4.7 Article

Does Work-life Balance Affect Pro-environmental Behaviour? Evidence for the UK Using Longitudinal Microdata

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 170-181

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.006

关键词

Pro-environmental behaviour; Work-life balance; Environmental attitudes; Longitudinal microdata

资金

  1. project Green Lifestyles, Alternative Models and Up-scaling Regional Sustainability (GLAMURS) of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The environmental challenges we face today have made the need to behave pro-environmentally increasingly salient. Many believe that the modern day busyness of life and lack of spare time have kept people from acting according to their values and behaving more pro-environmentally. This study uses microdata from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to investigate the relation between pro-environmental behaviour, environmental self-perception and work-life balance. Pro-environmental behaviour covers 21 behaviours relating to home energy, personal transport, recycling and shopping. Work-life balance is defined with relation to the availability of discretionary time using both objective and subjective measures. The results from the regression models of overall pro-environmental behaviour suggest that work-life imbalance does not appear to affect, neither directly nor indirectly through environmental values and attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour. The main factors determining the extent of pro-environmental behaviour relate to individuals attitudes towards the environment, age, educational attainment, household income and the presence of young children. The sensitivity analysis looking at differing time demanding behaviours reveals that actual availability of discretionary time does not seem to affect pro-environmental behaviour, while the subjective experience of work-life imbalance can have a negative direct effect particularly for more time demanding pro-environmental behaviours.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据