How Perceived Proximity to Climate Change Threats Affects Pro-Environmental Behaviors in South Korea?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Who Cares More about the Environment?
3. Arguments and Hypotheses
4. Materials and Method
5. Results
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pew Research Center. How Americans See Climate Change and the Environment in 7 Charts; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- OECD. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Korea 2023; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Environment Institute. Annual Survey on Environmental Perception of Koreans; Korea Environment Institute: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, L.; Xu, J.; Ye, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, K. Connections with Nature and Environmental Behaviors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Lee, N.R.; Kotler, P. Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good, 6th ed.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Schwartz, S.H. A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications. Comp. Sociol. 2007, 5, 137–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Arbuthnott, K.D. Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2009, 10, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Lo, A.Y.; Chow, A.T. The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Clim. Chang. 2015, 131, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 2008, 322, 1201–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
Variable | N | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accept Cuts in the Standard of Living | 1205 | 0.335 | 0.472 | 0 | 1 |
Pay Much Higher Taxes | 1205 | 0.379 | 0.485 | 0 | 1 |
Pay Much Higher Prices | 1205 | 0.453 | 0.498 | 0 | 1 |
Enjoy Nature | 1199 | 2.706 | 0.877 | 1 | 5 |
Democratic Party | 1205 | 0.291 | 0.455 | 0 | 1 |
People Power Party | 1205 | 0.272 | 0.445 | 0 | 1 |
Female | 1205 | 0.578 | 0.494 | 0 | 1 |
Age (Logged) | 1205 | 3.903 | 0.351 | 2.89 | 4.522 |
Education | 1203 | 3.236 | 1.499 | 0 | 6 |
Ideology | 1163 | 2.954 | 0.972 | 1 | 5 |
Urban | 1205 | 0.804 | 0.397 | 0 | 1 |
Income | 1147 | 9.209 | 5.187 | 0 | 21 |
Climate Change in the Neighborhood | 1201 | 2.598 | 0.959 | 1 | 5 |
Climate Change at the Global Level | 1185 | 6.302 | 2.518 | 0 | 10 |
Climate Change at the State Level | 1186 | 6.239 | 2.301 | 0 | 10 |
Variables | Model 2-1 | Model 2-2 | Model 2-3 | Model 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 | 0.098 | 0.091 | 0.084 | 0.080 |
(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) | |
Education | 0.156 *** | 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) | |
Urban | 0.062 | 0.076 | 0.099 | 0.104 |
(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 R2 | 0.032 | 0.031 | 0.031 | 0.037 |
Log-likelihood | −681.062 | −681.992 | −687.239 | −675.367 |
N | 1088 | 1089 | 1101 | 1086 |
Variables | Model 3-1 | Model 3-2 | Model 3-3 | Model 3-4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Climate Change at the Global Level | 0.077 *** (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 Nature | 0.206 *** | 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) | |
Education | 0.257 *** | 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) | |
Income | 0.036 *** | 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 R2 | 0.054 | 0.052 | 0.058 | 0.067 |
Log-likelihood | −689.712 | −691.882 | −693.504 | −678.848 |
N | 1088 | 1089 | 1101 | 1086 |
Variables | Model 4-1 | Model 4-2 | Model 4-3 | Model 4-4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Climate Change at the Global Level | 0.081 *** (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 Nature | 0.151 ** | 0.141 * | 0.139 * | 0.127 * |
(0.074) | (0.074) | (0.074) | (0.075) | |
Democratic Party | 0.036 | 0.029 | −0.004 | 0.029 |
(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) | |
Urban | 0.035 | 0.050 | 0.081 | 0.082 |
(0.167) | (0.167) | (0.166) | (0.169) | |
Income | 0.034 ** | 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 R2 | 0.060 | 0.059 | 0.059 | 0.067 |
Log-likelihood | −707.032 | −707.825 | −715.357 | −699.905 |
N | 1088 | 1089 | 1101 | 1086 |
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. |
© 2024 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
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
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 StylePark, 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