Next Article in Journal
Seasonal Dynamics of the Silica-Scaled Chrysophytes as Potential Markers of Climate Change in Natural Model: Deep Cold Lake–Shallow Warmer Reservoir
Next Article in Special Issue
Changing Culture through Pro-Environmental Messaging Delivered on Digital Signs: A Longitudinal Field Study
Previous Article in Journal
Product Characteristics and Emotions to Bridge the Intention-Behavior Gap in Green Food Purchasing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Teenagers Believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change and Take Action to Tackle It?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177298
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Perceived Proximity to Climate Change Threats Affects Pro-Environmental Behaviors in South Korea?

by
Jeeyoung Park
1 and
Kiyoung Chang
2,*
1
Department of Political Science, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul 02844, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7298; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177298 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 14 July 2024 / Revised: 16 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 August 2024 / Published: 25 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change, Environmental Behavior, and Sustainable Development in Social and Cultural Psychology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores how perceived proximity to environmental threats influences pro-environmental behaviors in South Korea. We find that individuals are more likely to engage in environmentally friendly actions, such as reducing their standard of living, paying higher taxes, and purchasing higher-priced eco-friendly products when they perceive climate change as a nearby threat. Our findings highlight the importance of perceived immediacy in motivating significant lifestyle changes and financial sacrifices for environmental protection. The results also reveal that political ideology influences these behaviors, with conservative individuals showing less support for green taxes and financial sacrifices. Additionally, higher levels of education and income, along with older age, correlate with a greater willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. These insights contribute to environmental psychology by highlighting the role of perceived proximity in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors, informing the development of targeted policies aimed at fostering sustainable behaviors, and addressing local environmental threats.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the most urgent and complex issues currently facing our society, increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters and significantly affecting communities and economies worldwide. A recent Pew Research Center poll indicates that geographical factors play a crucial role in shaping people’s perceptions and actions regarding climate change. According to this poll, 70% of those living within 25 miles of a coastline believe that climate change is significantly impacting their local community, compared to 57% of those living 300 miles or more from the coast [1]. Given these differences in perception, how does perceived proximity to environmental threats influence the adoption and support of pro-environmental behaviors and policies? Does living closer to perceived environmental dangers increase an individual’s likelihood to engage in actions that mitigate climate change? To examine this relationship between perceived closeness to environmental harms and pro-environmental behaviors, our study focuses on South Koreans’ perceptions of environmental sustainability and individual costs.
South Korea has been experiencing increasingly severe environmental challenges in recent years, making the impacts of climate change more tangible to its citizens. The country has seen a significant increase in extreme weather events, including unprecedented heatwaves, torrential rains, and more frequent and intense typhoons. Urban areas like Seoul have been subjected to record-breaking high temperatures and devastating floods, serving as stark reminders of climate change risks [2]. Additionally, South Korea continues to struggle with severe air pollution problems among OECD countries, with fine dust pollution remaining a persistent public health concern [3]. These direct environmental experiences have significantly shaped public perception and behavior in South Korea. A recent survey indicates an increase in the number of South Koreans who view climate change as a serious threat [4]. This heightened environmental consciousness, coupled with the immediate and visible impacts of climate change and pollution, creates a distinctive setting for examining the relationship between perceived proximity to environmental threats and pro-environmental behaviors.
Building on these observations, our research explores the relationship between perceived proximity to environmental threats and pro-environmental behaviors. We argue that individuals’ perceived closeness to environmental threats significantly influences their pro-environmental behaviors. This influence manifests through increased awareness, emotional engagement, and motivation, driving individuals to adopt more sustainable behaviors. Proximity often makes environmental issues more salient and urgent, leading to a stronger commitment to behaviors that protect and sustain the environment. Such closeness allows citizens to experience the negative impacts of environmental degradation, such as water pollution, poor air quality, or extreme weather changes, making environmental problems more immediate and pressing. Although we primarily focus on climate change as an environmental challenge, we use ‘climate change threats’ and ‘environmental threats’ interchangeably in this paper.
This paper is structured as follows: The next section introduces the existing literature on who cares more about the environment. Then, we present the hypotheses and theoretical framework, detailing the expected relationships between perceived closeness to environmental hazards and pro-environmental behaviors in South Korea. In the following sections, we explain our data, variables, and empirical findings. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our main results and discussing our policy implications, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Who Cares More about the Environment?

As global warming and climate change intensify, there has been a surge in related research examining various factors influencing environmental concerns and behavior. Numerous studies have demonstrated that an increased awareness and concern about environmental issues, particularly climate change, often lead to more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Stern’s [5] seminal work on value-belief-norm theory provided a framework for understanding how environmental concerns translate into action. Building on this, Kollmuss and Agyeman [6] explored the complex factors that promote pro-environmental behavior, highlighting the role of environmental knowledge and attitudes. In the context of climate change, Leiserowitz [7] showed how risk perceptions and policy preferences are shaped by affect, imagery, and values. Gifford [8] identified the psychological processes that can impede climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviors, even when individuals are concerned about the issue. More recently, van der Linden et al. [9] synthesized psychological research to provide best practices for improving public engagement with climate change, emphasizing the importance of making climate change personal and relevant. These studies collectively demonstrate that environmental concerns, particularly about climate change, can motivate pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors while also revealing the complexity of this relationship. This complexity is further reflected in the various factors that influence an individual’s level of environmental concern. Indeed, several reasons explain why some people care more about environmental issues than others, including differences in age, cultural background, education level, political beliefs, personal experiences with environmental disasters, climate change awareness, economic costs, and social influences [10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
First, studies have shown that younger generations, particularly Millennials and Generation Z, tend to be more concerned about environmental issues compared to older generations [17,18,19]. This heightened concern among younger people is often attributed to their greater exposure to environmental education and direct experiences with the impacts of climate change. According to Leiserowitz et al. [20], younger adults are more likely to view global warming as personally important and engage in climate activism compared to older generations. Similarly, Lee and Kotler [21] found that young people are more likely to support environmental policies and participate in sustainable practices due to their higher environmental awareness and social media engagement.
Second, cultural background plays a significant role in shaping environmental attitudes. Individuals from cultures that emphasize communal well-being and collective responsibility are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors [22,23,24]. For example, Zeng et al. [25] found that people in collectivist societies are more likely to participate in recycling programs and support renewable energy initiatives due to their cultural inclination towards community-oriented values. This finding is supported by Schwartz [26], who highlighted that cultural dimensions such as collectivism and power distance significantly influence environmental attitudes and behaviors across different societies.
Next, education level is another critical factor. Higher levels of education are generally associated with greater awareness and understanding of environmental issues, leading to increased pro-environmental behavior [27,28]. Educated individuals are more likely to comprehend the long-term consequences of environmental degradation and the importance of sustainable practices. Saracevic and Schlegelmilch [29] found that individuals with higher education levels are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, such as energy conservation and waste reduction, due to their enhanced knowledge and awareness. Additionally, Arbuthnott [30] also argued that environmental education plays a pivotal role in fostering environmental stewardship and promoting sustainable behaviors among students.
Furthermore, political beliefs significantly influence environmental concerns and behavior. Generally, individuals with liberal political views are more likely to prioritize environmental protection and support policies aimed at mitigating climate change. In contrast, conservative individuals may prioritize economic growth over environmental sustainability, leading to lower levels of environmental concern [31,32,33,34,35]. Lim and Moon [36] claimed that political ideology is a strong predictor of environmental attitudes, with liberals showing higher levels of environmental concern and greater support for environmental policies. This is consistent with the findings by McCright and Dunlap [37], who found that political polarization significantly affects public perceptions of climate change and environmental policies in the United States.
Finally, personal experiences with environmental disasters can profoundly impact one’s environmental concerns. Individuals who have directly experienced events such as hurricanes, floods, or wildfires are more likely to recognize the reality and urgency of climate change, prompting them to adopt more sustainable behaviors [38,39,40,41,42]. Lim and Moon [43] argued that individuals with firsthand experience of environmental disasters exhibit higher levels of environmental concern and are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Spence et al. [44] also found that personal experience with flooding increases awareness and concern about climate change, leading to greater support for mitigation measures.
Despite the extensive research on who cares more about the environment, studies examining the relationship between perceived proximity to environmental threats and pro-environmental behavior in South Korea remain limited. Understanding this relationship is essential for developing effective environmental policies and interventions that resonate with local populations and drive meaningful change. Furthermore, this study is crucial for developing targeted environmental policies and communication strategies that effectively address the varying levels of concern and engagement across different demographic groups, ensuring that efforts to promote sustainability are both inclusive and impactful.

3. Arguments and Hypotheses

According to risk perception theory, individuals are more likely to take protective actions when they perceive a threat as immediate and personal. The perceived severity and vulnerability associated with environmental threats drive individuals to adopt behaviors aimed at mitigating these risks [45]. When environmental problems are seen as close to home, they become more salient and urgent, prompting individuals to make significant lifestyle changes to mitigate these risks.
When people perceive environmental threats as being geographically close, they feel a greater sense of personal risk and responsibility. This heightened perception of risk can lead individuals to take more drastic measures to protect the environment, such as reducing their standard of living. For example, individuals who perceive high risks of local air pollution are more likely to adopt energy-saving behaviors and reduce harmful consumption [46,47].
H1: 
Individuals are more likely to reduce their standard of living to protect the environment when they perceive environmental threats as being closer to them.
Individuals often need to work together to address common environmental challenges effectively. Public goods, such as clean air and water, are resources from which everyone benefits, and their protection often requires collective efforts. When environmental threats are perceived as imminent and directly impactful, people are more likely to support measures that involve shared financial contributions, such as higher taxes, to fund environmental protection initiatives [48]. That is, the perceived proximity of environmental threats can enhance public support for collective financial efforts.
When environmental issues feel imminent and directly impactful, individuals recognize the necessity of collective efforts to mitigate these threats. This recognition increases their willingness to contribute financially to communal resources. The perceived proximity of environmental threats can make individuals more supportive of higher taxes for environmental protection, as they see these measures as essential for addressing immediate risks. Related studies show that people living in areas more affected by climate-related events, such as floods, tend to support higher taxation for environmental protection [49,50].
In contrast, when threats are perceived as distant, either geographically or temporally, they may seem less immediate and less relevant to personal well-being. This distance can diminish the perceived necessity for collective action, as individuals may feel that the threat does not directly impact them or that it can be dealt with later. This reduced sense of urgency can lead to a lower willingness to support financial contributions for environmental protection, as seen in populations less affected by immediate environmental issues [37,51].
H2: 
Individuals are more willing to pay higher taxes for environmental protection when they perceive environmental threats as being closer to them.
When environmental threats are perceived as close and immediate, individuals’ attitudes toward environmental protection become more positive, and they are more likely to adhere to social norms supporting sustainability. This type of behavior posits that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence individuals’ intentions and behaviors [52]. As a result, individuals may prioritize purchasing decisions that favor environmentally friendly practices, even at a higher cost.
Therefore, a perceived proximity to environmental threats can enhance individuals’ willingness to pay a premium for environmentally friendly products. When people feel that environmental issues are immediate and pose a direct threat, they are more likely to prioritize sustainable purchasing decisions, viewing them as essential for mitigating these threats. Recent studies have found that consumers in regions experiencing significant environmental degradation are more likely to buy green products and support businesses with sustainable practices [53,54].
H3: 
Individuals are more willing to pay higher prices for environmentally friendly products when they perceive environmental threats as being closer to them.

4. Materials and Method

To examine the impact of the public’s perceived proximity to environmental hazards on their pro-environmental behaviors, we used the 2021 Korea General Social Survey (KGSS) conducted by the Survey Research Center at Sungkyunkwan University. This survey was chosen because it asks respondents about their perceptions of environmental threats and pro-environmental behaviors in detail.
Individuals often make statements about protecting the environment without following through with meaningful or substantive efforts. These statements might be considered ‘cheap’ because they are easy and cost-free to make. Therefore, we define citizens’ pro-environmental behaviors as actions that consciously aim to protect the environment and enhance its sustainability, even at some personal cost. Given that pro-environmental behavior requires citizens to incur costs to protect the environment, we used individuals’ willingness to reduce their standard of living, pay higher taxes, and pay higher prices to protect the environment as proxies for their pro-environmental attitudes.
For the first empirical analysis, we used individuals’ readiness to reduce their standard of living to protect the environment as a dependent variable to dichotomously measure their pro-environmental behaviors. Individuals who reported a willingness to accept cuts to their standard of living to protect the environment were coded as ‘1’, and those who did not were coded as ‘0’. Our second and third empirical analyses focused on individuals’ willingness to pay much higher taxes or prices for environmental protection. Individuals who expressed a willingness to pay much higher taxes or prices for environmental concerns were coded as ‘1’, and others were coded as ‘0’. All analyses were performed in Stata 17.0.
A key independent variable in our analysis was an individual’s perceived proximity to environmental hazards. We divided an individual’s perceived closeness to environmental harm into three categories: proximal, intermediate, and distal distance. To measure this, we used the following questions asked to each respondent about the impact of climate change at the global, state, and neighborhood levels, respectively: “How do you think climate change will affect the world?” (distal distance), “How do you think climate change will affect Korea?” (intermediate distance), and “How do you think climate change has affected your neighborhood over the past 12 months?” (proximal distance). Due to the data collection limitations, the survey questions employed different tenses to reflect how individuals naturally perceive environmental impacts at various scales. The global (distal) and national (intermediate) questions are phrased in the future tense to capture respondents’ expectations of long-term and intermediate-term impacts, which are typically abstract and forward-looking. In contrast, the local (proximal) question uses the present perfect tense to reflect recent, concrete experiences. This approach is consistent with cognitive framing theories, suggesting that distant issues are often perceived abstractly and future-oriented, while immediate local issues are perceived concretely and in the present [55,56,57]. By incorporating this method, we aim to comprehensively understand how perceived proximity influences environmental attitudes and behaviors.
Table 1 describes all the variables used in the empirical models as well as the summary statistics for those variables.

5. Results

In Table 2, we first examine how individuals’ perceptions of closeness to environmental hazards may affect their readiness to reduce their standard of living for environmental protection. The results in Models 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 indicate that citizens’ threat perceptions of climate change positively impact their willingness to accept cuts in their standard of living, regardless of their perceived distance. In Model 4, individuals’ concerns about climate change, at both the global and state levels, do not affect their pro-environmental attitudes, whereas their environmental concerns about the neighborhood significantly increase the likelihood of having positive environmental attitudes and behaviors. Taken together, the results in Table 2 support our argument that individuals are more likely to accept cuts in their standard of living to protect the environment when climate change is perceived as proximal. The findings show that citizens may respond differently to environmental problems based on whether they perceive them as close, intermediate, or distant, which affects their pro-environmental behaviors.
Furthermore, our analysis in Table 2 controls for variables such as an individual’s exposure to nature, partisanship, education, age, gender, urban/rural residence, political ideology, and income. The variable for political ideology has a negative relationship with an individual’s readiness to reduce their standard of living due to environmental concerns, suggesting that conservative citizens are less willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. Similarly, in Models 2-1 and 2-2, an individual’s preference for the conservative party (People Power Party) negatively influences their willingness to make sacrifices for environmental protection. Additionally, both the age and education variables show a positive relationship with the willingness of citizens in South Korea to compromise their living standards to protect the environment, with this willingness being higher among those who are older and have a higher level of education or income. On the other hand, exposure to nature, gender, and urban/rural residence do not significantly affect an individual’s willingness to reduce their standard of living.
Table 3 shows the effect of an individual’s perceived proximity to environmental hazards on their willingness to pay higher taxes to protect the environment. To promote citizens’ environmentally friendly behavior, governments may impose green taxes, also known as environmental taxes. These taxes help to achieve environmental goals by shifting economic incentives towards pro-environmental practices. Similar to the results in Table 2, Models 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 in Table 3 indicate that citizens’ threat perceptions of climate change positively impact their willingness to pay environmental taxes.
However, the result in Model 3-4 suggests that while the effect of individuals’ concerns about climate change at the state level is insignificant, their environmental concerns at both the global and neighborhood levels increase the likelihood of having positive environmental attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, citizens’ conservative ideology and support for the conservative party (People Power Party) reduce their willingness to pay green taxes. On the other hand, green taxes are more acceptable among people who are older, spend time in nature, and have a higher level of education or income.
Finally, Table 4 shows the effect of an individual’s concern about climate change and perceived closeness to environmental hazards on their willingness to pay higher prices to protect the environment. Although climate change influences crucial natural and human living conditions, individuals who do not buy environmental goods, such as energy-saving household appliances or hybrid cars, may still benefit from environmental sustainability. As seen in Table 4, individuals’ threat perceptions of climate change increase the likelihood of paying higher prices for environmental protection.
However, in Model 4-4, this effect is statistically significant only when people perceive climate change in their neighborhood. The results in Table 4 also show that the enjoyment of nature, partisanship (People Power Party), ideology, education, age, and income variables significantly affect an individual’s willingness to pay higher prices to purchase environmental goods.
Overall, Figure 1 shows the relationship between a citizen’s perceived proximity to environmental hazards and their pro-environmental behaviors. When comparing the marginal average effects of an individual’s threat perception of climate change, the impact of a citizen’s concern about climate change on their pro-environmental behaviors is significant when it is perceived as closer. Figure 1 suggests that people prefer environmental protection that may impose costs on them when climate change is perceived as proximal.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, we examined how the perceived proximity of environmental hazards influences pro-environmental behaviors in South Korea. Our empirical results show that individuals are more likely to engage in environmentally friendly actions when they perceive climate change as a proximal threat. For example, individuals are more willing to reduce their standard of living, pay higher taxes, and purchase higher-priced environmentally friendly products.
This analysis shows that when environmental threats are perceived as immediate and personal, individuals are more inclined to make significant lifestyle changes and financial sacrifices to mitigate these threats. This finding highlights the importance of emphasizing the local and immediate impacts of environmental issues to foster a sense of urgency and personal responsibility.
Additionally, the results indicate that political ideology plays a significant role in shaping individuals’ willingness to support pro-environmental policies. Conservative individuals are less likely to support green taxes and make financial sacrifices for environmental protection. This suggests that tailored communication strategies that align environmental protection with conservative values, such as economic efficiency and stewardship, may be necessary to garner broader support for environmental initiatives. We also found that higher levels of education and income, as well as older age, are associated with a greater willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.
Moreover, our study offers insights into how perceived proximity to environmental threats interacts with political ideology, education, income, and age to shape pro-environmental behaviors in South Korea. Unlike previous research, our findings reveal a complex interplay between them. For example, while we confirm the negative relationship between conservative ideology and pro-environmental behaviors observed by McCright and Dunlap [37], we find that this effect may be influenced by a perceived proximity to environmental threats. This suggests that localized environmental messaging could potentially affect the relationship between political ideology and environmental attitudes, a finding that extends beyond existing literature and has significant implications for developing effective environmental policies.
However, our results challenge the conventional wisdom that younger generations are invariably more environmentally conscious [18]. In the South Korean context, our findings indicate that older, more educated, and higher-income individuals are more likely to engage in costly pro-environmental behaviors, particularly when they perceive environmental threats as proximal. This reveals a distinctive pattern where age, education, and income positively influence pro-environmental behaviors when such threats are perceived as proximal. These insights suggest that environmental policies in South Korea might be most effective when they leverage the resources and influence of older, educated citizens while simultaneously working to increase the perceived proximity of environmental threats across all demographic groups. As a result, these findings not only enhance the theoretical understanding of pro-environmental behavior but also offer practical guidance for tailoring environmental initiatives to the specific socio-economic and cultural contexts of South Korea.
Based on our findings, we propose several policy recommendations. First, policymakers should focus on localizing climate change messaging, emphasizing immediate and tangible impacts on communities to increase the perceived proximity of environmental threats. This could involve creating targeted awareness campaigns that highlight local environmental changes and their consequences, making the threats feel more immediate and personal. Second, environmental education programs should be designed to help individuals recognize and understand local environmental issues, thereby increasing their perceived proximity to these threats. These programs should be tailored to different age groups and socio-economic backgrounds, with a particular focus on connecting global environmental issues to local impacts. Third, incentive structures, such as tax rebates for eco-friendly purchases or community-level rewards for collective environmental actions, could be implemented to reinforce the link between local actions and environmental protection. Lastly, cross-partisan environmental initiatives that frame local environmental protection in terms of shared values like community well-being could help bridge ideological divides and increase the perceived proximity to environmental threats across the political spectrum.
Nevertheless, this study has limitations that future research could address. Our analysis is based on cross-sectional data from South Korea, which limits causal inferences and generalizability to other cultural contexts. Longitudinal and cross-cultural studies could provide insights into how perceptions of proximity to environmental threats and related behaviors change over time and across different societies. Additionally, future research could explore how various factors, such as media coverage and personal experiences, influence the perceived proximity of environmental threats and subsequent pro-environmental behaviors. Investigating the potential gap between stated intentions and actual behaviors in response to perceived environmental proximity would also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of pro-environmental action. Finally, examining how digital technologies and virtual experiences might affect perceived proximity to environmental threats could offer new perspectives on promoting pro-environmental behaviors in an increasingly globalized society.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.P. and K.C.; methodology, J.P. and K.C.; software, K.C.; validation, J.P. and K.C.; formal analysis, J.P. and K.C.; investigation, J.P. and K.C.; data curation, J.P. and K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P. and K.C.; writing—review and editing, J.P. and K.C.; visualization, K.C.; supervision, K.C.; project administration, J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pew Research Center. How Americans See Climate Change and the Environment in 7 Charts; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Oh, H.; Ha, K.J.; Jeong, J.Y. Identifying Dynamic and Thermodynamic Contributions to the Record-Breaking 2022 Summer Extreme Rainfall Events in Korea. Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci. 2023, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. OECD. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea 2023; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Korea Environment Institute. Annual Survey on Environmental Perception of Koreans; Korea Environment Institute: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gifford, R. The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. van der Linden, S.; Maibach, E.; Leiserowitz, A. Improving Public Engagement with Climate Change: Five “Best Practice” Insights From Psychological Science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 10, 758–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Geng, L.; Xu, J.; Ye, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, K. Connections with Nature and Environmental Behaviors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Allen, M. Understanding Pro-Environmental Behavior: Models and Messages. In Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations; CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 105–137. [Google Scholar]
  13. Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barbu, A.; Catană, Ș.-A.; Deselnicu, D.C.; Cioca, L.-I.; Ioanid, A. Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior toward Green Products: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ghali-Zinoubi, Z. Examining drivers of environmentally conscious consumer behavior: Theory of planned behavior extended with cultural factors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kim, N.; Lee, K. Environmental Consciousness, Purchase Intention, and Actual Purchase Behavior of Eco-Friendly Products: The Moderating Impact of Situational Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Falke, A.; Schröder, N.; Hofmann, C. The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials. J. Bus. Econ. 2022, 92, 899–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Poortinga, W.; Demski, C.; Steentjes, K. Generational differences in climate-related beliefs, risk perceptions and emotions in the UK. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Salguero, R.B.; Bogueva, D.; Marinova, D. Australia’s university Generation Z and its concerns about climate change. Sustain. Earth Rev. 2024, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Smith, N. Climate Change in the American Mind: December 2018; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: New Haven, CT, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, N.R.; Kotler, P. Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good, 6th ed.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Oreg, S.; Katz-Gerro, T. Predicting Pro-environmental Behavior Cross-Nationally: Values, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 462–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eom, K.; Kim, H.S.; Sherman, D.K.; Ishii, K. Cultural Variability in the Link Between Environmental Concern and Support for Environmental Action. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 27, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tam, K.P.; Chan, H.W. Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 53, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zeng, J.; Jiang, M.; Yuan, M. Environmental Risk Perception, Risk Culture, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schwartz, S.H. A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications. Comp. Sociol. 2007, 5, 137–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chankrajang, T.; Muttarak, R. Green returns to education: Does schooling contribute to pro-environmental behaviours? Evidence from Thailand. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 131, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saracevic, S.; Schlegelmilch, B.B. The Impact of Social Norms on Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of The Role of Culture and Self-Construal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arbuthnott, K.D. Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gromet, D.M.; Kunreuther, H.; Larrick, R.P. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 9314–9319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Unsworth, K.L.; Fielding, K.S. It’s political: How the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 27, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McCright, A.M.; Marquart-Pyatt, S.T.; Shwom, R.L.; Brechin, S.R.; Allen, S. Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 21, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hornsey, M.J.; Harris, E.A.; Bain, P.G.; Fielding, K.S. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ziegler, A. Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: An empirical cross country analysis. Energy Econ. 2017, 63, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lim, J.Y.; Moon, K.K. Perceived Environmental Threats and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Investigating the Role of Political Participation Using a South Korean Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming. Sociol. Q. 2011, 52, 155–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reser, J.P.; Bradley, G.L.; Ellul, M.C. Encountering climate change: ‘Seeing’ is more than ‘believing’. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Broomell, S.B.; Budescu, D.V.; Por, H.H. Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 32, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McDonald, R.I.; Chai, H.Y.; Newell, B.R. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Demski, C.; Capstick, S.; Pidgeon, N.; Sposato, R.G.; Spence, A. Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Clim. Chang. 2017, 140, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zanocco, C.; Boudet, H.; Nilson, R.; Flora, J. Personal harm and support for climate change mitigation policies: Evidence from 10 U.S. communities impacted by extreme weather. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 59, 101984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lim, J.Y.; Moon, K.K. Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Butler, C.; Pidgeon, N.F. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Whitmarsh, L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioral response. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 351–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, J.; Zou, L.; Lin, T.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Public willingness to pay for CO2 mitigation and the determinants under climate change: A case study of Suzhou, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lo, A.Y.; Chow, A.T. The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Clim. Chang. 2015, 131, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lim, J.Y.; Moon, K.K. Examining the Moderation Effect of Political Trust on the Linkage between Civic Morality and Support for Environmental Taxation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Milfont, T.L.; Wilson, J.; Diniz, P. Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Psychol. 2013, 48, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro-Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, G.; Yang, L.; Zhang, B.; Li, X.; Chen, F. How do environmental values impact green product purchase intention? The moderating role of green trust. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 46020–46034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 2008, 322, 1201–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maglio, S.J.; Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Distance from a distance: Psychological distance reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2013, 142, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07298 g001
Figure 1. Perceived proximity to environmental hazards and pro-environmental behaviors.
Figure 1. Perceived proximity to environmental hazards and pro-environmental behaviors.
Sustainability 16 07298 g001
Table 1. Summary statistics.
Table 1. Summary statistics.
VariableNMeanStd. Dev.MinMax
Accept Cuts in the Standard of Living 12050.3350.47201
Pay Much Higher Taxes12050.3790.48501
Pay Much Higher Prices12050.4530.49801
Enjoy Nature 11992.7060.87715
Democratic Party12050.2910.45501
People Power Party 12050.2720.44501
Female12050.5780.49401
Age (Logged)12053.9030.3512.894.522
Education12033.2361.49906
Ideology 11632.9540.97215
Urban 12050.8040.39701
Income 11479.2095.187021
Climate Change in the Neighborhood12012.5980.95915
Climate Change at the Global Level11856.3022.518010
Climate Change at the State Level11866.2392.301010
Table 2. Willingness to accept cuts in the standard of living to protect the environment.
Table 2. Willingness to accept cuts in the standard of living to protect the environment.
VariablesModel 2-1Model 2-2Model 2-3Model 2-4
Climate Change at the Global Level 0.064 **
(0.026)		 0.070
(0.048)
Climate Change at the State Level 0.064 **
(0.029)		 0.011
(0.053)
Climate Change in the Neighborhood 0.146 **
(0.069)		0.181 **
(0.071)
Enjoy Nature 0.0980.0910.0840.080
(0.075)(0.075)(0.075)(0.076)
Democratic Party −0.187−0.194−0.205−0.191
(0.161)(0.161)(0.161)(0.162)
People Power Party−0.308 *−0.298 *−0.277−0.269
(0.171)(0.171)(0.170)(0.172)
Education0.156 ***0.152 ***0.174 ***0.160 ***
(0.058)(0.058)(0.058)(0.059)
Age (logged)0.763 ***0.755 ***0.756 ***0.773 ***
(0.244)(0.244)(0.245)(0.247)
Female−0.098−0.104−0.096−0.088
(0.133)(0.133)(0.133)(0.134)
Ideology −0.173 **−0.172 **−0.168 **−0.182 **
(0.079)(0.079)(0.079)(0.079)
Urban0.0620.0760.0990.104
(0.173)(0.173)(0.172)(0.175)
Income 0.034 **0.034 **0.032 **0.033 **
(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)
Constant−4.480 ***−4.420 ***−4.482 ***−5.077 ***
(1.088)(1.086)(1.092)(1.115)
Pseudo R20.0320.0310.0310.037
Log-likelihood−681.062−681.992−687.239−675.367
N1088108911011086
Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table 3. Willingness to pay higher taxes to protect the environment.
Table 3. Willingness to pay higher taxes to protect the environment.
VariablesModel 3-1Model 3-2Model 3-3Model 3-4
Climate Change at the Global Level0.077 ***
(0.026)		 0.118 **
(0.048)
Climate Change at the State Level 0.066 **
(0.029)		 −0.025
(0.053)
Climate Change in the Neighborhood 0.245 ***
(0.069)		0.294 ***
(0.071)
Enjoy Nature0.206 ***0.200 ***0.193 **0.184 **
(0.075)(0.075)(0.075)(0.076)
Democratic Party −0.086−0.097−0.132−0.100
(0.160)(0.159)(0.159)(0.161)
People Power Party−0.351 **−0.340 **−0.321 *−0.306 *
(0.169)(0.169)(0.169)(0.172)
Education0.257 ***0.253 ***0.278 ***0.269 ***
(0.058)(0.058)(0.058)(0.059)
Age (Logged)0.740 ***0.733 ***0.735 ***0.749 ***
(0.239)(0.239)(0.240)(0.243)
Female−0.123−0.130−0.121−0.116
(0.132)(0.132)(0.132)(0.133)
Ideology −0.164 **−0.163 **−0.166 **−0.178 **
(0.079)(0.078)(0.078)(0.079)
Urban−0.061−0.045−0.003−0.011
(0.170)(0.170)(0.170)(0.173)
Income0.036 ***0.036 **0.033 **0.035 **
(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)
Constant−4.854 ***−4.726 ***−5.036 ***−5.735 ***
(1.069)(1.066)(1.079)(1.105)
Pseudo R20.0540.0520.0580.067
Log-likelihood−689.712−691.882−693.504−678.848
N1088108911011086
Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table 4. Willingness to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
Table 4. Willingness to pay higher prices to protect the environment.
VariablesModel 4-1Model 4-2Model 4-3Model 4-4
Climate Change at the Global Level0.081 ***
(0.026)		 0.073
(0.047)
Climate Change at the State Level 0.086 ***
(0.028)		 0.033
(0.052)
Climate Change in the Neighborhood 0.174 ***
(0.067)		0.221 ***
(0.070)
Enjoy Nature0.151 **0.141 *0.139 *0.127 *
(0.074)(0.074)(0.074)(0.075)
Democratic Party 0.0360.029−0.0040.029
(0.158)(0.158)(0.157)(0.159)
People Power Party −0.399 **−0.384 **−0.378 **−0.353 **
(0.166)(0.166)(0.164)(0.167)
Education 0.289 ***0.282 ***0.307 ***0.292 ***
(0.058)(0.058)(0.057)(0.058)
Age (Logged) 0.691 ***0.680 ***0.682 ***0.691 ***
(0.233)(0.233)(0.233)(0.235)
Female −0.138−0.144−0.138−0.132
(0.130)(0.130)(0.129)(0.131)
Ideology −0.137 *−0.137 *−0.134 *−0.147 *
(0.078)(0.078)(0.077)(0.078)
Urban0.0350.0500.0810.082
(0.167)(0.167)(0.166)(0.169)
Income0.034 **0.033 **0.032 **0.032 **
(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)(0.014)
Constant−4.471 ***−4.418 ***−4.433 ***−5.155 ***
(1.043)(1.041)(1.045)(1.071)
Pseudo R20.0600.0590.0590.067
Log-likelihood−707.032−707.825−715.357−699.905
N1088108911011086
Note: Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Park, J.; Chang, K. How Perceived Proximity to Climate Change Threats Affects Pro-Environmental Behaviors in South Korea? Sustainability 2024, 16, 7298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177298

AMA Style

Park J, Chang K. How Perceived Proximity to Climate Change Threats Affects Pro-Environmental Behaviors in South Korea? Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Park, Jeeyoung, and Kiyoung Chang. 2024. "How Perceived Proximity to Climate Change Threats Affects Pro-Environmental Behaviors in South Korea?" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop