Exploring the Differential Effect of Life Satisfaction on Low and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. PEB as a Determinant of Life Satisfaction
2.2. Life Satisfaction as a Determinant of PEB: The Flip Side of the Coin
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Procedure and Participants
3.2. Dependent Variables
“Imagine that there was a program aimed at substituting the current diesel bus fleet in the city public transport system for hybrid electric buses. These new buses would be more efficient and accordingly would emit less greenhouse gases than diesel buses. Nevertheless, they would be between 40% and 70% more costly. Considering the environmental benefits of these buses and that this program will be implemented only if a majority of respondents are in favor of the program, would you willing to pay higher bus fares to support this program?”
3.3. Explanatory Variables
All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? Please, choose a value in the eleven-point scale where “0” means “completely dissatisfied” and “10” means “completely satisfied”.
4. Results
4.1. Life Satisfaction
4.2. Low-Cost PEB
4.3. High-Cost PEB
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Swim, J.K.; Clayton, S.; Howard, G.S. Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Clayton, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Stern, P.C.; Whitmarsh, L.; Carrico, A.; Steg, L.; Swim, J.; Bonnes, M. Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynes, S.; Nicholas, K.A. The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 74024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lange, F.; Dewitte, S. Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larson, L.R.; Stedman, R.C.; Cooper, C.B.; Decker, D.J. Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, C.F.; Kotchen, M.J.; Moore, M.R. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasser, T. Living both well and sustainably: A review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2017, 375, 20160369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kasser, T.; Sheldon, K.M. What makes for a merry Christmas? J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, K.W.; Kasser, T. Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005, 74, 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacob, J.; Jovic, E.; Brinkerhoff, M.B. Personal and planetary well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 93, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welsch, H.; Kühling, J. Pro-environmental behavior and rational consumer choice: Evidence from surveys of life satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 2010, 31, 405–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welsch, H.; Kühling, J. Are pro-environmental consumption choices utility maximizing? Evidence from subjective well-being data. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaida, N.; Kaida, K. Pro-environmental behavior correlates with present and future subjective well-being. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2016, 18, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Súarez-Varela, M.; Guardiola, J.; González-Gómez, F. Do pro-environmental behaviors and awareness contribute to improve subjective well-being? Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2016, 11, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, M.; Blankenberg, A.-K. Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2017, 137, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, M.T.; Aknin, L.B.; Axen, J.; Shwom, R.H. Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corral-Verdugo, V.; Mireles-Acosta, J.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Fraijo-Sing, B. Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective well-being. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2011, 2, 95–104. [Google Scholar]
- Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Durón-Ramos, M.F. Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: A measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, J.J.; Li, H. Sustainable consumption and life satisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 104, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Napa Scollon, C.; Lucas, R.E. The evolving concept of subjective well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. In Assessing Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener; Diener, E., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 67–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruni, L. The happiness of sociality. Economics and eudaimonia: A necessary encounter. Ration. Soc. 2010, 22, 383–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sulemana, I. Are happier people more willing to make income sacrifices to protect the environment? Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 127, 447–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Kang, N. Does life satisfaction matter for pro-environmental behavior? Empirical evidence from China General Social Survey. Qual. Quan. 2019, 53, 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekmann, A.; Preisendörfer, P. Green and greenback: The behavioural effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration. Soc. 2003, 15, 441–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Quality of life and sustainable transportation: An explorative study in five countries. J. Transp. Geogr. 2006, 14, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carson, R.T.; Mitchel, R.C.; Hanemann, W.M.; Kopp, R.J.; Presser, S.; Ruud, P.A. Contingent valuation and loss passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25, 257–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babutsidze, Z.; Chai, A. Look at me saving the planet! The imitation of visible green behavior and its impact on the climate value-action gap. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Welsch, H.; Kühling, J. How green self-image is related to subjective well-being: Pro-environmental values as a social norm. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 140, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, M.; Blankenberg, A.-K.; Guardiola, J. Does it have to be a sacrifice? Different notions of the good life, pro-environmental behavior and their heterogeneous impact on well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.-J.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, C. Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: Do attitude intensity and type of knowledge matter? Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2019, 149, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daikeler, J.; Bošnjak, M.; Lozar Manfreda, K. Web Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated and Extended Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. J. Surv. Stat. Met. 2019, 8, 513–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kormos, C.; Gifford, R. The validity of self-report measures of pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, A.C.; Trivedi, P.K. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Green, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 7th ed.; Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.; Luman, Z.; Shuang, M.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A. Heterogeneity in the preferences and pro-environmental behavior of college students: The effects of years on campus, demographics, and external factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3451–3463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carson, R.T. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1413–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoyos, D.; Mariel, P. Contingent valuation: Past, present and future. Prague Econ. Pap. 2010, 4, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- OECD. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Inglehart, R.; Tay, L. Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 112, 497–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Saz-Salazar, S.; Navarrete-Tudela, A.; Alcalá-Mellado, J.R. On the Use of Life Satisfaction Data for Valuing Cultural Goods: A First Attempt and a Comparison with the Contingent Valuation Method. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolan, P.; Metcalfe, R. Comparing Willingness-to-Pay and Subjective Well Being in the Context of Non-Market Goods; Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S. Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: Focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments. Qual. Life Res. 2016, 25, 2497–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Young, R. New ways to promote pro-environmental behavior: Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 509–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, M.; Blankenberg, A.-K. Environmental concerns, volunteering and subjective well-being: Antecedents and outcomes of environmental activism in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 124, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapci, O.; Considine, T. The link between environmental attitudes and energy consumption behavior. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2014, 52, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, K.-P.; Chang, H.-W. Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 48, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-Being; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veenhoven, R. Happiness in Spain (ES), World Database of Happiness; Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Available online: https://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl (accessed on 18 November 2021).
- Berger, I. The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 1977, 29, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duroy, Q.M. Testing the affluence hypothesis: A cross-cultural analysis of the determinants of environmental action. Soc. Sci. J. 2008, 45, 419–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 149, 425–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uren, H.V.; Roberts, L.D.; DZidic, P.L.; Levigston, Z. High-Status Pro- Environmental Behaviors: Costly, Effortful, and Visible. Environ. Behav. 2019, 53, 455–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, J.S.; Freese, J. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using STATA, 2nd ed.; STATA Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ferrara, I.; Missios, P. Recycling and waste diversion effectiveness: Evidence from Canada. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Tan, R. Are people willing to pay more for new energy bus fares? Energy 2017, 130, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, R.C.; Boyle, K.J. Reliability and validation in nonmarket valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2019, 72, 559–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigerna, S.; Polinori, P. Willingness to pay and public acceptance for hydrogen buses: A case study of Perugia. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13270–13289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cordano, M.; Welcomer, S.; Scherer, R.; Pradenas, L.; Parada, V. Understanding cultural differences in the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior: A comparative analysis of business students in the United States and Chile. J. Environ. Educ. 2010, 41, 224–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sainz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulhus, D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. In Measurement of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes; Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 17–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K. The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environ. Behav. 1997, 29, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G. A general measure of ecological behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 395–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barr, S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors a UK case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 435–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milfont, T.L. The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour. Environmentalist 2009, 29, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Statement | Mean | Std. dev. | ++ |
---|---|---|---|
I am afraid when I think about environmental conditions for future generations | 4.32 | 0.83 | 85.6 |
If we continue our current style of life, we are approaching an environmental catastrophe | 4.37 | 0.87 | 86.5 |
Watching TV or reading in the newspapers about environmental problems, I am often embarrassed and angry | 4.11 | 0.96 | 77.3 |
The great majority of people do no act in an environmentally responsible way | 4.32 | 0.78 | 85.3 |
There are limits of economic growth that the industrialized world has reached or will reach very soon | 3.82 | 1.09 | 64.9 |
In my opinion, environmental problems are greatly exaggerated by proponents of the environmental movement * | 1.90 | 0.95 | 8.0 |
It is still true that politicians do much too little to protect the environment | 4.24 | 0.95 | 84.7 |
To protect the environment, we all should be willing to reduce our current standard of living | 3.69 | 1.16 | 60.8 |
Environmental protection measures should be implemented even in this reduces the number of jobs in the economy | 3.34 | 1.03 | 45.5 |
Climate change is real since average temperatures have increased and climate catastrophes are becoming more common (floods, prolonged droughts, hurricanes, etc.). ** | 4.39 | 0.79 | 88.5 |
The conservation and protection of the environment is crucial ** | 4.52 | 0.67 | 92.2 |
Variable | Definition | Mean | S.D. | % of 1 s |
---|---|---|---|---|
LSATIS | Self-reported life satisfaction using an 11-point scale where “0” means “completely dissatisfied” and “10” means “completely satisfied”. | 7.57 | 1.59 | |
INCOME | Respondent’s household monthly income in per capita terms (€). | 526.9 | 271.7 | |
SIBLING | Indicates the number of brothers with university studies that the respondent has. | 0.51 | 0.67 | |
TRANSM | 1 if the transport mode usually chosen by the respondent is a motorized transport, 0 otherwise (non-motorized). | 72.09 | ||
PTRANS | 1 if the respondent on a 5-point scale (1 = “No, totally sure”; 5 = “yes, totally sure”) answered “No, totally sure” to the question: Would you use more public transport if the Valencia’s bus fleet were renewed and become entirely hybrid? 0 otherwise. | 6.92 | ||
JOBS | Respondent’s agreement with the sentence “Environmental protection measures should be implemented even in this reduces the number of jobs in the economy” on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) | 3.34 | 1.03 | |
CLIMA | Respondent’s agreement with the sentence “Climate change is real since average temperatures have increased and climate catastrophes are becoming more common” on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree) | 4.39 | 0.79 | |
ENVCRU | 1 if the respondent on a 5-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 5 = “Strongly agree”) answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to the sentence “The conservation and protection of the environment is crucial, 0 otherwise. | 92.3 | ||
NRESP | 1 if the respondent on a 5-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 5 = “Strongly agree”) answered “agree” or “strongly agree” to the sentence “Most citizens do not act in a responsible way with regard to the environment”. | 85.4 | ||
SWATER | 1 if the respondents on a 5-point scale (1 = ”Never”; 5 = “Always”) answered “frequently” or “always” to the question “Do you usually carry out activities aimed at saving water in your home?”, = otherwise. | 90 | ||
HECONC | 1 if the respondent is highly environmentally concerned, 0 otherwise. Highly environmentally concerned in this case means that the respondents answered “agree” or “strongly agree” when asked about the different “statements for measuring environmental concern” shown in Table 2. | 17.7 |
Category | Glass Recycling | Paper Recycling | Plastic Recycling | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Freq. | % | Freq. | % | Freq. | % | |
Never | 25 | 5.61 | 18 | 4.00 | 25 | 6.01 |
Rarely | 40 | 8.97 | 49 | 10.89 | 51 | 11.36 |
Sometimes | 58 | 13.00 | 89 | 19.78 | 75 | 16.70 |
Very often | 103 | 23.09 | 141 | 31.33 | 125 | 27.84 |
Always | 220 | 49.33 | 153 | 34.00 | 171 | 38.08 |
N | 446 | 100.00 | 450 | 100.00 | 449 | 100.00 |
Recycle Glass | Recycle Paper | Recycle Plastic | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Coeff. | Z val. | Coeff. | Z val. | Coeff. | Z val. |
LSATIS | 0.0675 * | 1.72 | 0.0867 ** | 2.31 | 0.0666 * | 1.76 |
INCOME | 0.0006 *** | 2.61 | 0.0001 | 0.80 | 0.0002 | 1.24 |
SIBLING | 0.3414 *** | 2.63 | 0.4874 *** | 3.92 | 0.3291 *** | 2.64 |
JOBS | 0.1893 *** | 3.05 | 0.2039 *** | 3.45 | 0.2634 *** | 4.41 |
CLIMA | 0.2314 *** | 2.77 | 0.0402 | 0.51 | 0.0283 | 0.36 |
ENVCRU | 1.8113 ** | 2.48 | 1.0329 * | 1.67 | 1.8093 ** | 2.51 |
NRESP | 0.2821 ** | 2.05 | 0.1870 | 1.45 | 0.2537 * | 1.94 |
TRANSM | −0.2557 * | 1.77 | −0.2302 * | −1.69 | −0.1427 | −1.04 |
Log L LR χ2 (8) Prob > χ2 Pseudo R2 N | −410.28 55.25 0.000 0.063 387 | −441.84 46.01 0.000 0.049 387 | −443.33 47.46 0.000 0.051 387 |
Variable | NE | Z val. | RA | Z val. | SO | Z val. | VO | Z val. | AL | Z val. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSATIS | −0.0078 * | −1.66 | −0.0075 * | −1.69 | −0.0057 * | −1.69 | −0.0031 | −1.57 | 0.0243 * | 1.74 |
INCOME | −0.0000 ** | −2.41 | −0.0000 ** | −2.49 | −0.0000 ** | −2.52 | −0.0000 ** | −2.23 | 0.0002 *** | 2.68 |
SIBLING | −0.0395 ** | −2.43 | −0.0383 ** | −2.51 | −0.0289 ** | −2.53 | −0.0161 ** | −2.27 | 0.1228 *** | 2.70 |
TRANSM | 0.0296 * | 1.70 | 0.0286 * | 1.73 | 0.0216 * | 1.73 | 0.0120 | 1.64 | −0.0920 * | −1.79 |
JOBS | −0.0219 *** | −2.74 | −0.0212 *** | −2.86 | −0.0160 *** | −2.92 | −0.0089 ** | −2.46 | 0.0681 *** | 3.15 |
CLIMA | −0.0267 *** | −2.56 | −0.0259 *** | −2.64 | −0.0195 *** | −2.63 | −0.0109 ** | −2.27 | 0.0832 *** | 2.84 |
ENVCRU | −0.2096 ** | −2.44 | −0.2031 ** | −2.34 | −0.1532 ** | −2.27 | −0.0855 ** | −1.98 | 0.6516 ** | 2.49 |
NRESP | −0.0326 ** | −1.96 | −0.0316** | −1.99 | −0.0238 ** | −2.01 | −0.0133 * | −1.87 | 0.1015 ** | 2.09 |
Variable | NE | Z val. | RA | Z val. | SO | Z val. | VO | Z val. | AL | Z val. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSATIS | −0.0082 ** | −2.11 | −0.0117 ** | −2.26 | −0.0100 ** | −2.26 | −0.0009 | −0.65 | 0.0290 ** | 2.33 |
INCOME | −0.0000 | −0.79 | −0.0000 | −0.80 | −0.0000 | −0.80 | 0.0000 | 0.51 | 0.0000 | 0.88 |
SIBLING | −0.0462 *** | −3.11 | −0.0657 *** | −3.61 | −0.0564 *** | −3.80 | 0.0051 | 0.65 | 0.1632 *** | 4.10 |
TRANSM | 0.0218 | 1.62 | 0.0310 * | 1.66 | 0.0266 * | 1.67 | −0.0024 | −0.61 | −0.0771 * | −1.71 |
JOBS | −0.0193 *** | −2.86 | −0.0275 *** | −3.25 | −0.0235 *** | −3.36 | −0.0021 | 0.66 | 0.0682 *** | 3.55 |
CLIMA | −0.0038 | −0.50 | −0.0054 | −0.51 | −0.0046 | −0.51 | 0.0004 | 0.40 | 0.0134 | 0.51 |
ENVCRU | −0.0979 | −1.61 | −0.1393 * | −1.65 | −0.1195 | −1.61 | 0.0108 | 0.64 | 0.3459 * | 1.66 |
NRESP | −0.0177 | −1.39 | −0.0252 | −1.42 | −0.02164 | −1.45 | −0.0019 | 0.60 | 0.0626 | 1.46 |
Variable | NE | Z val. | RA | Z val. | SO | Z val. | VO | Z val. | AL | Z val. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSATIS | −0.0082 * | −1.70 | −0.0080 * | −1.74 | −0.0060 * | −1.72 | −0.0007 | −0.67 | 0.0231 * | 1.77 |
INCOME | −0.0000 | −1.22 | −0.0000 | −1.23 | −0.0000 | −1.23 | −0.0000 | −0.63 | 0.0000 | 1.24 |
SIBLING | −0.0408 ** | −2.45 | −0.0397 ** | −2.54 | −0.0300 ** | −2.56 | 0.0037 | 0.72 | 0.1144 *** | 2.70 |
TRANSM | 0.0177 | 1.02 | 0.0172 | 1.04 | 0.0130 | 1.03 | 0.0016 | 0.60 | −0.0496 | −1.04 |
JOBS | −0.0327 *** | −3.66 | −0.0318 *** | −4.00 | −0.0240 *** | −4.08 | −0.0030 | −0.72 | 0.0916 *** | 4.65 |
CLIMA | −0.0035 | −0.35 | −0.0034 | −0.35 | −0.0025 | −0.36 | −0.0003 | −0.32 | 0.0098 | 0.36 |
ENVCRU | −0.2246 ** | −2.47 | −0.2185 ** | −2.37 | −0.1654 ** | −2.29 | −0.0206 | −0.69 | 0.6292 ** | 2.51 |
NRESP | −0.0315 * | −1.89 | −0.0306 * | −1.89 | −0.0231 * | −1.91 | −0.0028 | −0.69 | 0.0882 * | 1.96 |
Variable | Coefficient | Z val. | Marg. Effects | Z val. |
---|---|---|---|---|
LSATIS | 0.0927 ** | 1.99 | 0.0320 ** | 2.02 |
INCOME | 0.0004 * | 1.77 | 0.0001 * | 1.79 |
SIBLING | 0.2209 * | 1.94 | 0.0764 ** | 1.97 |
PTRANS | −0.5917 ** | −2.11 | −0.2046 ** | −2.15 |
SWATER | 0.5372 | 2.27 | 0.1858 ** | 2.33 |
HECONC | 0.3647 * | 1.71 | 0.1261 * | 1.74 |
Log L LR χ2 (6) Prob > χ2 Pseudo R2 N | −197.30 25.30 0.0003 0.060 387 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
del Saz Salazar, S.; Pérez y Pérez, L. Exploring the Differential Effect of Life Satisfaction on Low and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010277
del Saz Salazar S, Pérez y Pérez L. Exploring the Differential Effect of Life Satisfaction on Low and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(1):277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010277
Chicago/Turabian Styledel Saz Salazar, Salvador, and Luis Pérez y Pérez. 2022. "Exploring the Differential Effect of Life Satisfaction on Low and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behaviors" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1: 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010277