61036666

SUMMER 2011 VOLUME 45, NUMBER 2 329
BITS, BRIEFS AND APPLICATIONS
MARLA B. ROYNE, MARIAN LEVY,
AND JENNIFER MARTINEZ
The Public Health Implications of Consumers’
Environmental Concern and Their Willingness
to Pay for an Eco-Friendly Product
Environmental concern has been an important topic for more than
40 years and has recently become even more critical with today’s
concerns about creating a sustainable and healthy environment. This
research examines factors affecting an individual’s willingness to pay
more for an environmentally friendly product. Our results show
that willingness to pay more differs across demographic groups.
We also find that individuals who rate concern for waste as highly
important are willing to spend more money on an eco-friendly product.
Consequently, our findings provide insight into the development of
appropriate educational strategies for different consumer groups to
encourage consumers to purchase eco-friendly products, with a goal
of creating a healthier environment for current and future generations.
The challenge of healthier communities begins with environmental
concern and collective adoption of eco-friendly behaviors, because the
choices consumers make with regard to the environment influence the
health and quality of life for both current and future generations. In
general terms, environmental concern is a “concept that can refer to
feelings [consumers have] about many different green issues” (Zimmer,
Stafford, and Stafford 1994, p. 64). The topic became an important one in
1962 when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published and has recently
become even more critical with today’s concerns about creating a sus-
tainable and healthy environment. Trends show a remarkable increase in
consumer worry about environmental problems (e.g., Gallup Poll 2009)
Marla B. Royne (mstaffrd@memphis.edu) is Professor and Chair in the Department of
Marketing & Supply Chain Management, Fogelman College of Business & Economics, Marian
Levy (mlevy@memphis.edu) is Associate Professor and Director, Master of Public Health Program,
and Jennifer Martinez (jmartine@memphis.edu) is a doctoral student in the Department of Marketing
& Supply Chain Management, Fogelman College of Business & Economics, all at the University
of Memphis.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Summer 2011: 329–343
ISSN 0022-0078
Copyright 2011 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

330 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
and continued support for alternative forms of energy generation (Pew
2010) and other sustainable initiatives. Interest in environmental issues
has also triggered rapid growth and enrollment in environmental courses
offered in colleges and universities (Fuller 2010). In the corporate world,
environmentalism has moved to the boardroom (Hanas 2007), while at the
lay level, magazines such as Popular Mechanics feature articles related to
global warming (http://www.popularmechanics.com 2010). In addition,
a recent blog points out that popular media incorporate environmental
messages into their programming: “The powers that be at NBC Univer-
sal started going green and making the environment a priority, using a
tactic called ‘behavior placement’ to weave subtle eco-friendly messages
into the scripts of some of the network’s most popular daytime and prime
time programs” (http://www.environment.about.com 2010).
Although the environmental movement can be traced back to the nine-
teenth century, the modern iteration of environmental concern as an issue
of critical interest began about four decades ago. Most recently, this
concern has reappeared in the academic, scientific and popular press in
terms of issues related to sustainability and renewable resources (e.g.,
Gallup 2009; Pew 2009, 2010). For example, a major initiative in the
National Science Foundation’s proposed 2011 budget is expanded sup-
port for climate research activities, designed to address challenges in
sustainability, energy research and education (http://www.nsf.gov 2010).
The latest approach to understanding and researching sustainability and
environmental concepts spans several disciplines including marketing,
public policy and public health, among others.
In particular, sustainability is recognized as a major public health issue
of the twenty-first century (American Public Health Association 2007).
Health concerns are a primary component of overall environmental con-
cern because physical surroundings (air quality, water protection and
even the availability of health care alternatives) directly affect human
survival and quality of life (Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford 1994), and
individuals who practice environmental behaviors will promote healthier
communities, via improved quality of air, water and physical health (Patz
and Olson 2006). Consequently, understanding environmental concern
among consumers can have an important influence on public health.
The Environmental Consumer
Although the majority of US consumers indicate they are “envi-
ronmentalists” (Osterhus 1997; Ottman 2004; Shrum, McCarty, and
Lowrey 1995), this “mindset” does not necessarily translate into

pro-environmental behavior (Kaiser, Wölfing, and Fuhrer 1999) indicat-
ing an attitude–behavior gap. It is possible that this gap is a result of
individuals not understanding the personal benefits, including the health
advantages of engaging in such behaviors. That is, individuals may not
understand how closely the environment and health are intertwined. Thus,
it stands to reason that programs which bolster consumer knowledge and
encourage a belief in consumers that their actions can positively affect
the environment, their own health, as well as their own well-being, might
help to close this gap.
Not surprisingly, existing research has also found that some consumers
are willing to pay more for green products, while other consumers are
not (Laroche, Bergeron, and Barbaro-Forleo 2001; Loureiro, McCluskey,
and Mittelhammer 2002; Vlosky, Ozanne, and Fontenot 1999). In their
study of product labeling, D’Souza et al (2007) found that while some
consumers are willing to pay more for an eco-friendly product, these
consumers are reluctant to compromise on product quality. One general
finding is that consumers who perceive a benefit that exceeds the extra
cost of purchasing green products are willing to pay more for that
product (Abdul-Muhmin 2007; Moon and Balasubramanian 2003), but
these studies assume that the consumer has full knowledge about the
product’s benefits and its costs. For instance, fresh fruit and vegetables
are more expensive than processed foods, but are known to reduce the
risk of colorectal, breast and other cancers, as well as protect against other
chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Nöthlings
et al. 2008). But these health benefits may not be known to many
consumers. Existing research on food products provides evidence of this
cost-benefit disparity of knowledge (Grantham 2007; Kaneko and Chern
2005; Pew 2006). Moreover, other research indicates that environmental
claims are often misunderstood (Maronick and Andrews 1999).
Initial research to understand consumer perceptions of environmen-
tal concern (Anderson and Cunningham 1972) and ecological concern
(Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed 1974) began in the 1970s. By the 1980s,
increased efforts began to better understand and profile the environmen-
tally concerned consumer. For example, Manzo and Weinstein (1987)
studied the difference in levels of environmental concern between active
and nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Results suggested that the
more consumers are involved and aware of environmental issues and
the consequences of their behavior, the greater the degree of significant
behavioral commitment to environmental protection.
Other research examined which demographic variables might be cor-
related with varying levels of environmental concern (Ellen, Wiener, and

Cobb-Walgren 1991; Newell and Green 1997; Samdahl and Robertson
1989). Much of the evidence suggested that environmentally concerned
consumers were generally younger, more affluent, more educated,
more urban and more politically liberal than other consumers (Aaker
and Bagozzi, 1982; Anderson and Cunningham 1972; Antil 1984;
Leonard-Barton 1981; Samdahl and Robertson 1989; Shama 1985).
Although this research stream developed a general profile of the typ-
ical environmentalist, it failed to examine different types of environ-
mental concern, despite the belief that environmental concern is a
multifaceted concept (Drumwright 1994; Straughan and Roberts 1999;
Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford 1994). Because it is likely that different
demographic groups may be willing to pay more or less for an envi-
ronmentally friendly product, understanding these differences can help
ensure that appropriate and effective green messages are developed with
the goal of encouraging eco-friendly purchases by promoting sustainabil-
ity and its positive effects on health and well-being. In short, reaching
different consumer groups with the appropriate strategies may translate
into more positive eco-friendly behaviors (i.e., paying more for an eco-
friendly products) resulting in a better living environment and improved
health for current and future generations.
Three popular and well-used demographic grouping variables are age,
gender and ethnicity. Age is a simple, yet critical variable, because age
allows for an understanding of how wants and needs change as an individ-
ual matures. Specifically, Hansman and Schutjens (1993) found that age
predicts changes in attitudes and behavior. do Paco and Raposa (2009)
noted that the existing research on age and environmental attitudes has
been inconsistent and suggest that additional research be conducted in
this area.
Gender has been studied as a predictor of attitudes for many years
based on the notion that males and females possess distinct characteris-
tics, and green research has suggested that females might be more envi-
ronmentally concerned than males (Lee 2009; Mostafa 2007; Schwartz
and Miller 1991). Interest has also been demonstrated in revealing differ-
ences in environmental concern across ethnic groups (Baugh 1991; Ellen,
Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren 1991; Jones and Carter 1994; Newell and
Green 1997). Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991) failed to detect
differences in environmental concern across African Americans and Cau-
casians. Newell and Green (1997) reported that White consumers were
more concerned with the overall environment, but also noted that early
research failed to account for age or income differences within the groups
studied. Their own research found that the significant differences between

White and Black consumers were observed only at the lower income
and educational levels. Williams (1989) claimed that younger individuals
within a racial category are well-versed about the environment as com-
pared to older individuals in the same racial group. Moreover, Ellen,
Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991) noted the need to acknowledge dif-
ferent racial segments when communicating about the environment.
Because some consumers are willing to spend more than others to
protect the environment, it is logical to assume that these more willing
consumers may take a more active role in the environment. Hence, if we
were able to identify the characteristics of the consumers that are willing
to spend more, then appropriate messages can be communicated to them.
Therefore, we sought to determine whether willingness to pay more
differed by demographic characteristics. Hence, we pose the following
research question:
RQ1: Is a particular demographic group willing to pay more for an eco-friendly
product, and if so, which one(s)?
Research centered on environmental concern has focused largely on
segmentation, based on individual and group perceptions and behaviors
regarding general environmental concern (Diamantopoulos et al. 2003;
do Paco and Raposo 2009; D’Souza et al. 2007; Lee 2009; Loureiro,
McCluskey, and Mittelhammer 2002; Newell and Green 1997; Straughan
and Roberts 1999). Unfortunately, research surrounding environmental
concern tends to consider each major component in a vacuum (Allen,
Davis, and Soskin 1993; Harrell and McConocha 1992; Morris, Hastak,
and Mazis 1995; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991) as opposed to taking a
comprehensive view to determine the relative importance of each com-
ponent of concern. Moreover, the relative importance of each type of
environmental issue and how it influences eco-friendly behaviors have
not yet been explored.
In evaluating the elements of environmental concern in a more compre-
hensive manner, we can identify salient aspects for promoting eco-issues
to consumers. When consumers adopt new behaviors that conserve the
earth’s resources (e.g., buying an eco-friendly product that costs more),
their health and quality of life will greatly benefit. To help promote this
potential behavior, it is useful to determine which aspects of the environ-
ment are perceived as more important to different groups. Stisser (1994)
believed it is critical to understand how important the environment is to
consumers relative to the environmental benefits they are seeking. Fur-
thermore, by identifying these key environmental issues and assessing

the effect of these on the consumer’s choice to purchase an eco-friendly
product, we are following the process of behavior-driven researchers, the
approach advocated by Bone, France, and Aikin (2009) in their commen-
tary on health literacy.
To examine the different elements of environmental concern, we utilize
the seven dimensions of concern identified by Zimmer, Stafford, and
Stafford (1994). This allowed us to determine whether the level of
importance of certain types of environmental concern is significantly
related to the willingness to spend more on an eco-friendly product.
Thus, we examine the following research question:
RQ2: Is the importance level of a specific type of environmental concern related
to how much more an individual is willing to pay for an eco-friendly product?
DATA COLLECTION
To answer our research questions, we sought a sample of consumers
who have in some manner demonstrated at least a minimal interest in
environmentalism. Hence, we collected data at Sustainable Technologies
Awareness Day (STAD) at a major southeastern urban university. STAD
was held to encourage environmental awareness, inquiry and activism
among students, faculty and staff; it featured more than forty eco-friendly
initiatives at the university, in the community and by industry partners.
These initiatives focused on recycling and other actions that reduce health
risks, improve air quality and reduce costs.
During the event, attendees were asked to complete a brief survey that
included the seven different types of environmental concern identified by
Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford (1994): concern for waste, concern for
wildlife, concern for the biosphere, concern for popular issues, concern
for health, concern for energy and concern for environmental technology.
According to Zimmer, Stafford, and Stafford, these seven items comprise
an overall measure of environmental concern. Examples of each concern
type were provided to respondents (see Table 1 for a description of the
seven types of concern). Respondents were asked to rate their perceived
importance of each of the seven types of environmental concern on a
scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being most important. The reliability coefficient for
the seven items as an overall measure of environmental concern was .80,
demonstrating acceptable reliability. In addition, we asked respondents
(in percentage terms) how much more they would be willing to pay
for an eco-friendly product as compared to a non-eco-friendly product.
They also had the option of indicating that they were unwilling to spend

TABLE 1
Issues and Descriptions
Concern for Waste Concern for reducing and managing waste. Examples include
waste control, waste disposal/reduction, landﬁlls, and recycling
Concern for Wildlife Concern for preserving animals and their habitats. Examples
include species preservation, wilderness protection, trade in
rare species/poaching and deforestation
Concern for the Biosphere Concern for the earth and the air. Examples include ozone
depletion and the greenhouse effect
Concern for Popular lssues Concern for popular issues with recent visibility in the popular
press. Examples include overpopulation, citizen participation,
erosion and climate change.
Concern for Health Concern for human survival and quality of life. Examples include
human health, water protection and air pollution.
Concern for Energy Concern for energy sources and consumption. Examples include
clean energy, alternative energy sources, energy conservation,
and automobiles
Concern for Environmental
Technology
Concern for technologies that can affect the environment
proactively. Examples include biotechnology, safe technology
and community economic development
more on such a product. In addition, we asked respondents their age,
gender and ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity were categorical variables,
while actual age was requested.
Attendees who completed the survey and visited a minimum of three
exhibitors were treated to a healthy lunch. A total of 337 participants
completed the survey. About 72% were students, 21% were faculty/staff
and 7% were campus visitors; 57% were female and 43% were male.
About 42% were over 30 and the average age was 29.2 years. About 51%
were Caucasian, 35% were African American, 6% were Asian, and 3%
were Hispanic. The rest of the sample identiﬁed themselves as “other.”
Analysis and Results
Although we used a convenience sample of students, faculty and com-
munity members at one university on a day dedicated to sustainability,
we actually view this limited sample as a positive source of data because
all respondents had exhibited some form of pro-environmental behavior.
As shown in Table 2, the three concerns rated most highly were health
(mean = 4.51), energy (mean = 4.48) and waste (mean = 4.21). In addi-
tion, 91.2% of respondents indicated that they were willing to pay more
money for products that are eco-friendly, although the percentage listed
ranged from 1% to 100%. The most frequent response to this open-ended
question was 10%; that is, 26.4% of the respondents indicated that they

TABLE 2
Overall Means and Standard Deviations
Issue Mean SD
Waste 4.21 0.917
Wildlife 4.13 0.961
Biosphere 3.99 1.007
Popular issues 3.92 1.017
Health 4.51 0.746
Energy 4.48 0.750
Environmental technology 4.02 0.983
were willing to pay 10% more for an eco-friendly product. About 49%
were willing to pay 10% more or less. However, 8.8% were unwilling
to spend any more money on an eco-friendly product.
To answer Research Questions 1 and 2, data were analyzed via the
General Linear Model in SPSS. The independent variables included
gender and ethnicity as categorical variables, with age and the seven
types of environmental concern as continuous variables. The interac-
tion effect between gender and ethnicity (the two categorical variables)
was also included in the model. The single dependent variable was the
additional percent individuals were willing to pay for an eco-friendly
product. The overall model was significant (F = 2.15, p = .006) and
univariate F-tests indicated that age (F = 4.14, p = .04), ethnicity (F =
3.51, p = .01) and waste (F = 5.81, p = .02) were all significant. The
gender × ethnicity interaction was not significant (F = .83, p = .51).
The significant effect for age indicates that consumer age has an
influence on how much more a consumer is willing to pay for an
environmentally friendly product. The parameter estimate for age was
−.197 (t = −2.035, p = .04), indicating that younger respondents are
willing to pay more than their older counterparts for an eco-friendly
product, a finding consistent with much of the work that profiles the
environmentally concerned consumer.
For ethnicity, the group that categorized themselves as “Other” was
willing to spend the most (28.85%), with African Americans coming in
second (22.66%). Pairwise comparisons indicate that both African Amer-
ican and Others were willing to spend significantly more than Caucasians
(14.61%; p < .01 and p < .05, respectively). However, because there
were small sample sizes for three of the ethnic groups (Asian Americans,
Hispanics and Others), these results should be regarded with caution.
Nevertheless, these results do indicate a positive response for Research
Question 1—that certain demographic groups are willing to pay more for

TABLE 3
Univariate F-Tests: Percentage More Willing to Pay
F-Test p-Value
Gender 1.21 .27
Ethnicity 3.51 .01
Age 4.14 .04
Gender × Ethnicity 0.83 .51
Waste 5.81 .02
Wildlife 0.11 .74
Biosphere 0.70 .41
Popular issues 0.05 .82
Health 0.05 .82
Energy 0.00 .97
Environmental technology 1.50 .22
an eco-friendly product—and our findings provide some insight into that
groups.
As indicated in Table 3, only one type of environmental concern was
significantly related to the amount an individual was willing to pay: con-
cern for waste (β = 4.07, t = 2.41, p = .02). Hence, our results suggest
that those individuals who perceive waste as highly important are more
likely to be associated with a willingness to pay more for a product that
is environmentally friendly.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Because our final sample resulted in small cell sizes in the ethnicity
category and because we only examined three demographic variables,
generalizations from our findings must be drawn with caution. However,
our findings do offer insight into perceptions of environmental concern
and willingness to pay for an eco-friendly product.
Given the significant difference of just one type of concern—waste—as
an influencer of paying more for an environmentally friendly prod-
uct, this research reinforces the notion of environmental concern as a
multifaceted concept. Moreover, the presence of significant differences
based on different demographic characteristics suggests that some of the
widely held beliefs about environmental concern may be inaccurate or
incomplete.
For ethnicity, we found that African Americans are willing to spend
significantly more than Caucasians on an eco-friendly product and Cau-
casians are willing to spend the least. These findings are consistent with
the viewpoint of Newell and Green (1997), who dispelled the belief

that African Americans are apathetic toward the environment. Thus, our
results reinforce the importance of avoiding stereotypes as well as updat-
ing the profile of the environmentally concerned consumer to ensure that
appropriate messages are communicated.
Specifically, these ethnic differences suggest that communicating sus-
tainable practices to Caucasians should possibly emphasize a potential
for minimal expense (e.g., low minimum purchase requirement, short
contract lengths) or long-term financial incentives (energy-efficient appli-
ances). At the same time, it may be important to educate these other
ethnic groups on why it is important to invest in eco-friendly products.
However, because of the noted small cell sizes from the ethnicity analy-
sis, these implications must be considered as suggestive only. Regardless,
as our nation’s population is becoming more diverse, the public health
community acknowledges the need to develop communication and health
messages that resonate with ethnic groups, motivate engagement and
support wise consumer choices. As noted in Healthy People (2010), a
comprehensive set of objectives to promote America’s health, a tremen-
dous disparity exists in morbidity and mortality of ethnic, underserved
populations, compared with Caucasians. A major goal and public health
priority is to promote health equity for minority groups (US Department
of Health and Human Services 2000).
The results for age indicate that younger individuals are willing to
spend significantly more money than their older counterparts for an
eco-friendly product. These findings suggest that educational messages
targeted toward older adults may be necessary to encourage purchase
of such products. The importance of these educational messages is
underscored by the fact that the elderly are particularly vulnerable to
environmental issues related to motor vehicle air pollution and global cli-
mate change (US Climate Change Program 2008), because such changes
due to greenhouse gases are believed to produce increased health risks
from extreme weather events (e.g., flooding), extreme heat, infectious dis-
eases, water contamination and vector-borne illnesses (Ebi et al. 2006;
Kjellstrom et al. 2007). Moreover, physical limitations resulting from air
pollution and climate change reduce mobility and recommended physi-
cal activity that sustains health. Other affected health behaviors include
dietary practices, which decline due to physical changes, such as reduc-
tions in taste perception, olfactory sense and dentition. In sum, it is critical
to educate the older population on why it is important to invest in prod-
ucts that can help the environment. This educational message must be
presented in “plain language” to ensure that the targeted consumer (in
this case, older adults) can understand the relevance of this information

to their own health status and engage in the appropriate behavior based
on that understanding (Bone, France and Aikin 2009).
Our findings also suggest that respondents who are particularly con-
cerned with waste may be more likely to spend more money on an
environmentally friendly product. Therefore, a reduced usage of energy
via simpler packaging and recycling innovations may be supported by
a group of consumers. This decrease in energy consumption translates
to decreased fossil fuel combustion and, in turn, reduced atmospheric
release of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone.
Individuals with cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses (e.g., asthma)
are especially harmed by increases in ozone air production. Thus, more
expensive green products may fare better when targeted toward those
individuals who are more concerned with waste-related issues. Ideally,
products targeted to such groups should be recyclable or otherwise helpful
in reducing waste. Green products targeted to other demographic groups
may need to be less expensive.
However, green products are often more costly to manufacture than
less eco-friendly goods, and therefore, are simply more expensive for
consumers to purchase. As many manufacturers are required by govern-
ment entities (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration) to comply with
production and labeling guidelines for organic or sustainably produced
goods, one consideration is to educate consumers and, in particular, older
adults on the inherent costs that drive the price of green products higher
than nongreen products. One potential avenue is through community
information sessions sponsored by government agencies, a suggestion
made by Newell and Green (1997) in their work on environmental con-
cern. Educating consumers on why green products cost more as well as
the benefits of using green products, particularly where health benefits
are concerned (i.e., reduced factory emissions, pesticide-free agriculture),
may be helpful in closing the gap between consumers merely possess-
ing a pro-environmental attitude and extending that attitude to intentions
to adopt pro-environmental behaviors—in the case here, spending more
money on an environmentally friendly product. However, because our
research only examined willingness to pay for an eco-friendly prod-
uct and not behavior, this speculation needs to be examined in future
research.
Although a movement toward reducing the costs of these environmen-
tally friendly products might be helpful, it may not be realistic. Another
alternative is increased government subsidies for companies developing
eco-friendly products so that the cost to the consumer can be reduced. If
the ultimate universal goal is a sustainable environment with long-term

health benefits for all consumers, then collective effort among consumers
and businesses is critical.
In short, our research begins to understand who is willing to pay more
for an environmentally friendly product and what types of environmental
concern may motivate individuals to do so allowing for the development
of effective communications to different groups of consumers to educate
them on the benefits of purchasing these products. Addressing salient
needs is critical in moving from environmental concern to action, and
consumers need to play an active role in maintaining their environment
to protect their own community and personal health. By matching educa-
tional messages to individual and collective group concerns, as implied
by Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren (1991), these messages can be based
on consumers’ innate susceptibilities as well as their individual perspec-
tives and concerns. That is, it is unlikely that one environmental campaign
encouraging the purchase of an eco-friendly product can be created to
appeal to a broad range of consumers. Yet the future vulnerability to the
health impacts of climate change depends on our capacity for collective
action.
The public health implications of climate change are both long term
and immediate. A long-term approach is needed to reverse the detrimen-
tal impact on global atmosphere and ecosystems. In this case, the use
of temporal framing (presenting a message with a specific time refer-
ence) may be an effective strategy in reaching consumers (Kees 2011).
However, there also exists an immediate task to communicate the need
for adopting eco-responsible lifestyles. We agree with Newell and Green
(1997) that government agencies must provide the critical information
to consumers and, in particular, those groups of consumers who may be
most affected by environmental-related problems. In addition, as noted
by Rotfeld (2011), it is important to base information and programs on
how people might actually use the information to change their behav-
iors. With our increasingly diverse population, it is clear that “one size
does not fit all.” Our research has provided some insight into how to
promote consumer education and eco-friendly actions. Moreover, we
must advocate for simultaneous shifts in community institutions and
policy to support individual behavior change. Changes in transporta-
tion, land use and housing policies are needed. Corporate incentives
to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and support production of alter-
nate energy would support eco-friendly consumer behaviors. Adopting
these strategies would be important steps to address the environmental
impact of global climate change and, ultimately, to protect consumer
health.

REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Richard P. Bagozzi. 1982. Attitudes toward Public Policy Alternatives to
Reduce Air Pollution. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1: 85–94.
Abdul-Muhmin, Alhassan G. 2007. Explaining Consumers’ Willingness to be Environmentally
Friendly. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (May): 237–247.
Allen, Jeff, Duane Davis, and Mark Soskin. 1993. Using Coupon Incentives in Recycling Aluminum:
A Market Approach to Energy Conservation Policy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 27 (Winter):
300–319.
American Public Health Association. 2007. Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change
to Public Health and the Environment. http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/
default.htm?id=1351. (Accessed on April 5, 2010)
Anderson Jr., Thomas W. and William Cunningham. 1972. The Socially Conscious Consumer.
Journal of Marketing, 36 (July): 23–31.
Antil, John. 1984. Socially Responsible Consumers: Profile and Implications for Public Policy.
Journal of Macromarketing, 4 (December): 18–39.
Baugh, Joyce A. 1991. African-Americans and the Environment: A Review Essay. Policy Studies
Journal, 19 (Spring): 182–191.
Bone, Paula Fitzgerald, Karen Russo France, and Kathryn J. Aikin. 2009. On Break-up Cliches
Guiding Health Literacy’s Future. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43 (Summer): 185–198.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Greg M. Bohlen.
2003. Can Socio-Demographics Still Play a Role in Profiling Green Consumers? A Review of
the Evidence and an Empirical Investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56 (June): 465–480.
do Paco, Arminda and Mario Raposa. 2009. “Green” Segmentation: An Application to the
Portuguese Consumer Market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27 (3): 364–379.
Drumwright, Minette. 1994. Socially Responsible Organizational Buying: Environmental Concern
as a Noneconomic Buying Criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58 (July): 1–19.
D’Souza, Clare, Mehdi Taghian, Peter Lamb, and Roman Peretiatko. 2007. Green Decisions:
Demographics and Consumer Understanding of Environmental Labels. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 31 (July): 371–376.
Ebi, Kristie L., David M. Mills, Joel B. Smith, and Anne Grambsch. 2006. Climate Change and
Health Impacts in the United States: An Update on the Results of the U.S. National Assessment.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 (September): 1318–1324.
Ellen, Pam Scholder, Joshua Lyle Wiener and Cathy Cobb-Walgren. 1991. The Role of Perceived
Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 10 (Fall): 102–117.
Fuller, R.A. Graduate Environmental Sciences. International Graduate. http://www.
internationalgraduate.net/environment.htm. (Accessed April 16, 2010)
Gallup Poll. 2009. Water Pollution Americans’ Top Green Concern. http://www.gallup.com/poll/
117079.
Grantham, Susan. 2007. But What Do They Really Think? Identifying Consumers’ Values Relevant
to Adopting Biotechnologically Produced Foods. Journal of Public Affairs, 7 (November):
372–382.
Hanas, Jim. 2007. A World Gone Green. Ad Age, June 8, 2007. http://adage.com/eco-marketing/
article?article_id=117113.
Hansman, Harrie and Veronique Schutjens. 1993. Dynamics in Market Segmentation: A Demo-
graphic Perspective on Age-specific Consumption. Marketing and Research Today, 21 (3):
139–147.
Harrell, Gilbert and Diane M. McConocha. 1992. Personal Factors Related to Consumer Product
Disposal Tendencies. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26 (Winter): 397–417.
Jones, Robert E. and Lewis F. Carter. 1994. Concern for the Environment Among Black Americans:
An Assessment of Common Assumptions. Social Science Quarterly, 75 (September): 560–579.

Kaiser, Florian G., Sybille Wölfing, and Urs Fuhrer. 1999. Environmental Attitude and Ecological
Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (March): 1–19.
Kaneko, Naoya and Wen S. Chern. 2005. Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Oil, Corn
Flakes, and Salmon: Evidence From a U.S. Telephone Survey. Journal of Agricultural and
Applied Economics, 37 (December): 701–719.
Kees, Jeremy. 2011. Advertising Framing Effects and Consideration of Future Consequences.
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45 (Spring): 7–32.
Kinnear, Thomas C., James R. Taylor, and Sadrudin A. Ahmed. 1974. Ecologically Concerned
Consumers: Who Are They? Journal of Marketing, 38 (April): 20–24.
Kjellstrom, Tord, Sharon Friel, Jane Dixon, Carlos Corvalan, Eva Rehfuess, Diarmid Campbell-
Lendrum, Fiona Gore, and Jamie Bartram. 2007. Urban Environmental Health Hazards and
Health Equity. Journal of Urban Health, 84 (January): 86–97.
Laroche, Michel, Jasmin Bergeron, and Guido Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting Consumers Who Are
Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
18 (6): 503–520.
Lee, Kaman. 2009. Gender Differences in Hong Kong Adolescent Consumers’ Green Purchasing
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 (2): 87–96.
Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. 1981. Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles and Energy Conservation. Journal
of Consumer Research, 8 (December): 243–252.
Loureiro, Maria, Jill J. McCluskey, and Ron C. Mittelhammer. 2002. Will Consumers Pay a
Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36 (Winter): 203–219.
Manzo, Lynne C. and Neil D. Weinstein. 1987. Behavioral Commitment to Environmental Protec-
tion: A Study of Active and Nonactive Members of the Sierra Club. Environment and Behavior,
19 (6): 673–694.
Maronick, Thomas J. and J. Craig Andrews. 1999. The Role of Qualifying Language on Consumer
Perceptions of Environmental Claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 33 (Winter): 297–320.
Moon, Wanki and Siva K. Balasubramanian. 2003. Willingness to Pay for Non-Biotech Foods in
the U.S. and U.K. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37 (Winter): 317–339.
Morris, Lewis A., Manoj M. Hastak, and Michael B. Mazis. 1995. Consumer Comprehension of
Environmental Advertising and Labeling Claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29 (Winter):
328–350.
Mostafa, M.M. 2007. Gender Differences in Egyptian Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior: The
Effects of Environmental Knowledge. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (May):
220–229.
Newell, Stephen J. and Corliss L. Green. 1997. Racial Differences in Consumer Environmental
Concern. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31 (Summer): 53–69.
Nöthlings, U, M.B. Schulze, C. Weikert, H. Boeing, Y.T. Van de Schouw, C. Bamia, and
A. Trichopoulo. 2008. Intake of Vegetables, Legumes, and Fruit, and Risk For All-cause, Car-
diovascular, and Cancer Mortality in a European Diabetic Population. Journal of Nutrition, 138
(April): 775–781.
NSF-Wide Investment: Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES). http:/www.
nsf.gov/sees. (Accessed April 17, 2010)
Ottman, Jacquelyn A. 2004. Green Marketing. 2nd edition. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Osterhus, Thomas L. 1997. Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do They
Work? Journal of Marketing, 61 (October): 16–29.
Patz, J. and S.H. Olson. 2006. Climate Change and Health: Global to Local Influences on Disease
Risk. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 100: 535–549.
Pew Institute for the People & the Press. 2010. Support for Alternative Energy and Offshore Drilling.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1509.
Pew Institute on Food and Biotechnology. 2006. Pew Initiative Finds Public Opinion About
Genetically Modified Foods Remains ‘Up for Grabs’ Ten Years After Introduction of Ag Biotech:
New poll Echoes Earlier Findings Over Five-Year Period of consumer Research (Press Release).
http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/120606.php3.

Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2009. No Denying the Heat of Global Warming Debate
in Blogosphere. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1446.
Rotfeld, Herbert Jack. 2011. The Public as the Problem for Public Health. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 45 (Spring): 165–168.
Samdahl, Diane M. and Robert Robertson. 1989. Social Determinants of Environmental Concern:
Specification and Test of the Model. Environment and Behavior, 21 (1): 57–81.
Schwartz, Joe and Thomas Miller. 1991. The Earth’s Best Friends. American Demographics, 13
(February): 26–35.
Schwepker, Charles H. and T. Bettina Cornwell. 1991. An Examination of Ecologically Concerned
Consumers and Their Intention to Purchase Ecologically Packaged Products. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 10 (Fall): 77–101.
Shama, Avraham. 1985. The Voluntary Simplicity Consumer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2
(September): 57–63.
Shrum, L.J., John A. McCarty, and Tina M. Lowrey. 1995. Buyer Characteristics of the Green
Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24 (Summer):
71–82.
Sofge, Erik. How 4 Climate Control Plans Could Crash and Burn. Popular Mechanics. http://www.
popularmechanics.com/science/environment/geoengineering/4342355. (Accessed April 17, 2010)
Stisser, Peter. 1994. A Deeper Shade of Green. American Demographics, 16 (March): 24–29.
Straughan, Robert D. and James A. Roberts. 1999. Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A
Look at Green Consumer Behavior in the New Millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16
(6): 558–575.
US Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6: Analyses of
the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems: Third Review
Draft for CCSP and CENR Clearance, April 2008. Washington, DC: US Climate Change Science
Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
US Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy People 2010 :With Understanding
and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2nd edition, 2 vols. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
Vlosky, Richard P., Lucie K. Ozanne, and Renee J. Fontenot. 1999. A Conceptual Model of US
Consumer Willingness-toPay for Environmentally Certified Wood Products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16 (2): 122–140.
West, Larry. Friday April 9, 2010. About.com Guide to Environmental Issues. Is Television Forcing
You to Live Green? http://www.environment.about.com/b/2010/04/09/is-television-forcing-you-
to-live-green.htm.
Williams, Jerome D. 1989. Black Consumer Segmentation and Ethnic Identification: A Critical
Review and Pilot Study, in David W. Schumann, ed., Proceedings of Division of Consumer
Psychology American Psychological Association 1988 Annual Convention, Atlanta, Georgia:
American Psychological Association.
Zimmer, Mary R., Thomas F. Stafford, and Marla Royne Stafford. 1994. Green Issues: Dimensions
of Environmental Concern. Journal of Business Research, 30 (May): 63–74.

Copyright of Journal of Consumer Affairs is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

61036666

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à 61036666

Similaire à 61036666 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

61036666