Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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。

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Table 6 in Appendix for more information.

  2. In the USA, a stratified sample of 5,000 students by age, gender, year in school, and department was drawn from the university student population.

  3. We do not expect the range of sample sizes to have an impact on the significance of associations. Even the smallest sample for Germany is large enough to produce reliable coefficients.

  4. In Israel, the over-representation follows the pattern of female students in the university population, whereas in Canada our sample has a small over-representation of female students, which may introduce some bias.

  5. Alpha Cronbach for all factors in all countries was above 0.7. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis can be obtained from the authors upon request.

References

  • Andrews, K. T., & Caren, N. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). A cross-national perspective on youth environmental attitudes. Environmentalist, 20, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchelli, V. (2012). L’esprit cosmopolite: Voyage de formation des jeunes en Europe. Paris: Presses de Sc Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Finding from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, K. J. (2005). Environmental literacy in America. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new Index of Globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, D. K. (2007). Charitable donations: Evidence of demand for environmental protection? International Advances in Economic Research, 13(2), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. (1995). Environmental waste: Recycling attitudes and correlates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longhofer, W., & Shcofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 34, 431–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maman, D. (2002). The emergence of business groups: Israel and South Korea compared. Organization Studies, 23, 737–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2012). Explaining environmental activism across countries. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), 683–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. T. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012). The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organization and Environment, 25(3), 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). OECD partners and enlargement. Retrieved August 15, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/enlargement.htm.

  • Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S. (2000). Engaging the public: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment & Planning A, 32, 1141–1148.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  • 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 

  • Ru, J., & Ortolano, L. (2009). Development of citizen organized NGOs in China. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(2), 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, beliefs and pro-environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szerszinski, B., & Urry, J. (2002). Cultures of cosmopolitanism. Sociological Review, 50(4), 461–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thapa, B. (1999). Environmentalism: The relation of environmental attitudes and environmentally responsible behaviors among undergraduate students. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19, 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Tally Katz-Gerro

  2. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Itay Greenspan

  3. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Femida Handy

  4. KyungHee University, Seoul, Korea

    Hoon-Young Lee

  5. Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Applied Science, Nürtingen, Germany

    Andreas Frey

Authors
  1. Tally Katz-Gerro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Itay Greenspan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Femida Handy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hoon-Young Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andreas Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Femida Handy.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Country level indicators
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Katz-Gerro, T., Greenspan, I., Handy, F. et al. Environmental Philanthropy and Environmental Behavior in Five Countries: Is There Convergence Among Youth?. Voluntas 26, 1485–1509 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9496-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9496-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation