A Multilevel Analysis of Determinants of

Pro-environmental Behavior（PEB） in China

A case from Tianjin

Qian Liu
Institute of Finance and Economics
The Central University of Finance and Economics
Beijing 10081,PR China
Qianhai1314@yahoo.com.cn

Abstract—Survey data are used to examine the influence of distinct
categories of internal factors (such as attitudes, personal norms,
perceived behavior barriers, knowledge) and external factors (such
as socioeconomic characteristics, living conditions and situation
factors) on citizen’s pro-environmental behavior. Results from the
descriptive Analysis indicate that most of respondents consider the
environmental elements from the stand point of their own health
and safety instead of caring for the regional environmental and a
healthy global environment and they give their priority to the PEB
which can gaining economic benefits or saving life expenses. The
re-estimated model showed that awareness of the consequence,
environmental responsibility, and environmental value influenced
behavior intention significantly, but these three factors don’t
influence PEB directly. There is clearly a gap between
environmental concerns and PEB. The PEB are significantly
related to behavior intention, knowledge, gender and age.
Keywords-Pro-environmental Behavior (PEB); Determinant;
China; Tianjin
I. INTRODUCTION
Consumer behavior is the key to the impact that society has
on its environment. The actions that people take and the
choices they make – to consume certain products and services
or to live in certain ways rather than others – all have direct and
indirect impacts on the environment, as well as on personal
(and collective) well-being. This is why the topic of
‘sustainable consumption’ has become a central focus for
national and international policy. The overall aim of this
research was to explore the determinant framework of the
Chinese citizen’s PEB and to examine the extent to which such
a model could inform the development of new strategy or
agenda for sustainable consumption. Specific objectives were:
• to undertake a critical review of the recent and
historical literature on PEB;
• to explore the potential to develop ‘social psychology’
of ecologically and socially responsible model of the
determinant of PEB;
• to understand the status in quo and the characteristics
of the PEB in China;
• to understand the main determinants of the Chinese
citizen’s PEB
II. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND NEED FOR FURTHER STUDIES
The realization that people’s choices, behaviors and
lifestyles will play a vital role in achieving sustainable
development is one of the (relatively few) points of agreement
to have emerged from international environmental policy
debates over the last decade or so [1].And the question of how to
examine individual attitudes and behavior, more significantly,
how to introduce meaningful policies, is particularly
problematic in the realm of sustainable development. Many
research efforts thus far, however, tend to polarize around
predominant themed in specific disciplines. Economists, for
example, tend to examine the influence of external conditions,
such as income, price, and socio-economic characteristics,
upon behavior. Their approach is grounded in neoclassical
economic theory, which presupposes that individual decisions
are base on a specific definition of rational self-interest.
Solutions to environmental problems that reward penalize or
regulate behavior result from this mode of analysis.
Psychologists, on the other hand, concentrate on linking
internal, or psychological, variable to behavior. Their literature
suggests that PEB originates from values, beliefs, attitudes that
orient individuals toward particular actions. Consequently
psychologists recognize awareness, education, guilt and
persuasion as tools for invoking behavioral change.
Despite the dominant role psychologists attribute to internal
factors or motivating PEB, a handful of researchers identify the
need to formulate an interdisciplinary perspective. Van Liere
and Dunlap argue that researchers should pay equal attention to
cognitive variables and demographic determinants that underlie
environmental concern. They assert that “the most powerful
analyses of the social bases of environmental concern will
likely be those which consider both its demographic and
cognitive determinants” [2]. Messick and Brewer identify the
need for researchers to integrate solutions derived from
individual psychological processes and from structural or
external factors. They fault research conducted within separate
disciplines for limiting progress in the study of public-goods
provisions [3].Schultz and Zelezny explore whether the
relationship between values and PEB continues in countries
and cultures other than the United States. Using Survey data
from Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Spain, and the US, they find a

978-1-4244-4713-8/10/$25.00 ©2010 IEEE

positive relationship between biospheric vales and PEB, and a
negative relationship between egoistic values and PEB[4].
Guagnano, Stern and Dietz’s model suggests that attitudinal
factors and external conditions act jointly to influence
behavior. Therefore, they argue that “a broader,
context-sensitive theory is necessary because both external
conditions and psychological interventions are sometimes used
to change real behavior” [5].
This paper takes advantage of insights from both disciplines
to answer the question: what internal and external variables
influence participation in a green electricity program?
Most consumer behavior research in China is carried out for
marketing purposes, rather identifying how consumption can
be increased, than how it can be made more sustainable. Many
policy and research based groups as well as NGOs are also
conducting research that can be qualified under this category.
However this research is typically narrower in scope and often
commissioned for specific purposes not directly related to
sustainable consumption. In the least developed region, this
kind of research does not exist at all. Although there are many
surveys focused on people’s general environmental knowledge,
attitudes and their relative impacts on environmentally
sensitive behavior in 1990s, few empirical studies had
specifically examined the relations between internal or external
factors and the PEB.
This survey will provide initial insight into Tianjin residents
PEB and their inter-relationships with the main factors. The
research results will provide both information for Tianjin’s
sustainable consumption promotional strategies and inspiration
for further normative research. All of the information
ultimately facilitates decision-makers, environmentalists,
educators, and businessman in planning for social sustainable
development.
The paper consists of 7 sections. The next section explains
the research design and data collection in detail. The research
findings and analysis process are presented in Section 4, 5, 6.
The final section contains the main conclusions, a discussion of
the limitations of this survey.
III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
Situation Factors Enablers Disablers
AC ES Knowledge
ER Behavioral PEB
Intention
Demographics
EV
Characteristics
Figure 1. Research Framework
As the PEB determinants research in china is rare , this
survey will include different kinds of PEB instead of focusing
on just one aspects. The concept framework and the relations
are showed in Figure 1, and the main determinants are listed
and explained in detail.
A. Behavioral Intention (BI)
Intention to act, in the Fishbein-Ajzen’s work, the starting
point for the theoretical development is the expectancy-value
construction. Beliefs about and evaluations of outcome lead to
an attitude towards the given behavior, and the attitude towards
the behavior is one of two main influences on people’s
intention to act in the given way. Intention to act is the
immediate antecedent and key determinant of behavior [6].
B. Environmental Value（EV)
The earliest and simplest normative model of
pro-environmental behavior suggests that PEB arises from
quite specific value orientations in the individual. The earliest
and most well-known study of the biosphere value orientation
is the work carried out in the context of Dunlap and van Liere’s
New Environmental paradigm. The NEP contained a set of
core values which, as distinct from the Dominant Social
Paradigm, pay increased respect to natural limits and the
importance of preserving the balance and integrity of nature [7,
8]
.
C. Awareness of Consequence (AC) and Environmental
Responsibility(ER)
Shalom Schwartz’s (1977) Norm Activation is one of the
most widely applied models of moral behavior. NA theory
regards internalized personal norms as having two direct
psychological antecedents, namely an awareness of the
consequences of one’s actions and an acceptance of personal
responsibility that one holds for those consequences. Paul Stern
is undoubtedly one of the most experienced and prolific of
those who have attempted to construct social-psychological
model of PEB [9]. A premise of much of Stern’s work has been
that pro-social attitudes and personal moral norms are
significant predictors of PEB [10].
D. Environmental sensitivity (ES)
Chawla defines environmental sensitivity as a
predisposition to take an interest in learning about the
environment, feeling concern for it, and acting to conserve it,
on the basis of formative experiences. She finds that there is no
single experience that sensitizes people’s awareness but a
combination of factors. Among the most frequently
mentioned(decreasing in relevance)are(a) Childhood
experiences in nature; (b)Experiences of pro-environmental
destruction;(c) Pro-environmental values held by the family;
(d)Pro-environmental organizations; (e)Role model;
(f)Education[11, 12].
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION
A. Questionnaire design
A questionnaire composed of questions with pre-selected
answers was used as the main tool of this research. The
questionnaire was divided into 3 sections. The first question in
the survey was designed to focus respondents: “Do you know
the Chinese government intends to promote a conservation
culture by basically forming an energy-and resource-efficient
and environmental-friendly structure of industries, pattern of
growth and mode of consumption?” This question was while” and “never”. Before combining the items into a single
followed by 14 items relating to environmental behaviors,8 for scale, it is necessary to have a high degree of internal
environmental value questions,7 related to contextual factors,3 consistency among the items. Table 3 reports item-total
relate to environmental sensitivity,1 for environmental correlations for each item. These range from a low of 0.226, to
knowledge,1 for awareness of consequences,and 1 for a high of 0.539. All correlations are reasonably strong and
environmental responsibility. We also asked the respondents to statistically significant (p<0.05). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
provide some demographic information including age, gender, for all items is 0.81, “which is a reliable level for a new scale.
education, and income.
Table 2 reports three aspects. First, a higher percentage of
B. Questionnaire distribution and results respondents gave their priority to the environmental elements
The preliminary survey was delivered from Oct.20th to related to saving energy, and gaining some economic benefits,
Oct.25th, 2008. In the preliminary survey, we distributed 40 such as reducing electricity consumption (see [1], [2], [3]).
shares to two communities through community resident Second, Most respondents consider the environmental elements
committee (CRC), while other 50 shares were distributed at the from the stand point of their own health and safety instead of
front door of the largest supermarket in Nankai district. caring for the regional environmental and a healthy global
environment. So at present, these behaviors are more like
We found that many questionnaires taken back from the economical consumption instead of conservation-conscious
CRC were completed by just one person (telling by the behavior. Third, consumers need to be provided with adequate
handwriting). Many respondents left several questions information about the product/service in the form of an
unanswered and most of the respondents are retired people or eco-label or product declaration. Such labels/product
older person (possibly they have more spare time and are more declarations need to be independently verified to be reliable
cooperative). On the contrary, the shares from the supermarket (see [4]).
were relatively more usable.
TABLE II. THE RESULTS OF THE PEB
The formal investigations were carried out from Dec.25th
to Dec. 30th. Two investigators went to one supermarket each Corrected
time, and distributed the questionnaires at the front door or the Items Mean Item-total Std. Deviation
correlation
resting-place of the big supermarket in Nankai, Hongqiao, [1] 3.6 0.447 0.636
Hedong, Hexi, Hebei districts. Since Heping district is the [6] 3.47 0.346 0.758
shopping center of Tianjin, we distributed questionnaires at the [2] 3.41 0.476 0.83
marketplace. All the samples were picked randomly. [3] 3.29 0.356 0.998
[8] 3.27 0.372 0.962
A total of 200 questionnaires were returned. The effective [11] 3.18 0.497 1.019
response rate was 100%. The demographic composition of the [10] 3.17 0.484 1.016
sample is shown in Table 1. There was a bias in the sample [12] 2.93 0.474 0.844
towards junior college diploma or higher degree [14] 2.92 0.226 0.981
(57%),possibly because these people tend to be more interested [13] 2.86 0.402 1.025
[9] 2.73 0.492 1.033
in completing the questionnaire or more sensitive to the our [7] 2.68 0.539 1.1
inspiration by the little gifts. The details of the samples were [5] 2.61 0.465 0.777
listed in Table1. [4] 2.21 0.393 0.82
(Cronbach’s α=0.81)
TABLE I. THE DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLES
TABLE III. THE RESULTS OF THE EV
N(number) % (percent)
Corrected
Gender Items Mean Std. Deviation Item-total
Male 98 49% correlation
Female 102 51% [1] 4.28 2.045 0.328
Age [2] 3.49 1.982 0.513
19-29 64 32% [3] 5.06 1.413 0.488
30-39 42 21%
[4] 5.50 1.096 0.284
40-49 36 18%
50-59 26 13% [5] 3.66 2.152 0.538
60and above 32 16% [6] 3.68 2.088 0.498
Education [7] 4.53 1.930 0.233
Junior High School Diploma 36 18%
[8] 3.92 2.073 0.450
Senior High School Diploma 26 13%
Junior College Degree 48 24% Cronbach’s α =0.73
College diploma and above 85 43% Table 2 reports 3 aspects. First, a higher percentage of
respondents gave their priority to the environmental elements
V. DESCRIPTIVE AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS related to saving energy, and gaining some economic benefits,
Table 2 contains a summary of responses. Response such as reducing electricity consumption (see [1], [2], [3]).
categories for each item are “always”, “usually”, “once in a Second, Most respondents consider the environmental elements
from the stand point of their own health and safety instead of
caring for the regional environmental and a healthy global
environment. So at present, these behaviors are more like
economical consumption instead of conservation-conscious
behavior. Third, consumers need to be provided with adequate
information about the product/service in the form of an
eco-label or product declaration. Such labels/product
declarations need to be independently verified to be reliable
female respondents are more likely to “Have their own
refillable water bottle or scoops”,“be an active member of an
environmental group”, “do garbage sorting and recycling” ,
“Walk, bike or tan public transit” and “Consciously avoided
Styrofoam packaging”.
TABLE V. CORRELATION MATRIX BETWEEN PEB AND DEMOGRAPHIC
FACTORS

(see [4]). Items Age Education Gender

level
Results for Environmental Value are reported in Table 3, [1] -0.221* 0.038 0.044
We show the contrary view in Each item, so the response [2] -0.245* -0.029 0.220*
categories for the each view are “strongly agree”, “somewhat [3 -0.64 -0.38 0.024
agree”, “somewhat disagree”. Table 4 reports item-total [4] -0.184 0.042 0.049
correlations for each item. These range from a low of 0.233, to [5] -0.188 0.080 0.001
a high of 0.538. All correlations are reasonably strong and [6] -0.227* 0.318** 0.262**
statistically significant (p<0.05). Cranach’s coefficient alpha [7] -0.333** -0.71 0.297**
[8] -0.112 0.209* 0.229*
for all items is 0.73, which is a reliable level.
[9] -0.38** 0.217* 0.224*
According to the results in Table 3, the participants does [10] -0.396** 0.134 0.273**
not appear to demonstrate reasonably strong environmental [11] -0.410** 0.002 0.113
[12] -0.111 -0.60 0.081
value the mean of the EV is 4.38,which is little higher than the
[1] -0.087 -0.46** 0.104
neutrality. Although “Human are subject to the law of future
” , “Protecting the natural environment should be more VI. PATH ANALYSIS
important than creating economic growth” are widely accepted To test the proposed model in Figure 1, a path analysis was
by the respondents, most people think that the purpose of conducted. The predicted path from EV and ER to PEB,as well
environmental conservation is to satisfy human needs and as ES,EV to ER was not significant, and the same was true
conquer the nature is the symbol of the progress of human. for the predicted path from ES to BI. The non-significant paths
Analysis of situation factor indicates that participants are were excluded, and the model was re-estimated. Standardized
motivated by economic stimulations, save home expense and path coefficients, the amount of explained variance for the
they will change the consumption pattern if the governments endogenous factors for the re-estimated model are shown in
release a law. The results also show that the respondent pays Figure 1 and APENDIX 2. Percentage explained variances for
more attention to the “enablers”, and the blocks or the endogenous factors were PEB, 21.5%, BI, 15.8%, ER, 6%.
“disablers” would not influence their future behavior very The results support the correlations of AC, ER, and EV
much. with BI. Awareness of consequence, Environmental
Responsible and Environmental Value did influence the
TABLE IV. THE RESULTS OF THE SF
Behavior Intention. In addition, the predicted effects from
Items
Corrected
Std. Knowledge, age, gender were confirmed with PEB. It is thus
Mean Item-total evident that AC, ER and EV influence PEB indirectly, through
Deviation
correlation
Intentions.
1 Social norm 3.05 0.043 0.925
2 Convenience 2.97 0.382 0.784
3 basic infrastructure 3.60 0.256 1.128
4 Save expenses 3.83 0.481 1.181
5 Economic stimulation 4.34 0.637 0.699
6 Model and preservation 3.78 0.600 1.021
7 Regulation of law 3.86 0.572 0.932
Cronbach’s α=0.70

The Correlation Matrix for PEB and demographic factors

are shown in Table 5. 7 kinds of PEB out of 13 show
significant negative correlation with the age. The older citizens
are more likely to take PEB. Three kinds of PEB, “Have your
own refillable water bottle or scoops” ,“be an active member
of an environmental group” and “do garbage sorting and
recycling” show significant positive correlation with the
education level. However, the “do not use one time cups” show
negative correlation with the education level. In addition
Figure 2. Re-estimated path Analytic Model of the PEB
VII. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a hierarchical model of the effects of internal
and external factors was tested. The model was derived from
Schwartz’s norm-activation theory, environmental education
theory and earlier research on PEB.
 With residents of Tianjin as the study subject, the survey
examines the characteristics of residents’ PEB, its significant
influencing factors, the relationship between PEB and its
influencing factors. The results of the study provide helpful
instruction for understanding Chinese residents’ environmental
behavior and planning scientific environmental educational
system.
The description statistics illustrate that the respondents gave
their priority to the environmental elements related to saving
energy, and gaining some economic benefits, such as reducing
electricity consumption. And most respondents consider the
environmental elements from the stand point of their own
health and safety instead of caring for the regional
environmental and a healthy global environment. So at present,
these behaviors are more like economical consumption instead
of conservation-conscious behavior. Well-educated female are
more likely to conduct the behavior which cares more about the
regional or global environment. In addition, most people
consider the balance of the ecosystem very important, but they
think that the purpose of environmental conservation is to
satisfy human needs and conquer the nature is the symbol of
the progress of human society.
Analysis of situation factor indicates that participants are
motivated by economic stimulations, save home expense and
they will change the consumption pattern if the governments
release a law. The results also show that the respondent pays
more attention to the “enablers”, and the blocks or the
“disablers” would not influence their future behavior very
much.
The re-estimated model showed that awareness of the
consequence, environmental responsibility, and environmental
value influenced behavior intention significantly, but these
three factors don’t influence PEB directly. In accordance with
the tested model, behavior intention, knowledge, gender and
age influenced pro-environmental behavior. Clearly there is a
gap between environmental concerns and PEB which is for the
specific reason of protecting the environment. So nowadays, as
the NEP is not completely accepted by Chinese people, in order
to transform environmental concerns, much more should be
done to understand the gap between the state of the
environmental concerns and PEB.
However, as can be seen from the amount of explained
variance in pro-environmental behavior, there is still a large
amount of unexplained variance. Stern has pointed out that
there are four major types of causal factors that might influence
pro-environmental behavior. The first type is attitudinal factors
such as values, beliefs, and norms, as studied here. The second
type of factor is contextual factors such as material costs and
rewards and the availability of technology. The third type
involves personal capabilities such as financial resources and
behavior specific knowledge and skills. Finally, there are habits
or routines that may need to be broken to change behavior in a
pro-environmental direction. It is important to realize that these
causal factors interact with each other. If, for instance, there are
very strong contextual forces acting on the behavior or if the
behavior is determined by a strong habit, one should not expect
to find strong relations between attitudinal factors and behavior
[13]
. Even if the behavior has an impact on the environment and
the environmental motive is important, it might be performed
for other reasons than to protect the environment, for example,
conserving energy in the household to save money or using a
bicycle instead of a car to get some exercise. Thus, to get a
more thorough understanding of what influences
environmentally significant behavior, the interaction between
attitudinal factors and contextual factors, personal capabilities,
and habits should be studied. It is also important to study what
other motives, besides environmental concern, influence such
behavior.
REFERENCES
[1] Jackson T, Michaelis L. Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Report to
the Sustainable Development Commission. London, May 2003.
[2] Van Liere, K., & Dunlap, R. The social bases of environmental concern:
A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public
Opinion Quarterly,1980, 44, 181–197.
[3] Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. Solving social dilemmas: A review. In
L. Wheeler, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social
psychology, 1983, 4 (pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
[4] Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. Influences on
attitude–behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside
recycling. Environment and Behavior, 1995,27(5), 699–718.
[5] Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. Values and pro-environmental
behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
1998, 29(4), 540–558.
[6] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.
[7] Dunlap R E, Van Liere K D. The New Environmental Paradigm: A
Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 1978(9): 9-19.
[8] Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. D., & Jones, R. E.
Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Journal of Social Issues, 2000,56(3), 425–442.
[9] Schwartz, Shalom. Normative Influences on Altruism, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology,1977,10, 222-279.
[10] Stern P C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 2000, 56(3): 407 —424.
[11] CHAWLA, L. Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research
on sources of evironmental sensitivity, Journal of Environmental
Education, 1998, 29(3), pp.11-21.
[12] CHAWLA, L. Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research
on sources of Environmental sensitivity, Environmental Education
Research, 1998,4(4), pp. 369-382.
[13] Verplanken, Bas, H Aarts, A van Knippenburg and C van Knippenburg
.Antecedents of Travel Mode Choice. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 1994, 24, “285-300”.