IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p4847-d1091961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Perceptions and Sustainable Consumption Behavior: The Disparity among South Africans

Author

Listed:
  • Frederich Kirsten

    (School of Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa)

  • Mduduzi Eligius Biyase

    (School of Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of sociodemographic factors on the environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior in South Africa, a country with the highest record of inequality in the world. Few studies have examined the ways in which people in low-income countries perceive social and environmental problems. By using the International Social Survey Programme Environment III dataset for 2010, this study assessed the impact of sociodemographic factors on the environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior of South Africans. The results show that environmental concern rates are highest among those with low socioeconomic status and African people. Since these individuals constitute the majority of the most vulnerable population in society, it supports the exposure to degradation hypothesis in a South African context. In contrast, sustainable consumption behavior rate is highest among those with high socioeconomic status, suggesting a strong post-materialist effect on pro-environmental consumption. From a policy perspective, environmental policymakers in South Africa could take note of the strong environmental concerns among those more vulnerable to daily environmental degradation and provide further incentives and support their transition to sustainable consumption behavior changes that would assist in environmental protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederich Kirsten & Mduduzi Eligius Biyase, 2023. "Environmental Perceptions and Sustainable Consumption Behavior: The Disparity among South Africans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4847-:d:1091961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Libin Chen & Qi Wu & Lin Jiang, 2022. "Impact of Environmental Concern on Ecological Purchasing Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Prosociality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Schotte, Simone & Zizzamia, Rocco & Leibbrandt, Murray, 2018. "A poverty dynamics approach to social stratification: The South African case," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 88-103.
    3. Dumenu, William Kwadwo & Obeng, Elizabeth Asantewaa, 2016. "Climate change and rural communities in Ghana: Social vulnerability, impacts, adaptations and policy implications," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 208-217.
    4. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    6. Adam McBride Lazri & David M. Konisky, 2019. "Environmental Attitudes Across Race and Ethnicity," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1039-1055, June.
    7. Sharma, Rajat & Jha, Mithileshwar, 2017. "Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 77-88.
    8. Jingjing Zeng & Meiquan Jiang & Meng Yuan, 2020. "Environmental Risk Perception, Risk Culture, and Pro-Environmental Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Dhandra, Tavleen Kaur, 2019. "Achieving triple dividend through mindfulness: More sustainable consumption, less unsustainable consumption and more life satisfaction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 83-90.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Sang-Ok Choi & Jaesun Wang, 2014. "Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 44-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Frederich Kirsten & Mduduzi Biyase, 2023. "Environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior. The disparity among South Africans," Economics Working Papers edwrg-06-2023, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, revised 2023.
    3. Nanjangud Vishwanath Vighnesh & Patil Balachandra & Deepak Chandrashekar & Sukanlaya Sawang, 2023. "How cultural values influence sustainable consumption behavior? An empirical investigation in a non‐Western context," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 990-1007, April.
    4. John D. Ditekemena & Christophe Luhata & Hypolite M. Mavoko & Joseph Nelson Siewe Fodjo & Dalau M. Nkamba & Wim Van Damme & Shahul H. Ebrahim & Christiana Noestlinger & Robert Colebunders, 2021. "Intimate Partners Violence against Women during a COVID-19 Lockdown Period: Results of an Online Survey in 7 Provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-10, May.
    5. Yanju Luo & Jinyang Deng & Chad Pierskalla & Ju-hyoung Lee & Jiayao Tang, 2022. "New Ecological Paradigm, Leisure Motivation, and Wellbeing Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Recreational Use of Urban Parks before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-28, August.
    6. Kamaldeen Mohammed & Evans Batung & Moses Kansanga & Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong & Isaac Luginaah, 2021. "Livelihood diversification strategies and resilience to climate change in semi-arid northern Ghana," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Williams, Ryan B. & Mitchell, Donna M. & Neill, Clinton L. & Benson, Aaron, 2015. "Household Willingness to Pay for Playa Restoration," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196917, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Lucia Reisch & Clive L Spash & Sabine Bietz, 2008. "Sustainable Consumption and Mass Communication: A German Experiment," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-12, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    9. Portia Adade Williams & Olivier Crespo & Mumuni Abu, 2020. "Assessing vulnerability of horticultural smallholders’ to climate variability in Ghana: applying the livelihood vulnerability approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2321-2342, March.
    10. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    11. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    12. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Yuxiang Lan & Qunyue Liu, 2023. "The Restorative and Contingent Value of Biophilic Indoor Environments in Healthcare Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    15. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    16. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24812, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    18. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    19. Cheung, Millissa F.Y. & To, W.M., 2019. "An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 145-153.
    20. Drevs, Florian & Tscheulin, Dieter K. & Lindenmeier, Jörg & Renner, Simone, 2014. "Crowding-in or crowding out: An empirical analysis on the effect of subsidies on individual willingness-to-pay for public transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 250-261.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:4847-:d:1091961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.