measure environmental atti-
tudes at the individual level are group-mean centered. All national-level pre-
dictors and the nondichotomous control variables at the individual level are
grand mean centered (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Table 2 summarizes all vari-
ables used in the analysis.
Results
Table 3 presents regression results from the multilevel models. First, the null
model is estimated without predictors (see Online Appendix Table S2). The
variance at the national level is .077 and the intraclass correlation is .18 (p <
.001), indicating that 18% of the variance in SCBs is between countries.
Therefore, it is important to include national-level predictors for a better
understanding of individual SCBs.
Model 1 estimates the impact of individual-level control variables on the
SCB index. The results are generally consistent with previous studies except
the effect of age, and indicate that women, older people, and those with
higher education levels are more likely to be green consumers. Model 2 adds
the three environmental attitudes. Unlike past research, which identified an
attitude–behavior gap, after accounting for individual-level characteristics,
this study found that the three environmental attitudes are all positively asso-
ciated with the SCB index in the cross-national context. In other words, on
average, individuals who are more concerned about the environment, more
aware of environmental impacts, and find their environmental behavior wor-
thy and effective tend to actively engage in sustainable consumption. As for
the control variables, the coefficients of gender and education substantially
decrease in magnitude, suggesting that their impacts on SCBs are mediated
by environmental attitudes. The effects of individual-level variables are
essentially the same in the following models.
Model 3 consists of both individual-level and national-level predictors.
The decrease in the variance component reveals that the cross-national
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
Variables M SD Range
Outcome variable
Sustainable consumption behavior index 2.38 0.72 1-4
National-level predictors
Environmental governance 0.76 0.57 −0.40-1.59
GDP per capita (logged) 9.82 0.92 7.25-11.10
Population density (logged) 4.25 1.23 1.32-6.23
High-income countries 0.84 — 0/1
Individual-level predictors
Environmental concern 3.62 1.12 1-5
Environmental efficacy 3.15 0.69 1-5
Perceived environmental impact 3.21 1.08 1-5
Gender (female = 1) 0.54 — 0/1
Age 47.06 17.37 15-98
Education level
Less-than-secondary qualification 0.19 — 0/1
Intermediate secondary completed 0.22 — 0/1
Higher secondary completed 0.27 — 0/1
University degree (incomplete or 0.32 — 0/1
completed)
Note. n = 39,496 (respondents), n = 31 (countries).
variation in sustainable consumption is mainly due to contextual differences.

After including national-level variables, the model explains about 51%
(=[.075 − .037] / .075) of the cross-national variance in sustainable consump-
tion. On average, residents in the sampled high-income countries participate
more in SCBs compared with their counterparts in other countries with lower
average income. It is interesting to see that the impact of environment gover-
nance on SCBs diverges in high-income and other countries. In high-income
countries, environmental governance has a significantly positive impact on
sustainable consumption (b = −1.105 + 1.255 = 0.150, p < .01), suggesting
that effective environmental governance at the national level can facilitate
individual sustainable consumption, net of other variables. In other countries,
however, effective environmental governance holds back individuals’
engagement (b = −1.105, p < .01), revealing the crowding out effect. Unlike
previous studies that predict environmental outcomes (such as carbon emis-
sions and deforestation), the two national-level control variables are not sig-
nificantly related to individual behavioral outcomes.
Table 3. Multilevel Linear Models Predicting Sustainable Consumption Behavior Index.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 2.212*** 2.316*** 1.589*** 1.589*** 1.592*** 1.589***
(0.051) (0.050) (0.265) (0.265) (0.264) (0.265)
Individual-level variables
EC 0.114*** 0.114*** 0.176*** 0.112*** 0.114***
(0.003) (0.003) (0.016) (0.003) (0.003)
EF 0.203*** 0.203*** 0.202*** 0.502*** 0.202***
(0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.030) (0.005)
PEI 0.073*** 0.073*** 0.072*** 0.069*** 0.063***
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.019)
National-level variables
High-income countries 0.707** 0.707** 0.707** 0.707**
(0.269) (0.269) (0.269) (0.269)
EG −1.105** −1.105** −1.105** −1.105**
(0.396) (0.396) (0.395) (0.396)
EG × High-Income Countries 1.255** 1.255** 1.255** 1.255**
(0.401) (0.401) (0.400) (0.401)
Cross-level interactions
EC × High-Income Countries −0.052**
(0.017)
EC × EG 0.143***
(0.026)
(continued)
15
16
Table 3. (continued)

EC × EG × High-Income −0.162***
Countries (0.027)
EF × High-Income Countries −0.275***
(0.031)
EF × EG 0.611***
(0.048)
EF × EG × High-Income −0.643***
Countries (0.049)
PEI × High-Income Countries 0.011
(0.019)
PEI × EG −0.011
(0.029)
PEI × EG × High-Income 0.011
Countries (0.030)
National-level control
GDP per capita (logged) 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110
(0.087) (0.087) (0.087) (0.087)
Population density (logged) 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
(0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032)
(continued)
Table 3. (continued)

Individual-level control
Gender (female = 1) 0.110*** 0.076*** 0.076*** 0.076*** 0.075*** 0.076***
(0.007) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
Age 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.005***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Intermediate secondary 0.083*** 0.029** 0.029** 0.029** 0.028** 0.029**
completed (0.011) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Higher secondary completed 0.135*** 0.045*** 0.044*** 0.044*** 0.042*** 0.045***
(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
University degree (incomplete 0.205*** 0.057*** 0.056*** 0.056*** 0.052*** 0.057***
or completed) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
(Reference: less-than-secondary qualification)
Variance component
National level 0.077*** 0.075*** 0.037*** 0.037*** 0.037*** 0.037***
Log likelihood −38,566.526 −35,714.282 −35,703.152 −35,699.541 −35,699.541 −35,699.541
Note. n = 39,496 (respondents), n = 31 (countries); standard errors in parentheses. EC = environmental concern; EF = environmental efficacy; PEI =
perceived environmental impact; EG = environmental governance.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
17
Models 4 through 6 examine the extent to which environmental gover-

nance at the national level influences the transition from environmental atti-
tudes to sustainable behaviors by including cross-level three-way interaction
terms between environmental governance, high-income countries, and each
environmental attitude. In Models 4 and 5, all interaction terms are statisti-
cally significant. Although environmental concern and efficacy are positively
associated with SCBs in both types of countries, the significant negative
interaction terms between these two environmental attitudes and high-income
countries mean that individual attitudes matter more in lower income coun-
tries from the sample. A closer look shows that the interaction effects between
environmental attitude and environmental governance are negative (b =
0.143 − 0.162 = −0.019 in Model 4 and b = 0.611 − 0.643 = −0.032 in Model
5) in high-income countries and positive in other countries (b = 0.143 in
Model 4 and b = 0.611 in Model 5). These results suggest that in high-income
countries, improvement in environmental governance slightly weakens the
impact of environmental concern and efficacy on SCBs, whereas in lower
income countries, effective environmental governance promotes individuals
with higher concern and efficacy to consume more sustainably.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the impacts of environmental concern and efficacy
on SCBs in two types of countries under different levels of environmental gov-
ernance. The solid and dash lines represent high (1 standard deviation above
the mean) and low (1 standard deviation below the mean) environmental gov-
ernance, respectively. The SCB index is estimated for college-educated women
holding all else at the mean, based on Models 4 and 5. It is clear that, despite
varying magnitudes, all slopes are positive, indicating that the two environ-
mental attitudes are important impetuses of SCBs under all estimated scenar-
ios. The first panels in both figures show that in high-income countries, the
SCB index is higher where environmental governance is more effective, but the
slopes in countries with low environmental governance are slightly steeper
(dash lines). Turning to the second panels, they show that a high level of envi-
ronmental governance substantially suppresses individuals’ participation in
other countries, but the slopes are steeper in countries with a high level of
environmental governance (solid lines). Taken together, the results indicate that
the average frequency of sustainable consumption is higher among residents in
high-income countries. More importantly, the effect of environmental gover-
nance differs in high-income and other countries. In high-income countries,
people consume more sustainably in a supportive environment, and the atti-
tude–behavior association is slightly stronger when the level of environmental
governance is lower. In countries with lower levels of development, institu-
tional environmental governance crowds out individual engagement in sustain-
able consumption, but people whose intrinsic environmental motivation is not
Wang 19
Figure 1. Estimated effects of environmental concern on sustainable consumption

behavior index.
Note. The estimated effects are calculated for college-educated women holding all else at
the mean, based on Model 4. High level of environmental governance indicates 1 standard
deviation above the mean, and low level indicates 1 standard deviation below the mean.
suppressed by external forces are particularly inspired by contextual efforts in

environmental improvement.
In Model 6, the national-level interaction term between environmental
governance and high-income countries remains significant, but the three-way
cross-level interactions are not. A further examination shows that the effect of
perceived environmental impact on SCBs is contingent on the level of envi-
ronmental governance. The association is positive and the pattern is similar
in high-income and other countries (see Online Appendix Table S3).
Therefore, the results imply that environmental governance facilitates the
transition between perceived environmental impact and SCBs in both types
of countries.
A number of sensitivity tests were conducted to evaluate the robustness of
the findings reported here. First, considering that under the study’s rigorous
definition there are only five non-high-income countries in the sample,
restrictions were loosened and the models were estimated using a dummy
variable indicating high-income countries (21 countries) versus other
Figure 2. Estimated effects of environmental efficacy on sustainable consumption

behavior index.
Note. The estimated effects are calculated for college-educated women holding all else at
the mean, based on Model 5. High level of environmental governance indicates 1 standard
deviation above the mean, and low level indicates 1 standard deviation below the mean.
countries (10 countries) based on the income group threshold, specifically in

2010 (refer to Online Appendix Table S1 for countries included in each cat-
egory), to see if similar patterns could be found. Results show that though the
magnitudes of corresponding coefficients change to some extent, the direc-
tions remain the same (see Online Appendix Table S4). Second, two impor-
tant individual-level control variables, class and marital status, were included
in the models. Previous studies show that these two individual characteristics
are also important predictors of environmental attitudes and behaviors
(Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, & Bohlen, 2003; Givens &
Jorgenson, 2013; Welsch & Kühling, 2009). However, their effects were not
estimated earlier, because information on socioeconomic class was not col-
lected in New Zealand and Great Britain, and information on marital status
was not collected in Japan. In the sensitivity test, class is added to the model
as a continuous variable derived from a survey question where respondents
placed themselves on a scale, ranging from 1 (low) to 10 (high). Marital sta-
tus is measured by three dichotomous variables: never married; married; and
Wang 21
separated, divorced, or widowed. After including these control variables,

results show that despite smaller sample size, the original results are not
affected (see Online Appendix Table S5). Third, to address the issue of mul-
ticollinearity (which is common with three-way interactions), the author esti-
mated two-way interaction models separately for high-income and other
countries. The results are consistent (results available upon request).
Discussion
Sustainable consumption has become an important and necessary path toward
a greener future due to the global increase in general consumption and its
resulting destruction of resources and environmental capacity around the
world. Many previous studies have discussed predictors of sustainable con-
sumption and potential ways to promote individuals’ participation. This prior
research, however, focuses on construction of psychological models and
overlooks, to a large extent, the institutional context that provides sustainable
products and services and constitutes an environmentally friendly social
environment. On one hand, the overwhelming emphasis of individualist
explanation and lack of a comparative perspective lead to mixed empirical
findings on the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors.
On the other hand, among the limited studies that delve into environmental
governance—a fundamental institutional factor influencing individual envi-
ronmental outcomes—researchers propose two contrary arguments with
respect to its actual impact on SCBs. This study addresses the above limita-
tions in an effort to advance general understanding of sustainable consump-
tion by examining how environmental attitudes influence SCBs in a
cross-national context, and more importantly, to what extent institutional set-
tings affect this attitude–behavior link at the individual level.
Drawing on multilevel data from 31 countries, the results show that pro-
environmental attitudes in general promote SCBs after controlling for demo-
graphics and other individual and contextual characteristics. Therefore, this
study supports the environmental attitude–behavior connection, rather than
the attitude–behavior gap, net of control variables in the comparative
context.
Regarding the extent to which environmental governance affects individ-
ual SCBs, the findings suggest that, as expected, institutional efforts exert
divergent influences on individual environmental activities depending on the
level of national development. Different traditions, cultures, value systems,
and environmental governance practices may contribute to the observed
varying effects. As only 31 countries were analyzed, the following discussion
should be considered within the context of the sample size and not broadly
generalized to countries outside of the current sample. In high-income coun-

tries, environmental governance may be implemented in a supportive man-
ner, and the individuals affected tend to have a high level of self-determination
and autonomy as well as more opportunities to express their concerns. As a
result, environmental governance enhances individual involvement in sus-
tainable consumption. In countries with lower income, however, external
intervention on the environment may be carried out in a more controlling way
without sufficient communication between different interest groups, and resi-
dents in these countries may focus more on survival values and have lower
self-esteem and fewer chances to express themselves. Consequently, the
implementation of environmental governance in this context triggers the
crowding out effect, meaning that institutional involvement dissolves per-
sonal environmental obligation to a large extent and suppresses individual
proenvironmental participation.
In addition, the results suggest that the impact of environmental gover-
nance on the transition from environmental concern and efficacy to SCBs
also differs between high-income and other countries, at least in the coun-
tries analyzed. In high-income countries, environmental protection may be
a priority social issue, and proenvironmental norms, values, and lifestyles
are widely shared. If individuals perceive a low level of institutional effort,
the attitude–behavior association is strengthened and people with proenvi-
ronmental attitudes are more willing to step up and take more responsibil-
ity. In other countries, economic development may trump the need for
environmental protection and restoration for many people, and individuals
are eager to attribute the responsibility to more powerful and connected
institutions. Despite these factors, there are still people who are concerned
for the environment and believe their efforts can make a difference.
Effective environmental governance mobilizes these agentic actors, espe-
cially those with high levels of environmental efficacy, to transit their atti-
tudes into green consumption behaviors, compared with those who are less
intrinsically motivated. Unlike the other two environmental attitudes, envi-
ronmental governance strengthens the effects of perceived environmental
impact in both types of countries. This is perhaps due to the fact that wor-
ries about the harmful influence of environmental pollution and degrada-
tion on health, ecosystem, biodiversity, and so on are more universal
compared with environmental concern and efficacy, which are more contin-
gent on the local social context.
The ramified effects of environmental governance highlight the delicacy
of carrying out relevant policies, regulations, activities, and movements
aimed at motivating individuals’ participation in the pursuit of common
good. Individuals constantly evaluate the benefits and costs associated with
Wang 23
their behavioral choices, but at the same time, they are also embedded in
the social context and systematically influenced by the culture, values, and
activities of both institutions and their peers. Prior literature shows that
environmental governance promotes individuals’ participation in sustain-
able consumption through objectively expanding sustainable products and
services, and altering consumers’ subjective willingness and intention.
Despite these benefits, inadequate implementation without considering
local context may lead to ineffective or even adverse consequences.
Therefore, it is important to consider the history, culture, values, and norms
of the region and its residents as a key factor in both the design and enforce-
ment of any external intervention. In other words, as the theories of practice
would propose, the institutional efforts from the top should be in concert
with people’s everyday practices.
Field experiments on the crowding out effect highlight another effective
way to overcome such environmental dilemmas. Such experiments suggest
that one could foster social capital at the local level by building trust and
social ties within the community, cultivating local grass roots organizations,
and encouraging communication and collaboration horizontally as well as
hierarchically. Through these processes, individuals learn to recognize and
maintain the balance between self- and public interests and are empowered to
actively organize themselves and cooperate with other institutional stake-
holders. Once positive interaction is formed between individuals and institu-
tions, the beneficial effects of environmental governance can be observed in
countries with lower income as well.
This study has several limitations. First, due to the use of cross-sectional
data, the longitudinal trend of the findings cannot be measured. Second, to
the best of the author’s knowledge, ISSP2010 is the only cross-national data
set available that examines SCBs. Unfortunately, it does not include countries
with GNI per capita less than US$995, also known as low-income countries
such as Afghanistan, Haiti, and Kenya. Future studies should examine if the
crowding out effect can also be found in these countries. Regardless of these
limitations, the findings of this study highlight the importance of institutional
driving forces in influencing individual environmental behaviors. In addition
to addressing these limitations, future studies should also investigate other
contextual factors that may influence the attitude–behavior transition to gain
a deeper understanding of the impact of contextual variables on individual
patterns of SCB.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the
National Social Science Fund of China (16CSH023), Tianjin Philosophy and Social
Science Fund (TJSR15-005), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(NKZXB1481), and Research Initiation Funds for the Returned Overseas Chinese
Scholars (ZX20150018).
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press.
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems
as predictor of environmental practices. Environment & Behavior, 24, 602-616.
doi:10.1177/0013916592245002
Bang, H.-K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer
concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An appli-
cation of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449-468.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200006)17:6<449::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-8
Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2004). Transnational networks and global environ-
mental governance: The cities for climate protection program. International
Studies Quarterly, 48, 471-493. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00310.x
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British
Medical Journal, 314(7080), Article 572. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of
international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62,
171-190. doi:10.2307/2657298
Cardenas, J. C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. (2000). Local environmental control and
institutional crowding-out. World Development, 28, 1719-1733. doi:10.1016/
S0305-750X(00)00055-3
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 31, 15-26. doi:10.1080/00958969909598628
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life-politics, risk and con-
tradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8, 117-145.
Dauvergne, P. (2011). Globalization and the environment. In J. Ravenhill (Ed.),
Global political economy (3rd ed., pp. 450-480). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Davies, J., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. (2002). Beyond the intention–behaviour
mythology: An integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2, 29-113.
doi:10.1177/1470593102002001645
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motiva-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115. doi:10.1037/
h0030644
Wang 25
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context of recycling. American
Sociological Review, 58, 434-442. doi:10.2307/2095910
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003).
Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review
of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56,
465-480. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived con-
sumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 102-117.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-
138. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
European Environment Agency. (2006). Using the market for cost-effective environ-
mental policy: Market-based instruments in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark:
Author.
Ewers, R. M. (2006). Interaction effects between economic development and forest
cover determine deforestation rates. Global Environmental Change, 16, 161-169.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.001
Fahlquist, J. N. (2009). Moral responsibility for environmental problems—Individual
or institutional? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 22, 109-124.
doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9134-5
Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A., & Schofer, E. (2000a). Environmentalism as a global insti-
tution: Reply to Buttel. American Sociological Review, 65, 122-127.
Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A., & Schofer, E. (2000b). The nation-state and the natural
environment over the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 65,
96-116.
Fransson, N., & GäRling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual defini-
tions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, 369-382. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0141
Frey, B. S. (2012). Crowding out and crowding in of intrinsic preferences. In E.
Brousseau, T. Dedeurwaerdere, & B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Reflective governance
for global public goods (pp. 75-83). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic
Surveys, 15, 589-611. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00150
Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empiri-
cal analysis of motivation crowding-out. The American Economic Review, 87,
746-755.
Frey, B. S., Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Eichenberger, R. (1996). The old lady visits your
backyard: A tale of morals and markets. Journal of Political Economy, 104,
1297-1313.
Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior
(Vol. xiv). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2011). The effects of affluence, economic develop-
ment, and environmental degradation on environmental concern: A multilevel anal-
ysis. Organization & Environment, 24, 74-91. doi:10.1177/1086026611406030
Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2013). Individual environmental concern in the

world polity: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 42, 418-431.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.005
Howell, A. P., Shaw, B. R., & Alvarez, G. (2015). Bait shop owners as opinion
leaders: A test of the theory of planned behavior to predict pro-environmental
outreach behaviors and intentions. Environment & Behavior, 47, 1107-1126.
doi:10.1177/0013916514539684
Inglehart, R. (2003). Human values and social change: Findings from the values sur-
veys. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persis-
tence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2003). Political culture and democracy: Analyzing cross-
level linkages. Comparative Politics, 36, 61-79.
Kerr, J., Vardhan, M., & Jindal, R. (2012). Prosocial behavior and incentives: Evidence
from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecological Economics, 73,
220-227. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.031
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmen-
tally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
Education Research, 8, 239-260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401
Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297-325. doi:10.1146/annurev.
energy.31.042605.135621
Liu, X., Wang, C., Shishime, T., & Fujitsuka, T. (2012). Sustainable consump-
tion: Green purchasing behaviours of urban residents in China. Sustainable
Development, 20, 293-308. doi:10.1002/sd.484
Longhofer, W., & Schofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of envi-
ronmental association. American Sociological Review, 75, 505-533.
doi:10.1177/0003122410374084
Macias, T., & Williams, K. (2016). Know your neighbors, save the planet: Social
capital and the widening wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment &
Behavior, 48, 391-420. doi:10.1177/0013916514540458
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing (3rd ed.). Gabriola Island, British Columbia,
Canada: New Society Publishers.
Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual
Review of Sociology, 36, 1-20. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and
the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144-181. doi:10.1086/
ajs.1997.103.issue-1
Meyer, J. W., Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A., Schofer, E., & Tuma, N. B. (1997). The struc-
turing of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990. International Organization,
51, 623-651. doi:10.1162/002081897550474
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environ-
mentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business
Research, 40, 37-48. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3
Wang 27
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism.

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 404-409. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2007.00586.x
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-
nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory.
Environment & Behavior, 38, 462-483. doi:10.1177/0013916505286012
Ostmann, A. (1998). External control may destroy the commons. Rationality and
Society, 10, 103-122. doi:10.1177/104346398010001005
Parikh, J., & Shukla, V. (1995). Urbanization, energy use and greenhouse effects in eco-
nomic development: Results from a cross-national study of developing countries.
Global Environmental Change, 5, 87-103. doi:10.1016/0959-3780(95)00015-G
Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable
development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 559-586.
doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551
Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources, 35, 195-228. doi:10.1146/annurev-envi-
ron-032609-094328
Poortinga, W., Calve, T., Jones, N., Lannon, S., Rees, T., Rodgers, S. E., . . . Johnson,
R. (2016). Neighborhood quality and attachment: Validation of the revised resi-
dential environment assessment tool. Environment & Behavior. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0013916516634403. Retrieved from http://eab.sage-
pub.com/content/early/2016/03/07/0013916516634403.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and
environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment &
Behavior, 36, 70-93. doi:10.1177/0013916503251466
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). Racing to the bottom? Trade, environmental gov-
ernance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 350-364.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00188.x
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231. doi:10.1016/0148-
2963(95)00150-6
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 40, 79-89. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9
Robertson, M. M. (2004). The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: Wetland miti-
gation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum, 35, 361-
373. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002
Schultz, P. W., Bator, R. J., Large, L. B., Bruni, C. M., & Tabanico, J. J. (2013).
Littering in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior.
Environment & Behavior, 45, 35-59. doi:10.1177/0013916511412179
Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining
local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 383-395. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2006.01.003
Shandra, J. M. (2007). The world polity and deforestation: A quantitative, cross-

national analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48, 5-27.
doi:10.1177/0020715207072157
Shandra, J. M., Leckband, C., McKinney, L. A., & London, B. (2009). Ecologically
unequal exchange, world polity, and biodiversity loss: A cross-national analysis
of threatened mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50,
285-310. doi:10.1177/0020715209105143
Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology, and culture. Global
Environmental Change, 21, 813-822. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.010
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of
environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives:
A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16, 558-575. doi:10.1108/07363769910297506
Titmuss, R. M. (1972). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy.
New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Travers, H., Clements, T., Keane, A., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Incentives
for cooperation: The effects of institutional controls on common pool resource
extraction in Cambodia. Ecological Economics, 71, 151-161. doi:10.1016/j.eco-
lecon.2011.08.020
United Nations. (1998). Human development report. Oxford, NY: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/
United Nations Environmental Programme. (2016). UNEP environmental gover-
nance sub-programme. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/environmentalgov-
ernance/
Van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructures of consumption:
Environmental innovation in the utility industries. London, England: Earthscan.
Vasi, I. B. (2007). Thinking globally, planning nationally and acting locally: Nested
organizational fields and the adoption of environmental practices. Social Forces,
86, 113-136.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the
consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural &
Environmental Ethics, 19, 169-194. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young
adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and
values. Ecological Economics, 64, 542-553. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007
Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sáinz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2013).
Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behav-
iour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 130-138. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.015
Wang, P., Liu, Q., & Qi, Y. (2014). Factors influencing sustainable consump-
tion behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 63, 152-165. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.007
Wang 29
Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics (Underlining edi-
tion). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption:
The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69,
166-176. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009
World Bank. (2015). World development indicators, 1960-2013. Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
World Bank. (2016). World Bank country and lending groups. Retrieved from https://
datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519
Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth
Science Information Network at Columbia University, World Economic Forum,
& Joint Research Centre of European Commission. (2005). 2005 Environmental
Sustainability Index (ESI). NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center
(SEDAC). Retrieved from http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/esi-environ-
mental-sustainability-index-2005
York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). Footprints on the earth: The environmen-
tal consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68, 279-300.
doi:10.2307/1519769
Author Biography
Yan Wang is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology, Zhou Enlai
School of Government, Nankai University, China. Her current research interests
include environmental sociology, social inequality, and cross-national studies.

Promoting Sustainable Consumption Behaviors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Promoting Sustainable Consumption Behaviors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promoting Sustainable Consumption Behaviors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

680264

1Nankai University, Tianjin, China

as a social process accomplished through collaboration between individual

Individual Environmental Attitudes

environmental concern is positively associated with SCBs (Minton & Rose,

businesses, communities, mass media, nongovernmental organizations

environmental governance works through a hybrid of these approaches. For

Whether external intervention affects individual behavior positively or neg-

focused on the individualist explanation and ignored, to a large extent, the

Research Question 1: How do environmental attitudes influence SCBs in

Data and Method

Table 1. Variables Constructing the Environmental Governance Indicator.

Variable description Source

Source. Environmental Sustainability Index 2005 Data Dictionary.

Therefore, the key national-level predictor, environmental governance, is an

facilitate cross-national comparison, making them suitable for the current

economy and environment. Based on the neo-Malthusian perspective, many

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.

Note. n = 39,496 (respondents), n = 31 (countries).

variation in sustainable consumption is mainly due to contextual differences.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Models 4 through 6 examine the extent to which environmental gover-

Figure 1. Estimated effects of environmental concern on sustainable consumption

suppressed by external forces are particularly inspired by contextual efforts in

Figure 2. Estimated effects of environmental efficacy on sustainable consumption

countries (10 countries) based on the income group threshold, specifically in

separated, divorced, or widowed. After including these control variables,

generalized to countries outside of the current sample. In high-income coun-

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2013). Individual environmental concern in the

Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism.

Shandra, J. M. (2007). The world polity and deforestation: A quantitative, cross-

You might also like