Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Data
2.2. Survey Questions and Codings
2.3. Methods
3. Results
3.1. Environmental Attitude, Willingness, and Behavior over Time
3.2. Heterogeneity in Environmental Attitude, Willingness, and Behavior over Time
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Coding Schemes of Remaining Model Variables
ISSP Variable Names (Wave Specific) | Codings for Analysis Based on ISSP Variables | ||
---|---|---|---|
University degree* | 1993 v205 2000 v205 2010 DE-DEGR 2020 EDULEVEL | Measurement of educational level varies across the five waves which requires wave-specific coding schemes | |
Dummy coding for 1993: 0: No university degree (=1 to 8) 1: University degree (=9) | Dummy coding for 2000: 0: No university degree (=1 to 6) 1: University degree (=7) | ||
Dummy coding for 2010: 0: No university degree (=1 to 7 or =9) 1: University degree (=8) | Dummy coding for 2020: 0: No university degree (=0 to 4) 1: University degree (=6 to 8) | ||
Region | 1993 country 2000 country 2010 c_sample 2020 c_sample | Available information was dummy coded: 0: West 1: East | |
Income | 1993 v231 2000 v240 2010 DE_RINC 2020 DE_RINC | In 1993, 2000 and 2010, open answer formats were used. In 2020, 27 answer categories (for substantial answers) were used for personal income. In 2000, 2010, and 2020, income was documented to be personal net income. Due to lacking documentation in 1993, income concept (net or gross) is not unequivocally net. Income was categorized in four income groups after adjusting for purchasing power (as of 2021, using the time series “Purchasing Power Equivalents of Historical Amounts in German Currencies” provided by Deutsche Bundesbank): 1: €1000 or less (PP 2021) 2: €1001 to €1900 (PP 2021) 3: €1901 to €3400 (PP 2021) 4: €3400 or more (PP 2021) | |
Gender | 1993 v200 2000 v200 2010 SEX 2020 SEX | Available information was dummy coded: 0: Male 1: Female | |
Age | 1993 v201 2000 v201 2010 AGE 2020 AGE | Answers to open answer format were collapsed into four age groups. Generated for each wave separately, weighted effect coded dummies: 1: 18–35 years 2: 36–45 years 3: 46–60 years 4: 61–96 years | |
Party affiliation | 1993 v306 2000 v246 2010 PARTY_LR 2020 PARTY_LR | Original five-point scale with substantial answers (1 = far left, 2 = left, center left, 3 = center, liberal, 4 = right, conservative and 5 = far right) was collapsed into three categories with 1 = far left to center left (=1 & 2), 2 = center, liberal (=3), 3= conservative to far right (=3 & 4). Furthermore, we separately generated weighted effect coded dummies for each wave. | |
Weighting factor | 1993 v419 2000 v327 2010 WEIGHT 2020 WEIGHT | Available information was adopted without any changes. |
Attitude | Willingness | Behavior | |
---|---|---|---|
1993 | F (1,1) = 5.21 p = 0.26 | F (1,1) = 5.21 p = 0.26 | F (1,1) = 0.36 p = 0.66 |
2000 | F (1,1) = 13.94 p = 0.17 | F (1,1) = 13.94 p = 0.17 | F (1,1) = 478.41 p = 0.03 |
2010 | F (1,1) = 354.09 p = 0.03 | F (1,1) = 20.62 p = 0.14 | F (1,1) = 0.41 p = 0.64 |
2020 | F (1,1) = 512.27 p = 0.03 | F (1,1) = 143.68 p = 0.05 | F (1,1) = 870.58 p = 0.02 |
References
- Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Komendantova, N. Transferring awareness into action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral drivers of energy transitions in Germany, Austria, Finland, Morocco, Jordan and Iran. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 71, 101826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, B.C.; Kriegler, E.; Riahi, K.; Ebi, K.L.; Hallegatte, S.; Carter, T.R.; Mathur, R.; van Vuuren, D.P. A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Chang. 2014, 122, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schmid, E.; Knopf, B.; Pechan, A. Putting an energy system transformation into practice: The case of the German Energiewende. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reusswig, F.; Komendantova, N.; Battaglini, A. New governance challenges and conflicts of the energy transition: Renewable electricity generation and transmission as contested socio-technical options. In The Geopolitics of Renewables; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 231–256. [Google Scholar]
- BMWi. Das Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz. 2021. Available online: https://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/eeg.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Meier, J. Erfolgreiche Protest gegen Windkraft—Der deutsche Don Quijote Gewinnt Meist. Tagesspiegel. 2019. Available online: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/erfolgreiche-proteste-gegen-windkraft-der-deutsche-don-quijote-gewinnt-meist/24456760.html (accessed on 7 October 2021).
- Mohaupt, D.; Watzke, M. Erneuerbare Energien—Stau auf der Stromautobahn. Deutschlandfunk. 2020. Available online: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/erneuerbare-energien-stau-auf-der-stromautobahn-100.html (accessed on 7 October 2021).
- Kashintseva, V.; Strielkowski, W.; Streimikis, J.; Veynbender, T. Consumer attitudes towards industrial CO2 capture and storage products and technologies. Energies 2018, 11, 2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- L’Orange Seigo, S.; Dohle, S.; Siegrist, M. Public perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS): A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 848–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, M.J.; Wong-Parodi, G.; Kefford, B.M.; Stringer, M.; Schmeda-Lopez, D.R.; Greig, C.; Ballinger, B.; Wilson, S.; Smart, S. Generating linked technology-socioeconomic scenarios for emerging energy transitions. Appl. Energy 2019, 239, 1402–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitzeroth, M.; Megerle, A. Renewable energy projects: Acceptance risks and their management. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 576–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, G. Determining the local acceptance of wind energy projects in Switzerland: The importance of general attitudes and project characteristics. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 4, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashiri, A.; Alizadeh, S.H. The analysis of demographics, environmental and knowledge factors affecting prospective residential PV system adoption: A study in Tehran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 3131–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.K. Assessing the effects of customer innovativeness, environmental value and ecological lifestyles on residential solar power systems install intention. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 951–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerpott, T.J.; Mahmudova, I. Determinants of green electricity adoption among residential customers in Germany. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kesari, B.; Atulkar, S.; Pandey, S. Consumer Purchasing Behaviour towards Eco-Environment Residential Photovoltaic Solar Lighting Systems. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021, 22, 236–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabi, A.; Hille, S.L.; Wüstenhagen, R. What makes people seal the green power deal?—Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, C.R.; Lumsden, C.; O’Dowd, S.; Birnie, R.V. ‘Green On Green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2005, 48, 853–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BMWi. Energieeffizienz für eine Klimaneutrale Zukunft 2045—Zwischenbericht Roadmap Energieeffizienz 2045. 2021. Available online: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/XYZ/zwischenbericht-roadmap-energieeffizienz.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Farjam, M.; Nikolaychuk, O.; Bravo, G. Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 166, 106434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gupta, S.; Ogden, D. The attitude-behavior gap in environmental consumerism. APUBEF Proc. 2006, 3, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
- Tarfaoui, D.; Zkim, S. Ecological attitude—Behavior gap: A theoretical analysis. Int. J. Econ. Strateg. Manag. Bus. Process 2017, 8, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen:, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IUCN/UNEP/WWF. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living; IUCN/UNEP/WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Schmieg, G.; Meyer, E.; Schrickel, I.; Herberg, J.; Caniglia, G.; Vilsmaier, U.; Laubichler, M.; Hörl, E.; Lang, D. Modeling normativity in sustainability: A comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 13, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R.; Cialdini, R.B. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperges, M. Umwelteinstellungen in Deutschland von 1971 bis 2019—Zeitreihenanalyse Anhand Externer Datenquellen. Umweltbundesamt. 2020. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/umwelteinstellungen-in-deutschland-von-1971-bis (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Hartmann, J.; Preisendörfer, P. Development and Structure of Environmental Worries in Germany 1984–2019. Z. Soziologie 2021, 50, 322–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyerhoff, J. Stated willingness to pay as hypothetical behaviour: Can attitudes tell us more? J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2006, 49, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pianta, S.; Sisco, M.R. A hot topic in hot times: How media coverage of climate change is affected by temperature abnormalities. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 114038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Ramirez, D.; Normand, K.; Zhaoyun, Y.; Torres-Castro, R. Long-Term Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seil, E.; Emmler, H. Die Folgen von Corona: Eine Auswertung Regionaler Daten. WSI Policy Brief, 43. 2020. Available online: https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2020071011400171537200 (accessed on 26 September 2022).
- von Pokrzywnick, U. Corona in den Medien. 2022. Available online: https://www.pressemonitor.de/blog/corona-in-den-medien/ (accessed on 16 August 2022).
- Blankenberg, A.-K.; Alhusen, H. On the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review and Guide for the Empirical Economist. Cent. Eur. Gov. Econ. Dev. Res. 2019. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3473702 (accessed on 26 September 2022).
- Preisendörfer, P. Umwelteinstellungen und Umweltverhalten in Deutschland; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, R.E.; Dunlap, R.E. The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have They Changed Over Time? Rural Sociol. 1992, 57, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anemüller, S.; Monreal, S.; Bals, C. GLOBALER KLIMA-RISIKO-INDEX 2006. Germanwatch e. V. Available online: https://www.germanwatch.org/de/2707 (accessed on 30 August 2022).
- Eckstein, D.; Künzel, V.; Schäfer, L. GLOBAL CLIMATE RISK INDEX 2021. Germanwatch e. V. Available online: https://www.germanwatch.org/en/cri (accessed on 30 August 2022).
- Destatis. VGR des Bundes—Bruttowertschöpfung, Bruttoinlandsprodukt (Nominal/Preisbereinigt). 2022. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis//online?operation=table&code=81000-0001&bypass=true&levelindex=0&levelid=1669836419975#abreadcrumb (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. Armutsgefährdungsquote. 2022. Available online: https://www.statistikportal.de/de/nachhaltigkeit/veroeffentlichungen (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung (bpb). (2022). Ausgewählte Armutsgefährdungsquoten. 2022. Available online: https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61785/ausgewaehlte-armutsgefaehrdungsquoten/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- Destatis. EU-SILC: Erfasste Erwerbstätige Personen ab 18 Jahre, Hochgerechnete Personen ab 18 Jahre, Armutsgefährdungquote. 2022. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=find&suchanweisung_language=de&query=63411-0006#abreadcrumb (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Destatis. EU-SILC: Erfasste Personen, Hochgerechnete Personen, Nettoäquivalenzeinkommen, Armutsgefährdungquote. 2022. Available online: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=find&suchanweisung_language=de&query=63411-0001#abreadcrumb (accessed on 16 October 2022).
- McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q. 2011, 52, 155–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franzen, A.; Vogl, D. Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Environment I—ISSP 1993. In GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA2450 Datenfile Version 1.0.0; GESIS Data Archive: Cologne, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Environment II—ISSP 2000. In GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA3440 Datenfile Version 1.0.0; GESIS Data Archive: Cologne, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Environment III—ISSP 2010. In GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5500 Datenfile Version 3.0.0; GESIS Data Archive: Cologne, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Environment IV—ISSP 2020. In GESIS, Köln. ZA7650 Datenfile Version 1.0.0; GESIS Data Archive: Cologne, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumann, D.; Shamon, H.; Hake, J.-F. The Importance of House Effects for Repeated Public Opinion Surveys. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2019, 32, 769–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, T.W. In Search of House Effects: A Comparison of Responses to Various Questions by Different Survey Organizations. Public Opin. Q. 1978, 42, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, T.W. Refining the Total Survey Error Perspective. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2011, 23, 464–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkness, J. Research into Environmental Attitudes and Perceptions (REAP) 1993/1994: ZUMA Report on the German Implementation of the Survey; Paper presented at the ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht, 1996/09; Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen-ZUMA: Mannheim, Germany, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- IPSOS. Unsere Geschichte. 2022. Available online: https://www.ipsos.com/de-at/unsere-geschichte (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Koch, A.; Wasmer, M.; Harkness, J.; Scholz, E. Konzeption und Durchführung der “Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften” (ALLBUS) 2000; GESIS: Mannheim, Germany, 2001; Available online: https://www.gesis.org/allbus/inhalte-suche/methodenberichte (accessed on 30 September 2022).
- Bundesbank, D. Kaufkraftäquivalente historischer Beträge in deutschen Währungen. 2022. Available online: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/615162/9af6d860dbb59dad9f89b30e3771deaf/mL/kaufkraftaequivalente-historischer-betraege-in-deutschen-waehrungen-data.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2022).
- Kreuter, F.; Valliant, R. A Survey on Survey Statistics: What is Done and Can be Done in Stata. Stata J. Promot. Commun. Stat. Stata 2007, 7, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- te Grotenhuis, M.; Pelzer, B.; Eisinga, R.; Nieuwenhuis, R.; Schmidt-Catran, A.; Konig, R. When size matters: Advantages of weighted effect coding in observational studies. Int. J. Public Health 2017, 62, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leal Filho, W. Nachhaltigkeit in der Lehre Eine Herausforderung für Hochschulen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- IPPC. Climate Change 2021—The Physical Science Basis. IPCC AR6 WGI. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ (accessed on 14 August 2022).
- Zech, T. Wer steht Hinter Fridays for Future? 2019. Available online: https://www.deutschland.de/de/topic/umwelt/wer-steht-hinter-fridays-for-future (accessed on 24 October 2022).
Total | 1993 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Mean (SD) | N | Mean (SD) | N | Mean (SD) | N | Mean (SD) | N | Mean (SD) | N |
Age (years) | 49.3 (25.2) | 6716 | 45.3 (17.5) | 2106 | 48.5 (17.2) | 1501 | 51.0 (42.4) | 1407 | 52.8 (18.8) | 1702 |
Income (€) a | 2160 (1945) a | 4705 | 2358 (1412) a | 791 | 3434 (2736) a | 1162 | 1106 (947) a | 1258 | 1938 (1444) a | 1494 |
Variable | % of sample | N | % of sample | N | % of sample | N | % of sample | N | % of sample | N |
Female | 52.9 | 6708 | 53.0 | 2106 | 52.0 | 1501 | 53.4 | 1407 | 53.2 | 1694 |
Income (€) a | ||||||||||
0–1000 | 25.0 | 10.5 | 8.86 | 51.8 | 23.6 | |||||
1001–1900 | 30.4 | 34.0 | 19.5 | 34.5 | 33.3 | |||||
1901–3400 | 27.5 | 35.6 | 32.7 | 10.9 | 32.8 | |||||
>3400 | 17.0 | 19.9 | 38.9 | 2.8 | 10.3 | |||||
Univ. degree | 17.4 | 6687 | 7.3 | 2105 | 8.1 | 1497 | 13.7 | 1405 | 41.4 | 1680 |
Region (East) | 32.2 | 6716 | 51.9 | 2106 | 35.1 | 1501 | 18.2 | 1407 | 16.9 | 1702 |
Items | Scale | |
---|---|---|
Environmental attitude | Original | Recoded |
| 1 Agree strongly 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Disagree strongly | |
| ||
Environmental willingness | ||
| 1 Very willing 2 Fairly willing 3 Neither willing nor unwilling 4 Fairly unwilling 5 Very unwilling | 1 Very unwilling 2 Fairly unwilling 3 Neither willing nor unwilling 4 Fairly willing 5 Very willing |
| ||
| ||
Environmental behavior | ||
| 1 Yes 2 No | 1 No 2 Yes |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| 1 Always | 1 No (if Never) |
2 Often | 2 Yes (if Often, | |
3 Sometimes | Sometimes, or | |
4 Never | Always) |
Item | Total | 1993 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude | ||||||||||
| 50.8 | (6461) | 47.9 | (2047) | 48.4 | (1448) | 50.6 | (1341) | 56.6 | (1625) |
| 53.0 | (6338) | 56.8 | (2015) | 48.4 | (1399) | 46.8 | (1319) | 57.4 | (1605) |
Weighted Average | 51.9 | 52.3 | 48.4 | 48.7 | 57.0 | |||||
Willingness | ||||||||||
| 39.3 | (6436) | 38.8 | (1997) | 31.7 | (1438) | 37.9 | (1350) | 47.5 | (1651) |
| 23.7 | (6414) | 26.8 | (2020) | 18.2 | (1423) | 23.2 | (1326) | 25.2 | (1645) |
| 47.4 | (6433) | 49.1 | (2010) | 37.3 | (1428) | 41.1 | (1335) | 59.1 | (1660) |
Weighted Average | 36.8 | 38.7 | 29.1 | 32.5 | 37.5 | |||||
Behavior | ||||||||||
| 5.8 | (6646) | 4.5 | (2073) | 4.4 | (1491) | 5.9 | (1390) | 8.7 | (1692) |
| 28.2 | (6616) | 28.6 | (2087) | 31.7 | (1475) | 23.1 | (1382) | 28.6 | (1672) |
| 17.1 | (6535) | 13.8 | (2062) | 17.9 | (1468) | 16.3 | (1363) | 21.4 | (1642) |
| 6.5 | (6519) | 8.1 | (2061) | 5.6 | (1458) | 4.6 | (1362) | 6.7 | (1638) |
| 98.7 | (6596) | 97.9 | (2034) | 98.7 | (1482) | 98.9 | (1391) | 99.4 | (1689) |
Weighted Average | 31.3 | 30.4 | 31.7 | 35.3 | 33.2 |
Attitude | Willingness | Behavior | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base 1993 | Base 2000 | Base 2010 | Base 1993 | Base 2000 | Base 2010 | Base 1993 | Base 2000 | Base 2010 | |
2000 | −0.032 | −0.048 | 0.012 | ||||||
(0.022) | (0.007) | (0.006) | |||||||
2010 | −0.017 | 0.014 | −0.007 | 0.040 | −0.005 | −0.017 | |||
(0.027) | (0.005) | (0.032) | (0.024) | (0.001) | (0.005) | ||||
2020 | 0.027 | 0.059 | 0.044 ** | 0.036 | 0.084 | 0.043 * | 0.027 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
(0.027) | (0.005) | (0.001) | (0.030) | (0.022) | (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.009) | (0.004) | |
Constant | 0.574 * | 0.542 * | 0.556 * | 0.477 | 0.429 | 0.469 * | 0.308 * | 0.320 * | 0.304 * |
(0.043) | (0.021) | (0.016) | (0.050) | (0.042) | (0.018) | (0.011) | (0.017) | (0.012) | |
Observations | 6552 | 6552 | 6552 | 6613 | 6613 | 6613 | 6704 | 6704 | 6704 |
R2 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Attitude | Willingness | Behavior | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | 1993 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | 1993 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |
Female (=1) | 0.013 | 0.044 ** | 0.042 * | 0.048 ** | 0.034 | −0.001 | 0.026 | 0.061 *** | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.028 | 0.012 |
(0.033) | (0.016) | (0.019) | (0.017) | (0.029) | (0.015) | (0.017) | (0.016) | (0.025) | (0.012) | (0.015) | (0.015) | |
Male (=0) | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||||||
University degree (=1) | 0.109 * | 0.047 | 0.092 *** | 0.058 *** | 0.037 | 0.101 *** | 0.115 *** | 0.071 *** | 0.091 | 0.058 ** | 0.052 * | 0.061 *** |
(0.047) | (0.025) | (0.022) | (0.017) | (0.050) | (0.023) | (0.021) | (0.016) | (0.066) | (0.020) | (0.025) | (0.015) | |
No university degree (=0) | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||||||
East Germany (=1) | −0.019 | −0.048 ** | −0.051 ** | −0.068 *** | −0.062 * | −0.089 *** | −0.042 * | −0.072 *** | 0.003 | −0.038 ** | −0.033 * | −0.035 * |
(0.033) | (0.017) | (0.019) | (0.016) | (0.029) | (0.015) | (0.017) | (0.016) | (0.031) | (0.012) | (0.014) | (0.014) | |
West Germany (=0) | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||||||
Age: 18–35 years | 0.030 | 0.041 ** | 0.035 * | 0.064 *** | 0.022 | 0.016 | 0.029 * | 0.019 | 0.023 | 0.011 | −0.001 | −0.008 |
(0.022) | (0.013) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.018) | (0.012) | (0.013) | (0.017) | (0.018) | (0.010) | (0.013) | (0.015) | |
Age: 36–45 years | 0.020 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.037 | −0.024 | 0.011 | 0.004 | 0.020 | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.034 |
(0.029) | (0.015) | (0.019) | (0.021) | (0.027) | (0.013) | (0.017) | (0.021) | (0.020) | (0.011) | (0.016) | (0.022) | |
Age: 46–60 years | −0.016 | −0.007 | 0.013 | 0.011 | −0.028 | −0.011 | −0.006 | −0.017 | −0.010 | 0.010 | 0.014 | −0.005 |
(0.023) | (0.013) | (0.014) | (0.012) | (0.019) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.017) | (0.010) | (0.012) | (0.011) | |
Age: 61–96 years | −0.040 | −0.032 * | −0.044 ** | −0.051 *** | 0.020 | −0.014 | −0.020 | −0.003 | −0.029 | −0.024 ** | −0.014 | −0.003 |
(0.032) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.010) | (0.026) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.009) | (0.018) | (0.009) | (0.010) | (0.009) | |
Income: €1000 or less | −0.019 | −0.023 | −0.022 * | −0.033 | 0.005 | 0.011 | −0.034 *** | −0.018 | −0.032 | −0.026 | −0.020 ** | −0.007 |
(0.041) | (0.025) | (0.009) | (0.018) | (0.038) | (0.024) | (0.008) | (0.015) | (0.033) | (0.017) | (0.007) | (0.014) | |
Income: €1001–€1900 | −0.037 | −0.036 * | 0.000 | 0.011 | −0.009 | −0.015 | 0.011 | −0.006 | −0.001 | −0.012 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
(0.022) | (0.016) | (0.012) | (0.011) | (0.019) | (0.015) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.014) | (0.011) | (0.010) | (0.011) | |
Income: €1901–€3400 | 0.030 | −0.004 | 0.095 *** | 0.005 | −0.035 * | −0.019 | 0.110 *** | −0.005 | −0.002 | −0.011 | 0.053 * | −0.002 |
(0.020) | (0.011) | (0.022) | (0.012) | (0.017) | (0.011) | (0.020) | (0.011) | (0.016) | (0.008) | (0.024) | (0.011) | |
Income: €3400 or more | 0.021 | 0.027 * | 0.083 * | 0.020 | 0.070 * | 0.021 * | 0.115 ** | 0.083 *** | 0.021 | 0.021 ** | 0.056 | 0.008 |
(0.035) | (0.011) | (0.040) | (0.020) | (0.028) | (0.010) | (0.037) | (0.019) | (0.027) | (0.008) | (0.037) | (0.021) | |
Far left to center left | 0.045 ** | 0.068 *** | 0.012 | 0.060 *** | 0.013 | 0.020 * | 0.021 *** | 0.051 *** | 0.029 ** | 0.033 *** | 0.029 *** | 0.053 *** |
(0.014) | (0.010) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.012) | (0.009) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.011) | (0.008) | (0.005) | (0.007) | |
Center & liberal | −0.033 | −0.025 ** | −0.018 | −0.072 * | −0.034 | −0.006 | −0.071 ** | −0.075 ** | −0.024 | −0.008 | −0.053 *** | −0.072 *** |
(0.040) | (0.008) | (0.031) | (0.028) | (0.037) | (0.007) | (0.023) | (0.026) | (0.036) | (0.006) | (0.014) | (0.017) | |
Conservative to far right | −0.050 ** | −0.061 *** | −0.018 | −0.065 *** | −0.010 | −0.023 | −0.024 * | −0.053 *** | −0.031 ** | −0.041 *** | −0.043 *** | −0.055 *** |
(0.018) | (0.016) | (0.013) | (0.010) | (0.015) | (0.015) | (0.011) | (0.009) | (0.012) | (0.011) | (0.009) | (0.008) | |
Constant | 0.552 *** | 0.533 *** | 0.543 *** | 0.589 *** | 0.524 *** | 0.458 *** | 0.465 *** | 0.481 *** | 0.313 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.301 *** | 0.321 *** |
(0.030) | (0.012) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.022) | (0.012) | (0.014) | (0.015) | (0.021) | (0.009) | (0.011) | (0.013) | |
Observations | 556 | 1056 | 872 | 907 | 555 | 1055 | 887 | 921 | 562 | 1064 | 891 | 924 |
R2 | 0.068 | 0.078 | 0.082 | 0.160 | 0.064 | 0.079 | 0.131 | 0.142 | 0.056 | 0.064 | 0.081 | 0.104 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Meyer, F.; Shamon, H.; Vögele, S. Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316207
Meyer F, Shamon H, Vögele S. Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):16207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316207
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeyer, Frauke, Hawal Shamon, and Stefan Vögele. 2022. "Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Environmental Attitude, Willingness and Behavior in Germany from 1993 to 2021" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 16207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316207