Pavel Kotyza1
Inna Cabelkova1*
Bartłomiej Pierański2
Karel Malec1
Barbara Borusiak2
Luboš Smutka1
Sandor Nagy3
Aleksandra Gawel4David Bernardo López Lluch5
Krisztián Kis3József Gál3
Jana Gálová6
Anna Mravcová6Blaženka Knezevic7Martin Hlaváček1- 1Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czechia
- 2Department of Commerce and Marketing, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland
- 3Faculty of Engineering, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
- 4Department of International Competitiveness, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland
- 5Department of Agri-environmental Economics, University Miguel Hernández, Orihuela, Spain
- 6Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia
- 7Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Pro-environmental intentions encourage individuals to make conscious decisions that help protect the environment, reduce waste, conserve resources, and preserve natural habitats. This study aims to assess the predictive power of environmental concern, perceived behavioral control and social norms in determining the pro-environmental intentions in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework. Methodologically we rely on Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), applied to the survey study among 2,702 university students majoring in economics, finance, management, or marketing from Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain. The results show that the model explained 51% of the total variance of pro-environmental intentions, with the predictive power of environmental concern and perceived behavioral control at 42% and 45%, respectively, and social norms at only 6% (out of total 51% of explanatory power). The implications of our results suggest a major focus on increasing environmental concern and perceived behavioral control in behavioral interventions to support pro-environmental behavior. The effectiveness of social pressure produced by injunctive social norms proved limited. The cross-country differences were not statistically significant. More research must be done to study the relative effect of injunctive and descriptive social norms on pro-environmental behavior.
1 Introduction
Everyone has a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, though environment is getting worse (UN General Assembly, 2022). Global action is called to conserve natural resources, preserve and remediate the existing natural environment to protect future generations from nature degradation (Currie and Deschênes, 2016). Consumers can help a lot, as they substantially contribute to various environmental problems, such as acidification, eutrophication, diffusion of chemicals, waste generation and disposal, dehydration, noise (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995) or light pollution (Gallaway et al., 2010).
The EU population generally agrees on the necessity of environmental protection (European Commission, 2020); however, significant differences in the Europeans’ perceptions and actions are observed (Punzo et al., 2019). The literature suggests that intention to protect the environment is affected by the economic situation (Mayerl and Best, 2019; Yang et al., 2021), cultural and national differences (Ignatow, 2006; Oreg and Katz-Gerro, 2006), social background (Yang et al., 2021), education (Ardoin et al., 2020), values (Hedlund, 2011) or age (Dardanoni and Guerriero, 2021; Skeirytė et al., 2022).
The young are often more environment-protection-oriented and they foster climate concerns among parents (Dupont, 2004; Lawson et al., 2019). However, even in this generation considerable inter-country variations exist. In some countries, young people are willing to carry environmental protection costs (Hao et al., 2019; Dardanoni and Guerriero, 2021); in others, they are not (Zámková et al., 2023). Environment protection needs will put particular pressure on today’s educational system to raise pro-environmental awareness among youth (Ardoin et al., 2020).
The cross-cultural psychologists provide heterogeneous evidence on the cross-country differences in the pro-environmental values and the factors affecting them. A significant contrast stands out between Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies and the rest of the world (Henrich et al., 2010). The results suggest that the values of WEIRD societies deviate to such an extent from the global average that they can be regarded as outliers in the global sample. Yet other studies suggest, that the links between the factors affecting pro-environmental intentions and the intentions themselves are similar in other groups of countries (see for example Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden, De Groot and Steg, 2007b).
Following this rationale, the study focuses on the factors contributing to pro-environmental intentions of university students and aims to assess the relative predictive power of environmental concern, perceived behavioral control, and social norms in six European countries. We base our research on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1985). Methodologically we estimate Structural Equation Model (SEM), on a survey study among 2,702 university students from Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain. As the pro-environmental intentions vary across student specializations (Bernaciak et al., 2021), this paper focuses on university students majoring in economics, finance, management, or marketing. These students are expected to be future leaders of economic processes.
Our research was conducted in six adjacent countries – Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain – which are similar in many aspects. All countries are the members of EU, they are very similar according to GDP per capita, four of the countries belongs to the group of Visegrad countries. On the other hand, they present considerable diversity with respect to population size, geography, climate, historical development, tertiary education rate (Eurostat, 2023a) or waste recycling rate (Eurostat, 2023b).
This paper has the following structure. The first part includes the theoretical background and hypotheses development. The methodology continues to clarify the data collection and processing process, followed by results, discussion, limitations, and conclusions.
2 Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1 Factors affecting the pro-environmental intentions
Pro-environmental intentions are essential in leading to sustainable decisions and behaviors and supporting environmental protection. They encourage individuals to consider their daily habits and make conscious choices about interacting with the natural world. The importance of public participation in environmental protection, among other economic and social goals, was first accentuated in the 1970s in the United States under the umbrella of “societal marketing”, which was concerned with environmental issues. The theories categorizing public environment protection as a social goal started to get their popularity in the 70th of the last century with Fisk’s Theory of Responsible Consumption (Fisk, 1974), Henion and Kinnear’s Ecological Marketing (1976), and Kardash’s Ecologically Concerned Consumer (Kardash, 1976). At first, research centered around energy consumption, pollution created by vehicles, oil and chemical businesses, as well as consumer responses to adverts and labels (Henion et al., 1976; Kilbourne and Beckmann, 1998; Peattie, 2010). Subsequently, investigations extended to include green purchasing of foodstuffs and environmentally sound products.
The social and economic paradigms highly influenced the early studies on factors affecting pro-environmental behavior. In the economic domain, the main investigated researchers focused on economic incentives and the financial capabilities of households. The marketers concentrated their attention on the socio-demographic characteristics of households as factors employed for market segmentation. The environmentally concerned consumption theories studied the effects of environmental awareness (Peattie, 2010).
The overall discussion dwelt on the relative role of economic and non-economic incentives in motivating the consumers for environmentally friendly behavior. Proponents of economic rationality argue that government policy should provide mainly financial incentives (Jackson and Surrey, 2005; Wang et al., 2021; Shen and Wang, 2022). Waste management continues to utilize this approach, providing households with incentives to classify their waste through providing gratuitous disposal of sorted waste. The economic studies also suggest wealthier families have a higher environmental impact but can buy more “eco-friendly” commodities (Lenzen and Murray, 2003; Huang et al., 2022). Therefore, higher income can result in increased green consumption.
Initially, much attention was devoted to studying socio-demographic aspects as a critical predictor of pro-environmental consumption, mainly in terms of market segmentation based on gender, age, number of children, educational level, and socioeconomic class (Robinson and Smith, 2002; Jenkins et al., 2003). Even today, these elements are regularly included in empirical studies, typically as control variables (Walia et al., 2020).
Recent studies demonstrate that values and attitudes are much more influential predictors of examining pro-environmental behavior. For instance, in the context of Schwartz’s value model, altruist values were associated with pro-environmental conduct, while other investigations suggest that environmental values lead to increased intentions regarding product reuse and waste minimization, but they do not affect recycling (Barr, 2007). The lower effect of pro-environmental values on behavior could be explained by the role of economic incentives (Jackson and Surrey, 2005; Wang et al., 2021; Shen and Wang, 2022), as well as the green attitude–behavior gap (Wang et al., 2019; Witek, 2019). Social norms such as cultural/ethnic group norms or the dominant social paradigm may also reduce this influence (Kilbourne et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 2004; Halder et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2021). Consumerism can negatively impact willingness to engage in pro-environmental behavior due to a perception that environmentally friendly products often come at a high price tag, making them a luxurious option (Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2005). Other interfering factors include lifestyles (Connolly and Prothero, 2003; Moisander, 2007; Beatson et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2021). For example, if perceived as normal, recycling prevails in society just because it is normal to do so (Barr, 2007; Ramkissoon, 2023).
When consumers understand their responsibilities in causing and resolving environmental issues, it will likely result in pro-environmental behavior (Gupta and Ogden, 2009; Yue et al., 2020). This suggests that values are effective when individuals feel a change of behavior leads to a substantial effect on the environment or if they believe they have caused their current state of the environment.
2.2 Intentions or behavior: the intention–behavior gap
The research literature on environmental behavior often highlights the “attitude–behavior gap”, which indicates that though people may have pro-environmental solid values, attitudes and intentions, these do not usually manifest in green purchasing or other pro-environmental behavior (Farjam et al., 2019; Yamoah and Acquaye, 2019; Park and Lin, 2020). One possible explanation is a bias toward socially accepting environmentally friendly actions (Follows and Jobber, 2000). Additionally, since studies typically rely on self-reported behaviors when measuring engagement with environmental activities, such results might be overstated. For example, Davies et al.’s (2002) study examining recycling revealed 84% of nonparticipants still claimed they recycled some or all of their waste despite being observed as not engaging in recycling schemes.
2.3 TPB usage for pro-environment behavior and behavioral intention explanation
While the discrepancy between attitude and behavior is evident, various theories investigating factors influencing behavior suggest that intentions remain closely linked to behavior. Furthermore, in numerous instances, the intention to purchase and actual purchases are influenced by similar factors (Janssen, 2018), with behavioral intention regarded as a crucial determinant of actual behavior (Liu et al., 2017).
Three psychological theories are most widely used in relation to pro-environmental behavior: the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the norm activation model (NAM), value-belief-norm theory (VBN). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) posits that individuals make deliberate choices, and behavior stems from the intention to perform specific actions. Environmental intentions and behaviors are more likely when individuals have a favorable attitude toward the behavior, when subjective norms support it, and when individuals feel in control of their actions. The norm activation model (NAM) and the value-belief-norm theory (VBN) explore the link between morality and environmental behavior. The NAM suggests that pro-environmental actions result from activating personal norms, reflecting a sense of moral obligation. Personal norms are triggered when individuals are aware of environmental issues caused by their actions, feel responsible for addressing these issues, believe their actions can help mitigate problems, and perceive themselves as capable of taking necessary actions. The VBN theory, an extension of the NAM, proposes that situational factors, particularly problem awareness, depend on ecological worldviews and value orientations. While the NAM and VBN theories explain low-cost environmental behavior and good intentions, the TPB demonstrates greater explanatory power in situations involving high behavioral costs or strong behavior constraints (De Groot, 2019).
TPB is recognized as an influential psychological model that is used to forecast and explain human conduct within a specific setting. Icek Ajzen created the model in the late 1980s, and it has been utilized to study a variety of areas such as healthcare, advertising, and environmental research. TPB builds on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen, which argued that an individual’s intention to do a particular action was the most reliable predictor of their behavior. TPB broadens this model by introducing a third component: perceived behavioral control. The model suggests that an individual’s behavior is controlled by their intention to perform the action, which is then based on three factors: perceived behavioral control, attitude towards the behavior, and subjective norm (Ajzen, 1991).
In line with Yuriev et al. (2020), the TPB has three main benefits in studying pro-environmental behavior (PEB). First, it allows for identifying the beliefs about PEB and assessing their importance for a particular group. Second, The TPB has been widely recognized as a powerful tool for constructing behavioral improvements (Riebl et al., 2015; Timm and Deal, 2016). Third, the TPB is renowned for its adaptability.
2.4 Hypothesis development
The TPB, applied in the environmental domain, examines the predictors of pro-environmental intentions among the perceived behavioral control (PBC), environmental concern(EC), and social norms (SN) based on the following hypotheses, presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Determinants of pro-environmental intentions – a conceptual model.
2.4.1 Perceived behavioral control
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to an individual’s perception of their ability to perform a specific behavior, considering available resources, skills, and constraints (Ajzen, 1991). PBC is generally identified through self-report questionnaires, which assess control beliefs related to the behavior in question (Ajzen and Madden, 1986). In our current study, PBC was measured using a modified version of the scale developed by Ajzen and Madden (1986), adapted to the context of environmental protection.
PBC, as a psychological construct referring to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a behavior in the context of protecting the environment, can influence people’s intentions and actions towards environmentally friendly behaviors (Al Mamun et al., 2018). Studies have shown that PBC is positively associated with recycling intention (Al Mamun et al., 2018), green food and beverage behavior (Wang and Wang, 2016), and environmentally friendly vehicle purchase intention (Afroz et al., 2015).
Overall, PBC is essential in promoting environmentally friendly behaviors, and individuals can engage in various activities to protect the environment, such as recycling, reducing energy consumption, using public transportation, and purchasing environmentally friendly products (Al Mamun et al., 2018). Incentive mechanisms can also be used to encourage these behaviors by moderating the relationship between desire intention and behavior (Ting et al., 2019). All these observations allow us to formulate hypothesis H1.
H1: Perceived behavioral control is positively related to pro-environmental intentions.
2.4.2 Environmental concern
Environmental concern (EC) refers to the extent to which individuals are aware of and concerned about environmental issues (Dunlap et al., 2000). Public environmental concern can drive corporate environmental behavior, thereby strengthening the external environmental pressure on companies with high levels of pollution (Wu et al., 2023). Environmental concerns can also influence people’s perceptions of the appropriateness of activities, facilities, and services (Schultz, 2000).
Environmental concern is often measured using self-report scales, like the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). Our study assessed EC using a modified version of the NEP scale, adapted to focus on relevant environmental issues.
Environmental concerns vary among different groups of people. Younger people tend to have greater environmental concerns than older people (Chinh and Giang, 2021); at the same time, girls are more likely to be members of environmental organizations compared with boys (Strandbu and Skogen, 2000). Environmental attitudes and concerns are also influenced by cultural factors, as seen in a comparative study between Brazilian and Portuguese students (Côrtes et al., 2016).
Social identity theory has been used to explain differences in individual support for environmental protection, a conative component of environmental concern (Brieger, 2019). Perspective-taking, dispositional empathy, and future-time perspective have also been associated with environmental respect and eco-tourism intention (Sevillano et al., 2007; Pham and Khanh, 2021).
Several studies have investigated the relationship between PBC and environmental intentions, demonstrating a positive relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental intentions (Stern et al., 1995; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010; Borusiak et al., 2021a). For example (Bamberg et al., 2003), found that PBC significantly predicted intentions to use public transportation, influencing actual behavior. Similarly, Greaves et al. (2013) found that PBC was a significant predictor of intentions to reduce car use in favor of sustainable transport modes. Stern et al. (1995) found that individuals with greater environmental concerns were more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, such as recycling and conserving energy. These findings support hypothesis H2.
H2: Environmental concern is positively related to pro-environmental intentions.
2.4.3 Social norm
Social norms (SN) are the unwritten rules and expectations that guide behavior within a particular group or society (Nyborg, 2018). They are the shared beliefs, attitudes, and values that shape how people perceive and respond to different situations (Schultz, 2022). In environmental behavior, social norms can influence whether individuals engage in pro-environmental actions (Viscusi et al., 2011). Social norms are typically assessed using self-report questionnaires that measure injunctive norms and descriptive norms (Cialdini et al., 1991). In our study, social norms were measured using a modified version of the scale developed by Cialdini et al. (1990), adapted to the context of environmental protection. These norms are explicitly injunctive in nature.
Social norms can vary depending on an individual’s social background, such as age, gender, education, and cultural background (Nyborg, 2018). For example, research has shown that social norms more directly influence older farmers’ pro-environmental behaviors, while personal norms also have an indirect impact via perceived behavioral control (Fang et al., 2018). Similarly, the personality traits of individuals can also moderate the influence of social norms on pro-environmental behavioral intentions (Yu and Yu, 2017).
In other words, social norms can have varying levels of impact on different kinds of environmental conduct, with perceived behavioral control and also social norms commonly influencing environmentally friendly behavior more strongly than socially beneficial behaviors. Additionally, information availability can play a role in both environmental behaviors (Hosta and Zabkar, 2021).
Social norms refer to the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Psychologists have distinguished between two types of social norms – the norms that just report what people in a group do (descriptive norms) and those which dictate how the group members are expected to act (injunctive norms; Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). Cialdini et al. (1991) refer to descriptive norms as the norms of “is,” while injunctive norms are seen as the norms of “ought” (Cialdini et al., 1991). The motivating effect of the descriptive norms is conducted via examples of socially effective and acceptable action, while injunctive norms motivate via social pressure.
Research has illustrated that social norms have an effect on pro-environmental intentions. Harland et al. (2007) observed that social standards significantly correlated with the desire to practice energy conservation habits. Also, Schultz et al. (2007) established that both descriptive and injunctive norms impacted recycling intentions, thus supporting hypothesis H3 below.
H3: Social norms are positively related to pro-environmental intentions.
The literature exploring cross-cultural differences in norms, beliefs, and values indicates the potential for notable variations among countries. Particularly notable is the contrast between Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies and the rest of the world (Henrich et al., 2010). The findings indicate that the values of WEIRD societies diverge so significantly from the global norm that they can be considered outliers in the worldwide sample (Henrich et al., 2010). When comparing pro-environmental beliefs across European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden; De Groot and Steg, 2007b), the results indicated that the value scales and the three-dimensional classification of egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations are applicable to all countries, although the positions of the countries on the scales vary. In this study, we will examine the differences in the relationships suggested by the hypotheses across the countries included in the sample (Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain).
3 Methodology
To verify our conceptual model and test hypotheses, data were collected in April–June 2021. The study was carried out by a self-administered questionnaire with questions on four factors: perceived behavioral control (PBC), environmental concern (EC), social norms (SN) and pro-environmental intentions (PI). Participants referred to statements on a 7-point scale (1 I strongly disagree – 7 I strongly agree). A complete list of questions and sources is presented in Table 1. The latter part of the questionnaire consists of questions on respondents’ personal information.
Table 1 Measurement scale construct.
The participants in the study included 2,702 (N = 2,702) university students majoring in economics, finance, management, or marketing. The choice of university students as respondents was justified by, on the one hand, the observation that youngsters foster climate concerns among parents (Dupont, 2004; Lawson et al., 2019), but on the other hand, on unclear results of young people’s willingness to carry the costs of environmental protection (Hao et al., 2019; Dardanoni and Guerriero, 2021; Zámková et al., 2023), which challenge the educational system to raise the pro-environmental awareness among youth (Ardoin et al., 2020). Furthermore, these students are majoring in fields that are likely to lead them to the impactful positions of economic processes. The average age of respondents was 22.1 years (SD = 3.63, min = 18, max = 35). In the survey participated 1,574 women (58.2%), 1,099 men (40.7%), and 29 participants preferred not to provide their gender (1.1%). We relied on opportunity sampling method.
Our research is multi-country, as significant differences in the Europeans’ perception and action toward environmental protection are observed (Punzo et al., 2019) due to differences in anticipated environmental problems and costs. Among respondents, 430 (15.9%) participants were from Croatia, 588 (21.8%) from the Czech Republic,401 (14.8%) from Hungary,481 (17.8%) participants from Poland, 400 (14.8%) from Slovakia, and 402 (14.9%) from Spain. The questionnaire was administered to university students in their home countries.
The study proceeded in two phases, similar to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), by first analyzing the validity and reliability of the constructs separately and then evaluating hypotheses based on the assumed research model using structural equation modeling (SEM). To assess the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the explored constructs, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted, following which, to understand the causal relationships between the latent variables, SEM was adopted to verify the hypotheses posed in the study, with the aid of AMOS software. We also performed a multi-group analysis of SEM to study the differences between the countries.
3.1 The country differences in Intention to protect the environment
We have also studied the cross-country differences in the intention to protect the environment. The indicator for Intention to protect the environment (PI) employed was computed as an arithmetic sum of three questions (PI1, PI2 and PI3, see Table 1). We compared the country-specific means in Intention to protect the environment via one factor ANOVA with Post Hoc tests (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
Table 2 The country differences in Intention to protect the environment.
Figure 2 The country differences in Intention to protect the environment. Means and confidence intervals.
4 Results
Following Henrich et al. (2010) we expected that the pro-environmental intentions across countries may differ. Thus, before analyzing the total sample of 2,702 respondents, similar SEM analyses were performed for each country separately. Our study encompassed six neighboring countries: Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain. These countries share numerous similarities. Firstly, they are all members of the EU. Additionally, they exhibit comparable GDP per capita levels. Furthermore, four of these nations are part of the Visegrad Group, further underlining their shared characteristics. The country-level results were similar to those for the entire sample; therefore, we omitted them for conciseness. No cross country differences were statistically significant.
4.1 Measurement model
The measurement model’s overall goodness-of-fit indices indicate a high level of data correctness and fitness. The indices, including GFI (0.968), AGFI (0.954), CFI (0.980), RMSEA (0.049), and TLI (0.974), meet the standards for model fitting. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed for all constructs and variables. The convergent validity was assessed by composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). AVE values greater than 0.5 as Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested, indicate that the studied constructs achieve convergent validity. Similarly, the CR values for all variables should be above 0.60, according to Sekaran and Bougie (2016). Table 3 presents the AVE and CR values, demonstrating that all AVEs are greater than 0.5 and all CRs are greater than 0.6, indicating good convergent validity for the latent variables in this study. The factor loadings for all tested items were found to be significant at p = 0.001.
Table 3 The Constructs and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was examined by comparing the AVE values and the squared correlations (Table 4). An evaluation of these figures suggested that the construct’s square root of AVE values surpassed their correlations with other constructs, lending support to the discriminant validity of each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). This implies that the constructs can be considered distinct factors while still being correlated. Consequently, the constructs and measurement model items were considered suitable to investigate the proposed hypotheses and structural models.
Table 4 Discriminant validity.
4.2 Structural model and testing of hypotheses
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to determine the path coefficients connecting the variables in the research model, and the measure of model fit was evaluated utilizing fit indices, such as GFI (0.954), AGFI (0.928), CFI (0.973), RMSEA (0.069), and TLI (0.965). According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (2000), all of these indices and the model estimation indicated an excellent fit. The model accounted for 51% (R2 = 0.51) of the variance in PI, demonstrating that the different forms of need satisfaction explained a substantial amount of variance. The results of SEM are presented in Table 5 and in Figure 3. Figure 4 presents a reduced form of Figure 3, explaining hypothesis testing.
Table 5 Results of Structural Equitation Modelling (SEM).
Figure 3 The impact of perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, and social norms on Intention to protect the environment. The results of structural equation modeling. The notation of particular variables is presented in Table 1. e1–13 denotes the error terms.
Figure 4 The impact of perceived behavioral control (PBC), environmental concern (EC), and social norms (SN) on Intention to protect the environment (PI). The reduced result of a structural equation modeling. *** p<0,001..
The SEM results revealed statistically significant path coefficients (β) in the expected directions for the relationships between perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, social norms, and intention to protect the environment. Specifically, the path coefficients were 0.42 (p < 0.001), 0.45 (p < 0.001), and 0.06 (p < 0.001), respectively (see Table 5). These findings support the notion that perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, and social norms statistically significantly impact the intention to protect the environment. The perceived behavioral control proved to explain 42% of the variability, environmental concern – 45% of the variability and social norms – 6% of the variability (Table 5).
The reduced form of Figure 3 concentrated on the hypothesis testing is presented in Figure 4.
4.3 The country differences in Intention to protect the environment
The indicator for Intention to protect the environment (PI) employed in this part of the paper was computed as an arithmetic sum of three questions (PI1, PI2 and PI3, see Table 1).
The one factor ANOVA analysis reported F = 18,199 with Sig. <,001. Tests of Homogeneity of Variances (based on mean) provided Levene Statistic = 10,847 Sig. <,001. The Post Hoc tests (Tamhane T2) are presented in the following table.
The results suggest significant difference in Intention to protect the environment exists between the two groups of countries: the Czech Republic and Spain on one hand and Poland, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary on the other. The differences withing the groups of countries proved to be statistically insignificant (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
5 Discussion
The literature on factors affecting pro-environmental intentions went through a long journey, starting with economic incentives and socio-demographic segmentation and ending with psychological motivators and social norms. This paper contributes to the latter research stage and studies the effects of environmental concern, perceived behavioral control, and social norms on pro-environmental intentions as suggested in the Theory of Planned Behavior. According to the findings, our model accounted for 51% of the overall variation in pro-environmental intentions, with environmental concern and perceived behavioral control having a predictive power of 42% and 45%, respectively (out of this 51% explanatory power of the model), while social norms accounted for only 6% (out of 51%).
The results above align with the theory and expectations – all three factors were statistically significant; however, they differ in their predictive power. Pro-environmental intentions are strongly predicted by perceived behavioral control and environmental concern; however, the predictive power of social norms is relatively small (6% only). There are two major explanations. First, it might be possible that the real impact of the norms is limited due to the individualistic attitudes of respondents and social perception of individual responsibility for environmental issues. Second, it might be due to the way the social norms were measured. The expectation of others about the pro-environmental behavior of the respondents provides social pressure. Still, it does not give the normative example of others engaging in pro-environmental actions. These aspects are related to two types of social norms, descriptive norms reporting what people in a group do, and injunctive norms indicating how the group members are expected to act (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955).The low role of injunctive social norms in predicting pro-environmental intentions is well supported in the literature. The position of social influence was shown to be non-existent in Saudi Arabia (Alzubaidi et al., 2021). Injunctive social norms proved unrelated to pro-environmental behavior (PBS) in Luxembourg, though descriptive norms were statistically significant (de Leeuw et al., 2015).
The injunctive norms might be necessary if the motivating group (which expects the respondent to behave in a pro-environmental) was chosen correctly. De Groot and Steg (2007a) showed that for employers and shoppers, the explanatory power of injunctive social norms in predicting pro-environmental behavior was just a little smaller than that of environmental concern and perceived behavioral control. The respondents also had to approve that the motivating group was chosen correctly.
We suggest that future research concentrate on the difference between injunctive and descriptive norms on pro-environmental intentions and the correct choice of motivating group for injunctive social pressure.
The other part of our research concentrated on the cross-country differences in validity of the hypotheses above. Following Henrich et al. (2010), we anticipated that factor impacting pro-environmental intentions might vary across countries. The cross-country comparison of the means in Intention to protect the environment showed, that the Czech Republic and Spain was statistically significantly different from the rest of the countries, which the difference within these two groups (Czech Republic and Spain in one group and the other countries in the other) were not statistically significant. Therefore, before analyzing the total sample of 2,702 respondents, we conducted similar SEM analyses for each country individually. The results at the country level mirrored those of the entire sample and did not show any statistically significant difference. We attribute this similarity to the inclusion of six neighboring countries in our study: Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain. These nations share numerous similarities, including EU membership and comparable GDP per capita levels. Additionally, four of these countries are part of the Visegrad Group, emphasizing their shared characteristics. Moreover, the specific groups of students studied in these countries did not exhibit sufficient variability in socio-demographic factors to capture differences in the historical development of the nations. The country differences in Intention to protect the environment are presented in Table 2. The indicator “Intention to protect the environment” in this table was computed as arithmetic some of the scores of respondents to the relevant questions. A graphical demonstration of the differences is presented in Figure 2. These results are similar to (Schultz et al., 2005), who examined the correlation between values and environmental attitudes across six countries: Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, India, New Zealand, and Russia. The results provided robust evidence supporting the cross-cultural applicability of the association between values and attitudes, as well as the framework of environmental concern.
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications
Our results contribute to theoretical implications. First, we added knowledge on the pro-environmental intentions, contributing to the discussion on shaping the societal attitude towards protecting the environment.
Second, as we grounded our research in the Theory of Planned Behavior, we also contributed to the discussion on the TPB, which has some constraints (Yuriev et al., 2020). TPB is criticized for its limitations in investigating a single behavior at a time while not accounting for the complexity of broader topics. The findings from TPB-based research are not easily transferable because the surveys used in these studies are specifically designed for the group being studied (Ajzen, 2011). The TPB’s original variables fail to consider a variety of factors that can affect behavior, such as emotions (Rapaport and Orbell, 2000), affect (Wolf et al., 2021), regret (Conner and Armitage, 1998), and socioeconomic status (Sniehotta et al., 2013). In light of this criticism, our research confirms the usefulness of implementing TPB in investigating pro-environmental intentions. However, it raises the question of the unequal importance of all three constructs of intentions predictors.
Third, we also contribute to the discussion on social norms in predicting pro-environmental intention by highlighting the need to distinguish between injunctive and descriptive norms on pro-environmental intentions instead of treating them as one factor and the correct choice of motivating group for injunctive social pressure. We suggest that in predicting pro-environmental intentions, four factors should be analyzed: perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, injunctive social norms, and descriptive social norms.
We examined cross-country differences across six European nations (no significant distinctions were observed) using a sample of university students specializing in economics. These students represent the forthcoming cohort of policymakers in economic sectors, underscoring their pivotal role in shaping the future of our environment. University students specializing in economics play a crucial role in shaping the future of the environment for several reasons. Firstly, they are often future policymakers who will be responsible for designing and implementing economic policies that have a direct impact on environmental issues. Their understanding of economic principles and their ability to integrate environmental considerations into decision-making processes are vital for creating sustainable policies. Additionally, these students are future business leaders, entrepreneurs, and professionals who will drive economic activities and innovations. By incorporating environmental sustainability into their business practices and strategies, they can contribute to reducing environmental degradation and promoting conservation efforts. Furthermore, their education equips them with analytical skills to assess the costs and benefits of environmental initiatives, making informed decisions that balance economic growth with environmental protection. Overall, university students specializing in economics are instrumental in fostering a more sustainable future by integrating environmental concerns into economic decision-making processes and driving innovation towards greener practices.
The results presented in the paper also suggest some practical implications. First, in the strata of university students, the behavioral intervention aimed at pro-environmental behavior needs to concentrate on two components – environmental concern and perceived behavioral control. Second, as the social pressure created via injunctive social norms has a limited effect on pro-environmental intentions, we suggest concentrating on descriptive norms, meaning the examples of real pro-environmental behavior of others rather than on expectations of others about individual behavior, though more research is needed. Third, if aiming behavioral interventions on injunctive social norms, more attention must be devoted to choosing an optimal motivating group.
5.2 Limitations and future research
As with any paper, this paper is subject to some limitations related to the nature of the method and the data. We limited the empirical research to 6 European Union countries, the results of modeling are similar for each country separately and all the samples; however, the results and conclusions are valid for these countries. The research was conducted among business students, so students majoring in other fields also require further investigation. The research was limited to the European Union countries, missing the perspective of other countries. Though frequently used in these types of studies, the questionnaire method and the formulation of the questions also present some limitations. The intended or presented behavior does not necessarily correspond to real action; pro-environmental intentions do not always convert to pro-environmental behaviors. However, the literature suggests that in some cases, the factors affecting the intentions are the same as those impacting behavior (Janssen, 2018).
6 Conclusions
Following the current discourse in society, we intended to assess the explanatory power of perceived behavioral control, environmental concerns, and social norms in shaping pro-environmental intentions based on the Theory of Perceived Behavior. Although we confirmed that perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, and social norms determine the intention to protect the environment, the predictive power of these three components is not equal. The pro-environmental intentions are significantly stronger affected by perceived behavioral control and environmental concern, while the social norms’ effect seems to be rather limited.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
PK: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IC: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. KM: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. LS: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SN: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft. AG: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. DB: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft. KK: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JG: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GJ: Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MA: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. BK: Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. MH: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This paper has been prepared and data collected as a part of the Erasmus+ KA2 Strategic Partnerships project “Teaching Sustainability in Higher Education in the Field of Economics and Management (SUSTA)”, no. 2020-1-PL01-KA203-081980. The project has been financed from the funds of the European Union.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Afroz R., Masud M. M., Akhtar R., Islam M., Duasa J. B. (2015). Consumer purchase intention towards environmentally friendly vehicles: an empirical investigation in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 22, 16153–16163. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4841-8
Ajzen I. (1985). “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior,” in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology. Eds. Kuhl J., Beckmann J. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 11–39. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behav. Hum. Decision Processes Theories Cogn. Self-Regulation 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 26, 1113–1127. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Ajzen I., Madden T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 453–474. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
Al Mamun A., Mohamad M., Yaacob M., Mohiuddin M. (2018). Intention and behavior towards green consumption among low-income households. J. Environ. Manage. 227, 73–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.061
Alzubaidi H., Slade E. L., Dwivedi Y. K. (2021). Examining antecedents of consumers' pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. J. Business Res. 122, 685–699. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.017
Anderson J. C., Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Ardoin N. M., Bowers A. W., Gaillard E. (2020). Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108224. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224
Bamberg S., Ajzen I., Schmidt P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 175–187. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_01
Barr S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 39, 435–473. doi: 10.1177/0013916505283421
Beatson A., Gottlieb U., Pleming K. (2020). Green consumption practices for sustainability: an exploration through social practice theory. JSOCM 10, 197–213. doi: 10.1108/JSOCM-07-2019-0102
Bernaciak A., Bernaciak A., Janicka M. (2021). The field of study as a factor differentiating students' level of environmental awareness. Economics Environ. 77, 144–161. doi: 10.34659/2021/2/17
Borusiak B., Szymkowiak A., Horska E., Raszka N., Żelichowska E. (2020). Towards building sustainable consumption: A study of second-hand buying intentions. Sustainability 12, 875. doi: 10.3390/su12030875
Borusiak B., Szymkowiak A., Lopez-Lluch D., Sanchez-Bravo P. (2021a). The role of environmental concern in explaining attitude towards second-hand shopping. Entrepreneurial Business Economics Rev. 9, 71–83. doi: 10.15678/EBER.2021.090205
Borusiak B., Szymkowiak A., Pierański B., Szalonka K. (2021b). The impact of environmental concern on intention to reduce consumption of single-use bottled water. Energies 14, 1985. doi: 10.3390/en14071985
Brieger S. A. (2019). Social identity and environmental concern: the importance of contextual effects. Environ. Behav. 51, 828–855. doi: 10.1177/0013916518756988
Chen M.-F., Tung P.-J. (2014). Developing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior model to predict consumers' intention to visit green hotels. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 36, 221–230. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006
Chinh T. C., Giang N. T. H. (2021). Who cares more about the environment?: An empirical study in Vietnam. vjas 4, 1241–1256. doi: 10.31817/vjas.2021.4.4.04
Cialdini R. B., Kallgren C. A., Reno R. R. (1991). “A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Elsevier), 201–234. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
Cialdini R. B., Reno R. R., Kallgren C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Conner M., Armitage C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Pyschol 28, 1429–1464. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
Connolly J., Prothero A. (2003). Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consumption Markets Culture 6, 275–291. doi: 10.1080/1025386032000168311
Côrtes P. L., Dias A. G., Fernandes M.E.D.S.T., Pamplona J. M. V. (2016). Environmental behavior: a comparative study between Brazilian and portuguese students. Ambient. Soc 19, 113–134. doi: 10.1590/1809-4422ASOC139099V1932016
Currie J., Deschênes O. (2016). Children and climate change: introducing the issue. Future Children 26, 3–9. doi: 10.1353/foc.2016.0000
Dardanoni V., Guerriero C. (2021). Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection. Ecol. Economics 179, 106853. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106853
Davies J., Foxall G. R., Pallister J. (2002). Beyond the intention–behaviour mythology: an integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory 2 (1), 29–113. doi: 10.1177/1470593102002001645
De Groot J. I. (2019). Environmental psychology: An introduction (Malden MA: United States: Wiley-Blackwell).
De Groot J., Steg L. (2007a). General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: the role of environmental concerns in the TPB. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1817–1836. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x
De Groot J. I., Steg L. (2007b). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. cross-cultural Psychol. 38, 318–332. doi: 10.1177/0022022107300278
de Leeuw A., Valois P., Ajzen I., Schmidt P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 42, 128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005
Deutsch M., Gerard H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 51, 629–636. doi: 10.1037/h0046408
Dunlap R. E., Van Liere K. D., Mertig A. G., Jones R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Dupont D. P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecol. Economics 49, 273–286. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.013
European Commission (2020). Special Eurobarometer 501. Attitudes of Europeans towards the environment: report (Brussels, Belgium:Publications Office, LU).
Eurostat (2023a) Tertiary educational attainment by sex (online data code: SDG_04_20 ). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/SDG_04_20:custom_6134741/default/table?lang=en (Accessed 5.9.23).
Eurostat (2023b) Recycling rate of municipal waste (online data code: CEI_WM011). Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/cei_wm011/default/table?lang=en (Accessed 5.9.23).
Fang W.-T., Ng E., Zhan Y.-S. (2018). Determinants of pro-environmental behavior among young and older farmers in Taiwan. Sustainability 10, 2186. doi: 10.3390/su10072186
Farjam M., Nikolaychuk O., Bravo G. (2019). Experimental evidence of an environmental attitude-behavior gap in high-cost situations. Ecol. Economics 166, 106434. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106434
Fischer D., Reinermann J.-L., Guillen Mandujano G., DesRoches C. T., Diddi S., Vergragt P. J. (2021). Sustainable consumption communication: A review of an emerging field of research. J. Cleaner Production 300, 126880. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126880
Fisk G. (1974). Marketing and the ecological crisis, Perspectives on marketing series (New York: Harper & Row).
Follows S. B., Jobber D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: a test of a consumer model. Eur. J. Marketing 34, 723–746. doi: 10.1108/03090560010322009
Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18, 39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
Gallaway T., Olsen R. N., Mitchell D. M. (2010). The economics of global light pollution. Ecol. Economics 69, 658–665. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.003
Greaves M., Zibarras L. D., Stride C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003
Gupta S., Ogden D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J. Consumer Marketing 26, 376–391. doi: 10.1108/07363760910988201
Halder P., Hansen E. N., Kangas J., Laukkanen T. (2020). How national culture and ethics matter in consumers' green consumption values. J. Cleaner Production 265, 121754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121754
Han H., Hsu L.-T. (., Sheu C. (2010). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Manage. 31, 325–334. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013
Hao Y., Liu H., Chen H., Sha Y., Ji H., Fan J. (2019). What affect consumers' willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resources Conserv. Recycling 141, 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001
Harland P., Staats H., Wilke H. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29, 323–334. doi: 10.1080/01973530701665058
Hedlund T. (2011). The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists' intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tourism Hospitality Res. 11, 278–288. doi: 10.1177/1467358411423330
Henion K. E., Kinnear T. C., American Marketing Association (Eds.) (1976). Ecological marketing, Educational workshop series. Presented at the National Workshop on Ecological Marketing (Chicago: American Marketing Association).
Henrich J., Heine S. J., Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Hosta M., Zabkar V. (2021). Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior. J. Bus Ethics 171, 273–293. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0
Huang H., Long R., Chen H., Li Q., Wu M., Gan X. (2022). Knowledge domain and research progress in green consumption: a phase upgrade study. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 29, 38797–38824. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19200-3
Ignatow G. (2006). Cultural models of nature and society: reconsidering environmental attitudes and concern. Environ. Behav. 38, 441–461. doi: 10.1177/0013916505280791
Jackson T., Surrey G. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption. Sustain Dev. Res. Netw. 29, 1 - 154.
Janssen M. (2018). Determinants of organic food purchases: Evidence from household panel data. Food Qual. Preference 68, 19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.002
Jenkins R. R., Martinez S. A., Palmer K., Podolsky M. J. (2003). The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. J. Environ. Economics Manage. 45, 294–318. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00054-2
Johnson C., Bowker J. M., Cordell H. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior an examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environ. Behav. 36, 157–186. doi: 10.1177/0013916503251478
Joshi Y., Rahman Z. (2017). Investigating the determinants of consumers' sustainable purchase behaviour. Sustain. Production Consumption 10, 110–120. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2017.02.002
Kardash W. J. (1976). “Corporate responsibility and the quality of life: developing the ecologically concerned consumer,” in Ecological Marketing. Eds. Henion K. E., Kinnear T. C. (American Marketing Association, Chicago, Illinois).
Kilbourne W. E., Beckmann S. C. (1998). Review and critical assessment of research on marketing and the environment. J. Marketing Manage. 14, 513–532. doi: 10.1362/026725798784867716
Kilbourne W. E., Beckmann S. C., Thelen E. (2002). The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes: a multinational examination. J. Business Res. 55, 193–204. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00141-7
Krystallis A., Chryssohoidis G. (2005). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 107, 320–343. doi: 10.1108/00070700510596901
Lawson D. F., Stevenson K. T., Peterson M. N., Carrier S. J., L. Strnad R., Seekamp E. (2019). Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nat. Climate Change 9, 458–462. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3
Lenzen M., Murray S. (2003). The Ecological Footprint – Issues and Trends (The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia:ISA Research Paper 01).
Liu D., Du H., Southworth F., Ma S. (2017). The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin, China. Transportation Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 105, 42–53. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2017.08.004
Mayerl J., Best H. (2019). Attitudes and behavioral intentions to protect the environment: How consistent is the structure of environmental concern in cross-national comparison? Int. J. Sociology 49, 27–52. doi: 10.1080/00207659.2018.1560980
Moisander J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 31, 404–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x
Nyborg K. (2018). Social norms and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 10, 405–423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023232
Ölander F., Thøgersen J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. J. Consum Policy 18, 345–385. doi: 10.1007/BF01024160
Oreg S., Katz-Gerro T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ. Behav. 38, 462–483. doi: 10.1177/0013916505286012
Park H. J., Lin L. M. (2020). Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. J. Business Res. 117, 623–628. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.025
Peattie K. (2010). Green consumption: behavior and norms. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 195–228. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328
Pham H. S. T., Khanh C. N. T. (2021). Eco-tourism intention: the roles of environmental concern, time perspective and destination image. TR 76, 1141–1153. doi: 10.1108/TR-09-2019-0363
Punzo G., Panarello D., Pagliuca M. M., Castellano R., Aprile M. C. (2019). Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: A comparison across four EU countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 101, 311–322. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.006
Ramkissoon H. (2023). Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: a new conceptual model. J. Sustain. Tourism 31, 442–459. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1858091
Rapaport P., Orbell S. (2000). Augmenting the theory of planned behaviour: Motivation to provide practical assistance and emotional support to parents. Psychol. Health 15, 309–324. doi: 10.1080/08870440008401995
Riebl S. K., Estabrooks P. A., Dunsmore J. C., Savla J., Frisard M. I., Dietrich A. M., et al. (2015). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis: The Theory of Planned Behavior's application to understand and predict nutrition-related behaviors in youth. Eat Behav. 18, 160–178. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2015.05.016
Robinson R., Smith C. (2002). Psychosocial and demographic variables associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainably produced foods as defined by the midwest food alliance. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 34, 316–325. doi: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60114-0
Schultz P. W. (2000). New environmental theories: empathizing with nature: the effects ofPerspective taking on concern for environmental issues. J. Soc. Isssues 56, 391–406. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00174
Schultz P. W. (2022). Secret agents of influence: leveraging social norms for good. Curr. Dir Psychol. Sci. 31, 443–450. doi: 10.1177/09637214221109572
Schultz P. W., Gouveia V. V., Cameron L. D., Tankha G., Schmuck P., Franěk M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J. cross-cultural Psychol. 36, 457–475. doi: 10.1177/0022022105275962
Schultz P. W., Nolan J. M., Cialdini R. B., Goldstein N. J., Griskevicius V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18, 429–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
Sekaran U., Bougie R. (2016). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach. Seventh edition (Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons).
Sevillano V., Aragonés J. I., Schultz P. W. (2007). Perspective taking, environmental concern, and the moderating role of dispositional empathy. Environ. Behav. 39, 685–705. doi: 10.1177/0013916506292334
Shen M., Wang J. (2022). The impact of pro-environmental awareness components on green consumption behavior: the moderation effect of consumer perceived cost, policy incentives, and face culture. Front. Psychol. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.580823
Skeirytė A., Krikštolaitis R., Liobikienė G. (2022). The differences of climate change perception, responsibility and climate-friendly behavior among generations and the main determinants of youth's climate-friendly actions in the EU. J. Environ. Manage. 323, 116277. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116277
Sniehotta F. F., Gellert P., Witham M. D., Donnan P. T., Crombie I. K., McMurdo M. E. T. (2013). Psychological theory in an interdisciplinary context: psychological, demographic, health-related, social, and environmental correlates of physical activity in a representative cohort of community-dwelling older adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act 10, 106. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-106
Steenkamp J. E. B. M., Baumgartner H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models in marketing modeling. Int. J. Res. Marketing 17, 195–202. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00016-1
Stern P. C., Dietz T., Guagnano G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ. Behav. 27, 723–743. doi: 10.1177/0013916595276001
Strandbu Å., Skogen K. (2000). Environmentalism among Norwegian youth: different paths to attitudes and action? J. Youth Stud. 3, 189–209. doi: 10.1080/713684371
Timm S. N., Deal B. M. (2016). Effective or ephemeral? The role of energy information dashboards in changing occupant energy behaviors. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 19, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.020
Ting C.-T., Hsieh C.-M., Chang H.-P., Chen H.-S. (2019). Environmental consciousness and green customer behavior: the moderating roles of incentive mechanisms. Sustainability 11, 819. doi: 10.3390/su11030819
UN General Assembly (2022). The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Agenda item 74 (b). United Nations, New York.
Vermeir I., Verbeke W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Economics 64, 542–553. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007
Viscusi W. K., Huber J., Bell J. (2011). Promoting recycling: private values, social norms, and economic incentives. Am. Economic Rev. 101, 65–70. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.3.65
Walia S. B., Kumar H., Negi N. (2020). Impact of socio-demographics on consumers' attitude and purchase intention towards 'eco-friendly' products. Int. J. Technol. Manage. Sustain. Dev. 19, 361–371. doi: 10.1386/tmsd_00031_1
Wang J., Shen M., Chu M. (2021). Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the green consumption attitude-intention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory. Cleaner Responsible Consumption 2, 100015. doi: 10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100015
Wang Y.-F., Wang C.-J. (2016). Do psychological factors affect green food and beverage behaviour? An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Br. Food J. 118, 2171–2199. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0469
Wang L., Zhang G., Shi P., Lu X., Song F. (2019). Influence of awe on green consumption: the mediating effect of psychological ownership. Front. Psychol. 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02484
Whitmarsh L., O’Neill S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychology Identity Place Environ. Behav. 30, 305–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Witek L. (2019). Attitude-behaviour gap among polish consumers regarding green purchases. Visegrad J. Bioeconomy Sustain. Dev. 8, 31–36. doi: 10.2478/vjbsd-2019-0006
Wolf S., Teitge J., Mielke J., Schütze F., Jaeger C. (2021). The European green deal — More than climate neutrality. Intereconomics 56, 99–107. doi: 10.1007/s10272-021-0963-z
Wu Y., Sun H., Sun H., Xie C. (2022). Impact of public environmental concerns on the digital transformation of heavily polluting enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20 (1), 203.
Yamoah F. A., Acquaye A. (2019). Unravelling the attitude-behaviour gap paradox for sustainable food consumption: Insight from the UK apple market. J. Cleaner Production 217, 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.094
Yang M. X., Tang X., Cheung M. L., Zhang Y. (2021). An institutional perspective on consumers' environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavioral intention: Evidence from 39 countries. Business Strategy Environ. 30, 566–575. doi: 10.1002/bse.2638
Yu T.-Y., Yu T.-K. (2017). The moderating effects of students' Personality traits on pro-environmental behavioral intentions in response to climate change. IJERPH 14, 1472. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14121472
Yue B., Sheng G., She S., Xu J. (2020). Impact of consumer environmental responsibility on green consumption behavior in China: the role of environmental concern and price sensitivity. Sustainability 12, 2074. doi: 10.3390/su12052074
Yuriev A., Dahmen M., Paillé P., Boiral O., Guillaumie L. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resources Conserv. Recycling 155, 104660. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104660
Zámková M., Rojík S., Prokop M., Činčalová S., Stolín R. (2023). Consumers' Behavior in the field of organic agriculture and food products during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic: focus on a comparison of hyper-, super- and farmers' Markets and direct purchases from producers. Agriculture 13, 811. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13040811
Keywords: theory of planned behavior, intention to protect the environment, latent variables, students, multicounty study
Citation: Kotyza P, Cabelkova I, Pierański B, Malec K, Borusiak B, Smutka L, Nagy S, Gawel A, Bernardo López Lluch D, Kis K, Gál J, Gálová J, Mravcová A, Knezevic B and Hlaváček M (2024) The predictive power of environmental concern, perceived behavioral control and social norms in shaping pro-environmental intentions: a multicountry study. Front. Ecol. Evol. 12:1289139. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1289139
Received: 05 September 2023; Accepted: 29 April 2024;
Published: 27 June 2024.
Edited by:
Lynne Beaty, The Behrend College, United StatesReviewed by:
Xiaobin Lou, University of Georgia, United StatesYuqing Liu, Tianjin University of Commerce, China
Copyright © 2024 Kotyza, Cabelkova, Pierański, Malec, Borusiak, Smutka, Nagy, Gawel, Bernardo López Lluch, Kis, Gál, Gálová, Mravcová, Knezevic and Hlaváček. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Inna Cabelkova, cabelkova@pef.czu.cz