Advertisement

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

  • Bettina Brohmann
  • Tim Clamor
  • Stefanie Heinzle
  • Klaus Rennings
  • Joachim Schleich
  • Rolf Wüstenhagen
Chapter
Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 44)

Abstract

Consumption is a key lever to achieving more sustainable development. Unsustainable consumption is a major cause of global environmental deterioration, including overexploitation of renewable resources and pollution caused by fossil fuels. The European Environmental Agency report “Household Consumption and the Environment” (EEA, 2005) identifies the need areas of food, housing, personal travel and mobility as well as tourism as the four major areas of household consumption with the highest negative environmental impacts.

Keywords

Discrete Choice Conjoint Analysis Rational Choice Theory Environmental Attitude Sustainable Consumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991), The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Processes 50, 179-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1985), From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, in: Kuhl, J. and J. Beckmann (Ed.), Action Control, From Cognition to Behavior, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I and M. Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, 1980, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Allenby, G. and P. Rossi (2003), Bayesian Statistics and Marketing, Marketing Science 22, 304-328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Backhaus, K., B. Erichson, W. Plinke and R. Weiber (2006), Multivariate Analysemethoden –Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung 11, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Balderjahn, I. (1988), Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns, Journal of Business Research 17, 51-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beenstock, M., E. Goldin and Y. Haitovsky (1998), Response Bias in a Conjoint Analysis of Power Outages, Energy Economics 20, 135-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belz, F.-M. (2001), Integratives Öko-Marketing: Erfolgreiche Vermarktung von ökologischen Produkten und Leistungen, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  9. Belz, F.-M. (2004), Nachhaltigkeits-Marketing. Ein entscheidungsorientierter Ansatz, in: Wiedmann, K.P., W. Fritz and B. Abel (Eds.), Management mit Vision und Verantwortung, Wiesbaden 467-492.Google Scholar
  10. Belz, F.-M., D. Egger (2001), Nutzen und Kosten von Niedrigenergiehäusern: Empirische Ergebnisse einer explorativen Untersuchung, in: Der Markt. Zeitschrift für Absatzwirtschaft und Marketing 1, 3-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Best, H. (2007), Wertstoff – Recycling und die Low-Cost Hypothese, Erste Ergebnisse eines Feldexperiments zur Evaluation von Umweltschutzmaßnahmen, soFid Methoden und Instrumente der Sozialwissenschaften 2, 11-20.Google Scholar
  12. Bhat, C.R. and S. Castelar (2002), A Unified Mixed Logit Framework for Modeling Revealed and Stated Preferences: Formulation and Application to Congestion Pricing Analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation Research B 36 (7), 593-616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black, J., P. Sterm and J. Elworth (1985), Personal and Contextual Influences on Household Energy Adaptations, Journal of Applied Psychology 70, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blass, A.A., S. Lach and C.F. Manski (2008), Using Elicited Choice Probabilities to Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences for Electricity Reliability, available online at http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~cfm754/blm.pdf.
  15. Bocock, R. (1993), Consumption, London.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, K. and L. Taylor (2000), Do as You Say, Say as You Do: Evidence on Gender Differences in Actual and Stated Contributions to Public Goods, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Studies 43, 127-139.Google Scholar
  17. Brownstone, D. and K. Train (1998), Forecasting New Product Penetration with Flexible Substitution Patterns, Journal of Econometrics 89(1), 109-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brownstone, D., D.S. Bunch and K. Train (2000), Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative-fuel Vehicles, Transportation Research B 34, 315-338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bühler, G. (2006), Verkehrsmittelwahl im Güterverkehr, ZEW Schriftenreihe Umwelt- und Ressourcenökonomie, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  20. Cai, Y., I. Deilami and K. Train (1998), Customer Retention in a Competitive Power Market: Analysis of a Double-Bounded Plus Follow-Ups Questionnaire, The Energy Journal 19(2), 191 – 215.Google Scholar
  21. Carroll, J.D. and P.E. Green (1995), Psychometric Methods in Marketing Research: Part I, Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research 32, 385-391.Google Scholar
  22. Clausen, J. (2008), Betreiber von Solarwärmeanlagen und Ökostromkunden in der Klimaschutzregion Hannover, Befragungen im Rahmen des Forschungsprojektes Wenke 2 mit Befragung der Nachbarn, Hanover.Google Scholar
  23. Cleff, T. and K. Rennings (1999), Determinants of Environmental Product and Process Innovation – Evidence from Mannheim Innovation Panel and a Follow-up Telephone Survey, European Environment 9(5), 191-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dagsvik, J.K., L. Lorentsen, Ø. Olsen and S. Strom (1987), Residential Demand for Natural Gas, in: R. Golombek, M. Hoel and J. Vislie (Eds.), Natural Gas and Contracts, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Danielis, R. and L. Rotaris (1999), Analysing Freight Transport Demand Using Stated Preference Data: A Survey, Transport Europei 13, 30-38.Google Scholar
  26. Diekmann, A. and P. Preisendörfer (1992), Persönliches Umweltverhalten: Diskrepanzen zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 40(2), 226-251.Google Scholar
  27. Diekmann, A. and P. Preisendörfer (2003), Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-Cost and High- Cost Situations, Rationality and Society 15, 441-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dubin, J.A. and D.L. McFadden (1984), An Econometric Analysis of Residential Electric Appliance Holdings and Consumption, Econometrica 52, 118-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eberle, U., Brohmann, B. and K. Graulich (2004), Sustainable Consumption Needs Visions, Position Paper by the Institute of Applied Ecology, Öko-Institut Freiburg/Darmstadt. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2005), Household Consumption and the Environment, EEA Report No 11, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  30. Empacher, C., D. Hayn, S. Schubert and I. Schultz (2001), Analyse der Folgen des Geschlechtsrollenwandels für Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten, retrieved on 17 October 2006. http://www.isoe.de/forschung/foaktuellf.htm.
  31. Empacher, C., D. Hayn, S. Schubert and I. Schultz (2003), Analyse der Folgen des Geschlechterrollewandels für Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  32. Enneking, U. and R. Franz (2005), Lebensstilkonzepte und Nachhaltigkeit: Stand der Forschung und Anwendungsbeispiele, Consumer Science, Diskussionsbeitrag No 3, TU München, Munich.Google Scholar
  33. Enneking, U., R. Franz and A. Profeta (2007), Nachhaltige Konsum- und Einstellungsmuster, in: Belz, F.-M., G. Karg and D. Witt (Eds.): Nachhaltiger Konsum und Verbraucherpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert, Marburg.Eurostat (2011), Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) Database (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/indicators)
  34. Fichter, K. (2005), Interpreneurship. Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen in interaktiven Perspektiven eines vernetzenden Unternehmertums, Marburg.Google Scholar
  35. Fishbein, M., I. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Goett, A., K. Hudson and K. Train (2000), Customer Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes, The Energy Journal 21, 1-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goett, A. (1998), Estimating Customer Preferences for New Pricing Products, Electric Power Research Report TR – 111483, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  38. Green, P.E. and V.R. Rao (1971), Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research 8(3), 355-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Green, P.E. and V. Srinivasan (1990), Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing 54(4), 3-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Green, D.P. and I. Shapiro (1994), Rational Choice: Eine Kritik am Beispiel von Anwendungen aus der politischen Wissenschaft, Munich.Google Scholar
  41. Gustafsson, A., A. Hermann and F. Huber (2003), Conjoint Measurement. Methods and Applications, Berlin.Google Scholar
  42. Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black (1995), Chapter 10: Conjoint Analysis. In J. F. Hair et al. (Eds.), Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed., 556-615, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  43. Hansen, U. und T. Hennig (1995), Der Co-Produzenten-Ansatz im Konsumgütermarketing, in: U. Hansen (Eds.) Verbraucher- und umweltorientiertes Marketing, Schäffer-Poschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  44. Hansen, U. and U. Schrader (1997), A Modern Model of Consumption for a Sustainable Society, Journal of Consumer Policy 20, 443-468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose and W.H. Greene (2005), Applied Choice Analysis – A Primer, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  46. Hinsen, J.M., H.R Hungerford and A.N. Tomera (1987), Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Enviornmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Environmental Education 18(2), 1-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Horne, M., M. Jaccard and K. Tiedemann (2005), Improving Behavioral Realism in Hybrid Energy-Economy Models Using Discrete Choice Studies of Personal Transportation Decisions, Energy Economics 27, 59-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hunecke, M. (2000), Ökologische Verantwortung, Lebenstile und Umweltvrhalten, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  49. Jaccard, M. and M. Dennis (2006), Estimating Home Energy Decision Parameters for a Hybrid Energy-Economy Policy Model, Environmental Modeling & Assessment 11(2), 91-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jackson, T. (2005), Motivating Sustainable Consumption. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network, Center of Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  51. Jansen, M.A. and W. Jager (2002), Stimulating Diffusion of Green Products. Co-Evolution between Firms and Consumers, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12, 283-306.Google Scholar
  52. Kaenzig, J. and R. Wüstenhagen (2006), Understanding Strategic Choices for Sustainable Consumption: The Case of Residential Energy Supply, Proceedings: Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Threats, Wuppertal.Google Scholar
  53. Kahn, M.E. (2007), Do Greens Drive Hummers or Hybrids? Environmental Ideology as a Determinant of Consumer Choice, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54, 129-145.Google Scholar
  54. Kaiser, F.G., S. Wölfing and U. Fuhrer (1999), Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behavior, Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, 1-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kammerer, D. (2009), The Effects of Customer Benefit and Regulation on Environmental Product Innovation. Empirical Evidence from Appliance Manufatures in Germany, Ecological Economics 68, 2285-2295Google Scholar
  56. Karrer, B. (2006), Customer Value Dezentraler Energieversorgung - Relevante Leistungsattribute von BHKW und deren Implikationen fürs Marketing, IWÖ-Discussion Paper No 118, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  57. Knapp, F. (1998), Determinanten der Verkehrsmittelwahl, Berlin.Google Scholar
  58. Lancaster, K (1966), A New Approach to Consumer Theory, Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lilien, G.L., A. Rangaswamy and A. De Bruyn (2007), Principles of Marketing Engineering, Trafford.Google Scholar
  60. Louviere, J. and G. Woodworth (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice and Allocation Experiments: A Method Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research (20), 350-367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Luce, R.D., J. Tukey and W. John (1964), Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Luce, R.D., Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Lüdemann, C. (1993), Disrepanzen zwischen theoretischen Anspruch und forschungspraktischer Wirklichkeit. Eine Kritik der Untersuchung über „ Persönliches Umweltverhalten: Diskrepanzen zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit” von Andreas Diekmann und Peter Preisendörfer, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45, 116-124.Google Scholar
  64. Mainieri, T.E.G. Barnett, T.R. Valdero, J.B. Unipan and S. Oskamp (1997), Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behaviour, The Journal of Social Psychology 137(2), 189-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Martiskainen, M. (2007), Affecting Consumer Behaviour on Energy Demand, Final report to EdF Energy, Brighton, East Sussex.Google Scholar
  66. Matsukawa, I. and N. Ito (1998), Household Ownership of Electric Room Air Conditioners, Energy Economics 20(4), 375-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mc Kenzie-Mohr, D. (2000), Fostering Sustainable Behavior Through Community-Based Social Marketing, American Psychologist 55, 531-537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McFadden, D. (1974), Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, in: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York, 105-142.Google Scholar
  69. Moxnes, E. (2004), Estimating Customer Utility of Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators, Journal of Economic Psychology 25(6), 707-724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Müller, H.P. (1997), Sozialstruktur und Lebensstile. Der neuere theoretische Diskurs über soziale Lebensstile, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  71. Nesbakken, R. and S. Strøm (1993), Energy Use for Heating Purposes in the Household, Reports No 93 (10), Central Bureau of Statistics, Oslo.Google Scholar
  72. Norman, K. and J.J. Louviere (1974), Integration of Attributes in Public Bus Transportation: Two Modeling Approaches, Journal of Applied Psychology 59(6), 753-758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. OECD (2002), Towards Sustainable Consumption: An Economic Conceptual Framework, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  74. OECD (2002), Decision-Making and Environmental Policy Design for Consumer Durabl, ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2002)7/FINAL. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  75. Olshavsky, R.W. and D.H. Grandbois (1979), Consumer Decision Making - Fact or Fiction, Journal of Consumer Research 6, 93-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Orme, B. K. (2003), Sawtooth Software, Research Paper Series - Which Conjoint Method Should I Use? Sequim: Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA.Google Scholar
  77. Orme, B.K. (2006), Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research,.Madison.Google Scholar
  78. Orme, B.K. (2007), Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data, CBC/HB v4, Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA.Google Scholar
  79. Palmer-Barnes, D., K. Thompson and N. Thompson (1999), The Role of Attributes, Consequences and Values in Dietary Choice and Vegetarianism, Marketing Discussion Paper, London: Middlesex University Business School.Google Scholar
  80. Peattie, K. (2001), Golden Goose or Wild Goose? The Hunt for the Green Consumer, Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 187-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Preisendörfer, P. (1999), Umwelteinstellungen und Umweltverhalten in Deutschland, Opladen. Reusswig, F. (2002), Lebensstile und Naturorientierungen. Gesellschaftliche Naturbilder und Einstellungen zum Umweltschutz, in: Rink, D. (Ed.): Lebensstile und Nachhaltigkeit: Konzepte, Befunde und Potentiale, Opladen, 159-180.Google Scholar
  82. Revelt, D. and K. Train (1998), Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices, Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 647-657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Samdahl, S. and R. Robertson (1989), Social Determinants of Environmental Concern: Specification and Test Model, Environmental and Behaviour 21, 57-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sammer, K., R. Wüstenhagen (2006a), The Influence of Eco-Labelling on Consumer Behaviour – Results of a Discrete Choice Analysis for Washing Machines, Business Strategy and the Environment 15, 185-199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sammer, K. and R. Wüstenhagen (2006b), Der Einfluss von Öko-Labelling auf das Konsumentenverhalten – ein Discrete Choice Experiment zum Kauf von Glühlampen, in: Pfriem, R. , R. Antes, K. Fichter, M. Müller, N. Paech, S. Seuring, and B. Siebenhüner (Eds.), Innovationen für Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Wiesbaden, 469-487.Google Scholar
  86. Sammer, K. and R. Wüstenhagen (2007), Wirksamkeit Umweltpolitischer Anreize zum Ankauf Energieeffizienter Fahrzeuge: Eine Empirische Analyse Schweizer Automobilkunden, Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung 18, 61-78.Google Scholar
  87. Sándor, Z. and K. Train (2004), Quasi-Random Simulation of Discrete Choice Models, Transportation Research B 38, 313-327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sanne, C. (2002), Willing Consumers – or Locked in? Policies for a Sustainable Consumption, Ecological Econimics 42, 273-287.Google Scholar
  89. Simon, H. (1972), Theories of Bounded Rationality, in: McGuire C.B. and R. Radner (Ed.) Decision and Organization, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  90. Simon, H. (1959), Theories in Decision Making in Economics and Behavioral Science, American Economic Review 49(3), 253-283.Google Scholar
  91. Sawtooth Software (2009), The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical Paper.Google Scholar
  92. Scherhorn, G. (1994), Die Unersättlichkeit der Bedürfnisse und der kalte Stern der Knappheit, in: B. Biervert, M. Held (Eds.) Das Naturverständnis der Ökonomik, Campus.Google Scholar
  93. Shove, E. (2003), Converging Conventions of Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience, Journal of Consumer Policy 26, 395-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shove, E. and A. Warde (1998), Inconspicuous Consumption: The Sociology of Consumption, Lifestyles and the Environment, in: Gijswijt, A. et al. (Eds.) Sociological Theory and the Environment.Google Scholar
  95. Timothy, J.R. (2008), The Propensity for Motorists to Walk for Short Trips: Evidence from West Edinburgh, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practics 44(4), 620 –628.Google Scholar
  96. Torgler, B., M.A.G. Valiñas and A. Macintyre (2008), Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect, Working Paper 18, 2008, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  97. Train, K.E. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  98. Truffer, B., S. Bruppacher and J. Behringer (2002), Nachfrage nach Ökostrom, Ergebnisse einer Fokusgruppenerhebung in den Städten Bern, Zürich und Stuttgart, Ökostrom Publikationen, Vol 8., DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  99. Truffer, B., R. Markard, R. Wüstenhagen (2001), Eco-Labelling of Electricity – Strategies and Tradeoffs in the Definition of Environmental Standards, Energy Policy 29(11), 885-897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tyler, T.R., R. Orwin and l. Schurer (1982), Defensive Denial and High Cost Prosocial Behavior, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 3, 267-281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vaage, K. (2002), Heating Technology and Energy Use: A Discrete / Continuous Choice Approach to Norwegian Household Energy Demand, Energy Economics 22, 649-666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Van den Berg, J.C.J.M. (2008), Environmental Regulation of Households: An Empirical Review of Economic and Psychological Forces, Ecological Economics 66(4), 559-574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Van Liere, K.D., and R.E. Dunlap (1981), Environmental Concern: Does it Make a Difference How it is Measured?, Environment and Behaviour 13, 651-676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Van Vliet, B. (2002), Greening the Grid. The Ecological Modernisation of Network-Bound System, PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  105. Van Vliet, B., H. Chappels and E. Shove (2005), Infrastructures of Consumption. Environmental Innovation in the Utility Industries, London.Google Scholar
  106. Verma, R., G. R. Plaschka, B. Hanlon, A. Livingston and K. Kalcher (2008), Predicting Customer Choice in Services Using Discrete Choice Analysis, IBM Systems Journal 47(1), 179-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vetere, S. (2008), Conjointanalytische Untersuchung der Kundenpräferenzen im Business-to-Business Marketing für Solarthermie. Master Thesis, University of St. Gallen (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  108. Wagner, S.A. (1997), Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour. A Qualitative Cognitive Approach, London.Google Scholar
  109. Wang, P., C. Menictas and J.J Louviere (2007), Comparing Structural Equation Models with Discrete Choice Experiments for Modelling Brand Equity and Predicting Brand Choices, Australasian Marketing Journal 15(2), 12-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford.Google Scholar
  111. Welsch, H. and J. Kühling (2009), Determinants of Pro-Evironmental Consumption: The Role of Reference Groups and Routine Behaviour, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  112. Wippermann, C., B.B. Flaig, M. Calmbach and Sinus Sociovision GmbH (2009), Umweltverhalten und Umweltbewusstsein der sozialen Milieus in Deutschland, Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Repräsentativumfrage zum Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten im Jahr 2008, Abschlussbericht.Google Scholar
  113. Wüstenhagen, R. und K. Sammer (2007), Wirksamkeit umweltpolitischer Anreize zum Kauf energieeffizienter Fahrzeuge: eine empirische Analyse Schweizer Automobilkunden, Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung 18(1), 61-78.Google Scholar
  114. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH (ZEW) (2008): Antrag für eine Forschungsprojekt im Rahmen der sozial-ökologischen Forschung zum Themenschwerpunkt „Vom Wissen zum Handeln – Neue Wege zum nachhaltigen Konsum” des Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, ZEW, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  115. Zintl, R. (1989), Der Homo Oeconomicus, Ausnahmerscheinung in jeder Situation oder jedermann in Ausnahmesituationen?, Analyse und Kritik 11, 52-69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Brohmann
    • 1
  • Tim Clamor
    • 2
  • Stefanie Heinzle
    • 3
  • Klaus Rennings
    • 4
  • Joachim Schleich
    • 5
  • Rolf Wüstenhagen
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut e.V.)DarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)MannheimGermany
  3. 3.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  4. 4.Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)MannheimGermany
  5. 5.Fraunhofer ISIKarlsruheGermany
  6. 6.University of St. GallenSt.GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations