Local Environment, 2015

Vol. 20, No. 2, 220 236, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.837039

Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental

concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint

Emily Huddart Kennedya , Harvey Krahnb and Naomi T. Krogmana

a

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, 515

General Services Bldg, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G2H1; bSociology, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
(Received 16 May 2013; accepted 16 August 2013)
Three parallel lines of inquiry regarding individuals support for the environment have
developed within the environmental social sciences. These include individuals concern
for the environment, research on private sphere pro-environmental behaviour (PEB), i.e.
household actions seeking to improve the environment (e.g. buying better light bulbs),
and more recently, ecological and carbon footprints. Researchers have noted that the
correlates of this third form of support for the environment are not necessarily the
same as the predictors of the rst two forms. Using Canadian survey data, this study
examines the relationships among, and predictors of, all three forms. Evidence that
there is not a link between private sphere PEB and household carbon footprints, and
that measures of socio-economic status (education and income) have different effects
on different types of support for the environment, invites a discussion of whether
environmental social scientists are really counting what counts.
Keywords: carbon footprint; pro-environmental behaviour; environmental concern;
environmental impact

Introduction
For at least four decades, governments around the world have been encouraging people to
reduce emissions in small personal ways, while paying considerably less attention to larger
trends that are leading to increased emissions (Stern 2011). Signicant trends that have
elevated emissions include larger homes and more suburban developments (Garon
2013), higher levels of meat consumption (Sovacool and Brown 2010), and widely affordable automobiles and air travel (Shaw and Thomas 2006). This paper reviews the environmental social science literature and brings together, in an empirical analysis, several
separate research traditions to determine whether we are really counting what counts
with respect to pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs).
Environmental social scientists have focused on three different types of support for the
environment. Most common, perhaps, have been studies of environmental concern (EC)
(Van Liere and Dunlap 1980, Stern 2000, Schultz et al. 2005) dened as the evaluation
of the seriousness of environmental problems (Steg et al. 2011, p. 351). Along with
such research on attitudinal support for the environment, there has been a large number

Corresponding author. Email: huddartk@ualberta.ca

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Local Environment

221

of studies on PEB, that is, behaviour that consciously seeks to minimize the negative
impact of ones actions on the natural and built world (e.g. reducing resource and energy
consumption, use of non-toxic substances, reducing waste production) (Kollmuss and
Agyeman 2002, p. 240). Research linking EC and PEB, informed by the theory of
planned behaviour and theory of reasoned action (among others), has shed light on their
attitudinal, contextual, and socio-demographic correlates (Dunlap et al. 2000, Stern
2000, Kennedy et al. 2009). For example, Kennedy et al. (2009) found that the gap
between environmental values and behaviours in her study of Canadians could be explained
by a perceived lack of support at individual (e.g. knowledge), household (e.g. time), and
societal (e.g. lack of control over decision-making) levels.
Stern (2000) denes several subcategories of PEB: environmental activism (e.g. protesting); non-activist behaviours in the public sphere (e.g. approval of environmental regulations); and private sphere PEB (e.g. purchase, use, and disposal of household products).
Private sphere PEB reects material choices that households can adopt to minimise their
impact on the environment, and is the most commonly practiced form of environmental
commitment (Dietz et al. 2009). Of the various subcategories identied by Stern, we
focus on private sphere PEB, specically, how it correlates with EC and household
carbon footprints.
Largely separate from research on EC and PEB are studies of ecological and carbon
footprints. Ecological footprints are broad measures of human demand on the Earths ecosystems (Guzman et al. 2011, p. 826), while carbon footprints more narrowly measure the
carbon dioxide (CO2)-emitting behaviours of various units of analysis such as households,
factories, or industries (Sovacool and Brown 2010, Jones and Kammen 2011). Given the
immediacy of climate change and other serious threats to the environment, policymakers and researchers might want to pay greater attention to carbon polluting behaviours
and choices that can lock in behaviours (Sanne 2002), such as where to live and how large
a house to have.
Moving in this direction, the current paper examines the relationships among three
types of support for the environment: EC; private sphere PEB; and household carbon footprints. We also examine the socio-demographic correlates of each of these measures, highlighting in particular the association of socio-economic status (SES, as measured by
education and income) with each of these variables. Our intent is to encourage environmental social scientists to consider whether the discipline is assessing what is important
when measuring individual support for the environment.
Before discussing EC, which has been strongly associated with private sphere PEB, we
begin by reviewing the separate literatures on private sphere PEB and household carbon
footprints. In these literature reviews, we draw attention to how SES has played a signicant
but contrasting predictor role for these three measures of support for the environment. In our
analysis of Canadian survey data, we then examine the inter-relationships among the three
measures, as well as their socio-demographic correlates. We conclude the paper with a
discussion that synthesises the results and frames them within the broader literature and recommendations for future research and public policy.

Measuring individual and household impacts on the environment

Private sphere PEB
An extensive body of research has explored private sphere PEB (Dunlap and Van Liere
1978, Schultz and Zelezny 1999, Stern 2000, Dietz et al. 2007). One of the more

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

222

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

common ndings is a positive association with SES. For instance, Poortinga et al. (2004)
found income to be positively associated with participation in household energy saving and
transportation energy-saving behaviours and education to be positively related to transportation energy-saving behaviours. Other socio-demographic correlates of private sphere PEB
include youth, urban residence, and a left-leaning political orientation (Schultz et al. 2005).
EC, such as is measured by the widely used New Ecological Paradigm Scale1 (Dunlap et al.
2000), is correlated with high levels of self-reported private sphere PEB (Kennedy et al.
2009), and values frameworks that are biocentric and altruistic (Dietz et al. 1998). For
example, Dietz et al. (1998) found that altruism was a strong, indirect predictor of policy
support, as mediated by worldviews and environmental beliefs. Although there are many
studies on this topic, each with slightly different data sources and ndings, a causal logic
is typically assumed, wherein certain socio-demographic variables (especially age,
gender, political orientation, income, and education) are antecedent to a values orientation,
leading to environmental beliefs, which inform attitudes and shape behaviour (Stern 2000).
This causal chain is referred to as the Value-Belief-Norm Theory, a variation of the Theory
of Planned Behaviour and Theory of Reasoned Action (Stern 2000).
Some critics of private sphere PEB point out that the majority of these behaviours are
environmentally signicant only in the aggregate, when many people independently do the
same things (Stern 2000, p. 410). Assuming the actual impact of these behaviours to be
overwhelmingly positive for the environment, some argue, is demonstrative of nave
aggregationism, or the assumption that everyone doing a small part will add up to a big
impact (Willis and Schor 2012). For instance, although framed as a hopeful nding,
Dietz et al. (2009) used a statistical model to predict if an average of 50% of individual
households in the USA adopted 17 PEBs (over the course of 10 years), the USA would
reduce its emissions by only 7.4%.
Carbon footprints
A body of social science research aspiring to contribute more meaningfully to environmental reform has emerged within the past two decades (Wackernagel 1998, Weber and
Matthews 2008, Sovacool and Brown 2010, Curry et al. 2011, Jones and Kammen 2011,
Kuzyk 2011, Csutora 2012). In particular, studies of carbon footprint and ecological footprint have begun to provide a better understanding of the contextual correlates of environmental impact (York et al. 2003, Druckman and Jackson 2009). The CO2 emissions are
frequently used as a measure of environmental impact because carbon dioxide emissions
are by far the largest forcing factor in climate change (Stern 2011, p. 303).
While opportunities for individual carbon footprinting have proliferated on the Internet,
information about carbon footprints has seldom been collected through self-reported survey
research. Instead, a number of authors have used expenditure data collected from households to study carbon footprints (Druckman and Jackson 2009, Sovacool and Brown
2010, Jones and Kammen 2011). These studies suggest income is a relevant variable, but
not in the direction observed in studies of private sphere PEB discussed above. In the existing body of research, those with the highest incomes and levels of household expenditure
tend to have the largest carbon footprints (Mackenzie et al. 2008). Similarly, urban residents
tend to have larger carbon footprints (Sovacool and Brown 2010, Kuzyk 2011).
Since existing carbon footprint studies have not been based on self-reported survey
data, there are few established linkages between carbon footprints, private sphere PEB,
and EC. Nor do we know much about the relationship between carbon footprints and
various other socio-demographic variables utilised in the study of private sphere PEB

Local Environment

223

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

(e.g. political orientation, age, gender, and education). Furthermore, in most carbon footprint research, average income is used as a proxy for consumption (Kuzyk 2011), which
misses the opportunity to explore the possibility that EC could mediate the relationship
between SES and environmental impact. Also, when aggregated data reveal, for
example, a correlation between income and carbon or ecological footprints, causal
interpretations run the risk of committing the ecological fallacy. That is, analysts must
assume that, at the individual level, those with higher incomes have larger footprints, but
this might not necessarily be true.
Integrating private sphere PEB and carbon footprint
Both private sphere PEB and carbon footprint have much to offer environmental social
scientists. Carbon footprint data allow researchers and practitioners to study and promote
specic behaviours that can have a large and positive impact for the environment (Stern
2000). Researching private sphere PEB is also useful as ndings allow for a deeper understanding of the socio-demographic and attitudinal correlates of environmental behaviour,
and help to identify which daily social practices members of the public rely on to reduce
their environmental impact. For example, a study used a materials ow analysis of ecological footprint data to nd that the majority of household carbon emissions come from household energy use, followed by transportation, consumables, and food (Curry et al. 2011).
One recent study did try to determine if those who adopt private sphere PEBs do indeed
have a lower environmental impact, as measured by an ecological footprint (Csutora 2012).
This research found that private sphere PEB was not associated with a lower ecological
footprint, but the study did not include a measure of EC. As Csutora (2012, p. 159)
writes, The study found no statistically signicant differences between the overall ecological footprints of green consumers and brown consumers. PEB was coupled with only a
small reduction in ecological footprint in specic areas. Csutoras observation reects a
parallel body of research on the gap between environmental values and impact-oriented
PEB (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002, Kennedy et al. 2009). Behaviours that result in emissions of CO2 (such as driving to work) are often unrelated to individual attitudes and more
strongly connected to social context and other factors more challenging for people to
control (Steg et al. 2011, Stern 2011).
Such ndings remind us, as environmental social scientists, to ask whether we really are
counting what counts, for example, when it comes to individual responses to climate
change. People who say the environment matters to them (i.e. have pro-environmental attitudes) are likely to adopt private sphere PEBs that have a minimally positive impact on the
environment. However, they may be no more likely to embed this commitment into broader
lifestyle choices that are highly environmentally signicant (e.g. where one lives in relation
to their work and how often one travels by air). More research is needed in this area to
understand the relationship between socio-demographic antecedents, EC, private sphere
PEB, and carbon footprint. Despite extensive research into both private sphere PEB and
carbon footprints, there is surprisingly little research that examines the relationship
between all three measures.
EC and its relationship to private sphere PEB and carbon footprints
Depending on the source of ones EC (for self, for others, and for other species), this variable can be a strong, positive antecedent factor in the study of PEB (Schultz and Zelezny
1999, Steg et al. 2011). Measuring EC has been a foundational component of the

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

224

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

environmental social sciences for nearly four decades, and has its origins in what academics
perceived to be growing public concern with environmental issues (Van Liere and Dunlap
1980). The main thrust of this body of research has been to determine the social bases of
public concern for environmental conservation. Early research, summarised by Van Liere
and Dunlap (1980), did not reach consensus but nevertheless led to some general conclusions: younger people are more likely to express concern for environmental quality;
urban residents are more concerned than rural residents; left-leaning voters are more concerned about the environment; and SES (income, education, and occupational prestige)
and EC are positively related though this latter relationship is contested (Goksen et al.
2002, Givens and Jorgenson 2011, Knight and Messer 2012).
In short, the relationship between concern for the environment and SES (particularly
income) has been the subject of a great deal of research (Dunlap and Mertig 1995, Knight
and Messer 2012). Givens and Jorgenson (2011, p. 76) explain the central paradox in this
research tradition: A common assumption regarding EC is that only those who are afuent
enough to care about concerns beyond immediate survival are able to devote energy to
environmental problems and to engage in actions that demonstrate such concerns. This
argument is supported by survey data showing higher rates of membership in environmental
groups and stronger support for the political left among wealthy individuals (Dunlap et al.
2000). However, others have critiqued both the postmaterialist argument (Inglehart 1990)
and the afuence hypothesis (Franzen and Meyer 2010),2 arguing that afuence does not
have signicant predictive power for PEB. Knight and Messer (2012), for example, found
that willingness to pay to protect the environment (indicating support for environmental protection) was more strongly related (inversely) to the quality of the natural environment in the
respondents area of residence, suggesting that other contextual factors may have more inuence on PEB than afuence per se. Research on EC has proliferated in recent decades, but the
association between EC and carbon footprint has not yet been examined.
Socio-economic status
SES is a measure of an individuals or households economic and social position, in relation
to others, based on nancial security and education (National Center for Education Statistics 2008). As already noted, we know little about whether EC and private sphere PEB
are related to carbon footprint. From our reading of the various bodies of the literature,
however, we do know that income plays a central and contrasting role in the different
types of support for the environment (Csutora 2012). On the one hand, SES is typically
positively correlated with EC and with private sphere PEB (Abrahamse and Steg 2009,
Larson et al. 2011, Stern 2011). On the other hand, recent research on environmental
impact (measured with ecological footprints and carbon footprints) suggests that those
with the highest income are also responsible for the highest level of emissions (Mackenzie
et al. 2008, Lee 2010, Kuzyk 2011, Kennedy et al. 2013).
SES is associated with both private sphere PEB and carbon emissions, but not in the
same way, because of the differential impacts of education and income on attitudes and
behaviours. Those who are more educated tend to score more highly on measures of EC
(including scales of beliefs/attitudes) but also typically have higher incomes. Those with
higher incomes tend to consume more, own larger homes, and travel more frequently
(Druckman and Jackson 2009, Sovacool and Brown 2010). This complex pattern of
relationships and the paucity of studies integrating socio-demographic measures with multiple dimensions of support for the environment invite more careful scrutiny of the interrelationships among these variables.

Local Environment

225

Using telephone survey data from a western Canadian province, we ask whether those
who have higher scores on private sphere PEB and EC scales also have lower levels of
environmental impact, that is, smaller carbon footprints. We also explore the relationship
between SES and these three types of support for the environment. The primary aims
and contributions of this study are to: (1) better understand the inter-relationships among
EC, private sphere PEB, and carbon footprint; (2) identify the socio-demographic correlates
of these three forms of support for the environment; (3) provide a more detailed empirical
analysis of how SES is associated with the EC-private sphere PEB-carbon footprint chain;
and (4) use our ndings to promote discussion among environmental social scientists of
whether we are really counting what counts.

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Survey sampling and data collection

Data for this paper are drawn from questions we included in an annual survey of Albertan
households administered by the Population Research Laboratory (PRL) at the University of
Alberta in 2011. The Alberta Survey is conducted by telephone and targets a minimum of
400 respondents in each of the two largest metropolitan centres (Edmonton and Calgary)
and 400 in the remainder of the province, which includes rural, other urban, and suburban
communities. Since approximately one-third of the provincial population lives in each of
these areas, the study is essentially self-weighting. Using random digit dialling (RDD) techniques, the survey ensures that households have an equal chance of being selected, whether
they are listed in a telephone directory or not. Respondents must be at least 18 years of age.
The Alberta Survey interviewed adult respondents in 1203 households across the province, with a response rate of 26% (completed interviews/total households contacted), considerably higher than response rates in public opinion polls conducted by private sector
companies. There has been a general decline over the past decades in RDD response
rates (Curtin et al. 2005). Analyses of previous RDD surveys conducted by the PRL
over several decades also show such a decline, and indicate that, in more recent surveys,
more educated residents of the province (who tend to have higher incomes) are somewhat
more likely to respond (Bladon 2009). However, the Alberta Survey samples continue to be
representative of the population on other socio-demographic measures (e.g. age and marital
status). The estimated sampling error, at the 95% condence level, for an area sample of
1203 households assuming a 50/50 binomial percentage distribution is plus or minus 2.8
percentage points.
Measurement
We operationalise EC with a 10-item cumulative scale. Respondents were asked how concerned they were with: loss of forest cover; climate change; the impact of oil sands (a major
industry in Alberta) on water quality; water availability; wetland loss; conversion of agricultural land to other uses, such as urban development; the impact of chemical applications
on lakes and rivers; the impact of manure on water quality; the impact of hormones and
medicines in drinking water; and air pollution. The responses to these items (and the
nal scale) range from 1 to 5 (not concerned, slightly concerned, concerned, quite concerned, and very concerned). The inter-item reliability of this scale is excellent (a
0.892) and the average score was 3.62 (SD 0.89).
Private sphere PEB is measured as the sum of nine survey items asking about frequency
of engagement in specic behaviours. Respondents were asked how often (never, rarely,
sometimes, often, and always, with values scored from 1 to 5) they or someone in their

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

226

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

household left a vehicle at home to avoid driving; bought used goods; reused items that
could have been thrown away; composted organic waste; recycled household waste;
reduced the temperature of their home to save energy; hung laundry to dry; ate locally
grown food; and ate vegetarian lunches or suppers. The inter-item reliability of this
scale is acceptable (a 0.595) and the average score was 3.11 (SD 0.56) for private
sphere PEB.
We calculated a partial household carbon footprint using information provided by
survey respondents on household energy use, personal vehicle emissions, personal air
travel, and household waste generation. We do not estimate carbon emissions resulting
from the production of goods and services because of the difculty in obtaining detailed
household-level information, but this omission is not overly problematic since our calculations do cover the major emission sources (Stern 2011).3 Partial carbon footprint was
measured in tonnes and ranged from a low (per household) of 1.2 tonnes to a high of
55.8 tonnes. The average was 12.65 tonnes (SD 7.17).
We also include gender, age, household size, rural residence, and political orientation in our
analysis since previous research has shown that these variables are related to EC, private sphere
PEB, and carbon footprint. Being female is expected to positively inuence EC and private
sphere PEB (Schultz and Zelezny 1999) and age is expected to be negatively related to EC
and private sphere PEB (Dunlap et al. 2000, Kennedy et al. 2009). Gender is measured as a
binary variable (1 female) and age is measured in years. Since the Alberta Survey uses a
quota sample for gender, the sample was evenly divided between males and females. The
average age of survey respondents was 50.1 years (SD 15.9).
Household size is expected to be positively associated with carbon footprint (Jones
and Kammen 2011), while rural residence may be negatively associated with private
sphere PEB (Kennedy et al. 2009). In our study, rural residence includes towns with
fewer than 10,000 residents and is operationalised as a binary variable (1 rural).
One-quarter (24.8%) of sample members lived in a rural area. One in six (16%) of
households were occupied by one person and the average household size was 2.8 people
(SD 1.46).
Dunlap et al. (2001) commented on a strong, negative relationship between politically
leaning right-voters and EC and private sphere PEB, and we expect a similar result. We estimate political orientation with two binary variables (derived from the categorical variable,
If a Federal election was held, which party would you vote for?): votes for right-leaning
party (1) or other (0) and votes for centre party (1) or other (0); left-leaning voters were the
omitted category and non-voters (and undecideds) were categorised as missing. The
majority of our survey respondents voted for the Conservative Party of Canada (70.1%)
and only 7.6% voted for the Liberal Party (a centrist party).
Finally, income and education are used to measure SES. Based on the literature
reviewed earlier, we expect those with higher incomes to have larger carbon footprints
and a positive association with private sphere PEB. We expect that those with more education will score higher on EC and private sphere PEB. Because of the expected positive
relationship between income and education, however, we do not expect the more highly
educated to have a smaller carbon footprint.
Survey respondents were asked about their total number of years of schooling. The
average response was 15.1 years (SD 3.1). When asked about their total annual household income, study participants were invited to choose one of 23 response categories
ranging from less than $6000 to a maximum of $150,000 (Canadian (CDN)). After recoding the values on this ordinal scale to the category mid-points, average household income
was $95,427 (SD $47,155). As typically occurs in public opinion surveys, a large

Local Environment

227

minority of respondents (26%) did not answer the income question, leaving us with a
maximum of 887 respondents in our multivariate analyses. Missing data on other predictor
and dependent variables led to a further reduced sample size (Table 2).

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Results
Preliminary bivariate analyses (Table 1) show that EC is signicantly and positively correlated with private sphere PEB (r .28) and signicantly and negatively correlated with
carbon footprint (r 2.20). These ndings indicate that concern for the environment is
more closely related to private sphere PEB than to carbon footprint yet with the same
effect (i.e. EC is associated with higher levels of engagement in private sphere pro-environmental activities and with a lower carbon footprint). However, private sphere PEB is unrelated to household carbon footprint (r 2.04).
Table 1 also provides a preliminary look at the associations between our two SES
measures and the three measures of support for the environment. Somewhat surprisingly,
given the ndings of previous research, education and EC are not signicantly correlated (r
2.03), while household income is negatively associated with EC (r 2.20). Income is
not associated with private sphere PEB (r 2.02), but education is positively associated
with this measure (r .13), as expected. Both SES measures are positively associated with
household carbon footprints (r .22 for education; r .43 for income), as predicted.
Our multivariate analysis (Table 2) explores a hypothesised causal chain, whereby
environmental impact (household carbon footprint) is inuenced by both private sphere
PEB and EC, with EC preceding private sphere PEB and with SES (income and education)
and a number of other socio-demographic variables as exogenous measures.4
Column 1 of Table 2 reveals what we already noted in our bivariate analysis education is not associated with EC, but the higher the household income, the lower ones
concern for the environment (b 2.151). Women are more concerned about the environment (b .143) and right-leaning voters express less EC (b 2.249). The effects of the
remaining predictor variables are non-signicant. Together, these background variables
account for 10.7% of the variation in EC.
Table 1. Bivariate correlations.

Female
Votes right
Votes centre
Years of
education
Rural
Household
income
EC
Private sphere
PEB
Carbon
footprint

P , .050.

Female
Age (1)

Votes
right
(1)

Votes
centre
(1)

2.03

.10 2.02
.03
.02
2.08 2.08

2.44
2.14

.09

.03
.01
2.21 2.15

.13
.06

.16
.17

2.11 2.14

.04
.02

Years of Rural Household

education (1) income

EC

Private
sphere
PEB

2.09
.02

2.19
.25

2.06

2.25
2.08

.06
2.02

2.03
.13

2.03
.05

2.20
2.02

.28

.09

.01

.22

2.01

.43

2.20

2.04

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

228

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

Not surprisingly, and reecting previous research ndings, concern for the environment
is the strongest predictor of private sphere PEB (b .303). As already noted in Table 1,
household income is not signicantly associated with private sphere PEB, while education
has a signicant positive effect (b .176). Women also report more private sphere environmentalism (b .175), but the effects of the other independent variables are non-signicant. Roughly, 17% of the variation in private sphere PEB is explained by this group of
predictor variables (column 2, Table 2).
Our nal model (column 3, Table 2), accounting for 22% of the variation in household
carbon footprints, explores the impact of EC and private sphere PEB, controlling for sociodemographic variables. Female survey respondents live in households with lower carbon
footprints (b 2.113). Both measures of SES are signicant and positively related with
household carbon footprints (education, b .124; income, b .301). Larger households,
as expected, have larger carbon footprints (b .142). Political orientation, age, and living
in a rural community all have non-signicant effects. In short, higher status households
have signicantly larger carbon footprints. There is a weak negative association between
EC and environmental impact (b 2.081) and private sphere PEB is not signicantly
related to carbon footprint.

Discussion
Support for the environment: EC, private sphere PEB, and carbon footprint
EC is the strongest predictor of private sphere PEB in our analysis, replicating ndings from
previous studies employing other measures of concern for the environment (Dietz et al.
2007, Kennedy et al. 2009). More interesting are the relationships between EC, PEB,
and carbon footprint, which have not been previously examined within a single study.
Those who care more for the environment (measured in this paper with EC) do have somewhat lower carbon footprints. On the other hand, private sphere PEB is not at all related to
carbon footprint.
Since at least the rst United Nations conference on sustainable development in 1992,
there has been a shift towards individualising the responsibility to ameliorate environmental
issues; recycling better light bulbs, cloth grocery bags, and energy efcient appliances all t
within the rubric of private sphere PEB (Maniates 2001, Halkier 2010). And on this front,
our study and many others (Dietz et al. 2009, Kennedy et al. 2009) tell a positive story
growing numbers of households in many western industrialised societies are adopting
private sphere PEBs.
While encouraging households to adopt private sphere PEBs is certainly a positive goal,
those who engage in these activities do not have a smaller carbon footprint (a nding also
reported by Csutora 2012). Furthermore, both measures of SES in our study are positively
associated with carbon footprint, clearly showing that those who are more educated and
afuent, and may in some cases actually engage in more PEBs, also produce larger
carbon emissions (Mackenzie et al. 2008, Weber and Matthews 2008, Druckman and
Jackson 2009, Lee 2010). Given the growing awareness of the link between humaninduced carbon pollution and climate change, these private sphere PEBs would, ideally,
be a gateway to a broader set of CO2-reducing practices (e.g. building and buying
smaller homes; fuel emissions standards and a cultural rejection of large vehicles; etc.).
Yet it appears this is not the case.
It may be that individuals feel they have done their part for the environmental movement with their cloth grocery bag, and so can feel justied in ying dozens of times per

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Local Environment

229

year (Mazar and Zhong 2010). Or, perhaps, the non-association between private sphere
PEB and carbon footprint is due to constraints from the built environment such as
suburbs that require residents to use automobiles almost all of the time or because of
demands of a 40-plus hour work week that reduces time to walk, bike, or take public
transit (Schor 2010). Whatever the explanation, this study shows that engaging in private
sphere PEBs does not lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
However, some have argued, in the abstract, that, [t]hose who say they care most about
the environment are those around the world who are the most educated and yet they also
have the greatest ecological footprint (Cock 2002, p. 186). Likewise, in his book
Climate Wars, Dyer (2009, pp. xi xii) writes that, all the stuff about changing light
bulbs and driving less, although it is useful for raising consciousness and gives people
some sense of control over their fate, is practically irrelevant to the outcome (of decarbonising our economy). While we demonstrate partial support for these hypotheses, the argument is not fully supported here. Holding constant the fact that more educated and more
afuent study participants live in households with larger carbon footprints, we still see a
small negative (but signicant) effect of EC on carbon footprint. In short, words and
deeds are not totally disconnected, but may only be weakly connected.

SES and support for the environment

The effects of our two measures of SES on EC and private sphere PEB are not quite the
same as what previous research has reported, namely, that higher SES is typically associated
with greater EC and greater engagement in private sphere PEBs. We nd that education is
not associated with EC, although it is positively associated with private sphere PEBs, as
others have also found (Poortinga et al. 2004, Kennedy et al. 2009). Household income
is not related to private sphere PEBs, but is actually negatively associated with EC. This
latter relationship might reect Knight and Messers (2012) observation that concern for
the environment depends more on the quality of ones immediate environment than on
the afuence. Also, in Alberta, many well-educated and higher income individuals are
employed by, or benet indirectly from, the oil and gas and other resource-extraction
Table 2. Ordinary least squares regression models of support for the environment.
Support for the environment (standardised coefcients)
EC
Female
Age
Household size
Rural
Votes right
Votes centre
Years of education
Household income
EC
Private sphere PEB
N
Adjusted R2
F

P , .050.

.143
.028
2.005
2.011
2.249
2.054
2.023
2.151

673
.107
14.467

Private sphere environmentalism

Carbon footprint

.175
.014
.059
.022
2.018
2.051
.176
2.044
.303

617
.167
18.668

2.113
.024
.142
.024
.091
.043
.124
.301
2.081
.021
586
.220
20.221

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

230

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

industries that are the source of many environmental problems. Hence, they might be much
less likely to express concern for the environment. As Upton Sinclair is reputed to have
said, Its difcult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his
not understanding it.
The positive relationship between household income and carbon footprint is in line with
the previous research (Druckman and Jackson 2009); more afuent households consume a
disproportionate share of a communitys, a nations, or the globes resources. While our data
cannot test this proposition, we also note that, because of where they typically live, the
afuent are also often protected from the physical and psychological impacts of environmental disasters (Szasz 2007, Swim et al. 2011). Furthermore, as Hall et al. (2013)
observe in a recent special issue of Local Environment, the poor are acutely vulnerable
to environmental injustices (e.g. exposure to toxic sites and disproportionately affected
by increases in fuel prices). This phenomenon could help to explain the negative relationship between income and EC observed in our study and discussed above.
Not surprisingly, since education and household income are positively correlated, education itself has a net positive effect on carbon footprint, controlling on income and other
control variables. This might seem odd, given that education is also associated with more
engagement in private sphere PEBs. However, it might be the very engagement in such lowimpact activities, which can take time and money that less educated (and hence less afuent) people might not have, allow the more educated (and afuent) to conveniently ignore
their considerably larger carbon footprint (Mazar and Zhong 2010) and conate their PEBs
with lower carbon footprint.
Since SES (both education and household income) is positively associated with household carbon footprints, and because the negative impact of these footprints far outweigh the
positive impacts of any private sphere PEBs in which these well-educated, more afuent
households engage, we recommend that environmental social scientists pay more attention
to the role of societal elites in environmental impacts. Future research could contribute to a
better understanding about how high-income individuals become mobilsed to focus on
climate change and environmental degradation. As Bonds (2010, p. 443) observed, with
more knowledge of how elites think and act regarding the environment, we will be better
equipped to secure increased environmental protection.
Other socio-demographic correlates of support for the environment
We included a number of additional control variables in our analysis because they have
been examined in previous studies of different forms of support for the environment.
Gender was the only control variable that had a consistent effect, with women reporting
more EC, more private sphere PEBs, and a smaller carbon footprint. The rst two ndings
t with the existing literature that shows that women tend to be more environmentally concerned and more engaged in household PEB, though less engaged in activist PEB (Kennedy
et al. 2009). While we have not seen studies of gender and carbon footprint, our ndings
can be interpreted as reecting the fact that, across single-occupancy or single-parent
households, female-led households are more likely to have a smaller carbon footprint,
perhaps due to smaller homes, fewer vehicles, and fewer kilometres driven in these
vehicles.
Household size is not signicantly related to EC or private sphere PEB. Given larger
families tend to live in larger homes, this measure is commonly associated with carbon footprint (Sovacool and Brown 2010). Yet we found household size is irrelevant to EC (an individual characteristic) and private sphere PEB (presumably since these types of actions are

Local Environment

231

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

taken by a household regardless of size). Right-voting respondents are much less likely to
express concern with the environment. This replicates previous ndings showing that rightvoting people have generally distanced themselves from environmental issues (Dunlap
et al. 2001). However, political orientation was non-signicant for private sphere PEB
and carbon footprint in our study. Rural residence was not signicantly associated with
any of the measures of support for the environment, reecting previous Canadian research
(Kennedy et al. 2009). Interestingly, since previous research has shown younger individuals
to be more concerned about the environment (McCright and Dunlap 2010), age was a nonsignicant predictor in our study. It may be that the young people who were most concerned
about the environment several decades ago are now middle-aged, and that discussions about
the environment have become much more common, to the point where seniors are also
paying attention.
Are we counting what counts?
Our study suggests that the scope of research and policy related to human environment
relationships should be broadened to measure the carbon intensity of different lifestyles
and to scrutinise the upstream choices that shape these lifestyles. Carbon footprint
measures could be included alongside more traditionally studied topics such as EC and
private sphere PEB. Stern (2011) expressed the same concern, noting that behaviours
that have the largest effect on a households carbon footprint, such as choices of home
location and size, motor vehicles, and home heating and cooling equipment, have received
very little attention in psychological research [of pro-environmental behaviours] (Stern
2011, pp. 306 307). Focusing only on private sphere PEB conveys the message that economic growth and environmental reform are compatible, as higher income earners switch to
greener products (Spaargaren 2003). Literature on EC often implies that better educated
people, who are more aware of environmental issues, are also more engaged in ameliorating
those issues. Our study demonstrates that this is not the case. Instead, echoing Szasz (2007),
we hypothesise that private sphere PEB can act as a form of inverted quarantine that allows
consumers to believe green acts and products will protect them, leading to a political anaesthesia that limits their determination to effect more substantial change. In fact, it is the highly
individualised nature of private sphere PEB that may well be its greatest aw. By suggesting
that citizens can meaningfully contribute to environmental reform in the absence of collective
political action or more informed choices about where to live in relation to amenities, private
sphere PEB risks obfuscating meaningful solutions to environmental issues.
Private sphere PEBs are an important subject for the environmental social sciences, but,
we argue, need to be complemented with other measures like carbon footprint to reect the
increased urgency and severity of climate change. Additional topics to include within
studies of PEB might include whether people consider the environment when making critical choices such as where to live and work, how large a home to buy, and how often to work
and vacation away from ones immediate vicinity. When studies of support for the environment begin to take into account those choices and actions that have a disproportionate
environmental impact, we will begin to better understand the complex inter-relationships
among social psychological, demographic, and infrastructural factors associated with the
household production of environmental harms.
If we continue to measure only ECs and private sphere PEB, our study suggests we are
not measuring what really counts. Based on the results of this study and our reading of the
existing literature, we argue that future research by environmental social scientists must
look at the bigger picture. EC and private sphere PEB are not irrelevant, but should be

232

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

seen as only a small part of a larger strategy to reduce individual, household, and societal
negative impacts on the environment.

Limitations
We model and discuss a causal chain in which socio-demographic factors shape EC which,
in turn, can inuence private sphere PEBs and might (or might not) affect household carbon
footprints. However, we are analysing cross-sectional data and, hence, are inferring, not
demonstrating causality. This study was conducted in Alberta, Canada, a province
heavily reliant on resource-extraction industries, which can have severe environmental
effects. Consequently, some of the ndings (e.g. the non-effect of education on EC)
might not be generalised to other settings. However, we believe that our core ndings
about the disconnect between household carbon footprint and private sphere PEBs and
about the different effects of SES on these two forms of support for the environment can
be generalised to other western industrialised societies.
Notes
1.
2.

3.
4.

The NEP scale includes 15 items measured on a Likert scale that are intended to measure environmental world view. See Anderson (2012) for a more thorough discussion.
Ingleharts (1990) postmaterialism theory claims that an increase in material afuence shifts
values from survival to identity, rights, and quality of life. The economic afuence hypothesis
grew out of challenges to postmaterialism. It states more directly that environmental quality is
a public good that is valued more highly with successive rises in income. In short, because
they are afuent, citizens in wealthier nations are willing to accept a reduction in their standard
of living to devote more resources to protecting the global environment (Franzen 2003).
For more detailed information on the calculation of the partial carbon footprints, see Kennedy
et al. (2013) as well as Appendix 1.
Appendix 2 repeats the same analysis, using two alternative measures of socio-economic status
(home ownership and perceived nancial security), which have fewer missing data than household income. The results tell essentially the same story about the impact of socio-economic status
on the three measures of support for the environment.

References
Abrahamse, W. and Steg, L., 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to
households direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30
(5), 711 720.
Anderson, M.W., 2012. New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) Scale. In: D. Fogel, S. Fredericks, L.
Harrington, and I. Spellerberg, eds. The encyclopedia of sustainability, vol. 6: measurements,
indicators, and research methods for sustainability, Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire
Publishing, 260 262.
Bladon, T.L., 2009. The downward trend of survey response rates: implications and considerations for
evaluators. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 24 (2), 131156.
Bonds, E., 2010. The knowledge-shaping process: elite mobilization and environmental policy.
Critical Sociology, 37 (4), 429 446.
Cock, P.H., 2002. Partnerships for sustainability: psychology for ecology. In: P. Schmuck and W.P.
Schultz, eds. Psychology of sustainable development. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 175 196.
Csutora, M., 2012. One more awareness Gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 35 (1), 145 163.
Curry, R., et al., 2011. The use of material ow analysis and the ecological footprint in regional
policy-making: application and insights from Northern Ireland. Local Environment, 16 (2),
165 179.

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Local Environment

233

Curtin, R., Presser, S., and Singer, E., 2005. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past
quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69 (1), 8798.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., and Guagnano, G.A., 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of
environmental concern. Environment & Behavior, 30 (4), 450 471.
Dietz, T., Dan, A., and Shwom, R., 2007. Support for climate change policy: social psychological and
structural inuences. Rural Sociology, 72 (2), 185214.
Dietz, T., et al., 2009. Household actions can provide a behavioural wedge to rapidly reduce US
carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 106 (44), 1845218456.
Druckman, A. and Jackson, T., 2009. The carbon footprint of UK households 1990 2004: a socioeconomically disaggregated quasi-multi-regional input-output model. Ecological Economics,
68 (7), 20662077.
Dunlap, R.E. and Mertig, A.M., 1995. Global concern for the environment: is afuence a prerequisite?
Journal of Social Issues, 51 (4), 121 137.
Dunlap, R.E. and Van Liere, K.D., 1978. The New Environmental Paradigm: a proposed measuring
instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9 (1), 1019.
Dunlap, R.E., et al., 2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement
of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 425 442.
Dunlap, R.E., Xiao, C., and McCright, A.M., 2001. Politics and environment in America: partisan and
ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10 (4),
2348.
Dyer, G., 2009. Climate wars: how peak oil and climate change will change Canada (and our lives).
Toronton, ON: Random House.
Franzen, A., 2003. Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP
surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2), 297308.
Franzen, A. and Meyer, R., 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel
analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Social Review, 26 (2), 219234.
Garon, S., 2013. Why America spends while the world saves. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Givens, J.E. and Jorgenson, A.K., 2011. The effect of afuence, economic development, and environmental degradation on environmental concern: a multilevel analysis. Organization &
Environment, 24 (1), 74 91.
Goksen, F., Adamen, F., and Zenginobuz, E., 2002. On environmental concern, willingness to pay,
and postmaterialist values: evidence from Istanbul. Environment and Behaviour, 34 (5),
616 633.
Guzman, G.I., 2011. The land cost of agrarian sustainability: an assessment. Land Use Policy, 28 (4),
825 835.
Halkier, B., 2010. Consumption challenged: food in medialised everyday lives. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing.
Hall, S.M., Hards, S., and Bulkeley, H., 2013. New approaches to energy: equity, justice, and vulnerability: introduction to the special issue. Local Environment, 18 (4), 413421.
Inglehart, R., 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Jones, C.M. and Kammen, D.M., 2011. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S.
households and communitiesj. Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (9), 40884095.
Kennedy, E.H., et al., 2009. Why we dont walk the talk: understanding the environmental values/
behaviour gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, 16 (2), 151160.
Kennedy, E.H., Krahn, H., and Krogman, N.T., 2013. Egregious emitters: disproportionality in household carbon footprints. Environment and Behavior [online]. DOI:10.1177/0013916512474986
Knight, K.W. and Messer, B.L., 2012. Environmental concern in cross-national perspective: the
effects of afuence, environmental degradation, and world society. Social Science Quarterly,
93 (2), 521 537.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are
the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3),
239 260.
Kuzyk, L.W., 2011. Ecological and carbon footprint by consumption and income in GIS: down to a
census village scale. Local Environment, 16 (9), 871886.

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

234

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

Larson, L.R., Whiting, J.W., and Green, G.T., 2011. Exploring the inuence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demographically diverse population. Local
Environment, 16 (1), 67 86.
Lee, M., 2010. By our own emissions: the distribution of GHGs in B.C. Vancouver, BC: Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Mackenzie, H., Messinger, H., and Smith, R., 2008. Size matters: Canadas ecological footprint, by
income [online]. Canada: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Available from: http://www.
policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Ofce_Pubs/2008/Size_Matters_Canadas_Ecological_
Footprint_By_Income.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2011].
Maniates, M.M., 2001. Individualization: plant a tree, ride a bike, save the world? Global
Environmental Politics, 1 (3), 31 52.
Mazar, N. and Zhong, C.B., 2010. Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science,
21 (4), 494 498.
McCright, A. and Dunlap, R.E., 2010. Anti-reexivity: the American conservative movements
success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture, and Society, 27 (23), 134.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2008. Digest of education statistics: 2007, Table 136.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available from: nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d07/tables/dt07_136.asp?referrerlist [Accessed 17 April 2013].
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., and Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behaviour: a study into household energy use. Environment and Behaviour, 36, 70 93.
Sanne, C., 2002. Willing consumers or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption.
Ecological Economics, 42 (1 2), 273287.
Schor, J.B., 2010. Plenitude: the new economics of true wealth. Toronto, ON: The Penguin Press.
Schultz, P.W. and Zelezny, L., 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 255265.
Schultz, P.W., et al., 2005. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation
behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36 (3), 457475.
Shaw, S. and Thomas, C., 2006. Discussion note: social and cultural dimensions of air travel demand:
hyper-mobility in the UK? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14 (2), 209215.
Sovacool, B.K. and Brown, M.A., 2010. Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: a preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy Policy, 38, 48564869.
Spaargaren, G., 2003. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective.
Society and Natural Resources, 16 (8), 687 701.
Steg, L., et al., 2011. General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: the
role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society and Natural Resources, 24 (3),
349 367.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Towards a coherent theory of environmentally signicant behaviour. Journal of
Social Issues, 56 (3), 407 424.
Stern, P.C., 2011. Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66
(4), 303 314.
Swim, J.K., et al., 2011. Psychologys contributions to understanding and addressing global climate
change. American Psychologist, 66 (4), 241 250.
Szasz, A., 2007. Shopping our way to safety: how we changed from protecting the environment to
protecting ourselves. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Van Liere, K.D. and Dunlap, R.E., 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: a review
of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (1),
181 197.
Wackernagel, M., 1998. The ecological footprint of Santiago de Chile. Local Environment, 3 (1),
725.
Weber, C.L. and Matthews, H.S., 2008. Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American
household carbon footprint. Ecological Economics, 68 (2), 379391.
Willis, M.M. and Schor, J.B., 2012. Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the world? Political
action and the conscious consumer. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science November, 644 (1), 160 190.
York, R., Rosa, E.A., and Dietz, T., 2003. STIRPAT, IPAT and impact: analytic tools for unpacking the
driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46 (2), 351365.

Local Environment

235

Appendix 1. Calculating a partial carbon footprint for Alberta (n 5 1063).

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

Raw data

Source
Conversion (conversion
Calculating a partial factors
factors and
carbon footprint
(CO2e)a
constants)

Notes

Personal
Kilometres
km/week 52; km/ 20.4; 19.564 US
The vehicle score
Environmental
vehicles
driven per
year to miles/
only includes
Protection
week
year; miles/year
emissions from
Agency (EPA); fuel
to gallons used;
US Department consumption, it
gal used
of Energy
conversion
does not
factor Lbs
account for
CO2 consumed.
emissions from
Total converted
the vehicle
to tonnes
production
process. The
average number
of km driven
per year in
Alberta is
13,000. We
found a similar
gure in our
study
BeGreen; EPA
Air travel only
Air travel Number of
# ights average 0.64
includes
round-trip
ight distance
emissions from
ights/
(2083 miles);
fuel consumed
household
above
and does not
conversion
account for
factor Lbs
weather, type of
CO2 consumed.
Total converted
aircraft, or
to tonnes
capacity of
aircraft
Natural Resources An average is
Household Size of home m2 kWh used/m2; 834,072;
1.37
Canada; EPA
used based on
kWh used
energy
(m2)
source of
conversion
use
electricity is
factor Lbs
used. In
CO2 consumed.
Total converted
Alberta, most
to tonnes
household
energy is
derived from
natural gas and
coal
Statistics Canada The recycling
1021 lbs
Waste
How often do CO2 from
Disposal and
CO2;
constant
members of household waste
447 lbs
constant for
Diversion of
discounts
your
CO2
those who often/
Waste; EPA
energy used to
household
always
convert
recycle
recycle Lbs
recyclables to
household
CO2 consumed.
new material
waste
Total converted
to tonnes
a

CO2e, carbon dioxide equivalents.

236

E. Huddart Kennedy et al.

Appendix 2. Ordinary least squares regression models of support for the

environment (using household income and an index of nancial well-being as
alternative SES measures).
Support for the environment (standardised coefcients)
Private sphere
environmentalism

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 07:56 05 February 2015

EC
Female
Age
Household size
Rural
Votes right
Votes centre
Years of education
Own home (1 yes)
Financial well-being
EC
PEB
N
Adjusted R2
F

P , .050.

.155
.043
2.024
.015
2.245
2.050
2.034
2.107
2.101

820
.105
11.641

.192
.031
.038
.001
2.019
2.056
.149
.063
2.047
.277

752
.150
14.317

Carbon footprint
2.119
2.034
.195
.027
.092
.060
.181
.104
.078
2.125
2.005
701
.171
14.123