Return to Answer

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)

Alas Kurisu doesn't have a chapter on objective measures (only has one on subjective surveys and one on [objective] life-cycle assessment).

But there's a (2014) meta-analysis comparing declared with actual PEBs:

Do self-reports match objective behavior? We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the association between self-reported and objective measures of proenvironmental behavior, and to evaluate the moderating influence of two socio-demographic and seven methodological moderators. Data from 6260 individuals or households, involving 19 measures of association in 15 studies, revealed a positive and nominally large (Cohen, 1988) effect size (r = .46). However, this means that 79% of the variance in the association between self-reported and objective behavior remains unexplained, which is especially troubling given the environmental context. We conclude that although this effect size is conventionally large, it is functionally small for testing theory and devising intervention campaigns, possibly leading researchers to draw misleading conclusions about the usefulness of theories that employ self-reports to predict objective behavior. These findings highlight a crucial need for research that strengthens the validity of self-reports for well-defined types of environmental behavior.

What could be useful from this paper is its list of studies that have performed actual PEB measurements (see their table 1). Alas this isn't too encouraging or creative; there are only two dozen studies or so in that table, and most measured stuff that's easy to measure: energy usage or recycling behavior.

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)

Alas Kurisu doesn't have a chapter on objective measures (only has one on subjective surveys and one on [objective] life-cycle assessment).

But there's a (2014) meta-analysis comparing declared with actual PEBs:

Do self-reports match objective behavior? We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the association between self-reported and objective measures of proenvironmental behavior, and to evaluate the moderating influence of two socio-demographic and seven methodological moderators. Data from 6260 individuals or households, involving 19 measures of association in 15 studies, revealed a positive and nominally large (Cohen, 1988) effect size (r = .46). However, this means that 79% of the variance in the association between self-reported and objective behavior remains unexplained, which is especially troubling given the environmental context. We conclude that although this effect size is conventionally large, it is functionally small for testing theory and devising intervention campaigns, possibly leading researchers to draw misleading conclusions about the usefulness of theories that employ self-reports to predict objective behavior. These findings highlight a crucial need for research that strengthens the validity of self-reports for well-defined types of environmental behavior.

What could be useful from this paper is its list of studies that have performed actual PEB measurements (see their table 1). Alas this isn't too encouraging or creative; there are only two dozen studies or so in that table, and most measured stuff that's easy to measure: energy usage or recycling behavior. Of these, Kaiser (2001) probably has the most extensive list in a single study, with 14 PEBs.

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)

Alas Kurisu doesn't have a chapter on objective measures (only has one on subjective surveys and one on [objective] life-cycle assessment).

But there's a (2014) meta-analysis comparing declared with actual PEBs:

Do self-reports match objective behavior? We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the association between self-reported and objective measures of proenvironmental behavior, and to evaluate the moderating influence of two socio-demographic and seven methodological moderators. Data from 6260 individuals or households, involving 19 measures of association in 15 studies, revealed a positive and nominally large (Cohen, 1988) effect size (r = .46). However, this means that 79% of the variance in the association between self-reported and objective behavior remains unexplained, which is especially troubling given the environmental context. We conclude that although this effect size is conventionally large, it is functionally small for testing theory and devising intervention campaigns, possibly leading researchers to draw misleading conclusions about the usefulness of theories that employ self-reports to predict objective behavior. These findings highlight a crucial need for research that strengthens the validity of self-reports for well-defined types of environmental behavior.

What could be useful from this paper is its list of studies that have performed actual PEB measurements (see their table 1). Alas this isn't too encouraging or creative; there are only two dozen studies or so in that table, and most measured stuff that's easy to measure: energy usage or recycling behavior.

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. [...] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)