Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Where is the Double Dividend? The Relationship Between Different Types of Pro-environmental Behavior and Different Conceptions of Subjective Well-Being

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Linking Sustainability and Happiness

Part of the book series: Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being ((CQLWB))

  • 505 Accesses

Abstract

The adoption of pro-environmental behaviors is essential to achieve the transition to a sustainable society. Previous evidence indicates that pro-environmental behaviors are positively associated with subjective well-being, lending support to the well-being dividend theory (namely that actions aimed at protecting the environment also improve well-being). In this study, we further examine the relationship between subjective well-being and pro-environmental behaviors, investigating whether the positive associations found extend to different types of behavior and different conceptions of well-being. We use three measures of well-being: life satisfaction (cognitive dimension), experienced emotions (affective dimension) and subjective vitality (eudaimonic dimension). We classify different pro-environmental behaviors on the basis of two criteria: the possible cost or benefit they entail for the individual who performs them, and the ease with which they can be observed by other people. Using regression analysis with data from a sample of students from the University of Granada, Spain, we found that the relationship between pro-environmental behaviors and subjective well-being differs according to the type of behavior and the dimension of well-being considered. Consistent with the well-being dividend theory, we found that actions that involve saving money are positively related to emotions, while actions that involve a cost, both in terms of money and time, are positively related to subjective vitality. However, we found no association between well-being and behaviors that do not entail any cost or benefit, and nonsignificant relations of certain behaviors with particular happiness measures. The nonsignificant relationships found between well-being and some categories of pro-environmental actions call for more research and political action to link sustainable behavior with well-being, in order to simultaneously boost happiness and pro-environmental behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use subjective well-being (or just well-being) as a synonym for happiness to broadly refer to the experience of being well. This ranges from cognitive judgments and affective evaluations to being fully functioning (Diener et al., 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Thus, we cover the cognitive, affective and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being.

  2. 2.

    We use the terms pro-environmental behavior, ecological behavior, or sustainable behavior to refer to any responsible behavior that minimizes damage to, or even benefits, the environment (Steg & Vlek, 2009).

References

  • Binder, M., & Blankenberg, A. K. (2016). Environmental concerns, volunteering and subjective well-being: Antecedents and outcomes of environmental activism in Germany. Ecological Economics, 124, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, M., & Blankenberg, A. K. (2017). Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 137, 304–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, M., Blankenberg, A. K., & Guardiola, J. (2020). Does it have to be a sacrifice? Different notions of the good life, pro-environmental behavior and their heterogeneous impact on well-being. Ecological Economics, 167, 106448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–73). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring subjective wellbeing for public policy: Recommendations on measures (No. 23). Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokdemir, O. (2015). Consumption, savings and life satisfaction: The Turkish case. International Review of Economics, 62, 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C., & Nikolova, M. (2015). Bentham or Aristotle in the development process? An empirical investigation of capabilities and subjective well-being. World Development, 68(1), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen-Royo, M. (2010). Realising the “wellbeing dividend”: An exploratory study using the Human Scale Development approach. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen-Royo, M. (2019). Sustainable consumption and wellbeing: Does on-line shopping matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 1112–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen-Royo, M., Guardiola, J., & Garcia-Quero, F. (2017). Sustainable development in times of economic crisis: A needs-based illustration from Granada (Spain). Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guven, C. (2012). Reversing the question: Does happiness affect consumption and savings behavior? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez-Rueda, N., Guillén-Royo, M., & Guardiola, J. (2020). Pro-environmental behavior, connectedness to nature, and wellbeing dimensions among Granada students. Sustainability, 12(21), 9171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (2005). Live better by consuming less? Is there a double dividend in sustainable consumption? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1–2), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaida, N., & Kaida, K. (2016). Pro-environmental behavior correlates with present and future subjective well-being. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 18(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasser, T. (2017). Living both well and sustainably: A review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2095), 20160369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., White, M., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, C. (2008). Sustainable happiness: How happiness studies can contribute to a more sustainable future. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 49(4), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, M., & Guardiola, J. (2017). Hunger and the experience of being well: Absolute and relative concerns. World Development, 96, 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. T., Aknin, L. B., Axsen, J., & Shwom, R. L. (2018). Unpacking the relationships between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological threat. Ecological Economics, 143, 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez-Varela, M., Guardiola, J., & González-Gómez, F. (2014). Do pro-environmental behaviors and awareness contribute to improve subjective well-being? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11(2), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9372-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulluwishewa, R. (2016). Spirituality, sustainability and happiness: A Quantum-neuroscientific perspective. In S. Dhiman & J. Marques (Eds.), Spirituality and sustainability: New horizons and exemplary approach (pp. 155–168). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhofstadt, E., Van Ootegem, L., Defloor, B., & Bleys, B. (2016). Linking individuals’ ecological footprint to their subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 127, 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2018). How green self image is related to subjective well-being: Pro-environmental values as a social norm. Ecological Economics, 149, 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, J. J., & Li, H. (2011). Sustainable consumption and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 104(2), 323–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawadzki, S. J., Steg, L., & Bouman, T. (2020). Meta-analytic evidence for a robust and positive association between individuals’ pro-environmental behaviors and their subjective wellbeing. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 123007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorić, J., & Hrovatin, N. (2012). Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia. Energy Policy, 47, 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación and the European Regional Development Fund (Project ECO2017-86822-R); the Regional Government of Andalusia and the European Regional Development Fund (Projects P18-RT-576 and B-SEJ-018-UGR18) and the University of Granada (Plan Propio. Unidad Científica de Excelencia: Desigualdad, Derechos Humanos y Sostenibilidad -DEHUSO-).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Nazaret Ibáñez-Rueda

  2. Institute of Peace and Conflicts, Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

    Jorge Guardiola Wanden-Berghe

Authors
  1. Nazaret Ibáñez-Rueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Guardiola Wanden-Berghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazaret Ibáñez-Rueda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Scott Cloutier

  2. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Sara El-Sayed

  3. College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Allison Ross

  4. Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Melanie Weaver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ibáñez-Rueda, N., Wanden-Berghe, J.G. (2022). Where is the Double Dividend? The Relationship Between Different Types of Pro-environmental Behavior and Different Conceptions of Subjective Well-Being. In: Cloutier, S., El-Sayed, S., Ross, A., Weaver, M. (eds) Linking Sustainability and Happiness. Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89559-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89559-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89558-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89559-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation