Green Consumption

ANNUAL REVIEWS
Further
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including:
Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms

Ken Peattie
The Center for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales CF10 3AT, United Kingdom; email: Peattie@cardiff.ac.uk
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 2010.35:195-228. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Universidad Nacional de Cordoba on 08/18/12. For personal use only.
Other articles in this volume Top cited articles Top downloaded articles Our comprehensive search
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010. 35:195228 First published online as a Review in Advance on August 13, 2010 The Annual Review of Environment and Resources is online at environ.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328 Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 1543-5938/10/1121-0195$20.00
Key Words
consumption processes, proenvironmental behaviors, sustainable marketing
Abstract
Developing more environmentally sustainable consumption and production systems depends upon consumers willingness to engage in greener consumption behaviors. Research efforts have sought to identify, analyze, and understand the green consumer. Initial marketing and economics research, focusing on purchasing activities, has been complemented by research from elds such as industrial ecology and sociology, providing a more holistic picture of green consumption as a process. Much of the research has focused on areas with the greatest environmental impacts, namely peoples homes and household management, their food choices and behaviors, and their transport behaviors for work, leisure, and travel. The emerging picture of green consumption is of a process that is strongly inuenced by consumer values, norms, and habits, yet is highly complex, diverse, and context dependent. There are opportunities for future research that provides greater interdisciplinarity and challenges our assumptions and expectations about consumption and the nature of the consumer society.
195
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: GREEN CONSUMPTION IN CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. FOUNDATIONS AND SCOPE OF GREEN CONSUMPTION RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. GREEN CONSUMPTION: A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE . 3.1. Recognition of a Want or Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Information Search . . . . . . . . 3.3. Evaluation of Alternatives. . 3.4. Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Postuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE IMPACTS OF PRIVATE CONSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Measuring Collective Consumption Impacts . . . . . . 4.2. Measuring Household Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Measuring Product Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Food and Drink Impacts . . . 4.5. Home Management Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6. Transport Impacts . . . . . . . . 5. UNDERSTANDING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Economic Rationality . . . . . 5.2. Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Impact-Income-Spending Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Environmental Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
196
197 199 200 200 201 201 201 202
202 202 203 203 204 204 205
205 205 206 206 206
5.5. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6. Responsibility, Control, and Personal Effectiveness . . 5.7. Lifestyles and Habits . . . . . . 5.8. Green Consumer Identities and Personalities . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9. Consumption Context . . . . . 5.10. Spatial Dimensions . . . . . . . 5.11. Consumption as a Social Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12. Social Norms about the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13. The Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. ANALYZING GREEN CONSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Segmenting Green Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Modeling Green Consumer Behavior . . . . . . . . 6.3. Behavioral Catalysts and Spillovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. The Attitude-Behavior Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. Complexity and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. MOTIVATING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1. Green Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Choice Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Social Marketing . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. Collective Action and Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5. Alternative Consumption Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6. Integrating Production and Consumption . . . . . . . . . . 8. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
207 208 208 209 209 210 210 211 212 212 212 212 213 213 214
215 215 215 215 216 216 217 217
1. INTRODUCTION: GREEN CONSUMPTION IN CONTEXT

Unsustainable levels and types of consumption are at the heart of the sustainable development
196 Peattie
challenge (1). Environmental technologies, production systems, economic policies, and social initiatives will all play important roles in the pursuit of sustainability, but their contribution
will be undermined without changes in our consumption patterns and behaviors. The notion of green consumption has emerged as a focus for policy makers and marketing strategies, and as a subject for research. In an earlier Annual Review of Environment and Resources volume, Lebel & Lorek (2) explored the importance of considering consumption and production as a holistic system in which both the actions of, and interactions between, consumers and producers determine environmental impacts. The key mechanisms they propose to develop more sustainable productionconsumption systems include responsible purchasing, certication and labeling, resource-efcient strategies based on productservice substitutions, codesign strategies, and frugal resource usage. All of these depend strongly on consumers willingness and ability to contribute through changing their behavior. Behavioral research indicates that this can be a signicant challenge in practice, which this review seeks to explore further. Green consumption is a problematic concept, not least because it is an apparent oxymoron. Green implies the conservation of environmental resources, while consumption generally involves their destruction. Green consumption is also contested as an idea, highly context dependent as a set of practices, as well as complex and multifaceted in both theory and practice (3). It overlaps other concepts, such as ethical, sustainable, or responsible consumption, leading to a lack of clarity and consistency in notions of green consumption within the research literature. Green might be assumed to relate only to environmental issues, but these are subtly intertwined with the social and economic strands of sustainable development. For example, Fair Trade coffee is considered an archetypal socially motivated purchase, yet Fair Trade standards also cover protecting environmental resources and biodiversity. Similarly, organic food purchasing might be assumed to represent ecologically motivated green consumption, yet consumers also perceive it as offering taste or personal health benets (4).
Instead of wrestling with such distinctions this review uses green more broadly as shorthand for oriented toward sustainable development. This reects the United Nations Environment Programmes conception of sustainable consumption as comprising
. . . a number of key issues, such as meeting needs, enhancing quality of life, improving efciency, minimising waste, taking a life cycle perspective and taking into account the equity dimension, for both current and future generations, while continually reducing environmental damage and the risk to human health (5).
It does, however, focus mostly on environmental aspects of sustainability to reect the nature and readership of the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
2. FOUNDATIONS AND SCOPE OF GREEN CONSUMPTION RESEARCH

Notions of ethical consumption and frugality can be traced back through previous centuries, but an explicit concept of green consumption rst appeared in the 1970s, primarily in the United States, as societal marketing expanded to include environmental issues. Green consumption emerged in marketing scholarship through Fisks Theory of Responsible Consumption (6), Henion & Kinnears concept of Ecological Marketing (7), and Kardashs notion of the Ecologically Concerned Consumer (8). Initially, research focused on energy use and pollution issues relevant to a narrow range of industries, including automobiles, oil, and chemicals. Consumption behaviors considered focused mainly on recycling and energy saving, as well as on consumer responses to advertising and labeling information (7, 9). During the 1980s, environmental concern reignited in response to high-prole incidents, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and to mounting evidence of environmental degradation. Growing consumer interest in the environment
www.annualreviews.org Green Consumption 197
Proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs): purchase choice, product use and postuse, household management, collective, and consumer activism behaviors, reecting some degree of environment-related motivation Dominant social paradigm (DSP): reects the core values, perspectives, and political, economic, and technological institutions, which determine the quality of life and its relationship to the environment
was demonstrated by market research data of the time, the success of green consumer guides, and the global consumer boycott of chlorouorocarbon (CFC)-driven aerosols. Green consumer behavior came to be recognized as a commercial opportunity for an expanding range of businesses (10) and developed further as a eld for research (7). Early efforts to prole green consumers and understand the link between their attitudes and behaviors evolved into more sophisticated attempts to understand their motivations and psychology and the role played by institutional factors (9, 10). Much early research was hampered by a number of weaknesses in attempts to measure consumers green concerns, including viewing environmental behavior as something consumers either did or did not engage in rather than a question of degree; a tendency to focus on broad environmental concern rather than specic issues, which may be more closely linked to specic behaviors; and failing to properly account for social desirability biases in consumer responses (11, 12). Although these limitations have been regularly commented on, they have tended to persist. Green consumption research can be subdivided in several ways. One rough subdivision is between studies rooted in marketing, which examine the intentions and behavior of the consumer (3, 9), and those rooted in industrial ecology or ecological economics, which examine the environmental outcomes of those behaviors (13, 14). The former often concern behaviors assumed to be environmentally benecial because they reect proenvironmental motivations or intentions. Purchasing local food or taking waste to a recycling collection point are examples of archetypal proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) whose environmental benets have been challenged. Speirs & Tucker (15) suggest that consumers driving to recycling bring sites may expend sufcient energy to outweigh the energy and material savings benets involved. Similarly, the environmental merits of local food in practice are complex and dependent on production factors, such as production methods, soil types, energy
Peattie
inputs, as well as distance traveled to market (16, 17). Conversely, some behaviors without environmental motivations still represent lower-impact consumption behaviors. Adopting a vegetarian diet might reect religious conviction or be motivated by concerns about personal health or economic savings, but it will also have benets linked to the environment and to climate change in particular (18). The potential disconnect between the motivations for and environmental impacts of green consumption behaviors is considerable, but the research literature rarely recognizes this. Another key subdivision is between research considering the level of material consumption (i.e., consumption reduction) and research concerning choices between technologies, products, and brands. The focus of policy makers, businesses, and researchers has mostly been on the latter (consuming differently), with relatively little attention paid to consuming less (19). This reects the perceived incompatibility between consumption reduction and established public policy goals, cultural values, and corporate strategies that prioritize the maintenance of economic growth, consumer sovereignty, and the uninhibited acquisition of material possessions (20). This has led to an overemphasis on uncontroversial behaviors such as energy saving and waste reduction, which do not impact afuence or signicantly challenge the norms and lifestyles of the populace (21, 22). Critics of green consumerism argue this only supercially tackles current environment and resource-based challenges because it does not confront the dominant social paradigm (DSP) and consumerist lifestyles within industrialized countries (23). Instead, it may perpetuate the process of overconsumption by reducing consumers guilt because they feel they are taking some proenvironment action (24, 25). One strand of research, which seeks to balance the pressing ecological need to reduce the collective environmental impacts of consumption behaviors with the perceived political challenge of asking people to consume less, is the
198
dematerialization agenda. This argues that, through technological innovation and better management of resources, it should be possible to deliver the same level of benets to consumers with a reduced intensity of material and energy inputs. This has mostly been conceived as a production agenda, particularly in terms of reducing the energy intensity of agriculture or reducing the materials consumed in the packaging of products. However, it is also a consumption behavior agenda. In part, this reects the type of resource-efcient product-service substitutions that Lebel & Lorek (2) propose as one strategy for developing more sustainable production-consumption systems. Waggoner & Ausubel (26) take this logic further by suggesting that the dematerialization agenda has a role for consumers to reduce the material intensity of their consumption behavior, as well as for producers to reduce the impact intensity of their goods. Moving global consumption toward a more sustainable state therefore depends on a variety of aspects of consumer behavior, including the willingness to reduce some aspects of consumption, to engage in some goods-to-services substitutions, to reduce the material and energy intensity of some consumption behaviors, and to differentiate in favor of more ecologically efcient producers. The scope of research into green consumption has also continued to expand geographically, reecting the globalization of environmental concern. Early research and practice was focused mostly on the mature industrialized consumer economies of Europe, North America, and Japan (27), with not as much focusing on consumers from less-industrialized countries (2830). Although there are some multicountry academic studies, they are more frequently conducted by commercial market research companies. One example is the 2008 Synnovate/BBC World News Climate Change Survey covering 18,453 respondents throughout 22 countries ranging from the United States and United Kingdom to China, India, Japan, Denmark, Russia, and Brazil (31). This registered a sharp increase in
both environmental concerns and consumption behavior changes in responses compared to 2007. Unexpectedly, among consumers expressing some concern about climate change, the proportion who could remember buying an explicitly green product was highest in China at 76%, which compares to a global average of 54%, and results from traditionally concerned countries, e.g., Germany, Denmark, and Norway, clustered around 6768%. Comparative academic research in green consumer behavior more usually compares consumer responses across a small number of countries, particularly contrasting more and less wealthy countries (29, 32). Although such studies reveal differences between particular countries and cultures in consumers specic environmental concerns and responses to them, what is more striking are the similarities in growing environmental values and concerns and the interest in green consumption.
3. GREEN CONSUMPTION: A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE

Consumption is an economic, a physical, and a social process inuenced by the nature, circumstances, and psychology of individuals and the geography, culture, laws, politics, and infrastructure of the society in which they live (32, 33). Understanding it fully therefore requires contributions from a wide range of social and physical science disciplines (34). Arguably, the most strongly developed strands in green consumption scholarship come from economics and marketing, which has led to an overemphasis on rational decision-making processes (35) and on the specic activity of purchasing (which is of most interest economically). A fuller understanding also requires a social, cultural, and physical perspective, which envisages consumption as a holistic process. Sociological and anthropological research considering consumption has yet to strongly integrate with the literature on sustainability to properly complement the economically based body of research (35).
Green consumption behavior involves some form of PEB in one or more of the following stages of the consumption process:
3.1. Recognition of a Want or Need

People have basic and intrinsic needs for food, drink, clothing, security, and shelter as well as to reproduce and nurture their children. In the context of consumer economies, Shove articulates these needs as having evolved into the pursuit of Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience (36). Beyond this, we have social and emotional needs for acceptance, status, amusement, love, and self-fullment. These broad needs are translated into more specic wants, reecting the nature of the individual, the persons lifestyle, and the society within which they live. These wants are what marketers seek to translate into a demand for particular products. There is surprisingly little effort made in the research literature to separate wants from needs (37). This reects the problem that, beyond the physiological basics, what constitutes a necessity is relative, subjective, and reects a persons experience, expectations, and circumstances. These needs have also tended to evolve over time so that yesterdays luxuries become tomorrows necessities. However, there are signs that this trend may be reversing. A 2009 Pew Research Center study found that in the post crunch economy, the number of Americans citing cable TV, air conditioning, a dishwasher, or a microwave oven as necessities had all dropped sharply since 2006, reversing previous growth trends (38). Within a global economy consuming environmental resources at unsustainable levels, with persistently high levels of global poverty, malnutrition, and water shortage, sustainability concerns will inevitably require more emphasis on the basic consumption needs of the global poor rather than satisfying consumer wants in rich countries (39). As Jackson et al. (37) note, from a research perspective, this requires a clearer and more nuanced understanding of what constitutes a want as compared to a need.
200 Peattie
Green consumption research has largely considered the consumption levels, choices, and behaviors of consumers within relatively afuent economies (27) or the emerging consumer classes within industrializing economies. Less attention has been given to meeting the basic needs of those living outside the consumer classes. This is mostly treated as a facet of development economics, but emerging research into base of the pyramid production and consumption is beginning to explore this further (40). Globally, those living on a few dollars per day represent 72% of the population, and a consumer market worth $5 trillion. They receive relatively little attention in the research into both general and green consumption. Ultimately, the sustainability agenda cannot be understood or progressed without putting unsustainable consumption in afuent economies into the context of global equity. As Lebel & Lorek note, green consumption is not simply about consuming less and differently for all; it involves increasing wisely for others (2, p. 263).
3.2. Information Search

Although we may consume some products habitually or impulsively, information is often gathered from family, friends, and commercial sources. Green consumers may seek out specic information related to the environmental performance of companies and products, and consult distinctive sources such as green consumer guides or Web sites. McDonald and colleagues (41) studying the behavior of green consumers across a variety of purchase types found they typically engaged in extended prepurchase research on socioenvironmental criteria but that search behavior and sources consulted varied across purchase types. From a green consumption perspective, a key informational issue is ecological literacy, the degree to which consumers understand environmental issues and their ability to make the relevant connections between their lives and the products they consume and environmental
issues that they are aware of and concerned about (42).
3.3. Evaluation of Alternatives

Choice is fundamental to consumer behavior and implies a process of evaluating and choosing between alternatives. Green consumer marketing research has emphasized understanding behavior in order to inuence consumer choices between competing products and brands (and possibly retailers), reecting the managerialist nature of this research stream (9). Green consumer behavior can also include the evaluation of a wider set of alternatives, including conscious choices to reduce consumption (43) or to nd alternative ways to satisfy their wants. This could involve substituting an intangible service for a tangible product purchase (2, 44) or meeting needs in ways that do not involve a purchase (such as borrowing an item from friends or family). Although the phenomenon of work within the informal economy is widely researched, self-reliant informal consumption activities involving nonpurchase activities and how they relate to purchase-based consumption are not. The alternatives considered and criteria used by green consumers form an important research topic. Green product choices are unusual in that the means of production can be translated into a product attribute, for example, organic food products or sustainably sourced wood products (4, 45). An important inuence within the process of evaluating alternatives is the level of trust or skepticism consumers place in the claims made in relation to products by companies and also those made by environmentalists (46, 47). The challenge for the promotion of greener alternatives is that consumers tend to put greater trust in familiar products and brands than in new environmentally oriented alternatives (48).
terms of measuring any gap between them (2, 3, 49). The method of purchase can also inuence environmental impacts. An online music download has a different set of embedded environmental impacts from a physical copy on compact disc (CD) (50). It is also worth noting that shopping is itself a signicant activity, both socially and in terms of environmental impacts, particularly in an era in which retailing has become dominated by large out-of-town retailers in many industrialized economies. For example, in 2006, the average Briton made 219 shopping trips, involving 91 car journeys with an average distance of 9 km (51).
3.5. Use
Conventional marketing and economic scholarship pays little attention to postpurchase consumption behaviors beyond those factors determining repeat purchases. For many products, total environmental impacts depend on postpurchase consumption behavior and product use. For energy-using appliances, the use phase generates more environmental impacts than either production or ultimate disposal (52). In the case of low-energy buildings, their environmental performance depends upon whether building users interact as predicted with the buildings energy management systems (53). Whether cars or heating systems are properly maintained, whether electrical equipment is left on standby, the speed at which cars are driven, and whether broken products are repaired will all inuence ultimate environmental impacts. Returning to the purchased music example, a full comparison between a downloaded MP3 and store-bought CD also depends on the number of listenings and the comparative energy efciency of the equipment used (54). The duration of use is also signicant, and consumer behavior in terms of promoting product longevity and resource-efcient slow consumption is emerging as a new research theme (55, 56). Despite the signicance of product use, it remains underresearched compared to product evaluation, choice, and purchase. Partly, this
3.4. Purchase
Green consumer research frequently focuses on either actual purchases or purchase intentions and sometimes will consider both in
reects the complexity of researching a behavior that is highly inuenced by the domestic context of the consumer and that for durable products may unfold over many years. Understanding the use phase of consumption requires more longitudinal approaches to research and more ethnographic methods that seek to observe and understand the contexts of consumption. This is a more time-consuming, complex, and expensive approach than the application of quantitative survey methodologies into consumer preferences, which has so far dominated green consumption research.
4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE IMPACTS OF PRIVATE CONSUMPTION

The environmental impacts of consumption reect the sustainability of the total system of production and consumption (2) and the cradle-tograve life cycle of products (14, 60). Although green consumption research mostly considers the behaviors of consumers as individuals, the collective impact of their choices is important both environmentally and as a driver of corporate strategies and producer choices (61). Ultimately, it is misleading to describe the single act of purchasing one particular product rather than another as more or less green. To take the example of a car, its environmental impacts will reect its technical specications; how it is produced; how far, fast, and smoothly it is driven; how well it is maintained; how long it is kept in service; and the fate of its component parts at the end of its life (62). Consumption impact research includes studies assessing the impacts of particular products (6365) and those that seek to evaluate the collective consumption impacts of individuals, households, or countries (66, 67). Research in environmental science, ecological economics, and law has sought to evaluate these impacts according to the monetary costs of remediation or loss; the physical quantities of resources used, or waste or pollution produced; and the burden they place on environmental resources (64).
3.6. Postuse
After use, a product may be discarded (either into landll or into systems that will reuse, recycle, or remanufacture it), stored, resold, traded, or loaned/given to others, either directly or through alternative channels, such as charity retailers (57). Postuse aspects of consumer behavior are relatively neglected within the research literature, and the research that does exist has mostly focused on recycling attitudes, behaviors, and motivations (9, 58). Extended producer responsibility regulations require companies in some markets, such as cars and electronics, to reclaim and deal with postuse products. This creates novel consumer behaviors relating to their willingness and ability to support reverse-logistics processes developed to reclaim postuse products for reuse, recycling, or responsible disposal (59). Compliance on the part of consumers is important to ensure that take-back systems work effectively, but this represents another underresearched aspect of green consumer behavior. Although environmental impacts in the use and postuse stages are typically associated with durable products, such as cars and electrical appliances, they are also relevant in consumable products, such as food. For example, the impacts of foodstuffs depend on how long food is refrigerated and at what temperature, whether it is cooked using a microwave or a conventional cooker, and whether any waste is generated (and if so, what is done with it).
202 Peattie
4.1. Measuring Collective Consumption Impacts

Measuring consumption impacts is challenging and depends on what types of impact are included, the relative weights attached to them, and how they are allocated. Spangenberg & Lorek (68) highlight several problems with the existing research base including a tendency to simplify consumption decisions down to single motivations, a tendency to use single measures (such as energy use),
problems in disentangling impacts related to product use that are under the consumers control from those that are determined by the product designer, and variations in calculating impacts per household or per household member. Seven of the leading approaches from around the world were compared and reviewed in the MacGillivray & Levett-Therivel report on Consumer Expenditure and Environmental Impact (69). Among those most favored was ecological footprint analysis (or eco-footprinting) pioneered by Rees & Wackernagel (66) in the 1990s. An ecological footprint is an aggregated indicator of the impacts of consumption by a dened population. Initially it was applied to cities, regions, or nations, but it has been extended to households, organizations, events, and products (62, 67, 68). A footprint is expressed using a standardized unit of land area needed to support resource consumption, equivalent to a world average productive hectare or global hectare (gha), and is usually expressed in global hectares per person (gha/cap). The total land area is compared with the population of the study area to estimate the eco-footprint, which is then compared to a fair earth share, estimated at 2.1 hectares per person (69). This allows for calculations of the extent to which countries, regions, or humankind collectively are engaged in ecological overshoot through overconsumption. Estimates put humankinds collective overshoot in the region of 30% (70). However, some have criticized eco-footprinting for a failure to include some types of environmental impacts, such as loss of biodiversity or impact on the biocapacity of the oceans, and argue that the total overshoot is greater (71). Despite some controversy over methodolgies, footprinting remains popular because it provides a simple measure that can be easily communicated. Sutcliffe and colleagues (72) found that communicating their eco-footprint to consumers could encourage them to try to reduce it. It also allows for meaningful international comparisons of the
collective impacts of consumers across different countries. The 2008 Living Planet Report (70) showed that the average American consumer used 9.5 gha, compared to a more sustainable (but rapidly growing) 2.1 gha for the average Chinese consumer.
4.2. Measuring Household Impacts

The importance of understanding the total environmental impacts of household consumption, rather than of individual purchases, is leading to new research concepts such as household metabolism. This view of the total ow of energy and materials through households owes more to industrial ecology than conventional consumer behavior research and was used in trials across ve Swedish cities by Carlsson-Kanyama and colleagues (67). Combining such comprehensive approaches to measuring environmental impacts with more longitudinal and ethnographic studies into consumption behaviors presents opportunities for a far more sophisticated approach to green consumption research in the future.
Ecological footprint: a unit of environmental impact, expressed as the global land area required to support the resources and assimilate the waste of consumption
4.3. Measuring Product Impacts

The majority of consumption impacts relate to only a small number of product categories. The European Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) project rigorously analyzed the research base on the environmental impacts of consumer products (65). The projects inputoutput-based methodology assessed 255 domestic product types against a range of impacts including pollution, human and environmental health risks, and greenhouse gas emissions. It concluded that 7080% of total impacts from domestic consumption relate to food and drink; housing (including construction and maintenance impacts, and domestic energy use); and transport (including commuting, and leisure and holiday travel). The remaining impacts are mostly from water use, domestic equipment (appliances,
computers, and home entertainment), furniture, clothing, and shoes. Although the EIPRO project excluded resource usage, contributions to landll waste, and biodiversity impacts, other research has identied a similar list of key products/sectors (64, 65). Spangenberg & Loreks (68) German study sought to identify the activity clusters comprising resource consumption with the most impact. They also concluded that construction and housing, food and nutrition, and transport and mobility were the most crucial clusters, accounting for 70% of material extraction and energy use and more than 90% of land use. Product life cycle assessment (LCA) research forms the backbone of our understanding of product impacts (60). However, the product focus of LCA excludes certain resource consumption impacts linked to marketing and retail activities and the search and purchasing activities of consumers. A weakness of LCA research is a tendency to provide a much clearer analysis of the standardized upstream impacts generated by production than for the downstream impacts generated by consumers use and postuse behaviors. These are likely to be more heterogeneous and difcult to measure accurately. Impact-related research also generally focuses more clearly on direct process-based impacts, such as energy and resource use or the generation of pollution and waste, than with more indirect consequences, such as biodiversity loss, soil erosion, or changes to ecosystem dynamics.
4.4. Food and Drink Impacts

Food and drink consumption has a signicant eco-footprint through its consumption of land, energy, and chemicals and also through its consumption, and pollution, of water (16, 27). These reect producer decisions, which, although inuenced by demand, will also reect agricultural subsidies, farming traditions, climate, and topography. However, collectively, consumer choice can inuence food production, for example, through consumers adopting
204 Peattie
a diet with a reduced meat and dairy content (73). Foods vary signicantly in embedded greenhouse gases, for example, with a study of 20 foodstuffs sold in Sweden ranging from 0.4 to 30 kg of CO2 equivalents per kg of edible product (74). In some markets, consumers are being offered explicit choices related to agricultural production methods and impacts, most notably organic food, but also local food, food encompassing animal welfare, and specic products, such as shade-grown coffee or sustainably managed timber (4, 17, 45, 48). Research on food impacts tends to focus on energy, chemical and water input, and greenhouse gas emissions. There is less emphasis on impacts linked to soil quality and loss of biodiversity. There are some foodstuffs for which overconsumption is seen as directly threatening the survival of species (e.g., bluen tuna), and destructive methods of harvesting sh resources are blamed for marine ecosystem destruction, which threatens the future viability of sheries (75). One contentious aspect of food consumption is the food miles within modern global food distribution chains because of the embedded energy and the CO2 emissions involved in international food transport (27). The extent to which distance traveled represents a good proxy for environmental impact depends on a considerable number of factors, including comparative direct energy use in farming systems and the energy used for refrigeration and storage (16, 17, 27). Although there is a general assumption that home cooked meals will have lower environmental impacts than processed foods, a life cycle comparison by Sonesson and colleagues (76) revealed a different mix of impacts rather than a different order.
4.5. Home Management Impacts

The construction, maintenance, and eventual demolition of homes provide signicant environmental impacts, but again, many of these reect decisions and practices outside the consumers control. The allocation of impacts for a product, which may have existed before the
consumer was born and may outlive them by generations, is also problematic. More commonly researched are the environmental impacts of domestic management practices in the home, including energy and water usage and waste management behaviors, e.g., recycling (27, 64). In the United States, for example, direct energy consumption by households accounts for 27% of total energy consumption and 41% of CO2 emissions (77). Of the direct energy use, 18% is for space heating, 8% is for hot water, 27% is for appliances and lighting, and 6% for air-conditioning. Consumption behaviors in home insulation, energy-efcient appliance purchase, and other energy-saving behaviors are therefore among the more heavily researched sets of PEB. The signicance of these impacts varies between countries and contexts. The signicance of water use varies according to its abundance within specic countries and the reuse and recycling effectiveness of the water management system (water being rather different than energy or food in the extent to which consumption destroys or transforms it). Similarly, energy impacts depend upon the generating technology used (77).
be divided between relatively habitual travel for work, shopping, and leisure and travel for tourism. Tourism impacts are outweighed by habitual travel but have risen signicantly with increasing air travel. Although aviation still accounts for a relatively small proportion of global transport impacts, it is growing rapidly (27), and for some individuals, ying may represent a signicant proportion of their impact.
5. UNDERSTANDING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Much of the research on green consumption has sought to prole green consumers and identify the factors that inuence their behavior including the following issues.
5.1. Economic Rationality

Economic research emphasizes the role of price signals and rational consumer choices, which reect self-interest and perceived costs and benets (3). Economic incentives can include direct nancial rewards, penalties for specic behaviors, and subsidies for particular products or services (for example, nes for lone drivers using car-pool lanes or government incentive schemes for scrapping old cars). Research evidence shows such incentives can be potentially effective (81, 82), for example, Bartelings & Sterner (83) reviewed a Swedish weight-based waste-charging system trial and found signicant increases in recycling behavior and reductions in waste collected (35% in weight over one year). However, these incentives depend on consumer awareness and an understanding of the economic implications of consumption decisions, which in practice are often lacking, as Turrentine & Kurani (84) found in relation to American consumers knowledge of gasoline prices. The reported inconsistencies in consumer response to nancial incentives suggest that rational choice models have limited explanatory power and that behavioral change for both economic and environmental reasons faces numerous obstacles (85). Although the evolution of the research agenda has demonstrated that
4.6. Transport Impacts

Transport impacts are signicant in terms of the energy used and CO2 produced (27, 64, 78), and in industrialized countries the dominance of the private car means that the energy and material usage for cars is considerable (62). In the United States, 41% of household energy use is accounted for by vehicles (77). Despite improvements in the environmental efciencies of car engines and other technologies, the continuing growth in travel and transport internationally has kept the environmental impacts of transport rising (27). Transport behaviors tend to be very complex, reecting many aspects of individuals, their location and lifestyle as much as their specic choices, and this can make transport behaviors particularly difcult and complex to inuence (79, 80). Transport behaviors can
there is far more to green consumption behavior than economic rationality, perceived costs and benets remain one of the most consistently signicant inuences cited.
demonstrates the importance of consumption choices and lifestyles, as well as the absolute level of afuence.
5.4. Environmental Knowledge 5.2. Demographics

Between the early 1970s and 1995, the dominant stream of green consumer research concerned attempts to prole green consumers and develop meaningful market segmentations using various criteria (9, 86). Studies originating from economics have often applied sociodemographic segmentations to understand differences in responses to economic incentives and to explain differences in consumer behaviors, such as participation in recycling (87). Variables examined include sex, age, presence and number of children, educational level, and socioeconomic class (8892). The main consistency within this research, however, is the inconsistency in the ndings and conclusions (3, 9). In a comprehensive review of this research, Diamantopoulos and colleagues (93) concluded that, although sociodemographics cannot be ignored, in isolation they are of limited value when trying to prole green consumers or understand green consumption behavior. Environmental knowledge is frequently assumed to drive green consumption behavior, and some of the research supports this. Bartkus and colleagues (96) found that both self-reported and particularly objectively measured environmental knowledge had positive effects on green consumer behavior. By contrast, Davies and colleagues (97) found that knowledge about recycling activities did not inuence participation in curbside recycling schemes, and Pedersen & Neergaard (98) found that improving information provided to consumers does not necessarily lead to changes in purchasing behavior. Other research has shown that attempts to increase consumer knowledge through the provision of information has little impact on behavior (3) and can leave some consumers confused or feeling overwhelmed (99, 100). The inconsistency in ndings about the importance of knowledge has yet to be fully explored or explained by research. One explanation may be that increasing consumers environmental knowledge may alert them to the environmentally unsustainable nature of existing systems of consumption and production and the absolute shortcomings in sustainability terms of green product offerings (47). Important distinctions may need to be drawn between knowledge and understanding about environmental issues, about the environmental consequences of consumption behavior, and about the relationship between them. Some researchers have argued that changing consumer behavior depends on connecting environmental information to aspects of consumers lives and behaviors (101, 102). Anable and colleagues (78) conducted a wide-ranging review of research on consumer travel behaviors and climate change. They found that levels of awareness about climate change were relatively high. However, a deeper understanding of climate
5.3. Impact-Income-Spending Relationships

Research shows a strong, if unsurprising, relationship between household income and total environmental impacts. Lenzen & Murray (94) found that those Australian households spending A$25,000 per person annually had an average footprint of double that of households spending A$10,000 per person. Similar correlations were found in the eco-footprint study for Wales (95). What these studies revealed is that the strong correlation between consumer expenditure and eco-footprint disguises a complex relationship. Both studies showed considerable variation between the highest and lowest footprints at different expenditure levels, with some consumers having higher footprints than others spending at least 50% more. This
206 Peattie
change and its consequences was more patchy, and the links individuals made to their own consumption and lifestyles were inconsistent and often vague (78). Hobson (101) found that behaviors were most likely to be changed when new information prompted consumers to think differently about aspects of their consumption.
5.5. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

It is argued that research into green consumption has overemphasized objective factors related to knowledge and economic rationality, whereas in practice, intuitive and emotional factors are more important in shaping behavioral change (103). Although emotional responses (such as fear, anger, guilt, shame, or pride) are a potentially signicant inuence on behavior (104), there is little research linking emotions to green consumption beyond responses to advertising appeals (105). This represents a potential future research opportunity. More fully researched are the roles of attitudes, beliefs, and values in inuencing green consumer behavior (3, 9). One research theme connects existing models of values to PEB (106), as Pepper et al. (107) did with Schwartzs value types. Such research has generally concluded that individuals who are relatively altruistic on Schwartzs proself/prosocial dimension and open to change, rather than conservative, are the most likely to engage in PEB (108). More recently, research has sought to examine the inuence of more specic environmental values and beliefs (109) on behaviors (110). For example, environmental attitudes have been shown to be good predictors of consumers willingness to pay a premium for green products, such as organic food or green electricity tariffs (88, 93, 111), and to engage in recycling electronic waste (112). Although the research literature generally supports the inuence of values on PEB, there is also evidence that the same values do not inuence all types of PEB, nor in the same way (107, 113, 114). Barr (115) found that product reuse and waste-minimization intentions and behaviors were strongly related to values concerning
environmental protection and the importance of nature, but this was not the case for recycling, where practicalities and more normative social inuences were more inuential. Similarly, one commercial market research survey found that U.K. consumers expressing strong environmental values were more likely to recycle and conserve water but not more likely to buy organic food or avoid leaving appliances on standby. Low-energy lightbulb use was actually higher among the group expressing weaker environmental values (116). To a considerable extent, environmental values reect particular cultural traditions, and some research seeks to judge environmental value differences between countries (117) or between cultural/ethnic groups within countries (118). Harriss review of evidence (119) concerning Chinese consumers notes that Chinese culture takes a highly instrumental view of the environment as existing for the benet of people. He also concluded that Chinese consumers are little different from those in other parts of the world in considering environmental issues as important in an abstract way, but they are unlikely to signicantly inuence their consumption behaviors while the environment does not directly impact upon themselves, their families, and their lifestyle. Despite its comparatively large size, the research literature suffers from an overuse of very broad environmental measures of concern or general conservation stance (11, 120) and a frequent assumption that prosocial and proenvironmental values are similar or interconnected expressions of altruism. In reality, the values of a misanthropic animal-lover may be very different from someone interested in ethical consumption on the basis of strong humanist values. On some issues, social and environmental values may be presented as opposed (for example, in the exploitation of environmental resources to help tackle poverty), and consumers may be presented with choices based on competing socioenvironmental values, for example, choosing between Fair Trade, sustainable, or rainforest friendly coffees (121).
New environmental paradigm (NEP): establishing values, perspectives, and political, economic, and technological institutions, which reect the principles of sustainable development
Perceived consumer effectiveness: the belief that engaging in a particular consumption behavior will make a positive difference
One aspect of the values-based agenda has been the concept of an emerging new environmental paradigm (NEP) (122). Kilbourne & Polonsky (123), among others, highlight that improving consumer environmental knowledge and promoting stronger environmental attitudes and values may not necessarily result in behavioral change within industrialized societies where the underlying DSP is consumption oriented. They call for more research into how collective values would need to evolve to facilitate greener consumption and into how messages could be framed to raise awareness of the need to change the DSP. An important type of attitude that is shaped by the DSP, but remains underresearched, is expectation (3, 124). Consumer satisfaction, and what consumers may be willing to accept in relation to compromises or inconveniences, is strongly inuenced by their expectations. Our expectations about living standards, investment returns, availability of unseasonal produce in grocery stores or of cheap ights to distant countries, and many other things will play an important part in a transition to a more sustainable economy.
a particular issue, has been shown to be a signicant inuence on consumer response (125, 126). A study by Zacca (127) found that even among consumers willing to pay a premium for greener products, they may remain unconvinced about the importance of their contribution and will still tend to expect a legislative response from public authorities. There is an assumption in much of the literature that over time environmental knowledge will increase, leading to a strengthening of environmental values and to a willingness to take some responsibility for tackling environmental problems. However, Wray-Lake and colleagues (128) found that, over a 30-year period, environmental concerns among American adolescents had not strengthened, and they increasingly saw environmental responsibilities as something for government, business, or an abstract notion of the consumer rather than themselves.
5.7. Lifestyles and Habits

Green consumption behavior research concentrates on individual products or types of consumption behavior. From a sustainability perspective, it is the collective impact of all a consumers behaviors that is more signicant. This is illustrated by the so-called rebound effect for green consumption behaviors that combine an economic and environmental saving, such as reducing energy consumption. The environmental benets of this behavior depend on what is purchased with the money saved (119, 129, 130). There is a need for both more research and practical interventions that consider a range of consumption behaviors and how they interrelate. For example, the EcoTeam program addresses a suite of 38 household behaviors (131). The integration of a number of types of PEBs has led to the notion of Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability as a focus for research (2) and as a market segment denition as a target for green products. Behavior as an expression of lifestyle is an important avenue for research because it can help explain some of the inconsistencies and compromises embedded in
5.6. Responsibility, Control, and Personal Effectiveness

Another underresearched set of attitudes, values and beliefs concerns consumer perspectives in ascribing responsibilities for both causing and solving environmental problems, and their ability to contribute to their solution through consumption behaviors. The scarcity of research considering consumers sense of personal responsibility for environmental damage perhaps reects a dominant business culture based on consumer sovereignty, which emphasizes the consumers right to engage in any (legal) form of consumer behavior. How consumers divide up responsibility for environmental problems, and whether they believe they have the ability to make a signicant difference, both have the potential to inuence behavior. Perceived consumer effectiveness, the extent to which consumers believe that any action they take can have a meaningful impact on
208 Peattie
consumers behaviors when examined as a whole (33, 132, 133). Green consumption research frequently employs behavioral models and theories that assume a high degree of consumer involvement and conscious decision making. An alternative perspective is that much of our environmental impact as consumers relates to everyday activities, which are inuenced more by habit than conscious thought, i.e., those of household management, grocery shopping, and travel between homes and workplaces (36, 97, 103). This has prompted a stream of research aimed at understanding consumption through sociological theories of practice (134), which emphasize routine and habit, and also the inuence of shared understandings, social conventions, technical know-how and infrastructure, and competing values (36). Barr and colleagues (135) divided consumption behaviors into three clusterspurchase decisions (shopping, composting, and reuse), habits (domestic water and energy conservation), and recyclingand found these relate to what they termed different lifestyles as dened by sociodemographic characteristics and values. In this case, the conation of composting and reuse as purchasing decisions seems curious, and this may reect a shared perception among the majority of consumers of these as higher effort/involvement behaviors. Knussen and colleagues (136) found that household behaviors were not just a choice between the deliberate and the habitual and that more complex domestic routines involved more semiautomatic behavior patterns. Much green consumption research takes a static snapshot view of a particular behavioral intention or behavior (such as a purchase) at one point in time. From an environmental impact perspective, it is important to understand the persistence over time of PEBs, such as consumption reduction, choice of greener alternatives, frugal household management, or engagement in recycling (131). Tucker & Speirs (137) study of household waste management found that the factors that inuence a decision to initially engage in home compost-
ing are different from those that help to maintain the behavior. They also found that these attitudes were themselves shaped by the experience of the behavior, so although consumer behavior models of green consumption largely assume that attitudes shape behavior, it is also important to acknowledge that experience of the behavior can also shape those attitudes.
5.8. Green Consumer Identities and Personalities

Research from environmental psychology reveals that a consumers sense of self-identity can inuence the nature and extent of their PEB (138). For example, whether or not you view yourself as a recycler strongly predicts whether or not you will recycle (139), and those who see themselves as green consumers are more likely to purchase organic foods (140). In some cases, consumers identify with a particular green lifestyle, and their PEBs reect this (22, 35). Autio and colleagues (141) explored the identities that young consumers construct for themselves relating to green consumption behaviors. Their interpretation identied three key narrative roles that they adopt: (a) the antihero, who rejects the notion of green consumerism and the ability of the individual to make a difference; (b) the environmental hero, who embraces the positive aspects of green consumption; and (c) the anarchist, for whom green consumption is a reaction against the prevailing consumerist culture. Another psychological approach to understanding green consumption concerns whether there are particular personality types that are more or less prone to engaging in PEB. Fraj & Martinez (142), for example, found that personality factors, such as extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, were positively related to PEB.
5.9. Consumption Context

Economics, demographics, consumer values, and psychology all contribute to an understanding of green consumption behavior. However,
the clearest conclusions emerging from the research literature are that green consumers are extremely heterogeneous and that their behavior is not subject to a single explanation or a single best way to inuence it (99, 143). The drive to understand green consumption by identifying the green consumer mirrors the conventional managerial mind-set, with its focus on identifying consistent and stable types of consumers for their marketing efforts (9). An alternative perspective is to acknowledge that PEB can be inuenced by situational factors, with even those consumers with strong environmental values showing inconsistency in when and how those values inuence their behaviors (47). A simple example is Dolnicar & Gruns (144) nding that the ma jority of consumers did not maintain their PEBs while on vacation. Another perspective on context is that, as individuals move through particular life stages and life events, the likelihood of engaging in PEB may alter. Moving to a new house, for example, has been identied as a life-stage opportunity during which consumers may establish new greener behavior patterns (145). Contextual factors of time and place inuence PEB throughout the consumption process and a range of consumption types. Partly, this reects the nature and infrastructure of the communities within which people live (146 148). Decisions about personal travel or waste disposal will be inuenced by local transport and waste management infrastructure. At a household level, these decisions may also be inuenced by whether a home has storage space for a bicycle or a garden to facilitate composting. Similarly, the physical infrastructure of their home will inuence an individuals choices and consumption of energy for heating and lighting. Contextual factors also include the systems of consumption that consumers depend upon to meet their needs. Spaargaren & van Vliet (149) envisage PEBs as everyday social practices that reect a compromise between the lifestyle aspirations of the consumer (shaped by their sense of identity, values, and circumstances) and the
210 Peattie
nature of the public and commercial provisioning systems that meet their needs. As Burgess and colleagues (34) note, contextual factors are highly signicant in terms of their inuence on PEB but are usually difcult to signicantly change for consumers, policy makers, and businesses.
5.10. Spatial Dimensions

One set of inuences that combines elements of demographics with contextual inuences is the geography of PEB in terms of spatial variations at local, regional, and national levels. The environmental impacts of particular types of consumption also vary between countries, reecting their style of housing, agricultural systems, and specic mix of energy sources (64). At a more localized level, studies have revealed differences in attitudes and behaviors between those living in rural and urban areas, which may partly reect differences in access to particular products, services, and waste infrastructure (147). Similarly, lifestyles and the consumption patterns that accompany them may be inuenced by location. An obvious example is the pattern of suburban living, which is prevalent throughout countries like the United States and much of Western Europe and is highly dependent upon affordable fuel for personal transport. Tanner and colleagues (150), in a study based in Switzerland, found that living circumstances (size of household and urban/rural location), time pressures, and the characteristics of locally available retailers were more important than socioeconomic factors in inuencing green consumption.
5.11. Consumption as a Social Process

Green consumption research has mirrored consumption research more generally in focusing mostly on the nature of consumers and their actions as individuals. This has been criticized because it overlooks or downplays the importance of the social, political, and historial context and conditions of our lives and lifestyles (36, 99). Sociological perspectives complement
marketings emphasis on economics and psychology by considering consumption as a social process shaped by cultural conventions and shared meanings, routines, cultural representations, and the tacit rules that govern appropriate behavior in different social contexts (3, 133). Much of our consumption behavior does not simply reect ourselves and our circumstances, but it also reects our social relationships and obligations so that we behave not just as individuals but as members of families, households, communities, and social networks (3, 151). Research demonstrates that the behavior of others also shapes our interpretations of, and responses to, the situations we nd ourselves in. This is particularly true of situations that we nd in some way novel, ambiguous, or uncertain (152), which may be the case when consumers engage in PEB. Consumption activities and marketing communications about them are imbued with meanings, and these meanings are consumed as well as tangible resources. Within the consumer culture of industrialized and industrializing cultures, consumption generally communicates purely positive meanings linked to inclusion, happiness, and fullment. By contrast, not consuming is positioned negatively, as missing out. This is part of what limits behaviors among concerned consumers to those linked to recycling and consuming differently (and possibly more) by consuming products perceived as green (22). What we purchase or avoid purchasing, and how we use and dispose of particular products, can help to construct our social identity and provide signals about that identity to others. The popularity of the Toyota Prius among politicians and celebrities probably says more about how they wish to be perceived by others than about the strength of their environmental values.
5.12. Social Norms about the Environment

Social norms are an important inuence on green consumption and are fundamental to many of the theories and models concerning
consumption (33). The concept of social norms includes both what we perceive to be common practice or normal (descriptive norms) and behaviors we perceive to be morally right or what ought to be done (injunctive social norms). Both types of norms can have a strong inuence on green consumption behaviors (3), but beyond categories of consumption with a specic ethical issue attached (such as the consumption of veal or use of peat-based soil conditioners), research tends to focus more on descriptive norms and whether behaviors are perceived as normal or alternative. Barr (115), for example, found that recycling was widely adopted because it was perceived by householders as normal, whereas consumption reduction strategies were only adopted by a strongly valuedriven few and were generally perceived as alternative. Goldstein and colleagues (153) found that the use of normative appeals that stressed that the majority of guests reuse their towels encouraged more hotel guests to do the same than conventional messages simply stressing the environmental benets of towel reuse. Interestingly, the response to their normative message was even stronger when it related more closely to the circumstances and situation of the hotel guest through a message that states: The majority of guests in this room reuse their towels. This may be because such a framing allows the consumer to identify more closely with the majority and to envisage the behavior in question and themselves adopting it. A common research question concerns the extent to which green consumers will pay a price premium for greener products (88, 111, 112). Such research carries an implicit message that existing prices are the norm and that greener products represent an expensive luxury. An alternative perspective is that the product prices we currently accept as normal are in fact distorted because they do not reect the full environmental and social costs of production and consumption, and these prices are therefore effectively subsidized and unrealistically inexpensive. The power of research itself to reinforce social norms about consumption and the
environment generally goes unacknowledged by researchers.

TPB: theory of planned behavior
5.13. The Media

The media plays an important role in green consumption behavior because of the dependence of the public on the media for environmental information (154) and its effect on public environmental awareness, knowledge, opinion, and concern (155). The media are central players in the construction of contemporary consumer culture and therefore in any moves to create a more sustainable consumption culture (156). The effect of the media on green consumer behavior, however, remains underresearched. The use of new and emerging communications approaches and technologies, and also the inuence of social networks, presents new opportunities for policy, practice, and research (157).
Organization. They broadly conclude that the sociodemographic emphasis, which dominated many early segmentation attempts, is less effective than psychographic segmentation bases, and they also highlight the importance of perceived consumer effectiveness. One of the more sophisticated attempts at a segmentation, which encompasses a range of inuences and different behaviors, was undertaken by the British Market Research Bureau for the U.K.s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (158). This also segmented people according to the barriers that deterred people from greener behaviors.
6.2. Modeling Green Consumer Behavior

Green consumption research has involved applying (and sometimes adapting) established theories and models from consumer behavior research to PEB, and in some cases, new green consumption theories and models have been proposed [a comprehensive review of consumer behavior theories and models and their application to green consumption is provided in Jacksons research monograph Motivating Sustainable Consumption (3)]. Among the models most commonly applied to green consumerism are the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the related theory of planned behavior (TPB). These view behaviors as shaped by intentions, which in turn are driven by consumer attitudes toward that behavior, and expected outcomes from it, and also by a subjective norm reecting social beliefs about what others will think (in the case of TPB, perceived behavioral control is also included as a moderator of norms, intentions, and behavior). Despite the popularity of TPB and TRA modeling approaches to green consumption behaviors, they have some severe limitations, which are explored by Davies and colleagues (97) in the context of recycling behaviors. One common criticism of TRA and TPB is that they neglect the important inuence of context, which led to the development
6. ANALYZING GREEN CONSUMPTION

Early green consumption research embodied a notion of a single specic type of green consumer, whose environmental concern was a product of a narrow range of sociodemographic and psychographic variables. There was also an assumption that this concern would translate into changed consumption behavior relatively consistently across different consumption spheres. As the body of research has matured and expanded, it has become clear that the reality is far more complex than this, and other studies have emerged that have identifed and analyzed some of the complexities.
6.1. Segmenting Green Markets

Finding meaningful and consistent ways to segment green markets has been one main stream of green consumer research, and many of the earliest approaches to segmentation were reviewed by Straughan & Roberts (86). Their review mainly covers academic studies but includes the best-known commercial segmentation from the market research rm Roper
212 Peattie
of Stern and colleagues Attitude-BehaviorContext (ABC) model (160). As the name suggests, this views behavior as a product of both consumer attitudes and the context in which they operate (159, 160). Alternatively, the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability model distills the essence of the TRA to provide an explanation of the motivation for particular behaviors, but also states that eventual behavior will also be determined by the consumers ability to engage in the behavior (in terms of skills and task knowledge) and the extent to which their situation provides the relevant opportunity to engage in it. This model has been applied to PEB, such as household energy consumption reduction (161). Schwartzs norm activation theory (162) views behavior as driven by personal norms, which are shaped by consumer perceptions about the consequences of behavior and their feelings of personal responsibility for those consequences. This has been applied to a number of green behaviors, including recycling, household energy adaptations, and exploring alternatives to car use (145, 163, 164). The themes of the consequences of consumption and the personal responsibility of consumers are continued by Stern and colleagues ValueBelief-Norm Model. This model sees the development of personal proenvironmental norms among consumers as crucial to promote both private behaviors of green consumption and a sense of environmental citizenship to generate greater support for proenvironmental public policies (149, 159, 165). Stern views the development of such proenvironmental beliefs and norms as owing from the acceptance of a NEP in which conventional egotistic values (i.e., individualistic and materialistic consumer values) are balanced by social altruistic values and environmentally oriented biospheric values (160).
that there may be spillover effects in which involvement in one form of PEB increases the propensity of consumers to engage in others (166, 167). This has led to a search for catalyst behaviors, such as engagement in recycling, whereby involvement may act as a starting point for other behaviors. Biswas and colleagues (168), for example, found signicant correlations between recycling behaviors and the purchase of recycled/recyclable products. Thgersen & Olanders Danish research (120) showed that individuals were fairly consistent within similar categories of behavior. They found signicant correlations between buying organic food and recycling; buying organic food and using alternative transport; and recycling and using alternative transport, which were accounted for by common motivational causes linked to general environmental values and concern. Several explanations can be put forward as to why one behavior may lead to another. It may mark the beginning of the consumer constructing an identity as a green consumer, attaching more value to the environment because they are engaged in one PEB, or because involvement leads to greater awareness of environmental issues or social norms about them. An alternative view is that there may be negative spillovers (or perhaps more accurately behavioral containment) in which engagement in one type of behavior provides reluctant consumers with a reason not to adopt others (169), the logic being I recycle my waste, therefore I dont need to worry about saving energy.
6.4. The Attitude-Behavior Gap

One notable and recurring theme within the research literature is the attitude-behavior gap reecting the fact that environmental knowledge and strongly held proenvironmental values, attitudes, and intentions frequently fail to translate into green purchasing and other PEB in practice (48, 142, 170). One of the commonest explanations for this gap is that it reects a tendency for studies to overreport the strength of environmental attitudes or
6.3. Behavioral Catalysts and Spillovers

Insights from psychology demonstrate that types of behavior can be interconnected and
intentions owing to a bias linked to the social acceptability of proenvironmental responses (11). The attitude/intention-behavior gap may also be underrepresented in the literature because research often relies on self-reported behaviors, which may be overstated. Davies and colleagues (97) study of recycling behavior relied on direct observation of participation in curbside recycling schemes and found that 84% of nonparticipants still claimed that they recycled some to all of their household waste. Several explanations for these observed gaps are proposed. Some relate to consumers themselves, whereby habits, nancial constraints, or lifestyles act as a constraint, whereas others reect specic types of purchases in which old brand loyalties, uncertainties, or perceived trade-offs between different ethical factors provide disincentives to PEB (47, 169171). Ottman and colleagues (172), commenting on the results of Roper ASWs Green Gauge R research, identify the key reason why consumers do not buy green products as the commonplace belief that they require sacrices in terms of convenience, costs, or performance without providing signicant real environmental benets. There may also be social norm effects at work. Gupta & Ogden (126) when researching energy conservation found a strong reference group effect and a tendency for a gap to emerge where there was a lack of trust in others, low expectations that others would join in, and a perceived lack of efcacy.
models of consumption behavior that can be applied to green consumption, such as by extending Bagozzi and colleaguess Comprehensive Model of Consumer Action (174). However, their complexity make them difcult to test holistically (3). Most research instead tests particular sets of relationships as a subset of such comprehensive models, but this may not reveal the relative importance of difference types of inuence nor provide an understanding of how such comprehensive models of behavior might operate at a total systems level (3). Barr (115) tested a model of postuse behaviors (including waste minimization, reuse, and recycling behaviors) that integrated values, psychological factors, and situational factors. This showed that, as well as demonstrating that proenvironmental values were signicant in waste minimization and reuse (but not recycling) behaviors, all those behaviors were inuenced by the following situational variables: service provision, sociodemographics, behavioral experience, policy interventions/instruments, global environmental knowledge, waste knowledge, policy knowledge, and knowing where/how to recycle.
PEBs were also inuenced by the following psychological variables: perception of the environmental problem, outcome beliefs of behavior, active concern and obligation, logistics of behavior, subjective norms, ascription of responsibility to act, citizenship beliefs, and intrinsic motivation and response efcacy. Barr considers this set of inuences capable of affecting a range of other green consumption behaviors and of setting an agenda for policy makers and businesses to address in developing products, services, and strategies to motivate green consumption behavior.
6.5. Complexity and Integration

Although modeling approaches that apply or extend theories like TPB are a popular approach to researching green consumption behavior, their value is limited by tendencies to focus on a small number of inuences within the model and to treat heterogeneous PEBs alike. Over time, attempts to create more integrated models, which combine insights from economics, psychology and sociology, have emerged in an attempt to capture the variety of behavioral inuences (173). Jackson (3) discusses attempts to create comprehensive
214 Peattie
Ultimately what the research reveals is that green consumption is a complex process, given the heterogeneity of consumers, what they consume, and the dynamic context of the diverse purchasing and consumption situations they operate within (99, 144, 175). Even the greenest of consumers are likely to have types of behavior they treat as exceptions. McDonald and colleagues (176) found that many, exhibiting strongly green behaviors, would treat behaviors such as private car use or long-haul ights for holidays as exceptions to which green values and criteria were not applied. The reality of consumer decision processes is that competing values and priorities and varying contexts lead to complex compromises of economics, values, and practicalities, sometimes leading to paradoxical outcomes (176, 177).
7. MOTIVATING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

The ultimate aim of much research into green consumption behavior is to understand how to motivate, inuence, and harness it in pursuit of commercial or public policy goals (27, 158). This issue is tackled in depth by Jackson (3), and many of the key research ndings concern relatively obvious steps, such as the provision of better environmental literacy and knowledge through education, technical improvements to key products, regulation and scal incentives, and structural changes to facilitate greener behaviors. Developing strategies to encourage PEB among businesses and public policy organizations (27, 158, 178) is another signicant eld of research, but because it more accurately describes the behavior of those organizations, it is largely beyond the scope of this review. However, certain means to encourage green consumer behavior are worth specic discussion here.
labeling and certication. Most eco-labeling initiatives target the choice phase of consumption by informing consumers about ingredients, production methods, or in-use resource efciency. Other forms of label are starting to emerge to also inuence other aspects of the consumption process, such as life span labeling, which gives consumers extra information about the potential life span of a product and the potential to repair it (179). Labels can help to address lack of environmental literacy among consumers, information asymmetry between producers and consumers, and the erosion of consumer trust caused by media coverage of business greenwash (179). Labels can contain both visual cues and textual information, and consumers appear to respond to both (180). However, there is research evidence suggesting that in some cases the presence of eco-labels can stimulate additional consumption, which negates any environmental benets from greener choices (181, 182). As Rex & Baumann (179) observe, the research into eco-labeling has been hampered by a lack of integration with more mainstream research in marketing and consumer behavior. It could, for example, be better integrated with research into green branding strategies (48, 183).
7.2. Choice Editing

One relatively new research theme linked to choice is the phenomenon of choice editing, which involves offering consumers restricted choice by removing the least sustainable options. Although it goes against the notion of consumer sovereignty, it may provide a solution to problems of information overload or uncertainty among consumers. Choice editings effectiveness is also dependent on consumer trust. Although it is being proposed as a potential pathway to greener consumption in policy spheres (158), the practical acceptability and limitations of choice editing still need to be tested through research.
7.1. Green Labeling

The marketing efforts of companies are a key inuence on PEB, as discussed by Lebel & Lorek (2), with a particular emphasis on
7.3. Social Marketing

Green consumption research, with its conventional emphasis on purchases, focuses largely
Social marketing: the application of commercial marketing processes and tools to secure behavioral change to reach social or environmental goals
on commercial marketing. However, reducing certain types of consumption, and the environmental impacts of consumption, is an important social goal for many public policy makers (albeit one that, in the case of consumption reduction, can bring policy makers charged with reducing environmental damage into conict with policies to expand economic growth). This has made green consumption an emerging issue within the social marketing agenda and within social marketing scholarship. Social marketing involves the application of commercial marketing principles and techniques to inuence a target audience to change their behavior to meet social goals. Although health has been the dominant eld for social marketing applications and research, it is increasingly being applied to environmental issues (such as recycling) and the promotion of low-carbon behaviors (such as cycling, walking and using public transport), consumption reduction, and the promotion of sustainable life cycles (184186). Social marketing is also potentially signicant because of the emphasis it places on understanding and overcoming the barriers to prosocial (and environmental) behavior (185). Research into green consumption tends to focus on the desired behaviors and how consumers might be incentivized to adopt them. Comparatively little research considers the psychological, physical, social, economic, and structural barriers that might prevent consumers from acting on any environmental concerns and adopting particular PEBs (158, 187).
7.4. Collective Action and Activism

A common criticism of consumer behavior theories and models based on rational choice is their focus on the individual as the unit of choice and behavior (3). There is growing acknowledgment that the behavioral changes needed for sustainability will not be achieved by focusing only on the attitudes and behavior of individuals (188). Alternative, and more sustainable, approaches to meeting our wants and needs may require more collective, community-based solutions. For example, some waste reducing
216 Peattie
strategies for postuse product disposition are not feasible for individual consumers and depend on collective solutions (58). Community schemes for the provision of more sustainable energy, food, and transport are emerging as part of the sustainable communities movement, yet the consumer behavior implications of such collective solutions are still poorly understood. There is anecdotal evidence showing that community-based approaches to promoting green consumption behaviors, such as Global Action Plans Action at Home initiative or the EcoTeam program, are particularly effective (189). A better understanding of group norms and processes in community settings could help develop other effective community schemes for the future. One approach to behavior change, which combines the methodology of social marketing with an emphasis on collective action, is community-based social marketing. This has been widely and successfully applied in practical behavior change programs to support the promotion of car sharing as well as water and energy savings (190, 191). Such programs are based on the use of formative market research but are underrepresented in published social marketing research, which continues to be dominated by more traditional health applications. When collective action is combined with strongly held consumer values, the result can be consumer activism where research has mostly focused on protests and boycotts (192, 193) but can also involve positive responses in the form of buycotts (194). Such consumer actions are frequently inuenced by the media and campaigning organizations, and by using online social media, these activities can be organized and internationalized at great speed.
7.5. Alternative Consumption Communities

Research into collective PEBs also considers the emergence of alternative consumption communities, which people join with the explicit aim of adopting a lower-consumption lifestyle (195),
usually through processes of voluntary simplicity (195, 196). Such communities are founded on shared environmental values and, in some cases, on shared religious beliefs. They tend to evolve their own sets of norms, which inuence the consumption behaviors of their members. These communities engage in a reduced level of material consumption compared to the norms of the societies within which they exist and also practice responsible consumption through ethical choices, such as reduced levels of meat consumption. As well as strategies aiming to reduce waste and reduce consumption of some products, they also seek more materially efcient forms of consumption. These include purchasing communally in bulk to reduce packaging and transport impacts, purchasing secondhand products, and extending product life spans through repairs (58).
ucts like cars. The development of such closedloop production and consumption systems blurs the conventional division between consumers and producers so that they become cocreators of sustainable value. Lebel & Lorek (2) propose codesign efforts as a key mechanism for sustainablility, and such cooperative value creation processes were observed by Heiskanen & Lovio (198) in interactions between producers and users in the adoption of low-energy housing developments in Finland. They found that user involvement in the innovation process, good communication, and knowledge sharing between the two can aid the process of innovation and the adoption of innovations.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The body of research into green consumption behaviors has grown rapidly over the past three decades. Its value, however, has been limited by the continuing preference of businesses, policy makers, and researchers to address the need for more sustainable patterns of production and consumption in terms of incremental changes to consumption behaviors that do not challenge the industrialized consumer lifestyle and the DSP. Therefore, we know an increasing amount about who uses low-energy lightbulbs, eats organic food, drives a hybrid car, opts to pay a green energy tariff, takes eco-vacations, and recycles their trash, and why. The fact that food, home management, and transport behaviors account for the majority of environmental impacts justies the research agenda having a clear focus. Unfortunately, the narrowness of that focus in terms of products, stages in the consumption process, impacts considered, and questions studied creates the impression of a research eld lacking real momentum. Research on attitudes, values, intentions and norms and their impact on specic intentions and behaviors continue to dominate the agenda (199), despite growing evidence that their inuence varies across different types of behavior and contexts (12, 41, 103, 107, 108, 114, 115, 135, 144, 150). As Kilbourne & Beckmann (9) noted, somewhat ruefully, the upsurge of articles on green consumption in the
7.6. Integrating Production and Consumption

An important aspect of research into green consumption is that it regularly blurs the boundaries between what are conventionally considered to be production and consumption issues (and therefore underlines the observation that sustainable consumption and production cannot be split meaningfully into two separate agendas). For example, in the case of alternative consumption communities, they also demonstrate a desire to be self-reliant by producing some of their own food and other products (196). This is typically done with the support of composting, a process usually classied as a waste behavior, but it also produces a useful soil conditioner. Similarly, the Community Supported Agriculture movement links consumers and producers to form localized food consumption and production systems (197). End-of-life product take-back systems also blur these boundaries and challenge the conventional view of linear market structures and industry value chains. Product take back for reuse, remanufacture, or recycling involves the consumer acting as a resupplier of value to the manufacturer, particularly for high-value prod-
mid-to-late 1990s involved numerous titles that were indistinguishable from those of 25 years previously when the eld rst emerged. By contrast, we are only beginning to understand the broader picture of what an environmentally sustainable consumer lifestyle within an industrialized economy might look like and what transformations in consumer behaviors, communities, buildings, transport infrastructure, scal policies, and technologies are required to make progress toward it. There is therefore a signicant gap in the research connecting the realities of current consumer behavior with policy ambitions to develop zerocarbon or sustainable economies (129). Closing this gap requires a move away from the current overreliance on single disciplinary perspectives (174) toward much greater integration between the research traditions from economics, psychology, and marketing, with the more radical research from sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and industrial ecology, which challenges the DSP of industrialized consumer societies. Some of the limitations of green consumer research reect the methodologies employed and the emphasis on quantitative methods and research instruments, which rely on selfreported consumer intentions and behaviors. Some of the research studies within this review involve practical social experiments and observations of actual behavior (83, 97) or longitudinal studies (128). Most, however, represent single snapshots of consumers perceptions of very specic aspects of their lives and behaviors, which may tell us very little about their lifestyles, environmental impacts, and ability to move toward signicantly more sustainable forms of consumption. As Eden and colleagues (102) suggest, it is time to put consumers back into research as real, complex people we get to know, rather than as supercial constructs that researchers make assumptions about. Our limited understanding of green consumer behavior largely reects the reductionist tradition of research, with its emphasis on deconstructing complex social realities into relatively small sets of interacting factors in the
218 Peattie
hope of isolating cause-and-effect relationships. This creates an emphasis on understanding consumers as individuals, the specic behaviors they engage in (such as purchase or recycling), their behavior in relation to particular types of products (such as organic food or low-energy bulbs), all at specic times and within particular consumption contexts. The end result is a lot of individual jigsaw puzzle pieces that do not yet produce a clear picture, or what Jackson calls a well-informed confusion (3). The narrow focus of research in methodology, research questions, and environmental impacts is typied by the phrase other things being equal, which is commonly applied as a caveat, particularly by those seeking to build and test models of green consumption behavior. This rather misses the point made back in 1974 by Kardash (8) when the concept of green consumption rst emerged: If other things were equal, all of us (perhaps with the exception of a small minority who enjoy contrariness) would choose the greener of two products. Understanding green consumption is therefore a question of understanding those inequalities between green and conventional products, choices, and behaviors (47), which may include price premiums; real or imagined compromises between environmental attributes, brand loyalties, performance or convenience; differences in knowledge and trust; as well as all the social symbolism, personal identity dimensions, and practical implications that can be embodied in our behaviors. The future research agenda may also be signicantly altered owing to the consequences of the nancial crunch, which in the years since 2008 has shifted the social and economic landscape. Efforts to promote sustainable consumption behaviors against a backdrop of economic difculty and austerity in many countries may fare very differently from those that occurred in the midst of economic expansion and rising afuence. Returns to more self-reliant behaviors, such as growing your own vegetables, and shifting values concerning thrift and frugality may well act as pathways toward more sustainable consumption norms and behaviors (38, 200).
SUMMARY POINTS 1. Green consumer research has been dominated largely by research from economics, which has emphasized rational choice; psychology, which has stressed the role of attitudes, values, and social norms; and marketing, which has combined both. 2. The idea of specic behaviors being more or less green is problematic because there is frequently a disconnect between environmental motivations and outcomes, and the ultimate sustainability of a behavior depends on understanding the entire process of consumption and how individual acts of consumption combine to form a lifestyle. 3. The majority of the environmental impacts of private consumption relate to a small number of consumption spheres linked to homes and household management, food choices, behaviors at home, and travel behaviors. These have been the major focus of research. 4. Despite attempts to prole green consumers and create robust green market segmentations, evidence is growing that individuals are highly inconsistent in the types of consumption and behaviors they integrate environmental values into. 5. The research literature mostly considers consumers as individuals, but consumers may respond as members of families, households, or communities, and developing more sustainable patterns of consumption may require more collective behaviors. 6. Much of the research focuses on purchase intentions, purchase behaviors, and the frequently observed attitude-behavior gap, which appears to exist between them. 7. Methodologically, building and quantitatively testing models of consumer behavior dominates research. Green consumer behavior, however, is sufciently complex that comprehensive models are rendered untestable, and partial and abstracted models provide only partial answers. 8. The majority of research has focused on a small number of behaviors with incremental environmental benets, such as purchasing organic food, recycling, reducing car use, or adopting green electricity tariffs. Relatively little research challenges the dominant social paradigm and consumerist lifestyle within industrialized economies.
FUTURE ISSUES 1. Research is needed that more strongly integrates sustainability principles into consumption behavior to move beyond simply reducing environmental impacts to challenging the fundamental unsustainability of many aspects of consumer lifestyles in industrialized economies. 2. There are opportunities to apply household metabolism approaches from industrial ecology to better understand the total material implications of collective consumption behaviors over time. 3. A better understanding of product use behaviors could help to identify opportunities to reduce environmental impacts during the use phase (through behaviors such as ecodriving or product repair and maintenance).
www.annualreviews.org Green Consumption
219
4. The potential inuence of emotional responses in shaping green consumption behaviors may provide new avenues for research and allow for new approaches to inuencing consumer behavior. 5. The inuence of expectations and sense of responsibility on consumption behaviors remains underresearched, and the potential for expectations management to motivate proenvironmental behaviors is worth exploring. 6. The potential inuence of group norms and collective consumption initiatives and behaviors is likely to emerge as a signicant eld for future research. 7. The integration of consumer and producer behavior through codesign and collaborative value production initiatives and also through product take-back systems provides a radically different, but potentially fruitful, eld for future consumer behavior research. 8. The impact of postcrunch inuences on consumption values, norms, and behaviors is presenting signicant new research opportunities globally. In tackling these, it will be important to integrate research on consumption in afuent economies with consideration of the needs of those at the base of the pyramid, from a social and environmental justice perspective.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I am the director of a U.K. government-funded research center whose remit includes research into sustainable production and consumption. LITERATURE CITED
1. Princen T, Maniates M, Conca K, eds. 2002. Confronting Consumption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2. Lebel L, Lorek S. 2008. Enabling sustainable production-consumption systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:24175 3. Jackson T. 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. London: Policy Stud. Inst. 4. Magnusson MK. 2003. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behavior. Appetite 40:10917 5. UN Environ. Program. (UNEP). 2001. Consumption Opportunities: Strategies for Change. Paris: UNEP 6. Fisk G. 1974. Marketing and the Ecological Crisis. New York: Harper & Row 7. Henion KE, Kinnear TC. 1976. Ecological Marketing. Chicago, IL: Am. Mark. Assoc. 8. Kardash WJ. 1976. Corporate responsibility and the quality of life: developing the ecologically concerned consumer. See Ref. 7, pp. 59 9. Kilbourne WE, Beckmann SC. 1998. Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and the environment. J. Mark. Manag. 14:51332 10. van Dam YK, Apeldoorn PAC. 1996. Sustainable marketing. J. Macromark. 16:4556 11. Follows SB, Jobber D. 2000. Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a consumer model. Eur. J. Mark. 34:72346 12. Cleveland M, Kalamas M, Laroche M. 2005. Shades of green. J. Consum. Mark. 22:198212 13. Rpke I. 2001. The environmental impact of changing consumption patterns: a survey. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 15:12745 14. Mont O, Bleischwitz R. 2007. Sustainable consumption and resource management in the light of life cycle thinking. Eur. Environ. 17:5976 15. Speirs D, Tucker P. 2001. A prole of recyclers making special trips to recycle. J. Environ. Manag. 62:20120
220 Peattie
16. Risku-Norja H, Maenpaa I. 2007. MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecol. Econ. 60:70011 17. Edwards-Jones G, Canals LM, Hounsome N, Truninger M, Koerber G. 2008. Testing the assertion that local food is best: the challenges of an evidence-based approach? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19:26574 18. de Boer J, Helms M, Aiking H. 2006. Protein consumption and sustainability: diet diversity in EU-15. Ecol. Econ. 59:26774 19. Mont O, Plepys A. 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? J. Clean. Prod. 16:53137 20. Cohen MJ. 2005. Sustainable consumption American style: nutrition education, active living and nancial literacy. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 12:40718 21. Sanne C. 2005. The consumption of our discontent. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 14:31523 22. Connolly J, Prothero P. 2003. Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consum. Mark. Cult. 6:27591 23. Kilbourne WE, Beckmann SC, Thelen E. 2002. The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination. J. Bus. Res. 55:193204 24. Princen T, Maniates M, Conca K. 2002. Confronting consumption. See Ref. 1, pp. 120 25. Dickens P. 2004. Society and Nature: Changing our Environment, Changing Ourselves. Cambridge, UK: Polity 26. Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH. 2002. A framework for sustainability science: a renovated IPAT identity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:786065 27. Geyer-Allely E. 2002. Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD 28. Bodur M, Sarigollu E. 2005. Environmental sensitivity in a developing country: consumer classication and implications. Environ. Behav. 37:487510 29. Bhate S. 2002. One world, one environment, one vision: Are we close to achieving this? An exploratory study of consumer environmental behavior across three countries. J. Consum. Behav. 2:16984 30. Jain S, Kaur G. 2006. Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and proling green consumers: an exploratory study of consumers in India. J. Int. Consum. Market. 18:10717 31. Synnovate/BBC World News. 2008. Is green the new black? London. http://www.synovate. com/changeagent/index.php/site/full_story/is_green_the_new_black/ 32. Sarigollu E. 2009. A cross-country exploration of environmental attitudes. Environ. Behav. 41:36586 33. Zukin S, Maguire JS. 2004. Consumers and consumption. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:17397 34. Burgess J, Bedford T, Hobson K, Davies G, Harrison CM. 2003. (Un) sustainable consumption. In Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science, ed. F Berkhout, M Leach, I Scoones, pp. 26191. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 35. Schaefer A, Crane A. 2005. Addressing sustainability and consumption. J. Macromarket. 25:7692 36. Shove E. 2003. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. J. Consum. Policy 26:395418 37. Jackson T, Jager W, Stagl S. 2004. Beyond insatiability: needs theory, consumption and sustainability. In Consumption: Perspectives from Ecological Economics, ed L Reisch, I Rpke, pp. 79110. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 38. Taylor P, Morin R, Parker K, Cohn D, Wang W. 2009. Luxury or necessity? The public makes a U-turn. Pew Res. Cent. Rep., Washington, DC 39. Jackson T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth. London: Sustainable Development Commission 40. Hammond AL, Kramer WJ, Katz RS, Tran JT, Walker C. 2007. The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid. Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst. 41. McDonald S, Oates C, Thyne M, Alevizou P, McMorland L. 2009. Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33:13745 42. Pilgrim SE, Smith D, Pretty J. 2007. A cross-regional assessment of the factors affecting eco-literacy: implications for policy and practice. Ecol. Appl. 17:174251 43. Jackson T. 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a double dividend in sustainable consumption? J. Ind. Ecol. 9:1936
44. van der Zwan F, Bhamra T. 2003. Services marketing: taking up the sustainable development challenge. J. Serv. Mark. 17:34156 45. Auld G, Gulbrandsen LH, McDermott CL. 2008. Certication schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:187211 46. Mohr LA, Eroglu D, Ellen PS. 1998. The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers communication. J. Consum. Aff. 32:3055 47. Peattie K. 2001. Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 10:18799 48. Pickett-Baker J, Ozaki R. 2008. Pro-environmental products: marketing inuence on consumer purchase decision. J. Consum. Mark. 25:28193 49. Carrigan M, Attalla A. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer: Do ethics matter in purchasing behavior? J. Consum. Mark. 18:56077 50. Hogg N, Jackson T. 2008. An exploration of the potential for reduced material intensity in music delivery. J. Ind. Ecol. 131:12746 51. UK Dep. Transp. 2007. National Travel Survey. London: Station. Off. 52. Rubik F, Frankl P, eds. 2005. The Future of Eco-Labelling: Making Environmental Product Information Systems Effective. Shefeld, UK: Greenleaf 53. Wener R, Carmalt H. 2006. Environmental psychology and sustainability in high-rise structures. Technol. Soc. 28:15767 54. Weber CL, Koomey JG, Matthews HS. 2009. The energy and climate change impacts of different music delivery methods. Final Rep. to Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA. http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/CDsvsdownloadsrelease.pdf 55. van Nes N, Cramer J. 2006. Product lifetime optimization: a challenging strategy towards more sustainable consumption patterns. J. Clean. Prod. 14:130718 56. Cooper T. 2005. Slower consumption: reections on product life spans and the throwaway society. J. Ind. Ecol. 9:5167 57. Jacoby J, Berning CK, Dietvorst TF. 1977. What about disposition? J. Mark. 41:2228 58. Bekin C, Carrigan M, Szmigin I. 2007. Beyond recycling: commons-friendly waste reduction at new consumption communities. J. Consum. Behav. 6:27186 59. Seitz MA, Peattie K. 2004. Meeting the closed-loop challenge: the case of remanufacturing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 46:7489 60. Hertwich E. 2005. Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:467384 61. Niva M, Timonen P. 2008. The role of consumers in product-oriented environmental policy: Can the consumer be the driving force for environmental improvements? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 25:33138 62. Zhang T. 2005. Ecological Footprint Budgeting: Environmental Analysis of the Generic American Car. Berkeley, CA: Green Manuf. Group/Lab. Manuf. Sustain. 63. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guin e J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, et al. 2005. Environmental Impact of Products e (EIPRO) 2005: Analysis of the Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts Related to the Total Final Consumption of the EU-25. Brussels: Eur. Comm. Jt. Res. Cent. 64. Hines F, Peattie K. 2006. Critical Review of Data for Environmental Impacts of Household Activities: Executive Summary Report. Cardiff, UK: BRASS Res. Cent. 65. Tukker A. 2006. Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 10:15982 66. Rees W, Wackernagel M. 1994. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, ed. AM Jannson, M Hammer, C Folke, R Costanza. Washington, DC: Island 67. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Karlsson R, Moll HC, Kok R. 2002. Household metabolism in the ve cities: Swedish national report-Stockholm. Swedish Natl. Rep. ToolSust Project. FMS Rep. 177, Environ. Strateg. Res. Group, Stockholm 68. Spangenberg J, Lorek S. 2002. Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from aggregate environmental pressures to priority elds of action. Ecol. Econ. 43:12740
222 Peattie
69. MacGillivray A, Levett-Therivel. 2004. Consumer Expenditure and Environmental Impact: Finding the Right UK Model. London: Sustain. Consump. Roundtable 70. Hails C, Humphrey S, Loh J, Goldnger S, Chapagain A, et al. 2008. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switz.: WWF Int. 71. Venetoulis J, Talberth J. 2008. Rening the ecological footprint. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10:44169 72. Sutcliffe M, Hooper P, Howell R. 2008. Can eco-footprinting analysis be used successfully to encourage more sustainable behavior at the household level? Sustain. Dev. 16:116 73. Pimentel D, Pimentel M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78(Suppl.):66063 74. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Gonz lez AD. 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to a climate change. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89(Suppl.):170409 75. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, et al. 2009. Rebuilding global sheries. Science 31:57885 76. Sonesson U, Mattsson B, Nybrant T, Ohlsson T. 2005. Industrial processing versus home cooking: an environmental comparison between three ways to prepare a meal. AMBIO 34:41421 77. Bin S, Dowlatabadi H. 2005. Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33:197208 78. Anable J, Lane B, Kelay T. 2006. An evidence base review of public attitudes to climate change and transport behaviour: nal report. Contract No. PPRO 004/006/006, Dep. Transp., London 79. Cao X, Mokhtarian PL. 2005. How do individuals adapt their personal travel? A conceptual exploration of the consideration of travel-related strategies. Transp. Policy 12:199206 80. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Linden AL. 1999. Travel patterns and environmental effects now and in the future: implications of differences in energy consumption among socio-economic groups. Ecol. Econ. 30:40517 81. Stern PC. 1999. Information, incentives and pro-environmental consumer behavior. J. Consum. Policy 22:46178 82. Eriksson C. 2004. Can green consumerism replace environmental regulation? Resour. Energy Econ. 26:28193 83. Bartelings H, Sterner T. 1999. Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environ. Resour. Econ. 13:47391 84. Turrentine TS, Kurani KS. 2007. Car buyers and fuel economy. Energy Policy 35:121323 85. Sorrell S, Schleich J, Scott S, OMalley E, Trace F, et al. 2000. Barriers to Energy Efciency in Public and Private Organisations: Final Report. Brussels: Eur. Comm. 86. Straughan RD, Roberts JA. 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J. Consum. Mark. 16:55875 87. Jenkins RR, Martinez SA, Palmer K, Podolsky M. 2003. The determinants of household recycling: a material-specic analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:294318 88. Laroche M, Bergeron J, Barbaro-Forleo G. 2001. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 18:50320 89. Bhate S, Lawler K. 1997. Environmentally friendly products: factors that inuence their adoption. Technovation 17:45765 90. Robinson R, Smith C. 2002. Psychosocial and demographic variables associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainably produced foods as dened by the Midwest Food Alliance. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 34:31625 91. Casimir G, Dutilh C. 2003. Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 27:31625 92. Olli E, Grendstad D, Wollebark D. 2001. Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back social context. Environ. Behav. 33:181208 93. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM. 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in proling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 56:46580 94. Lenzen M, Murray S. 2003. The ecological footprint: issues and trends. Integr. Sustain. Anal. Res. Pap. 0103, Univ. Sydney
95. WWF Cymru. 2002. The Footprint of Wales: Report to the Welsh Assembly Government. WWF Cymru, Cardiff, UK 96. Bartkus KR, Hartman CL, Howell RD. 1999. The measurement of consumer environmental knowledge: revisions and extensions. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 14:12946 97. Davies J, Foxall GR, Pallister J. 2002. Beyond the intentionbehavior mythology: an integrated model of recycling. Mark. Theory 2:29113 98. Pedersen ER, Neergaard P. 2006. Caveat emptorlet the buyer beware! Environmental labeling and the limitations of green consumerism. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 15:1529 99. Moisander J. 2007. Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30:4049 100. Oskamp S. 2000. Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity. J. Soc. Issues 56:37390 101. Hobson K. 2003. Consumption, environmental sustainability and human geography in Australia: a missing research agenda? Aust. Geogr. Stud. 41:14855 102. Eden S, Bear C, Walker G. 2007. Mucky carrots and other proxies: problematising the knowledge-x for sustainable and ethical consumption. Geoforum 39:104457 103. Carrus G, Passafaro P, Bonnes M. 2008. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviors: the case of recycling and use of public transportation. J. Environ. Psychol. 28:5162 104. Han S, Lerner JS, Keltner D. 2007. Feelings and consumer decision making: the appraisal-tendency framework. J. Consum. Psychol. 17:15868 105. Obermiller C. 1995. The baby is sick/the baby is well. A test of environmental communications appeals. J. Advert. 24:5570 106. Bamberg S, Schmidt P. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 35:26485 107. Pepper M, Jackson T, Uzzell D. 2009. An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33:12636 108. Thgerson J, Grunert-Beckmann SC. 1997. Values and attitude formation towards emerging attitude objects: from recycling to general, waste minimizing behavior. Adv. Consum. Res. 24:18289 109. Leiserowitz AA, Kates RW, Parris TM. 2006. Sustainability values, attitudes and behaviors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:41344 110. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. 2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev Environ. Resour. 30:33572 111. Krystallis A, Chryssohoidis G. 2005. Consumers willingness to pay for organic food: factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 107:32043 112. Nixon H, Saphores J-DM, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. 2009. Understanding preferences for recycling electronic waste in California: the inuence of environmental attitudes and beliefs on willingness to pay. Environ. Behav. 41:10124 113. Guti rrez Karp D. 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 28:111 e 33 114. Corraliza JA, Berenguer J. 2000. Environmental values, beliefs and actions: a situational approach. Environ. Behav. 32:83248 115. Barr S. 2007. Factors inuencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: a U.K. case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 39:43573 116. Brook Lyndhurst. 2004. Bad Habits & Hard Choices: In Search of Sustainable Lifestyles. London: Brook Lyndhurst. 117. Kilbourne WE, Beckmann SC, Thelen E. 2002. The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination. J. Bus. Res. 55:193204 118. Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK. 2004. Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: an examination of the New Ecological Paradigm in a social psychological context. Environ. Behav. 36:15786 119. Harris PG. 2006. Environmental perspective and behavior in China: synopsis and bibliography. Environ. Behav. 38:521 120. Thgersen J, Olander F. 2006. To what degree are environmentally benecial choices reective of a general conservation stance? Environ. Behav. 38:55069 121. Loureiro ML, Lotade J. 2005. Do Fair Trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecol. Econ. 53:12938
224 Peattie
122. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56:42542 123. Kilbourne WE, Polonsky MJ. 2005. Environmental attitudes and their relation to the dominant social paradigm among university students in New Zealand and Australia. Australas. Mark. J. 13:3748 124. Bentley M. 2000. Consumer trends and expectations: an international survey focusing on environmental impacts. Ind. Environ. 23:5759 125. De Young R. 2000. Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56:50926 126. Gupta S, Ogden DT. 2009. To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J. Consum. Mark. 26:37691 127. Zacca E. 2008. Assessing the role of consumers in sustainable product policies. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10:5167 128. Wray-Lake L, Flanagan CA, Osgood DW. 2010. Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs and behaviors across three decades. Environ. Behav. 42:6185 129. Herring H. 1999. Does energy efciency save energy? The debate and its consequences. Appl. Energy 63:20926 130. Throne-Holst H, St E, Strandbakken P. 2007. The role of consumption and consumers in zero emission strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 15:132836 131. Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HAM. 2004. Effecting durable change: a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ. Behav. 36:34167 132. Empacher C, Gotz K. 2004. Lifestyle approaches as a sustainable consumption policya German ex ample. In The Ecological Economics of Consumption, ed. LA Reisch, I Rpke. pp. 190206. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 133. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C. 2010. Americans Actions to Conserve Energy, Reduce Waste, and Limit Global Warming: January 2010. New Haven, CT: Yale Project Clim. Change, Yale Univ./George Mason Univ. 134. Warde A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice. J. Consum. Cult. 5:13153 135. Barr S, Gilg AW, Ford N. 2005. The household energy gap: examining the divide between habitual and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy 33:142544 136. Knussen C, Yule F, Mackenzie J, Wells M. 2004. An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behavior, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 24:23746 137. Tucker P, Speirs D. 2003. Attitudes and behavioral change in household waste management behaviors. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 46:289307 138. Fekadu Z, Kraft P. 2001. Self-identity in planned behavior perspective: past behavior and its moderating effects on self-identity-intention relations. Soc. Behav. Personal. 29:67186 139. Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S. 2004. Recycling: planned and self-expressive behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 24:22736 140. Sparks P, Shepherd R. 1992. Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: assessing the role of identication with green consumerism. Soc. Psychol. Q. 55:38899 141. Autio M, Heiskanen E, Heinonen V. 2009. Narratives of green consumers: the antihero, the environmental hero and the anarchist. J. Consum. Behav. 8:4053 142. Fraj E, Martinez E. 2006. Inuence of personality on ecological consumer behavior. J. Consum. Behav. 5:16781 143. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer attitude-behavioral intention gap. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics 19:16994 144. Dolnicar S, Grun B. 2009. Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environ. Behav. 41:693714 145. Bamberg S. 2006. Is residential relocation a good opportunity to change peoples travel behavior? Results from a theory driven intervention study. Environ. Behav. 38:82040 146. Williams K, Dair C. 2007. A framework of sustainable behaviours that can be enabled through the design of neighbourhood-scale developments. Sustain. Dev. 15:16073 147. Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA, Wier M. 2000. Impact of household consumption on CO2 emissions. Energy Econ. 22:42340
148. Selfa T, Jussaume RA, Winter M. 2008. Envisioning agricultural sustainability from eld to plate: comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practices toward environmentally friendly food and farming in Washington state, USA. J. Rural Stud. 24:26276 149. Spaargaren G, van Vliet BJM. 2000. Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the ecological modernisation of domestic consumption. Environ. Polit. 9:5077 150. Tanner C, Kaiser FG, Kast SW. 2004. Contextual conditions of ecological consumerism: a foodpurchasing survey. Environ. Behav. 36:94111 151. Grnhj A. 2006. Communication about consumption: a family process perspective on green consumer practices. J. Consum. Behav. 5:491503 152. Griskevicius V, Goldstein NJ, Mortensen CR, Cialdini RB, Kenrick DT. 2006. Going along versus going alone: when fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:28194 153. Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. 2008. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35:47282 154. Haron SA, Paim L, Yahaya N. 2005. Towards sustainable consumption: an examination of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 29:42636 155. Stamm KR, Clark F, Eblacas PR. 2000. Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: the case of global warming. Public Underst. Sci. 9:21937 156. Michaelis L. 2001. The Media: A Resource for Sustainable Consumption. Oxford, UK: Oxford Cent. Environ. Ethics Soc. 157. Uzzell D, Muckle R, Jackson T, Ogden J, Barnett J, et al. 2006. Choice Matters: Alternative Approaches to Encourage Sustainable Consumption and Production. Reading, UK: Reading Univ. Environ. Psychol. Group 158. Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff. (Defra). 2008. A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours. London: Defra 159. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6:8197 160. Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signicant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56:407 24 161. Gatersleben B, Steg L, Vlek C. 2002. Measurement and determinants of environmentally signicant consumer behavior. Environ. Behav. 34:33562 162. Schwartz S. 1977. Normative inuences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10:22279 163. Vinning J, Ebreo A. 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behavior. In New Handbook of Environmental Psychology, ed. R Bechtel, A Churchman, pp. 54158. New York: Wiley 164. Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT. 1985. Personal and contextual inuences on household energy adaptations. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:321 165. Seyfang G. 2005. Shopping for sustainability: Can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environ. Polit. 14:290306 166. Thgerson J, Olander F. 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:60530 167. Whitmarsh L. 2009. Behavioural responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J. Environ. Psychol. 29:1323 168. Biswas A, Licata JW, McKee D, Pullig C, Daughtridge C. 2000. The recycling cycle: an empirical examination of consumer waste recycling and recycling shopping behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark. 19:93 105 169. Chatzidakis A, Hibbert S, Smith AP. 2007. Why people dont take their concerns about Fair Trade to the supermarket: the role of neutralization. J. Bus. Ethics 74:89100 170. Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8:23960 171. Biel A, Dahlstrand U. 2005. Values and habits: a dual-process model. In Environment, Information and Consumer Behavior, ed. S Krarup, CS Russell, pp. 3350. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 172. Ottman JA, Stafford ER, Hartman CL. 2006. Avoiding green marketing myopia: ways to improve consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environment 48:2236
226 Peattie
173. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR. 2003. Internal and external inuences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J. Environ. Psychol. 23:23746 174. Bagozzi R, Gurnao-Canli Z, Priester J. 2002. The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open Univ. Press 175. Manzini R, Noci G, Massimiliano O, Pizzurno E. 2006. Assessing environmental product declaration opportunities: a reference framework. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 15:11834 176. McDonald S, Oates CJ, Alevizou PJ, Young W, Hwang K. 2006. Communication strategies for sustainable technologies: identifying patterns in consumer behavior. In Integration and Communication: A Clear Route to Sustainability? Proc. 13th Green. Ind. Netw. Conf. Cardiff, Wales http://gin.confex.com/gin/2006/techprogram/P1684.HTM 177. Szmigin I, Carrigan M, McEachern MG. 2009. The conscious consumer: taking a exible approach to ethical behavior. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33:22431 178. Bator RJ, Cialdini RB. 2000. New ways to promote pro-environmental behavior: the application of persuasion theory to the development of effective pro-environmental public service announcements. J. Soc. Issues 56:52741 179. Rex E, Baumann H. 2007. Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from conventional marketing. J. Clean. Prod. 15:56776 180. Tang E, Fryxell G, Chow CSF. 2004. Visual and verbal communication in the design of eco-label for green consumer products. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 16:85105 181. Bougherara D, Grolleau G, Thiebaut L. 2005. Can labeling policies do more harm than good? An analysis applied to environmental labeling schemes. Eur. J. Law Econ. 19:516 182. Dosi C, Moretto M. 2001. Is eco-labeling a reliable environmental policy measure? Environ. Resour. Econ. 18:11327 183. Hartman P, Apaolaza-Ib nez V. 2006. Effects of green brand communication on brand associations a and attitude. In International Advertising and Communication: Current Insights and Empirical Findings, ed. S Diehl, R Terlutter, pp. 21736. Wiesbaden: Gabler DUV 184. James B. 2002. TravelSmart, large-scale cost-effective mobility management: experiences from Perth, WA. Munic. Eng. 1:3948 185. Peattie K, Peattie S. 2009. Social marketing: a pathway to consumption reduction? J. Bus. Res. 62:26068 186. Barr S, Gilg A, Shaw G. 2006. Promoting Sustainable Lifestyles: A Social Marketing Approach. London: Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff. (Defra) 187. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17:44559 188. Southerton D, Warde A, Hand M. 2004. Consumption and the conventions of practice: a theoretical review of sustainable consumption in relation to the changing infrastructures of bathing and showering. In Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision, ed. D Southerton, H Chappells, B Van Vliet, pp. 3248. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar 189. Burgess J. 2003. Sustainable consumption: Is it really achievable? Consum. Policy Rev. 13:7884 190. McKenzie-Mohr D. 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56:54354 191. Frame B, Newton B. 2007. Promoting sustainability through social marketing: examples from New Zealand. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 31:57181 192. Kozinets RV, Handelman J. 2004. Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements, activism, and ideology. J. Consum. Res. 31:691704 193. Lubell M. 2002. Environmental activism as collective action. Environ. Behav. 34:43154 194. Friedman M. 1996. A positive approach to organized consumer action: the buycott as an alternative to the boycott. J. Consum. Policy 19:43951 195. Shaw D, Newholm T. 2002. Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption. Psychol. Mark. 19:167 85 196. McDonald S, Oates CJ, Young CW, Hwang K. 2006. Toward sustainable consumption: researching voluntary simpliers. Psychol. Mark. 23:51534 197. Thompson CJ, Coskuner-Balli G. 2007. Enchanting ethical consumerism: the case of community supported agriculture. J. Consum. Cult. 7:27583
198. Heiskanen E, Lovio R. 2010. User-producer interaction in housing energy innovations: energy innovation as a communication challenge. J. Ind. Ecol. 14:91102 199. Bamberg S, Moser G. 2006. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 27:1425 200. Hinton E, Redclift M. 2009. Austerity and sufciency: the changing politics of sustainable consumption. Work. Pap. 17, Dep. Geogr., Kings College, London
228
Peattie
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Volume 35, 2010
Contents
Preface p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pv Who Should Read This Series? p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pvii I. Earths Life Support Systems Human Involvement in Food Webs Donald R. Strong and Kenneth T. Frank p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Invasive Species, Environmental Change and Management, and Health Petr Pyek and David M. Richardson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p25 s Pharmaceuticals in the Environment Klaus Kummerer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57 II. Human Use of Environment and Resources Competing Dimensions of Energy Security: An International Perspective Benjamin K. Sovacool and Marilyn A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p77 Global Water Pollution and Human Health Ren P. Schwarzenbach, Thomas Egli, Thomas B. Hofstetter, Urs von Gunten, e and Bernhard Wehrli p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109 Biological Diversity in Agriculture and Global Change Karl S. Zimmerer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 137 The New Geography of Contemporary Urbanization and the Environment Karen C. Seto, Roberto S nchez-Rodrguez, and Michail Fragkias p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167 a Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms Ken Peattie p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
viii
III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment Cities and the Governing of Climate Change Harriet Bulkeley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229 The Rescaling of Global Environmental Politics Liliana B. Andonova and Ronald B. Mitchell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 255 Climate Risk Nathan E. Hultman, David M. Hassenzahl, and Steve Rayner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 283
Evaluating Energy Efciency Policies with Energy-Economy Models Luis Mundaca, Lena Neij, Ernst Worrell, and Michael McNeil p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 305 The State of the Field of Environmental History J.R. McNeill p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2635 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 375 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2635 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles may be found at http://environ.annualreviews.org
Contents
ix

Green Consumption

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Green Consumption

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ANNUAL REVIEWS

Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms

197 199 200 200 201 201 201 202

202 202 203 203 204 204 205

205 205 206 206 206

215 215 215 215 216 216 217 217

1. INTRODUCTION: GREEN CONSUMPTION IN CONTEXT

2. FOUNDATIONS AND SCOPE OF GREEN CONSUMPTION RESEARCH

3. GREEN CONSUMPTION: A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE

3.1. Recognition of a Want or Need

3.2. Information Search

issues that they are aware of and concerned about (42).

3.3. Evaluation of Alternatives

4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE IMPACTS OF PRIVATE CONSUMPTION

4.1. Measuring Collective Consumption Impacts

4.2. Measuring Household Impacts

4.3. Measuring Product Impacts

4.4. Food and Drink Impacts

4.5. Home Management Impacts

5. UNDERSTANDING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

5.1. Economic Rationality

4.6. Transport Impacts

5.4. Environmental Knowledge 5.2. Demographics

5.3. Impact-Income-Spending Relationships

5.5. Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

5.7. Lifestyles and Habits

5.6. Responsibility, Control, and Personal Effectiveness

5.8. Green Consumer Identities and Personalities

5.9. Consumption Context

5.10. Spatial Dimensions

5.11. Consumption as a Social Process

5.12. Social Norms about the Environment

environment generally goes unacknowledged by researchers.

5.13. The Media

6.2. Modeling Green Consumer Behavior

6. ANALYZING GREEN CONSUMPTION

6.1. Segmenting Green Markets

6.4. The Attitude-Behavior Gap

6.3. Behavioral Catalysts and Spillovers

6.5. Complexity and Integration

7. MOTIVATING GREEN CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

7.2. Choice Editing

7.1. Green Labeling

7.3. Social Marketing

7.4. Collective Action and Activism

7.5. Alternative Consumption Communities

7.6. Integrating Production and Consumption

www.annualreviews.org Green Consumption

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 35, 2010

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen