Promoting sustainable development: The impact of differences in cultural values on residents' pro‐environmental behaviors

Abstract

Pro-Environmental Behavior (PEB) of residents can greatly alleviate the threat of environmental pollution to human living environment and promote sustainable development of the society. Cross-cultural studies show that there are significant differences in PEB among countries with different cultural backgrounds. Even within the same country or region, individual cultural values are not identical. So, can various individual cultural values impact PEB differently? To answer this question, this paper investigates the mechanism on how cultural value differences affect residents' PEB, based on Hofstede's cultural model. Following an analysis of 475 questionnaires from residents, the results show that Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural value can significantly impact public-and/or private-sphere PEB. Among them, collectivism and long-term orientation of residents have positive effects on both public-and privatesphere PEB and uncertainty avoidance has a negative impact. Besides, masculinity only affects the public-sphere PEB, and power distance affects neither private-nor public-sphere PEB. In addition, three social-demographic characteristics including gender, age, and educational level have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between cultural values and PEB. These findings can provide useful recommendations for policy makers to draft PEB guidelines and incentive policies based on the differences in cultural values of their residents.

How does COVID-19 emergency cognition influence public pro-environmental behavioral intentions? An affective event perspective

“…Larson et al( 2015 ) divided pro-environmental behavior into four dimensions: conservation lifestyle (household action), land stewardship (supporting wildlife habitat protection), social environmentalism (citizens' participation in public-sphere), and environmental citizenship (environmental communication among citizens). Mi et al (2020) pointed out that pro-environmental behavior could be divided into two dimensions: private-sphere PEB (initiatives in the household and workplace) and public-sphere PEB (actions influencing government and social organizations). Based on the existing research, this study divides the PEBI into household-sphere PEBI, workplace PEBI, and public-sphere PEBI according to the space field of the occurrence of the pro-environmental behavior.…”

“…For example, in a company, the technical staff is willing to design products in a way that is beneficial to the environment ( Bissing-Olson et al, 2013 ; Stern, 2000 ). Public-sphere PEBI means that the public is willing to make a voice in public space to indirectly promote environmental protection, such as participating in the public hearing on environmental protection topics and actively reporting environmental violations to the government departments ( Mi et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of individual psychological variables, socio-demographic factors, and external contextual factors on PEB as well as PEBI (D. Li et al, 2019 ; Steg and Vlek, 2009 ). With regard to individual psychological factors, such as personal values ( Ling and Xu, 2020 ; Mi et al, 2020 ), environmental awareness ( Young et al, 2015 ), subjective norms ( Ru et al, 2018 ), control beliefs ( Park et al, 2020 ), and self-identity ( Gkargkavouzi et al, 2019 ), have received attention; socio-demographic factors, such as gender (J. Li et al, 2019 ), age ( Hughes et al, 2019 ),and educational attainment ( Meyer, 2015 ) were paid attention to.…”

The influence of global crises on reshaping pro-environmental behavior, case study: the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Conversely, greater awareness of the interdependence between COVID-19 and climate change has reinforced both environmental intention and behavior. Based on the Affective Events Theory, recognizing disturbing events can stimulate emotional reactions to the factors influencing the occurrence of these events, and promote environmental behavioral motivation ( Mi et al, 2020 ).…”

Moderated Mediation Mechanism to Determine the Effect of Gender Heterogeneity on Green Purchasing Intention: From the Perspective of Residents’ Values

“…There have been successes but green consumption is not stable and is not a conscientious and initiative: it is sometimes seen as token and formalistic environmental behavior ( Dangelico et al, 2021 ; Szabo and Webster, 2021 ). Attitude–behavior gap is widespread ( Peattie, 2010 ), so a steady and effective path to a greener society is necessary ( Yadav and Pathak, 2017 ; Mi et al, 2020 ).…”