Polish Baby Boomers Report More Private-Sphere Environmentalism than Generation Z

Abstract

(1) Background: Each generation’s approach to private-sphere environmentalism is shaped by distinct historical and socio-economic contexts, values, educational opportunities, and living conditions. The aim of this article is to identify differences on this issue among four generations (BB, X, Y, Z) of Poles. (2) Methods: An online survey was conducted on a quota sample of 1000 individuals, with each generation represented by 250 participants. The sample was balanced across generations in terms of gender, education, and place of residence. (3) Results: The top private-sphere environmental behavior was waste segregation (M = 5.1, SD = 1.23), followed by using reusable bags (M = 4.92, SD = 1.2) and reducing energy use (M = 4.57, SD = 1.2). The older the generation, the higher the score in the private-sphere environmentalism index (F = 33.3 (3, 996), p < 0.001). Significant predictors of the private-sphere environmental behaviors (PSE) index were age, gender, environmental concern, and perceived self-impact on the environment, and the final hierarchical regression model explained 38% of the variance in the PSE index. (4) Conclusions: These results underscores the need to account for generational contexts when developing behavior-change strategies and sustainability policies aligned with SDG 12.

1. Introduction

The growing concerns regarding environmental degradation, depletion of natural resources, and health issues related to pollution are increasingly pressing in today’s world [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This crisis is largely driven by the pursuit of economic growth and productivity-oriented policies, which have intensified consumption and the overexploitation of resources [1,2,3,6]. Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a sharp increase in resource consumption [7,8], which, combined with mass production and intensive energy use, has led to environmental degradation. Moreover, we live in a consumer society which, as Bauman [9,10] argues, shapes individual identity through lifestyle and consumption choices. Goods tend to be used only briefly and are quickly replaced by new, ‘more modern’ ones, as the market constantly produces supposedly better products and sustains a chronic sense of lack and dissatisfaction. The culture we inhabit is therefore a culture of overproduction and waste. Therefore, addressing environmental challenges requires a fundamental shift in consumption patterns and individual behaviors [2,3,11].

Stern (2000) [12] differentiates between public-sphere environmental behaviors, which include active participation in environmental movements, and private-sphere behaviors, which refer to individual, everyday actions with environmental consequences. This article focuses on the latter category, as private-sphere behaviors offer key opportunities for promoting sustainable consumption in daily life. These behaviors include [12]: (1) environmentally significant consumer purchase behaviors, such as buying automobiles or home energy systems; (2) the use and maintenance of household equipment, including actions like maintaining heating and cooling systems and making curtailment efforts (e.g., reducing thermostat settings); (3) waste disposal behaviors, such as recycling or composting; and (4) green consumerism, which includes purchasing recycled or organically produced goods. These practices directly support the twelfth United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 12): responsible consumption and production [13]. SDG 12 calls for production and consumption patterns that remain within planetary boundaries while safeguarding the well-being of present and future generations [14,15]. More specifically, SDG 12 encompasses separating economic growth from environmental degradation, increasing resource-use efficiency, reducing waste creation through prevention, reuse and recycling, promoting sustainable public procurement, and raising awareness of sustainable lifestyles [16]. From the perspective of SDG 12, private-sphere environmental behaviors are therefore particularly important.

Responsible consumer behaviors involve multiple considerations, such as choosing energy-efficient appliances [2,17,18], verifying eco-certifications [2,17], and assessing the environmental impact of products [19]. Each of these behaviors contributes to promoting sustainable consumption and ensures that consumers make informed choices.

1.1. Literature Review

Private-sphere environmental behaviors, as identified by Stern, are crucial for sustainable development [12]. A socially responsible consumer chooses products based on quality, ethics, and social aspects, considering the company’s actions and engaging in the chain of responsibility [20]. Pro-ecological behaviors combine concern for one’s own interests with responsibility for others, future generations, and the ecosystem, reducing the negative impact on the environment and bringing ecological benefits [12,21,22]. These include waste segregation [23,24], bringing reusable bags when shopping [25], reducing energy consumption [23,26,27], conserving water [12,28], using public transport [25,29], avoiding plastic packaging [30,31], buying second-hand clothes [32,33], and reducing meat consumption [34].

Whether individuals engage in private-sphere environmental behaviors can be explained with reference to general psychological theories that are widely applied in environmental psychology. Ajzen in his theory of planned behavior [34] proposes that people are more likely to perform a given behavior when they hold a positive attitude towards it, perceive social pressure from significant others, and believe that they are able to carry it out in practice. When this framework is applied to private-sphere environmental behaviors, it implies that environmental concern alone is not sufficient, because social norms and a sense of personal efficacy in everyday consumption choices also play an important role.

Similarly, Schwartz’s norm-activation model [35], originally formulated to explain altruistic behavior, has been widely used to analyze actions taken on behalf of the environment. In this framework, prosocial behavior, including pro-environmental behavior, is more likely when individuals are aware of the negative consequences of inaction and ascribe personal responsibility to themselves.

The meta-analysis by Bamberg and Möser [36], using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM), brings together key variables derived from the theory of planned behavior and the norm-activation model. It shows that people engage in pro-environmental behavior mainly when they form a clear intention to do so. These intentions are shaped by three key factors: (1) positive attitudes towards such actions, (2) perceived behavioral control (feeling capable of performing them), and (3) personal moral norms (a felt moral obligation). Mere awareness of environmental problems is not sufficient on its own. It becomes influential primarily when it is combined with personal moral norms and feelings of responsibility or guilt. Overall, their findings highlight attitudes, perceived behavioral control, personal moral norms and problem awareness (mainly through its indirect effects) as central psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental intentions and behavior.

Private-sphere environmental behaviors be analyzed not only through the lens of psychology, but also as elements of everyday social practices. Warde [37] argues that consumption takes the form of routinised activities embedded in social norms, infrastructures and material arrangements. This perspective highlights the importance of how everyday consumption is organized through existing systems and material arrangements, for example, waste collection systems or public transport networks. Drawing on this line of work, Shove [38] argues that changes in environmental behavior result from gradual transformations of social practices, in which cultural meanings, material resources and competences are intertwined, rather than simply from ‘greener’ attitudes and choices of isolated individuals [39]. Spaargaren [40] develops a contextual approach to sustainable consumption in which both individual agency and the role of social structure occupy a central place. In this perspective, consumption choices and everyday routines are embedded in specific lifestyles and systems of provision that can either support sustainable practices or make them more difficult. Within this framework, responsible consumer decisions can influence market shaping and producers’ decisions, for example, through growing demand for environmentally friendly products or boycotts of unsustainable companies.

Research indicates that there are differences in environmental sustainability across generations [41,42,43,44]. A generational cohort is defined as a population segment whose members have been shaped by common socio-historical conditions, resulting in shared attitudes, values, and behaviors—including patterns of consumer decision-making [45]. The time intervals used to differentiate generations are a matter of debate due to their arbitrariness, and the boundaries between them are often not clear-cut. In this article, we will adopt the classification proposed by Twenge [46], which includes: (a) the Baby Boomer (BB) generation (born between 1946–1964), (b) Generation X (born between 1965–1979), (c) Generation Y/Millennials (born between 1980–1994), and (d) Generation Z (born 1995–2012).

In the literature, it is emphasized that generations do not constitute homogeneous categories but rather emerge within specific historical and cultural context [47,48]. Contemporary distinctions between Baby Boomers and Generations X, Y, and Z have been developed mainly on the basis of research conducted in the United States and in relation to the specific experiences of that society [49,50]. Applying these temporal boundaries in European analyses, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, therefore requires taking into account different political, economic, and social conditions. In the case of Poland, this means considering the specific trajectory of post-war socio-economic transformations that have shaped, in different ways, the biographical experiences of particular cohorts [51]. Polish Baby Boomers grew up under a centrally planned economy and chronic shortages of consumer goods, which fostered attitudes of frugality and long-term use of possessions [52]. Generation X experienced both the late phase of state socialism and the rapid systemic transformation after 1989, learning to function under increasing uncertainty and within a gradually emerging market economy [53]. Generation Y entered adulthood during the consolidation of the market system, growing product availability and rapid digitalization, which encouraged more individualized and style-oriented forms of consumption [54]. The youngest cohort, Generation Z, has been growing up in the context of Poland’s EU membership, an intensifying climate crisis, the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and its socio-economic consequences, as well as the dominance of social media [55].

The current body of research presents a nuanced and often contradictory picture of generational differences in attitudes and behaviors related to sustainable development [56,57]. On one hand, several studies suggest that older adults—particularly those from the BB Generation—are less engaged in sustainable consumption and tend to be more skeptical of sustainability related claims [57,58,59,60]. On the other hand, a growing number of findings indicate that their actual behaviors may be more environmentally responsible than commonly assumed [22,44,61,62,63,64].

Wiernik et al. [56], in their meta-analysis, highlight a common asymmetry: while younger cohorts typically hold more positive environmental attitudes, it is often older adults who engage more consistently in practical, environmentally friendly actions. Additional evidence from Cohen [65] suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a turning point, further amplifying generational differences by accelerating sustainable consumption patterns among younger cohorts.

Generational motivations also appear to differ. As shown by Jakubowska et al. [66], younger consumers tend to be driven primarily by environmental values, whereas older consumers often take into account economic factors when making sustainability related decisions. Lin and Fung [44] emphasize that older individuals often demonstrate higher levels of ‘generativity concerns’, that is, a sense of responsibility toward future generations, which appears to motivate them to engage in pro-environmental behavior.

1.2. Study Rationale and Aims

Despite increasing international interest in generational patterns of environmental engagement, the Polish research landscape continues to exhibit a notable gap in this area. To date, no comprehensive studies have systematically compared private-sphere environmental behaviors across clearly defined generational cohorts. The most relevant sources such as surveys conducted by the Centre for Public Opinion Research [67] and the Polish Ministry of Climate and Environment [62] offer valuable insights into population-level trends, yet they do not disaggregate results according to generational groupings. Academic studies have primarily focused on younger age groups, especially members of Generation Z [68,69,70]. In cases where age-based comparisons are included, they often rely on broad or inconsistent age brackets that do not align with commonly recognized generational categories such as BB, Generation X, Millennials, or Generation Z [63]. Moreover, Boermans et al. [63] highlight that, in contrast to Germany and the Netherlands, where intergenerational differences in environmental attitudes and behaviors are relatively subtle, Poland exhibits a much sharper generational divide, with younger and older cohorts expressing notably distinct approaches to sustainability.

In light of these observations, this study aims to explore how self-reported private-sphere environmental behaviors differ across generational cohorts in Poland. The findings may help inform targeted environmental communication strategies and policy interventions tailored to specific generations. The analysis of the literature has led us to formulate the following research question: How do different generational cohorts in Poland differ in their declarations of private-sphere environmental behaviors? Based on the generational differences observed in Poland, the life experiences of different cohorts, the existing research, and the authors’ expertise, we formulated the following hypothesis: The oldest cohort (Baby Boomers) will report higher overall level of private-sphere environmental behaviors than the youngest cohort (Generation Z).

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted using a computer-assisted web interview (CAWI) via one of the largest Polish research panels-SW Research. Registered participants accumulate points for completing surveys, which can later be exchanged for rewards. For this study, SW Research selected a quota sample of Polish respondents based on gender, education (two categories), and province, within predefined generational groups. Recruitment continued until 250 complete questionnaires were obtained in each generational cohort, resulting in a final sample of 1000 respondents. Such a sample size is commonly considered adequate for detecting small-to-moderate effects in between-group comparisons in social survey research. This ex ante grouping into four equally sized cohorts simplifies comparative analyses, avoids problems related to unequal group sizes or weighting, and increases the statistical power for detecting genuine differences between generations. Data collection was carried out during the first week of February 2023.

The survey questionnaire was specifically developed for this study. It underwent content validation, pilot testing, and reliability analysis. The average completion time was approximately 5 min. This article is part of a larger series of publications [51,71] based on the same dataset derived from this research. These publications offer further details about the research tool.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software version 29. All statistical analyses were performed with a significance level set at p < 0.05. For declarations of self-reported private-sphere environmental behaviors, we performed mean comparisons using one-way ANOVA. Although this scale is ordinal in nature (6-point Likert), previous literature [72] supports treating Likert-type scales with five or more response categories as approximately interval-level measures suitable for ANOVA.

To quantify the proportion of variance in environmental behavior explained by generational group, effect sizes were calculated using eta squared. Eta squared around 0.01 were interpreted as small, around 0.06 as medium, and 0.14 or higher as large effects [73]. Subsequently, when ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between generational means, post hoc tests were conducted to identify which specific cohorts differed from one another. Where the assumption of equal variances was met, Tukey’s post hoc test was applied; when this assumption was violated, the Games–Howell test was used. To complement the significance testing, Cohen’s d was calculated for each significant pairwise comparison, using the conventional benchmarks (small: d = 0.2, medium: d = 0.5, large: d = 0.8; [73]) to quantify the effect size of generational differences. The following abbreviations are used throughout the analysis: mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and standard error (SE).

The Index of Private-Sphere Environmentalism (PSE Index) was constructed based on respondents’ declarations. Each examined behavior was assigned a score on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 corresponded to the response “never” and 6 to “always.” Subsequently, all points obtained for individual behaviors were summed to create the total PSE Index score for each participant. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to assess the reliability of the index and was found to be satisfactory (α = 0.772). According to conventional thresholds, values above 0.70 indicate acceptable internal consistency. Corrected item–total correlations ranged from r = 0.38 to r = 0.63, indicating that all items contributed meaningfully to the overall score, and inter-item correlations ranged from r = 0.08 to r = 0.69, suggesting that the items were related but not redundant. As expected, the PSE index was moderately and positively correlated with environmental concern (r = 0.49, p < 0.001, n = 952) and perceived self-impact on the environment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001, n = 920), which supports its convergent validity.

For each generation of Poles, we then calculated the average PSE index score. One-way ANOVA was again used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between the generations. Appropriate post hoc tests were also conducted. To assess the proportion of variance explained by generation, eta squared was computed as a measure of effect size.

Next, we conducted a four-step hierarchical multiple regression. This analysis allowed us to first examine how strongly age alone predicted score in PSE index. In the second step, we added other sociodemographic variables to age to assess the extent to which they served as additional predictors. In the third step, we entered psychological variables (environmental concern and perceived self-impact on the environment) to test whether they explained additional variance in pro-environmental behaviors beyond sociodemographic factors and to assess their unique contribution as predictors. In the final step, we tested whether income moderated the association between environmental concern and score in PSE index.

3. Results

The mean age in our study was 42.7 years. The gender distribution was equal, with 50% women and 50% men, and this balance was maintained within each generational cohort. Other socio-demographic characteristics are presented in

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 1000).

		Generation Z (n = 250)	Generation Y (n = 250)	Generation X (n = 250)	Generation BB (n = 250)	Total
Age (mean)		21.6	33.8	50.0	65.5	42.7
Gender	Female	50%	50%	50%	50%	50%
	Male	50%	50%	50%	50%	50%
Place of residence	Village	30.8%	34.0%	20%	18.8%	25.9%
	Town up to 19,999 inhabitants	14.4%	11.6%	12.4%	8.8%	11.8%
	Town 20,000–99,000 inhabitants	18.0%	18.8%	23.6%	32.8%	23.3%
	City 100,000–199,000 inhabitants	15.2%	10.0%	8.8%	14.0%	12.0%
	City 200,000–499,000 inhabitants	8.0%	10.0%	12.0%	12.0%	10.5%
	City over 500,000 inhabitants	13.6%	15.6%	23.2%	13.6%	16.5%
Education	Primary	10.0%	1.6%	2.4%	1.2%	3.8%
	Gymnasium	2.4%	1.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.9%
	Vocational	10.0%	4.0%	12.4%	6.8%	8.3%
	Secondary	61.2%	42.8%	45.6%	50.0%	49.9%
	Bachelor’s degree	13.2%	15.6%	10.4%	6.8%	11.5%
	Master’s degree	3.2%	34.8%	29.2%	35.2%	25.6%

.

The most commonly declared pro-ecological behavior among Poles was sorting household waste (M = 5.1, SD = 1.3). The second most common was bringing reusable bags when shopping (M = 4.9, SD = 1.2), and the third was reducing water use at home (M = 4.6, SD = 1.2). In all generational cohorts, these three behaviors were ranked in the same order.

In nearly all cases (except for limiting the purchase of new clothes), Generation Z had the lowest average scores, while BB Generation had the highest, indicating that the oldest Poles more frequently exhibit private-sphere environmentalism. The one-way ANOVA revealed significant generational differences in average scores for all behaviors, with the exception of limiting the purchase of new clothing. Effect sizes, calculated using eta squared, indicated that the largest differences across generations were observed in reducing electricity and water consumption. To determine which specific groups differed from each other, post hoc tests were conducted (see

Table 2. Declarations of pro-ecological behaviors by different generations.

Question	Generation Z M (SD)	Generation Y M (SD)	Generation X M (SD)	Generation BB M (SD)	Total	F Test; p	Eta Squared
A. Do you sort your household waste?	4.8 (1.4)	4.9 (1.3)	5.1 (1.2)	5.6 (0.9)	5.1 (1.3)	20.9; <0.001	0.059
B. Do you take reusable bags when shopping and avoid buying single-use plastic bags?	4.6 (1.3)	4.8 (1.3)	5.0 (1.1)	5.3 (0.9)	4.9 (1.2)	19.0; <0.001	0.054
C. Do you reduce your electricity consumption at home?	4.0 (1.2)	4.3 (1.2)	4.7 (1.2)	5.3 (0.9)	4.6 (1.2)	56.6; <0.001	0.146
D. Do you reduce your water consumption at home?	4.0 (1.2)	4.2 (1.2)	4.7 (1.1)	5.1 (1.1)	4.5 (1.2)	49.5; <0.001	0.130
E. Whenever possible, do you avoid driving and use a bicycle, bus, or train instead?	3.7 (1.4)	3.5 (1.5)	3.8 (1.5)	4.0 (1.4)	3.8 (1.5)	6.6; <0.001	0.019
F. Do you limit buying products in plastic packaging?	3.5 (1.1)	3.6 (1.3)	3.9 (1.2)	4.0 (1.2)	3.8 (1.2)	8.4; <0.001	0.025
G. Do you limit buying new clothes and purchase second-hand clothing instead?	3.6 (1.4)	3.5 (1.5)	3.6 (1.4)	3.4 (1.5)	3.5 (1.4)	0.9; 0.421	0.003
H. Do you reduce your meat consumption or avoid eating meat altogether?	2.8 (1.5)	2.9 (1.5)	3.0 (1.3)	3.3 (1.4)	3.0 (1.5)	6.4; <0.001	0.019

Note: Bold indicates statistical significance.

).

The post hoc test indicated that statistically significant differences for behavior A (waste sorting) exist between Generation Z and Generation X as well as BB Generation. Significant differences were also observed between Generation Y and BB Generation, as well as between Generation X and BB Generation. For behavior B (bringing reusable bags), significant differences were found between Generation Z and Generation X, Generation Z and BB, Generation Y and BB Generation, and Generation X and BB, indicating that the oldest generation statistically brought reusable bags for shopping more often than the other generations.

Almost all age cohorts also differed significantly from each other in behavior C (electricity consumption). The interpretation of Cohen’s d (d = 1.23) indicated that the largest effect was between Generation Z and the BB generation. A similar pattern was observed for behavior D (water consumption). For behavior E (choosing eco-friendly transportation), statistically significant differences emerged between Generation Y and Generation X, and between Generation Y and BB, with the older generations behaving more environmentally friendly than the youngest generation.

For behavior F (limiting the purchase of products in plastic packaging), statistically significant differences were found between Generation Z and Generation X, Generation Z and BB, and Generation X and BB. In the case of behavior H (limiting meat consumption), although the one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference, the post hoc tests did not indicate any statistically significant differences between the groups. This confirms that the observed generational differences were small and distributed, rather than concentrated in specific pairwise contrasts (see:

Table 3. Post hoc tests for generational cohorts and the reporting of Private-Sphere Environmentalism.

Generation	Comparison Group	MD	SE	p	d
A. Do you sort your household waste? (Games-Howell post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.15	0.12	0.601	0.07
	Generation X	−0.32	0.12	0.037	0.23
	BB Generation	−0.82	0.11	<0.001	0.68
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.16	0.11	0.462	0.16
	BB Generation	−0.66	0.10	<0.001	0.63
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.50	0.09	<0.001	0.47
B. Do you take reusable bags when shopping and avoid buying single-use plastic bags? (Games-Howell post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.21	0.11	0.262	0.15
	Generation X	−0.43	0.11	<0.001	0.33
	BB Generation	−0.74	0.10	<0.001	0.63
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.22	0.11	0.172	0.17
	BB Generation	−0.54	0.1	<0.001	0.45
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.31	0.09	0.003	0.30
C. Do you reduce your electricity consumption at home? (Tukey post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.26	0.11	0.081	0.25
	Generation X	−0.65	0.11	<0.001	0.58
	BB Generation	−1.23	0.09	<0.001	1.23
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.39	0.11	0.002	0.33
	BB Generation	−0.97	0.10	<0.001	0.94
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.58	0.09	<0.001	0.57
D. Do you reduce your water consumption at home? (Tukey post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.2	0.11	0.227	0.17
	Generation X	−0.70	0.10	<0.001	0.61
	BB Generation	−1.12	0.10	<0.001	0.96
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.50	0.10	<0.001	0.43
	BB Generation	−0.92	0.10	<0.001	0.78
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.43	0.10	<0.001	0.36
E. Whenever possible, do you avoid driving and use a bicycle, bus, or train instead? (Tukey post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	0.25	0.13	0.224	0.14
	Generation X	−0.11	0.13	0.834	0.07
	BB Generation	−0.32	0.13	0.065	0.21
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.36	0.13	0.035	0.20
	BB Generation	−0.56	0.13	<0.001	0.34
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.21	0.13	0.374	0.14
F. Do you limit buying products in plastic packaging? (Tukey post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.08	0.11	0.879	0.08
	Generation X	−0.34	0.10	0.007	0.35
	BB Generation	−0.47	0.10	<0.001	0.43
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.26	0.11	0.082	0.24
	BB Generation	−0.39	0.11	0.002	0.32
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.13	0.11	0.622	0.08
H. Do you reduce your meat consumption or avoid eating meat altogether? (Games-Howell post hoc)
Generation Z	Generation Y	0.12	0.13	0.814	0.07
	Generation X	0.06	0.13	0.964	0.14
	BB Generation	0.21	0.13	0.373	0.34
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.06	0.13	0.973	0.07
	BB Generation	0.09	0.13	0.899	0.28
Generation X	BB Generation	0.15	0.11	0.648	0.22

Note: Bold indicates statistical significance.

).

Subsequently, an index of private-sphere environmentalism (PSE Index) was constructed, the procedure for which is detailed in Section 2. It increased with age, with each successive generation scoring higher on average. Generation Z had an average score of 3.87, Millennials—3.96, Generation X—4.21, and BB—4.5. At the same time, this result confirmed our hypothesis formulated in the Introduction, indicating that the oldest cohort would report a higher overall level of private-sphere environmental behaviors than the youngest cohort. The one-way ANOVA test indicated statistically significant differences (F = 33.3 (3, 996), p < 0.001). The effect size, expressed as eta squared, was 0.091, which corresponds to a medium effect according to Cohen’s benchmarks [73]. Post hoc tests were conducted to determine between which groups these differences occurred. It was found that statistically significant differences existed between almost all groups, except for the two youngest generations, Z and Y, which did not differ in this regard (see:

Table 4. Tukey post hoc test for generational cohorts and PSE Index.

Generation	Comparison Group	MD	SE	p	d
Generation Z	Generation Y	−0.09	0.07	0.562	0.08
	Generation X	−0.34	0.07	<0.001	0.31
	BB Generation	−0.63	0.07	<0.001	0.57
Generation Y	Generation X	−0.25	0.07	0.002	0.23
	BB Generation	−0.54	0.07	<0.001	0.49
Generation X	BB Generation	−0.29	0.07	<0.001	0.26

Note: Bold indicates statistical significance.

). To further assess the strength of these differences, Cohen’s d was calculated for each pairwise comparison. The largest difference was observed between Baby Boomers and Generation Z (d = 0.57) indicating a moderate effect. In contrast, the difference between Generation Y and Z was minimal (d = 0.08), confirming their statistical similarity.

Next, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression with the PSE index as the dependent variable. The results are summarized in

Table 5. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression.

Model	R	R2	Adjusted R2	∆R2	∆F	df1	df2	Sig. ∆F
1	0.318 a	0.101	0.1	0.101	940.99	1	843	<0.001
2	0.394 b	0.155	15	0.054	130.39	4	839	<0.001
3	0.616 c	0.379	0.374	0.224	151.16	2	837	<0.001
4	0.619 d	0.383	0.378	0.004	5.54	1	836	0.019

Notes: a. Predictors: age (continious); b. Predictors: age, gender (binary), education (binary), place of residence (binary), salary (ranges, centered); c. age, gender, education, place of residence, income (centered), environmental concern (centered), perceived self-impact on the environment (centered); d. age, gender, education, place of residence, income, environmental conncern, perceived self-impact on the environment, income and environmental concern interaction term. Bold indicates statistical significance.

. The final model explained 38.3% of the variance in the PSE index, which is a relatively high proportion for social science research. In Model 1, age was entered as the sole predictor and explained 10.1% of the variance in the PSE index (R² = 0.101). This can be considered a relatively large effect for a single socio-demographic predictor. Older respondents reported higher scores on the PSE index.

In second model, we added further socio-demographic variables: gender, education, place of residence, and income. In addition to age, gender (B = −0.290, β = −0.183, p < 0.001) and income (B = −0.073, β = −0.102, p = 0.004) emerged as significant predictors. Women scored higher on the PSE index, and higher income was associated with slightly less frequent private-sphere environmental behaviors (a small but significant effect). Education and settlement size were not significant. Overall, this block of socio-demographic variables explained 15.5% of the variance in the PSE index.

In Model 3, we added two psychological variables: environmental concern and perceived self-impact on the environment. In this model, age (B = 0.011, β = 0.247, p < 0.001), gender (B = −0.186, β = −0.118, p < 0.001), environmental concern (B = 0.329, β = 0.323, p < 0.001), and perceived self-impact (B = 0.252, β = 0.246, p < 0.001) were all significant predictors, whereas education, place of residence, and income were not. Adding environmental concern and perceived self-impact improved the model: the explained variance increased from 15.5% to 37.9%. Respondents who were more concerned about the environment and who felt they had a stronger self-impact on enviroment reported more frequent private-sphere environmental behaviors. These two psychological variables were the strongest predictors in the model.

In the final model, we tested whether income moderates the effect of environmental concern on the PSE index. The income and environmental concern interaction was statistically significant but very small in magnitude (ΔR² = 0.004, p = 0.019), indicating that the association between environmental concern and prvate-sphere enviromental behavior was slightly stronger among higher-income respondents. However, the size of this moderating effect was modest, suggesting that people with lower and higher incomes translate their concerns into pro-environmental actions to a broadly comparable extent.

We also tested, in alternative models, whether age moderates the effects of environmental concern and perceived self-impact on the environment. None of these interaction terms reached statistical significance, so age does not appear to function as a moderator in these relationships, and we therefore do not report these interaction models in detail.

4. Discussion

Waste sorting is one of the most common forms of private-sphere environmentalism in Poland, likely driven by current regulations and penalties for non-compliance that are in force [62]. Researchers suggest that legal regulations are one of the main motivations for sorting waste [23,74]. This is also consistent with Spaargaren’s contextual approach to sustainable consumption [40]. The second most common form is the use of reusable bags—the introduction of additional fees, along with growing environmental awareness in society, has led consumers to choose more sustainable options [62]. Reducing energy consumption is the third most commonly declared pro-ecological behavior. This is not surprising, as researchers indicate that such behavior is linked to rising electricity prices [75], a trend also observed in Poland [76]. Polish consumers are increasingly seeking solutions that help reduce costs, which encourages them to invest in products that lower energy use [76]. Motivation to engage in private-sphere environmental behaviors because of financial savings is consistent with Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior [77], in which attitudes toward a given action are shaped, among other things, by the expected benefits resulting from that action. We can therefore speculate that these most popular behaviors are somewhat compelled—both by legal regulations and economic incentives.

The results of the present study shows generational differences in private-sphere environmentalism. Age is a significant predictor of private environmental behavior—older individuals more often report engaging in such actions. This effect remains even after controlling for other socio-demographic and psychological variables. This is consistent with previous studies in which age has been found to be an important predictor of pro-environmental behavior [64]. This result is also supported by panel studies of the Polish Ministry of Climate [62]. Although these studies do not explicitly distinguish generational cohorts, they show that respondents aged 15–24 (i.e., members of Generation Z) more frequently identify environmental issues—such as energy and mining—as among the most pressing problems facing the country. At the same time, individuals aged 60 and above more often report practicing energy-saving behaviors and tend to evaluate the waste management system more positively. Another study [63] found that the older group of Poles (aged 40–60) was more engaged than the younger group (aged 20–39) in specific actions such as waste sorting and turning off unused appliances. Among younger participants, there was a greater trend toward mindful eating and buying second-hand clothing. Although qualitative in nature, this study aligns with our findings. Some studies from other countries have also found that older generations engage in ecological behaviors more frequently [44,64].

The only domain in which Generation Z clearly stands out is the purchase of second-hand clothing, where they report higher engagement than the BB Generation. Rather than being driven solely by stronger pro-environmental motivations, this pattern is also likely to reflect differences in the economic situation and life stage of younger respondents [78,79,80], many of whom are still in education or at the beginning of their careers and thus continue to live with their parents or depend on their financial support. In this context, second-hand clothing becomes a relatively inexpensive way of experimenting with one’s appearance and frequently updating one’s wardrobe. Purchasing from second-hand stores thus brings together economic motivations and the desire to participate in trends [79,81]. Second-hand fashion and re-commerce are increasingly seen by Generation Z as a viable alternative to the fast-fashion context in which they operate [82], combining affordability with more sustainable consumption patterns [83].

For all other self-reported behaviors examined in this study, the BB Generation consistently reported the highest levels of private-sphere environmental behaviors. This pattern may be explained by unique life experiences of BB Generation. Polish BB Generation lived in markedly different conditions than younger generations: they faced post-war reconstruction, chronic shortages of basic goods, and the economic constraints of a centrally planned political system during the PRL (The People’s Republic of Poland). These formative experiences fostered values of frugality, reuse, and resourcefulness [84]—traits that naturally align with contemporary pro-environmental behaviors. Thus, the cultural, economic, and social contexts of the past continue to shape current practices. The Polish context adds an important perspective to global sustainability debates. Generational differences in behavior may reflect the legacy of historical constraints, which have long-term effects on consumption practices.

These generational differences may also be interpreted in light of variations in historical exposure to environmental education, opportunities for civic engagement, and perceived responsibilities toward future generations. Older cohorts may have developed a stronger sense of duty, possibly due to their longer exposure to public environmental campaign [23,61].

As already noted in the introduction, pro-environmental actions can be viewed as a form of prosocial behavior directed towards the well-being of others and future generations [22,44]. Life-span theories of personality [85] suggest that many middle-aged and older adults develop a generative concern for the fate of the next generation and a desire to leave a positive legacy. From this perspective, caring for the environment can be seen as one possible expression of generative activity.

What is worth considering in this context is that other studies indicate that younger individuals—particularly members of Generation Z—tend to report higher levels of environmental concern and awareness [86]. However, this concern does not always translate into consistent consumer behavior. This discrepancy aligns with the widely discussed ‘green attitude–behavior gap’ [3,21], in which individuals’ pro-environmental attitudes are not necessarily reflected in their everyday habits.

This interpretation is consistent with the conclusions of Kollmuss and Agyeman [87] who argue that actions on behalf of the environment result from a complex interplay of knowledge, values, emotions, habits and structural conditions rather than from declared attitudes alone. Gifford [88], in turn, describes a range of psychological barriers that can inhibit climate-friendly behavior even among people who are genuinely worried about the state of the environment. These include, among others, limited awareness of the problem, a sense of lack of control, the influence of social norms and the strength of entrenched habits. In this light, our findings for Generation Z can be read as an example of a situation in which genuine concern about climate change coexists with various individual and contextual obstacles that make it difficult to translate this concern into regular private-sphere environmentalism behavior [41].

Reforms in higher education in Poland since 1989 have aimed to adapt to contemporary challenges, including environmental education [86]. However, the effectiveness of these reforms remains questionable. Our research indicates, this education is not effective in leading younger generations to behave more sustainably than older generations, who did not have such formal education.

Our regression analysis showed that not only age was important for private-sphere environmental behaviors. Among the remaining socio-demographic characteristics, we observed a significant effect primarily for gender: women reported pro-environmental behaviors more often than men, which is consistent with the findings of other authors [88,89]. Education and place of residence did not prove to be significant predictors once the other variables were taken into account.

Income modifies the strength of the association between environmental concern and behavior. Individuals with higher incomes and strong environmental concerns were more likely to translate their concerns into concrete actions than individuals with a similar level of concern but lower incomes. In line with the literature, this pattern can be interpreted as an effect of greater availability of resources that facilitate engaging in pro-environmental behaviors [12,90]. Age, which was the main focus of our interest in the present article, did not moderate either environmental concern or perceived self-impact on the environment.

It is important to note that the psychological factors—environmental concern and perceived self-impact on the environment—were important predictors of the PSE index. This result is also consistent with previous findings indicating that psychological variables play a key role in predicting pro-environmental behavior [12,36,89,90].

4.1. Limitations

While these findings offer valuable information, several limitations of the study should be acknowledged. First, the method used—a quota sample from an online panel, which excluded digitally excluded individuals (in Poland, this primarily includes older people—from BB Generation, living in rural areas [91]). Second, the study relied on self-reported declarations rather than objectively observed behaviors, which may have been affected by recall errors and social desirability bias. Moreover, our index did not capture the full range of pro-environmental actions (e.g., political engagement, high-impact consumption choices) and, for these reasons, the PSE should be interpreted as a relative indicator of everyday private-sphere environmentalism in this specific context and time period, rather than as a comprehensive or exhaustive measure of pro-environmental behavior. Third, the questionnaire did not include questions about the motivations behind the individual declarations, which prevents a deeper reflection on the results.

A further limitation is that pro-environmental attitudes may change over time, especially under the influence of various crisis events. It is therefore important to note that our study was conducted at a specific moment for Polish society. It took place towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have altered some individuals’ views on environmental issues, for example, by prioritizing public health over ecological concerns. What is more, only a year had passed since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Poland’s close neighbor, which also led to a large inflow of refugees into the country. These developments may have influenced the declarations captured in our survey. Our study is therefore a snapshot of a particular moment and can serve as a point of reference for subsequent research on these issues.

Another factor is that, in 2023, some members of Generation Z were still under 18 and were therefore excluded from our study, which may have influenced our results and the conclusions drawn about the youngest cohort. Moreover, a substantial proportion of young adults in many European countries, even after the age of 30, continue to live in the parental home [90]. This creates a risk that, in the case of the youngest cohort, some of the reported behaviors primarily reflect patterns prevailing in the family of origin (i.e., among parents from Generation X or the younger Baby Boomer generation), rather than fully autonomous choices made by members of Generation Z [92].

4.2. Future Research

To better understand the motives behind private-sphere environmental behaviors in different generations, future research should employ qualitative methods, in particular in-depth individual interviews. Such studies would offer a better opportunity to explore what lies behind the self-reported behaviors and declarations identified in the present research.

In the future, studies should also extend the analysis beyond private-sphere practices to include both environmental activism (e.g., participation in climate protests) and nonactivist public-sphere behaviors (e.g., donating) [12]. Future studies may also focus more on psychological factors, which turned out to be strong predictors of the PSE index. Their number and diversity should be increased by including, for instance, variables such as attitudes, moral norms, problem awareness, or emotions related to environmental issues. Since the present study focuses on Poland, comparative research across post-socialist countries would also be of considerable interest.

5. Conclusions

In Poland, older generations demonstrate significantly greater involvement in private-sphere environmentalism compared to younger cohorts. Given that international findings on generational engagement in pro-environmental behavior are mixed, it is crucial finding that situates Poland within the broader context. It is important to conduct studies that take country-specific historical and socio-economic conditions into account. Our study addresses a genuine empirical gap in knowledge about Poland, as no previous research has systematically examined these generational differences in private-sphere environmental behaviors.

The higher levels of private-sphere environmentalism among older cohorts can be interpreted in light of their life experiences under post-war scarcity and a centrally planned economy, which fostered norms of saving, re-use, and resourcefulness. At the same time, the most common private-sphere environmental behaviors in our sample—waste sorting, using reusable bags, and reducing energy use—appear strongly shaped by current regulatory and economic incentives.

Age turned out to be a quite good predictor of private-sphere environmental behaviors, but our findings also show that these behaviors depend not only on age but also on other sociodemographic factors, such as gender and income, as well as on psychological factors, including environmental concern and perceived self-impact on the environment.

From a policy perspective, our results underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies for specific age cohorts, that go beyond environmental education alone and encourage meaningful sustainable actions. Because different generational cohorts rely on different communication channels, policy messages should be delivered through more traditional media and community-based initiatives for older adults, and through social media, and digital platforms for younger people. Older adults should be encouraged to maintain and further develop behaviors that support resource conservation, while at the same time being shown that their everyday habits genuinely contribute to caring for future generations and are socially valued. In the case of younger generations, closing the gap between pro-environmental attitudes and actual behaviors may be supported by solutions that make sustainable choices the cheaper, more beneficial and socially rewarding option—for example, through the use of modern technologies (such as dedicated apps) and the engagement of influencers who promote a sustainable lifestyle. Increased efforts across all age groups are needed to reduce meat consumption, limit plastic use, and embrace second-hand clothing. Our findings provide valuable evidence for public institutions, municipalities, and educational actors seeking to strengthen SDG 12 outcomes by taking age into account when designing and targeting interventions to promote sustainable consumption.