Conservation Behavior and the Structure of Satisfactions

Journal of Environmental Systems 01/1985; 15(3):233-242. DOI: 10.2190/R4QK-MU4Q-G7W1-MFVU

ABSTRACT This article deals with the concerns, the predicted rewards and the satisfactions that people who do conserve derive from their conserving behaviors. In order to investigate the factors that playa role in maintaining energy-conserving behavior, interviews were conducted which focused on the satisfactions that are derived from people's everyday pursuits. The thirty participants were individuals who were known to be concerned about energy conservation issues, and special emphasis was placed on those satisfactions associated with their daily energy conservation activities. Eleven distinct types of satisfactions were found in the data with only one being economic in nature. The range of satisfactions found suggests that many potentially fruitful avenues exist for encouraging the adoption of energy conservation practices among a much broader population. Why do people behave as they do? To the proverbial person on the street this is one of the most obvious questions to be asked of psychology. From a psychological perspective, however, this apparently simple query breaks down into a multitude of often complex issues. Despite considerable attention to many of these issues, there remains an avenue of exploration that is both promising and relatively neglected. For many ordinary, everyday behaviors, people do them because they like doing them. They are sources of satisfaction.

Download full-text


Available from: Raymond K De Young, Jan 01, 2014
40 Reads
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Economic aspects of household recycling behavior and attitudes in City of Bryan are examined to improve solid waste management policies in the city. Using survey data collected by mail and personal interviews, residents’ attitudes towards solid waste management are analyzed, in general, and specifically, the factors influencing recycling behavior examined using logistic regression. In addition, three alternative policies are presented to respondents. First, support for an additional drop-off recycling center (Policy I) is examined. Second, WTP for two different recycling programs, curbside recycling service (Policy II), and curbside recycling with a drop-off recycling center (Policy III), as a function of socio-economic factors thought to influence WTP are computed using contingent valuation method, an indirect valuation tool. Finally, preference for a particular policy among the three alternatives presented to the residents of Bryan is explored. Because of the different data collection modes and assumptions on the bid prices two logit models are estimated to examine recycling behavior, and Policy I and two multinomial logit models for the most preferred policy, whereas four logit models are estimated for Policy II and III. The estimated models are similar both within the Policies and between the Policies in terms of the affects of variables, significance of coefficients, and consistency with previous studies indicating a potential set of factors that can be used to explain WTP for recycling services. Bryan residents that are female, white, employed, have higher incomes, have children, own a house, and are self-perceived environmentalists tend to recycle more. Similarly, males, nonwhites, older respondents, students, non-environmentalists and non-recyclers are more likely to support an additional drop-off center. WTP for Policy II is positively influenced by males, whites, respondents who are employed, low-income respondents, environmentalists, non-recyclers, and those who support Policy I. In comparison, WTP for Policy III is positively influenced by females, whites, respondents who are employed, younger respondents, environmentalists, non-recyclers, and those who support Policy I. In the case of both Policies I and II, the bid price negatively influences WTP as expected. While the WTP for Policy II is slightly higher than the estimated cost of a curbside recycling service ($2.50), the WTP for Policy III is lower than the estimated cost. No consistent pattern emerges across most of the coefficients and the four possible alternatives, three proposed policies and the current situation. However, probabilities computed using the multinomial logit results is the highest for Policy II, followed by either Policy III or no change to the existing solid waste management policy.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the last several decades, sociologists have investigated the public's increasing concern about the environment, but they have had little success explaining attitudes toward the environment or the adoption of pro-environment behaviors like recycling. We examine the role of social context in the link between individual attitudes about the environment and recycling behavior by comparing communities that vary in their access to recycling programs. Results show that people with access to a structured recycling program have much higher levels of recycling than do people lacking such access. Furthermore, individual attitudes toward the environment affect recycling behavior only in the community with easy access to a structured recycling program. Individual concern about the environment enhances the effect of the recycling program, but does not overcome the barriers presented by lack of access.
    American Sociological Review 06/1993; 58(3). DOI:10.2307/2095910 · 4.42 Impact Factor
Show more