Advertisement

Environmental Philanthropy and Environmental Behavior in Five Countries: Is There Convergence Among Youth?

  • Tally Katz-Gerro
  • Itay Greenspan
  • Femida Handy
  • Hoon-Young Lee
  • Andreas Frey
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts environmental philanthropy, environmental behavior, and their determinants among university students in five countries: Canada, Germany, Israel, South Korea, and the United States. The paper’s unique contribution to the nonprofit literature is its focus on environmental philanthropy as an unexplored form of philanthropic behavior, and the ability to test environmental philanthropy in an international setting and in comparison to other modes of environmental behavior. By environmental philanthropy, we mean giving to, and volunteering in, various environmental non-governmental organizations, and by environmental behavior, we refer to daily behaviors in the private sphere with ecological implications. We hypothesize that although the five countries vary on several characteristics, the student populations—who are young, educated, and exposed to global ideas and norms—will be relatively similar to each other in their environmental and philanthropic behavior and in the determinants of such behavior. To test this hypothesis, a standardized questionnaire was administered to 8,477 students on five campuses. Results show significant differences between students in their environmental philanthropic behavior, as well as in the demographic and attitudinal determinants of such behaviors.

Keywords

Environmental philanthropy Cross-national comparison Volunteering Donating Environmental behavior 

Résumé

Cet article compare et met en contraste la philanthropie environnementale, le comportement environnemental et leurs déterminants chez les étudiants universitaires de cinq pays : Canada, Allemagne, Israël, Corée du Sud et États-Unis. L’apport singulier de cet article à la documentation sur le secteur à but non lucratif est d’avoir pour sujet central la philanthropie environnementale comme une forme inexplorée du comportement philanthropique, et la possibilité de tester la philanthropie environnementale dans un cadre international et par rapport aux autres modes de comportements environnementaux. Par philanthropie environnementale, nous entendons les dons faits aux diverses organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) environnementales et le bénévolat dans ces organisations, et par comportement environnemental, nous nous référons à des comportements quotidiens dans la vie privée ayant des conséquences écologiques. Nous émettons l’hypothèse que bien que les cinq pays divergent sur plusieurs caractéristiques, les populations d’élèves – qui sont jeunes, instruits et exposés à des idées et à des normes mondiales – seront relativement semblables les uns aux autres quant à leurs comportements environnementaux et philanthropiques et aux facteurs de ces comportements. Pour tester cette hypothèse, un questionnaire standardisé a été distribué à 8,477 étudiants sur cinq campus. Les résultats montrent des différences significatives entre les élèves en ce qui concerne leurs comportements philanthropiques environnementaux ainsi que les facteurs démographiques et comportementaux de ces comportements.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag vergleicht in einer Gegenüberstellung die ökologische Philanthropie, das Umweltverhalten und deren Determinanten bei Studenten in fünf Ländern: Kanada, Deutschland, Israel, Südkorea und den Vereinigten Staaten. Mit der Abhandlung wird ein einzigartiger Beitrag zur Literatur über den gemeinnützigen Sektor geleistet, indem man sich auf die ökologische Philanthropie als eine unerforschte Form philanthropischen Verhaltens konzentriert und in der Lage ist, sie auf internationaler Ebene im Vergleich zu anderen Arten des Umweltverhaltens zu untersuchen. Unter ökologischer Philanthropie sind Spenden an diverse nicht-staatliche Umweltorganisationen bzw. eine ehrenamtliche Tätigkeit bei diesen Organisationen gemeint, während sich das Umweltverhalten auf die alltäglichen persönlichen Verhaltensweisen mit ökologischen Implikationen bezieht. Es wird die Hypothese aufgestellt, dass obgleich sich die fünf Länder durch unterschiedliche Merkmale auszeichnen, die Studenten – in der Regel jung, gebildet und globalen Vorstellungen und Normen ausgesetzt – ein ähnliches Umwelt- und philanthropisches Verhalten an den Tag legen und für sie ähnliche Verhaltensdeterminanten bestehen. Um diese Hypothese zu prüfen, wurde ein standardisierter Fragebogen an 8.477 Studenten an fünf Universitäten verteilt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen bedeutende Unterschiede sowohl zwischen den ökologisch philanthropischen Verhaltensweisen der Studenten als auch bei den demographischen und vehaltensbestimmenden Determinanten.

Resumen

El presente documento compara y contrasta la filantropía medioambiental, el comportamiento medioambiental y sus determinantes entre estudiantes universitarios de cinco países: Canadá, Alemania, Israel, Corea del Sur y los Estados Unidos. La singular contribución del documento al material publicado sobre organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro es su foco de atención sobre la filantropía medioambiental como una forma no explorada de comportamiento filantrópico, y la capacidad de poner a prueba la filantropía medioambiental en un escenario internacional y en comparación a otros modos de comportamiento medioambiental. Por filantropía medioambiental, entendemos dar y hacer voluntariado en diversas organizaciones medioambientales no gubernamentales (ONG) y por comportamiento medioambiental, hacemos referencia a los comportamiento diarios en la esfera privada con implicaciones ecológicas. Proponemos la hipótesis de que aunque los cinco países varían en diversas características, las poblaciones estudiantiles - que son jóvenes, educados y expuestos a ideas y normas mundiales - serán relativamente similares entre sí en su comportamiento medioambiental y filantrópico y en los determinantes de dicho comportamiento. Para poner a prueba esta hipótesis, se administró un cuestionario estandarizado a 8.477 estudiantes en cinco campus. Los resultados muestran diferencias significativas entre estudiantes en su comportamiento filantrópico medioambiental, así como también en los determinantes demográficos y de actitud de dichos comportamientos.

摘要

本文比较和对比了环境慈善事业、环境行为及其对五个国家的大学学生的决定因素:加拿大、德国、以色列、韩国和美国。本文对非盈利文献的独特贡献在于将环境慈善事业作为未探索的慈善行为形式,以及在国际环境测试环境慈善事业的能力,并与其他环境行为模式进行比较。通过环境慈善事业,我们致力于促进各种环境非政府组织 (NGO),以及环境行为(这里指具有生态意义的日常私人领域行为)。我们假定,尽管这五个国家在几个特性上都存在不同,但是学生人口 – 他们非常年轻,教育水平高,并接触过全球观念和规范 – 的环境和慈善事业行为,以及此类行为的决定因素方面彼此相对类似。为测试这一假设,本研究向五家大学的8,477位学生提供了标准问卷。结果表明,学生的环境慈善事业行为以及此类行为的人口统计和态度决定因素之间存在极大差别。

要約

本論文では、カナダ、ドイツ、イスラエル、韓国、アメリカ合衆国の5ヶ国の大学生の環境社会貢献活動、環境行動、決定要素を比較する。本論文は非営利団体の文献に関する唯一の論文であり、未調査の慈善的な活動、国際的な設定と他の環境社会貢献活動との比較の検証の可能性に焦点を当てる。環境社会貢献活動では、様々な環境非政府組織(NGO)を提供してボランティアを行う。環境社会貢献活動では、生態学的意義を有する私的な場における生活行動を言及する。5ヶ国はいくつかの特性によって異なると仮定して、若くて教養があり、グローバルなアイデアと規範をもつ学生人口は、そのような行動の環境社会貢献活動の決定要素において比較的類似している。この仮説を立証するために、5つの大学のキャンパスの8,477名の学生に標準化されたアンケートを実施した。結果から、環境社会貢献活動の学生、そのような行動における態度および行動人口の決定要素に著しい違いがみられた。

ملخص

يقارن هذا البحث ويناقض العمل الخيري البيئي، السلوك البيئي ومحدداتهم بين طلاب الجامعات في خمس دول هي: كندا، ألمانيا، إسرائيل، كوريا الجنوبية، والولايات المتحدة. مساهمة البحث الفريدة من نوعها إلى الأدب الغير ربحي هي تركيزها على العمل الخيري البيئي بإعتباره شكلا˝ غير مكتشف من السلوك الخيري، والقدرة على إختبار العمل الخيري البيئي في إطار دولي وبالمقارنة مع غيره من طرق السلوك البيئي. بالعمل الخيري البيئي، نعني العطاء، والتطوع في المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs)البيئية المختلفة ، وبالسلوك البيئي، نشير إلى السلوكيات اليومية في الحياة الخاصة مع الآثار البيئية. نحن نفترض أنه بالرغم من أن الدول الخمس تختلف في عدة خصائص، تعداد الطلبة - الذين هم من الشباب، المتعلمين، ومعرضين للأفكار والمعايير العالمية - سوف تكون مشابهة لبعضها البعض نسبيا˝ في سلوكهم البيئي والخيري ومحددات مثل هذا السلوك. لإختبار هذه الفرضية، تم إعطاء إستطلاع رأي موحد ل8477 من الطلبة في خمسة فروع. تبين النتائج فروق ذات دلالة إحصائية بين الطلاب في السلوك الخيري البيئي، كذلك في المحددات الديموجرافية والمواقف الشخصية لمثل هذه السلوكيات.

References

  1. Andrews, K. T., & Caren, N. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoyagi-Usui, M., Vinken, H., & Kuribayashi, A. (2003). Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: An international comparison. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
  3. Arcury, T. S., Scollay, S. J., & Johnson, T. (1987). Sex differences in an environmental concern and knowledge: The case of acid rain. Sex Roles, 16(9–10), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blocker, T. J., & Eckberg, D. L. (1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 586–593.Google Scholar
  6. Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). A cross-national perspective on youth environmental attitudes. Environmentalist, 20, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bromley, P., Meyer, J., & Ramirez, F. (2011). The worldwide spread of environmental discourse in social studies, history, and civics textbooks, 1970–2008. Comparative Education Review, 55(4), 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant, W. K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participation in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu, D., Gries, P., Torelli, C. J., & Cheng, S. Y. Y. (2011). Toward a social psychology of globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cicchelli, V. (2012). L’esprit cosmopolite: Voyage de formation des jeunes en Europe. Paris: Presses de Sc Po.Google Scholar
  11. Cicchelli, V., & Octobre, S. (2013). A cosmopolitan perspective of globalization: Cultural and aesthetic consumption among young people. Studies of Changing Societies: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus, 3(7), 3–23.Google Scholar
  12. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Finding from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R. F., Pradenas, L., & Parada, V. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environment and Behavior, 43, 634–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coyle, K. J. (2005). Environmental literacy in America. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. DeChano, L. M. (2006). A multi-country examination of the relationship between environmental knowledge and attitudes. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  16. De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the Norm Activation Model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new Index of Globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Test your “environmental IQ” (EPA Publication No. EPA-171-F-98-018). Washington, DC: Office of Communications, Education, and Media Relations.Google Scholar
  21. Ewert, A., & Baker, D. (2001). Standing where you sit: An exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environment beliefs. Environment and Behavior, 33, 687–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenspan, I., Handy, F., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2012). Environmental philanthropy: Is it similar to other types of environmental behavior? Organization and Environment, 25(2), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hadler, M., & Haller, M. (2011). Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. International Sociology, 26(3), 315–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handy, F., Hustinx, L., Kang, C., Cnaan, R. A., Brudney, J. L., Haski-Leventhal, D., et al. (2010). A cross-cultural examination of student volunteering: Is it all about résumé building? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 498–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handy, F., & Srinivasan, N. (2004). Valuing volunteers: An economic evaluation of the net benefits of hospital volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Israel, D. K. (2007). Charitable donations: Evidence of demand for environmental protection? International Advances in Economic Research, 13(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jorgenson, A., & Givens, J. (2013). Economic globalization and environmental concern: A multilevel analysis of individuals within 37 nations. Environment and Behavior. doi: 10.1177/0013916513479796.Google Scholar
  31. Katz-Gerro, T. (2009). New middle class and environmental lifestyle in Israel. In H. Lange & L. Meier (Eds.), Globalizing lifestyles, consumerism, and environmental concern: The case of the new middle class (pp. 197–215). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
  33. Kolmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Korfiatis, K. J., Hovardas, T., & Pantis, J. D. (2004). Determinants of environmental behavior in societies in transition: Evidence from five European countries. Population and Environment, 25(6), 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lang, K. B. (2011). The relationship between academic major and environmentalism among college students: Is it mediated by the effects of gender, political ideology and financial security? The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larsen, K. (1995). Environmental waste: Recycling attitudes and correlates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larsson, B., Andersson, M., & Osbeck, C. (2010). Bringing environmentalism home: Children’s influence on family consumption in the Nordic countries and beyond. Childhood, 17, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, Y.-K., Choi, J.-G., Kim, M.-S., Ahn, Y.-G., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2012). Explaining pro-environmental behaviors with environmentally relevant variables: A survey in Korea. African Journal of Business Management, 6(29), 8677–8690.Google Scholar
  39. Levine, D. S., & Strube, J. M. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3), 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lévy-Leboyer, C., Bonnes, M., Chase, J., Ferreira-Marques, J., & Pawlik, K. (1996). Determinants of pro-environmental behaviours: A Five-countries comparison. European Psychologist, 1(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Longhofer, W., & Shcofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 34, 431–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mainieri, T., Barnett, G., Valdero, T., Unian, J., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(4), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maman, D. (2002). The emergence of business groups: Israel and South Korea compared. Organization Studies, 23, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2012). Explaining environmental activism across countries. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), 683–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. T. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDougle, L. M., Greenspan, I., & Handy, F. (2011). Generation green: Understanding the motivations and mechanisms influencing young adults’ environmental volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medina, G., Pokorny, B., & Weigelt, J. (2009). The power of discourse: Hard lessons for traditional forest communities in the Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6), 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Milfont, T. L., Duckitt, J., & Cameron, L. D. (2006). A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 745–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mobley, C., Vagias, W., & DeWard, S. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmental behavior: The role of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 420–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012). The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organization and Environment, 25(3), 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nawrotzki, R. J., & Pampel, F. C. (2013). Cohort change and the diffusion of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Population and Environment, 35(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD. (2013). OECD partners and enlargement. Retrieved August 15, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/enlargement.htm.
  56. Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-nationally values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Owens, S. (2000). Engaging the public: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment & Planning A, 32, 1141–1148.Google Scholar
  59. Pampel, F. C., & Hunter, L. M. (2012). Cohort change, diffusion, and support for environmental spending in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 118(2), 420–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  61. Rossi, A. S. (Ed.). (2001). Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of work, family, and community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ru, J., & Ortolano, L. (2009). Development of citizen organized NGOs in China. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(2), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryan, R. L., Kaplan, R. K., & Grese, R. E. (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sampei, Y., & Aoyagi-Usui, M. (2009). Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan’s national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schultz, P. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., Peters, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2009). Developing citizens and communities through youth environmental action. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smooha, S. (2005). Is Israel western? In E. Ben-Rafael & Y. Sternberg (Eds.), Comparing modernities: Pluralism versus homogeneity; Essays in homage to Shmuel N. Eisenstadt (pp. 413–442). Boston, MA: Brill Academic.Google Scholar
  68. Stegmueller, D. (2013). How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 748–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and pro-environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Szerszinski, B., & Urry, J. (2002). Cultures of cosmopolitanism. Sociological Review, 50(4), 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thapa, B. (1999). Environmentalism: The relation of environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviors among undergraduate students. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19, 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in recreation and park management and other departments. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tindall, D. B., Davies, S., & Mauboules, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Society & Natural Resources, 16(10), 909–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernandez-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2013). Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tally Katz-Gerro
    • 1
  • Itay Greenspan
    • 2
  • Femida Handy
    • 3
  • Hoon-Young Lee
    • 4
  • Andreas Frey
    • 5
  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.KyungHee UniversitySeoulKorea
  5. 5.Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Applied ScienceNürtingenGermany

Personalised recommendations