Next Article in Journal
An Exploratory Study of the Learning of Transferable Skills in a Research-Oriented Intensive Course in Atmospheric Sciences
Next Article in Special Issue
University Social Responsibility towards Engineering Undergraduates: The Effect of Methodology on a Service-Learning Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Nonlinear Effect of Financial Efficiency and Financial Competition on Heterogeneous Firm R&D: A Study on the Combined Perspective of Financial Quantity Expansion and Quality Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/su10051384
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test of Value–Belief–Norm Theory

by
Xianwei Liu
1,*,†,
Yang Zou
2,† and
Jianping Wu
3
1
Institute of Higher Education, Capital Research and Development Center for Engineering Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2
School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
3
Department of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
The authors contributed equally to the study.
Sustainability 2018, 10(5), 1384; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051384
Submission received: 30 March 2018 / Revised: 27 April 2018 / Accepted: 28 April 2018 / Published: 1 May 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Holistic View of Sustainability Assessment in Higher Education: From Campus Operations to Curricula, Research and Outreach)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Value–belief–norm (VBN) theory provides a valuable framework for identifying the social-psychological determinants of various types of pro-environmental behavior. However, limited empirical study has tested the applicability of VBN theory in the western minority areas of China. Given Mongolian college students’ crucial role in promoting the sustainable development of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR) of China, this study investigates how VBN clusters of variables, namely, values, the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and pro-environmental personal norms (PPN), influence Mongolian college students’ self-reported public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB). The subjects were 1034 Mongolian college students from three large public universities in Hohhot. A structural equation model (SEM) and bootstrapping analyses revealed that: (1) altruistic values have a significant positive influence on PSPB, egoistic values negatively influence PSPB, and biospheric values have no significant influence on PSPB; (2) egoistic values negatively predict NEP and biospheric values positively predict NEP, whereas altruistic values have no direct impact on NEP; (3) NEP has a positive influence on PPN; (4) PPN has a significant positive impact on PSPB; and (5) biospheric and egoistic values have an indirect effect on PSPB through NEP and PPN. The findings provided evidence for the cross-cultural applicability of VBN theory in a Mongolian college student sample. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed, and recommended directions for future research were suggested.

1. Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that environmental problems are mainly rooted in human behavior [1,2,3]. How to change people’s behavior and construct a harmonious relationship between nature and human beings has been an unanswered question in various disciplines. In social science, the endeavors of sociologists and psychologists may be divided into two basic lines of research [4]. One of these research lines has focused on identifying the sociodemographic factors related to pro-environmental behavior, such as gender [5], age [6], place of residence [7], ethnicity [8], income [9] and education [10]. Another line has focused on the influences of social-psychological determinants, such as the influence of values, norms, attitudes, sense of control, personality and place attachment on pro-environmental behavior and has been tested over the last 40 years [11].
At the same time, theoretical frameworks in sociology and social psychology have been widely utilized by researchers to build a logical connection between various social-psychological constructs and pro-environmental behavior. One of the most representative theoretical models may be the value–belief–norm (VBN) theory proposed by Stern and colleagues [12,13] based on the norm-activation model (NAM), the value-basis theory and the new environmental paradigm (NEP) perspective [14,15,16,17]. The VBN theory proposes that individuals’ values drive beliefs and, in turn, norms which directly motivate individuals’ pro-environmental behavior. Empirical research repeatedly provides empirical support for the predictive power of VBN clusters of variables on various pro-environmental behavioral indicators. Therefore, it has received substantial recognition and is widely used to test the relationships among individual values, attitudes and beliefs, and various types of pro-environmental behavior.
The university setting may be seen as an effective place to promote individual pro-environmental behavior through the connection of values, beliefs, personal norms and external action. College students, whose values and beliefs are in a transitional state, are a unique group to test and expand VBN theory [18]. However, studies of college students’ pro-environmental behavior and its antecedents within the VBN framework have mainly been conducted in Western contexts. In recent years, increasing numbers of studies have addressed this topic in China given growing awareness of worsening environmental conditions in the last decade. Most of these pioneering studies were conducted in developed areas of China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Nanjing, and focused on students’ pro-environmental behavior in the private sphere [19,20,21]. Little empirical research exists on minority college students in the undeveloped western areas of China.
The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), the national strategic energy base and ecological barrier of China, spans three districts from the north-west to the north-east and north of the country and plays a vital role in ensuring the energy and ecological security of the nation. Since the adoption of the Western Development Strategy in 1999, a critical political decision by the central government of China to promote the economic and social development of the 12 western provinces and municipalities, the GDP of IMAR experienced rapid growth from 2000 to 2010 through large-scale resource development and utilization. However, this economic boom did not materially benefit the local people but instead dampened their future due to the problem of environmental deterioration, including grassland degradation, air and water pollution [22], which has seriously threatened regional sustainable development and public health.
Mongolian college students, the reserve forces of local construction in IMAR, have an important voice and impact on the sustainable development of the local economy, society and environment. They benefit from the development while suffering from the damage of environmental deterioration, which motivates their strong demand for environmental improvement. The promotion of their active participation in public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) may effectively alleviate or even solve environmental problems in IMAR, since PSPB can indirectly change the behaviors of many people and organizations by influencing public policies [13]. For example, in the spring of 2011, environmental damage from mining triggered Mongolian college students’ involvement in massive protests and conflicts. To quell the widespread protests in IMAR, the government adopted more stringent and explicit environmental policies to regulate the local mining industry [23,24]. There is an urgent need to understand the influences of different social-psychological antecedents on Mongolian college students’ PSPB and to promote their participation in PSPB rationally from the actors’ perspectives based on a comprehensive theory framework.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to examine whether the causal chain of the VBN model can also be applied to PSPB in a sample of Mongolian college students, thus providing cross-cultural evidence for the generalization of VBN theory. Furthermore, with a comprehensive understanding about what motivates Mongolian college students to engage in PSPB, this study can provide practical guidance for the design of environmental education for youth and for environmental policy decisions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) Theory

The VBN theory was proposed by Stern and colleagues [12,13] and systematically integrates the norm-activation model (NAM) theory [14,15] in social psychology, the value-basis theory [16] in environmental psychology, and the new environmental paradigm (NEP) perspective [17] in environmental sociology. Social-psychological variables in the VBN model, namely, values, beliefs, norms and pro-environmental behavior, constitute a causal chain in which each variable directly affects the next and may also directly affect variables farther down the chain. The integration mechanism of VBN theory is described as follows.
The basic premise of the NAM theory is that moral or personal norms are direct determinants of pro-environmental behavior [25], and norms and behaviors are grounded in values concerned with the welfare of others (altruistic values), the welfare of oneself (egoistic values), and the welfare of the biosphere (biospheric values) according to value-basis theory [26]. As an ecological worldview, NEP is not as general or stable as values. Stern et al. [27] developed a connection between NEP and NAM with the argument that NEP is a generalized environmental belief or a sort of “folk ecology” that may play a mediating role in the relationship between generalized values and specific attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions and behavior. Applications of the VBN vary in the way belief is measured, and most studies focus on general environmental beliefs [18]. In addition, some researchers consider NEP an indicator of the awareness of consequences in NAM in testing the relationship between social-psychological factors and pro-environmental behavior [28]. Since its proposal, VBN has been widely employed to explain many specific pro-environmental behaviors in the private or public sphere, such as green consumer behavior [29,30,31,32], biodiversity conservation [33,34], travel behavior [35,36,37], sustainability behavior [18,38], recycling [39,40], energy conservation [41,42,43,44,45,46], transport modes [47,48,49], and support for pro-environmental policies [50,51,52,53]. Because of value orientations, the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and pro-environmental personal norms (PPN) are vital predictors of pro-environmental behavior in the VBN framework [54]. This study focuses on the connection among three types of values, NEP, PPN, and public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) among Mongolian college students. Based on VBN theory, the framework for empirical analysis in this study is demonstrated in Figure 1.

2.2. Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior (PSPB)

Scholars have used various terms to describe behaviors that benefit the environment. The literature includes a large number of terms that are similar to pro-environmental behavior, including environmentally significant behavior [13], responsible environmental behavior [55], ecological behavior [56], and environmentally conscious behavior [57]. Regarding the definition of pro-environmental behavior, Stern [13] noted that it can be described in two aspects, namely, behavioral impact and behavioral intention. The former emphasizes the direct changes made by human beings on the environment, whereas the latter stresses the purpose and goal of environmental protection. To understand and change target behaviors, it is necessary to adopt an intention-oriented definition that focuses on people’s beliefs and motives. Following Stern [13], pro-environmental behavior should be defined as human activities that generate intention that relates to environment protection or environmental deterioration prevention.
Generally, researchers have treated pro-environmental behavior as multi-dimensional. Similar to the multiple terminologies and definitions used, the classification of pro-environmental behavior also varies. For example, Sia et al. [55] classified pro-environmental behavior into five categories (persuasion, consumer action, ecological management, political action and legal action). Smith-Sebasto and D’Costa [58] divided it into six dimensions (civic action, educational action, financial action, legal action, physical action and persuasive action). Karp [59] proposed three dimensions of pro-environmental behavior (good citizen behavior, environmental activism and healthy consumer behavior). Stern [13] proposed four types of pro-environmental behavior, namely, environmental activism, non-activist behaviors in the public sphere, private-sphere environmentalism and other environmentally significant behaviors (such as influencing the actions of organizations). In recent studies, Lavelle et al. [60] divided pro-environmental behavior into chronic behavior and occasional behavior, and then MacDonald and She [61] categorized it into curtailing, political and efficiency behavior. Although the types of pro-environmental behavior are quite diverse, the basic connotation of these types is similar to that reflected in public-sphere or private-sphere pro-environmental behavior [62]. Private-sphere pro-environmental behavior involves practical behaviors by which individuals can protect the environment through their own individual efforts (time and energy) to directly influence environmental quality. Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior refers to actions that cause environmental impacts indirectly through the public domain [63].
Compared to other classifications, one major advantage of the public-private classification is that it can cover a wide range of behaviors without being limited by the developmental level and cultural differences of a society. Therefore, the public-private classification is widely used in empirical studies conducted not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, such as countries in Latin America, the Philippines [64], Egypt [65] and China [62,66,67]. For instance, Xiao and Hong [66] used data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) in 2003 to test gender differences in the pro-environmental behavior of urban residents in China with this classification. However, with regard to the impact of social psychological factors on pro-environmental behavior, previous studies have mainly concentrated on the private sphere, and attention to PSPB is relatively lacking. Thus, this paper specifically focuses on the influence that social psychological variables exert on the PSPB of Mongolian college students.

2.3. Values

Values are conceptualized as important life goals or standards that serve as guiding principles in a person’s life [68]. Values are different from beliefs because values play a role as an organizational system in one’s life and are viewed as determinants of attitudes and behaviors [69]. Schwartz [70,71] developed a broad model for classifying the dimensions of values, with 56 value items representing 10 universal value types. These 10 value types can be further reduced to 4 value categories: openness to change, conservatism, self-transcendence, and self-enhancement. Researchers repeatedly found that self-transcendence and self-enhancement in general values were closely related to pro-environmental attitudes, intentions and behavior [59,72,73,74]. For example, by means of quantitative research, Jia et al. [75] revealed that self-transcendence moral values positively predicted environmental actions of university students in a mid-sized American university, which was supported by their following narrative research.
Stern and colleagues [16,76,77] extracted three different values that might affect pro-environmental beliefs and behavior from Schwartz’s universal values, namely, egoistic values (i.e., values focusing on maximizing individual outcomes), social-altruistic values (i.e., values reflecting concern for the welfare of others), and biospheric values (i.e., values emphasizing the environment and the biosphere). Studies have shown that egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values can be clearly distinguished empirically [78,79]. A large number of studies have examined the relationship between these three values and pro-environmental behavior [29,79,80,81,82]. For example, Jansson et al. [29] found that biospheric values determine consumers’ willingness to curtail the negative effects of car use and determine the willingness to use a so-called environmentally friendly car. De Groot and Steg [80] also found that students who strongly endorsed egoistic values were less likely to prefer a car that performed highly on environmental aspects, whereas altruistic and, especially, biospheric values were positively related to the environmental performance of the car. In a recent study, Whitley et al. [18] revealed that these three values play a stable function in predicting college students’ sustainable behavior in the public sphere. More specifically, they found that college students who adhered to biospheric and altruistic values were more likely to engage in PSPB, such as supporting environmental protection policy, whereas those who adhered to egoistic values were less likely to engage in such behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: 
Biospheric values have a significant positive influence on PSPB.
H1b: 
Altruistic values have a significant positive influence on PSPB.
H1c: 
Egoistic values have a significant negative influence on PSPB.
Value–belief–norm (VBN) theory assumes that the three types of values have a direct and positive influence on general beliefs. This assumption has received support from many empirical studies. For instance, Steg et al. [83] found that the higher the scores on the biospheric value orientations, the higher the new environmental paradigm (NEP), whereas egoistic values negatively related to NEP. Similar results were also shown in two studies conducted by De Groot and Steg [79]. In study 1, the contribution of altruistic values to the explanation of NEP was small but significant, but this result was not replicated in study 2. However, both study 1 and study 2 found a significant contribution of biospheric and egoistic values to the explanation of NEP. In a recent survey of paddy farmers in Malaysia, Chua et al. [54] demonstrated that three values were important predictors of NEP. Specifically, egoistic and altruistic values exerted small effects, whereas biospheric values exerted medium effects on NEP. Although the existing literature fails to provide robust evidence for the connection of altruistic values and NEP, taking the cultural and social differences of samples into consideration, we expect that all three types of values have direct impacts on NEP. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed:
H2a: 
Biospheric values have a significant positive impact on NEP.
H2b: 
Altruistic values have a significant positive impact on NEP.
H2c: 
Egoistic values have a significant negative impact on NEP.

2.4. New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)

NEP is the fundamental worldview and mind-set that people have toward the environment and emphasizes the harmonious interaction between humans and nature [17]. In accordance with VBN theory, beliefs have a direct influence on individual norms. Specifically, individuals who hold general beliefs about environmental welfare are more likely to develop pro-environmental personal norms (PPN) [16]. With the framework of VBN theory, several studies have examined the direct link between NEP and PPN. For example, Chua et al. [54] discovered that NEP had a significant positive influence on PPN in a sample of paddy farmers. In a sample consisting of students, faculty and staff from Michigan State University, Yeboah and Kaplowitz [84] also found that NEP exerted a positive and significant effect on PPN. Based on these findings, the direct relationship between the NEP and PPN of Mongolian college students will be tested in this research. We propose the following hypothesis:
H3: 
NEP has a significant positive effect on PPN.

2.5. Pro-Environmental Personal Norms (PPN)

PPN are the sense of moral obligation to behave pro-environmentally [54]. In the chain model of VBN, PPN are the ultimate predictor of pro-environmental behavior. There is ample empirical evidence that PPN contribute significantly to behaviors performed with pro-environmental intent. Among these studies, some researchers have tested the predictive effects of PPN on various types of public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB). Steg et al. [83] found that PPN explained almost 30% of the variance in the acceptability of energy policies. More specifically, the stronger the PPN, the more people supported policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. In a recent study on the determinants of urban residents’ environmental complaints in China, Zhang et al. [85] demonstrated that the PPN of citizens could influence environmental complaint intention positively and significantly. In the university environment, researchers have also found that the PPN of college students are a positive predictor of support for environmental policies [18]. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4: 
PPN positively and directly affect PSPB.

2.6. The Mediation Effects among Variables

Value–belief–norm theory postulates the causal order of values, general belief, and norms that influence specific behavior [12,13]. In other words, values may have an indirect effect on specific pro-environmental behavior through the multiple mediation of intervening variables in the causal chain of the VBN model. Most researchers have been interested in testing the indirect effects in part of the causal chain. For example, Nordlund and Garvill [74] revealed that PPN mediated the path from general values and environmental values to pro-environmental behavior. Chua et al. [54] found that NEP functioned as a mediator in the relationship between biospheric values and PPN as well as between egoistic values and PPN. Although only a few studies have contributed to examining direct and mediating effects in the entire causal chain with small sample sizes from countries in Europe and Latin America [36,83], we still anticipate that there exist multiple mediating relationships within the whole chain model of VBN in this study. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H5a: 
Values indirectly influence PPN through NEP.
H5b: 
Values indirectly influence PSPB through NEP and PPN.
H5c: 
NEP indirectly influences PSPB through PPN.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

Participants in this study were Mongolian undergraduates at three public universities located in Hohhot, the capital of Inner Mongolia. Survey questionnaires were administered to a total of 1200 students enrolled in social science elective courses to create a comparable sample. At the end of the courses, questionnaires were distributed to students by the research assistants. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was given by students. A total of 1118 questionnaires were returned. After removing questionnaires in which more than 15% of the questions were not answered on any scale, 1034 valid responses were ultimately used for data analysis. The final sample included 687 females (66.4%) and 347 males (33.6%). In terms of the type of home town, 587 students (56.8%) came from urban areas and 447 students (43.2%) came from rural or pastoral areas. A total of 227 students reported monthly family income of less than 1000 RMB (22%), 387 students reported family income between 1000 RMB and 4000 RMB (37.4%), 203 students reported family income between 4000 RMB and 7000 RMB (19.6%), and 217 students reported family income above 7000 RMB (21%).

3.2. Measurement

The questionnaire was composed of two parts. Part one required participants to provide their socio-demographic information, including gender and type of home town. Part two was the measurement of values, NEP, PPN and PSPB. All of the construct measures were adapted from previous literature. We reworded some items to better fit Mongolian college students’ real experiences.
For the dependent variable, PSPB was measured using five items adapted from the public-sphere dimension of the pro-environmental behavior scale developed by Xiao and Hong [66]. Participants were asked to describe how often they had performed 5 different PSPB in the past year. All items were answered on a five-point Likert type scale from “never” (1) to “always” (5).
For the measurement of values, a 12-item value scale revised by Steg et al. [83] was used to measure college students’ egoistic (four items), altruistic (four items), and biospheric (four items) value orientations [71]. The participants were asked to rate to what degree each of the 12 values functioned as a guiding principle in their life on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not important” (1) to “very important” (5).
Four items of the Chinese version of the NEP scale were adapted from Wu et al. [86] to evaluate students’ general beliefs toward the environment in three aspects, namely, humans’ ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth, and humans’ right to rule over the rest of nature [17]. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Four items used in previous research studies conducted by Gärling et al. [87] were used to assess students’ PPN. The participants were asked to respond to what extent they agreed with the statements targeting PPN, and each of the items was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis of measured variables and items. As shown in Table 1, the mean of the variables ranged from 2.748 to 4.532, the standard deviation ranged from 0.594 to 1.175, the absolute values of skewness ranged from 0.002 to 1.445, and the absolute value of kurtosis ranged from 0.023 to 2.429. Skewness values were lower than 3 and kurtosis values were lower than 10 in this research, which indicated that the research data met the requirement of a multivariate normal distribution and subsequent data analyses could be conducted [88].

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was a three-step progress. First, the reliability and validity of the instruments were evaluated. Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the scales, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the scales [89]. Second, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to test the hypothesized relationships among three types of values, new environmental paradigm (NEP), pro-environmental personal norms (PPN) and pro-environmental behavior (PSPB). The SEM method was adopted because it allows the establishment and estimation of complex causal relationships among multiple latent variables while controlling measurement errors. The indices that measured the model’s goodness-of-fit included the ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom (χ2/df), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fix index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). For an index to be acceptable, χ2/df should not exceed 5, GFI, AGFI, CFI, IFI and TLI should be higher than 0.90, and SRMR and RMSEA should be smaller than 0.08 [90]. Finally, we used bootstrapping method (5000 bootstrap samples) to test the serial multiple mediation effects within the causal chain of the VBN model to predict pro-environmental behavior. A 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval that does not include zero would provide evidence of significant indirect effects. Compared to the Sobel test or causal steps approach, bootstrapping procedures have better statistical power while reducing the possibility of Type 1 error [91].
Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and a reliability test were conducted with SPSS 23 for windows. CFA, SEM and bootstrapping analyses were performed using the Amos 23 software package with the maximum-likelihood estimation method (see Supplementary Materials).

4. Results

4.1. The Measurement Model

Based on the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing [89], CFA was first utilized to assess the fitness of the measurement model to research data before examining the structural relationships among variables. The measurement model included six latent variables and 25 observed variables. In CFA, latent variables were allowed to be freely correlated with each other, and observed variables were specified to load only on their respective latent factors. The result of CFA showed that the measurement model fit the data well (χ2 = 960.924; df = 260; χ2/df = 3.696; GFI = 0.926; AGFI = 0.907; CFI = 0.925; IFI = 0.926; TLI = 0.925; SRMR = 0.049; RMSEA = 0.051 [90% CI: 0.048, 0.055]). In addition, the factor loadings of all items were significant and above the standard value of 0.450 [90], ranging from 0.476 to 0.886, providing support for convergent validity. Figure 2 presents the results of the CFA.
We further tested the fitness of two alternative models, including a four-factor model (items of egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values were loaded together on one latent construct) and a one-factor model (all items were loaded together on one latent construct). The results of CFA showed that for the four-factor model: χ2 = 2802.536, df = 269; χ2/df = 10.418; GFI = 0.730; AGFI = 0.752; CFI = 0.795; IFI = 0.731; TLI = 0.699; SRMR = 0.092; RMSEA = 0.095 [90% CI: 0.092, 0.099], and for the one-factor model: χ2 = 5022.907; df = 275; χ2/df = 18.265; GFI = 0.669; AGFI = 0.609; CFI = 0.493; IFI = 0.495; TLI = 0.447; SRMR = 0.127; RMSEA = 0.129 [90% CI: 0.120, 0.132]. The fit index of both alternative models failed to meet the recommended criteria [90]. The results of the chi-square statistic also demonstrated that the measurement model fit the data better than the four-factor model (Δχ2 = 1841.612, df = 9, p < 0.001) or the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 4061.983, df = 15, p < 0.001) did. These results offered evidence of the discriminant validity of the measurement model. After the CFA analysis, Cronbach’s α coefficients were computed to evaluate the internal reliability of the measures. The results showed that the Cronbach’s α coefficients of the scales ranged from 0.625 to 0.916, greater than the threshold of 0.6 [92]. Standard factor loading of all items and reliability estimates for the scales are listed in Table 2.
As shown in Table 3, most of the correlation coefficients among variables were significant and had the anticipated sign. Specifically, public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) was positively related to altruistic values, biospheric values, and pro-environmental personal norms (PPN), as expected. The expected relations between new environmental paradigm (NEP) and egoistic values, altruistic values and biospheric values were significant. However, a significant correlation was not observed between egoistic values and PSPB. Overall, the path model proposed in this study warrants further analyses.

4.2. Structural Model

SEM analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized relationships among values, NEP, PPN and PSPB. The analysis revealed that the initial hypothesized model demonstrated good fit to the data: χ2 = 1024.439; df = 264; χ2/df = 3.880; GFI = 0.920; AGFI = 0.901; CFI = 0.919; IFI = 0.919; TLI = 0.908; SRMR = 0.062; RMSEA = 0.053 [90% CI: 0.049, 0.056]. Next, the statistical significance of the path coefficients among the variables was examined. Except for the path from altruistic values to NEP and the path from biospheric values to PSPB, the other hypothesized paths were statistically significant. First, egoistic values (β = −0.132, t = −3.229, p < 0.01), altruistic values (β = 0.310, t = 4.048, p < 0.001), and PPN (β = 0.101, t = 2.204, p < 0.05) have significant effects on PSPB. Second, egoistic values (β = −0.213, t = −5.097, p < 0.001) and biospheric values (β = 0.139, t = 2.085, p < 0.05) have significant effects on NEP. Lastly, the effects of NEP (β = 0.192, t = 4.123, p < 0.001) on PPN are statistically significant. The effect of altruistic values (β = 0.116, t = 1.554, p > 0.05) on NEP and the effect of biospheric values on PSPB (β = 0.022, t = 0.324, p > 0.05) are not significant.
The initial model was revised by removing the two non-significant paths. The revised model also indicated a good fit to the research data: χ2 = 1026.918; df = 266; χ2/df = 3.861; GFI = 0.920; AGFI = 0.902; CFI = 0.919; IFI = 0.919; TLI = 0.908; SRMR = 0.063; RMSEA = 0.053 [90% CI: 0.049, 0.056]. The result of the chi-square statistical test shows that no significant difference exists between the initial model and revised model (Δχ2 = 2.479, Δdf = 2, p > 0.05), proving that the revised model explains the data well. Therefore, this revised model was selected as the final mode to explain further results. Figure 3 demonstrates the SEM results of the revised model.
Table 4 summarizes the unstandardized and standardized path coefficients among variables in the final model and presents corresponding statistical significances. Specifically, the effect of altruistic values on PSPB is β = 0.330 (t = 6.798, p < 0.001). The effects of egoistic values on PSPB and NEP are β = −0.135 (t = −3.320, p < 0.001) and β = −0.192 (t = −4.890, p < 0.001), respectively. The effect of biospheric values on NEP is β = 0.224 (t = 5.840, p < 0.001). The effect of NEP on PPN is β = 0.192 (t = 4.124, p < 0.001). Lastly, the effect of PPN on PSPB is β = 0.104 (t = 2.285, p < 0.05). Therefore, the hypotheses of H1b, H1c, H2a, H3 and H4 are supported, whereas H1a and H2b are not supported.
Bootstrapping analysis was performed to rigorously test the mediating relationships existing in the causal chain of VBN model. The results indicated that both egoistic values (indirect effect = −0.041, p < 0.001) and biospheric values (indirect effect = 0.027, p < 0.05) yield an indirect effect through new environmental paradigm on pro-environmental personal norms. Both egoistic values (indirect effect = −0.004, p < 0.05) and biospheric values (indirect effect = 0.003, p < 0.05) have an indirect influence on PSPB through the mediation of NEP and PPN. However, the indirect effects of altruistic values on PPN and on PSPB are not significant. Thus, the hypotheses of H5a and H5b are only partially supported. Finally, NEP has a significant indirect effect on PSPB through PPN (indirect effect = 0.019, p < 0.05). Hence, the hypothesis of H5c is verified. Table 5 demonstrates the results of mediation test using bootstrapping.

5. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to test the cross-cultural applicability of the VBN theory in a Mongolian college student sample. We investigated the structural relationships among the VBN clusters of variables, namely, egoistic values, altruistic values, biospheric values, NEP, PPN and PSPB in this study.
Using SEM analysis, our study confirmed that: (1) altruistic values have a significant positive influence on PSPB, whereas egoistic values were found to have negative effects on PSPB; (2) egoistic values significantly and negatively affected NEP, while biospheric value significantly and positively predicted NEP; (3) NEP was found to have a significant impact on PPN; (4) PPN could significantly and positively influence PSPB; and (5) there exists multiple mediation in the VBN chain model. Although no significant relationship exists between altruistic values and NEP and between biospheric values and PSPB, the findings were basically in line with the causal chain relationship described in VBN theory and provided new evidence for the applicability and generalization of the VBN theory model in explaining PSPB.
First, this study highlighted the direct influence of values on PSPB. Egoistic values had a significant negative influence on PSPB, whereas altruistic values had a significant positive influence on PSPB and were the strongest predictor of PSPB based on the size of the standardized coefficients (see Table 3). The results are supported by previous studies [18,93], implying that college students whose lives are guided by their own welfare are reluctant to perform PSPB. In contrast, students who consider the welfare of other people the leading principle in their lives are more likely to engage in PSPB. Although college students scored the highest on the biospheric values scale, a significant direct influence of biospheric values on PSPB was not found. Apparently, altruistic values are more powerful for promoting PSPB than biospheric values are in this study. This may be because Mongolian educated elites mainly link environmental issues to ethnic politics and identity [24]. For example, when college students participated in the 2011 protests in IMAR, they expressed their strong discontent regarding the serious environmental and economic injustice to the local people and culture [23,24] but not directly regarding the damage to the natural environment itself.
Second, NEP could be positively predicted by biospheric values and could be negatively predicted by egoistic values. This finding suggests that individuals who value the welfare of the biosphere tend to form favorable perspectives about human–environmental relations and a higher level of concern about the natural environment. However, contrary to our expectation and a basic presumption of VBN theory, we did not find that altruistic values have a significant effect on NEP. This finding is supported by several previous studies that indicated that altruistic value orientations did not make a significant contribution to the explanation of NEP [76,83,94]. The major reason for the non-significant path between altruistic values and NEP may be the statistical artifact [79]. In other words, biospheric and altruistic values were strongly inter-correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.641 (p < 0.001) (see Table 1), which makes it less likely for biospheric and altruistic values to contribute uniquely to the explanation of PSPB.
Third, this study found that NEP has a significant positive impact on PPN. This finding is consistent with VBN and NAM theory [13,70], which assert that individuals’ moral obligations to protect the environment can be activated by their positive view of human–nature interrelationships and awareness of ecological crises. More specifically, NEP acts as a filter between value orientations and behavior norms when people are facing or dealing with information about the relationship between humans and nature. If the information is in line with one’s value orientations, pro-environmental norms and other specific pro-environmental beliefs are more likely to be generated [16].
Fourth, our findings demonstrated that PPN has a significant positive influence on PSPB. This means that PPN plays an important role in linking general environmental belief and PSPB. This result is in accordance with theorists’ viewpoint that specific pro-environmental behavior may occur as a direct response to personal moral obligation related to such behavior [13,14]. This finding is also supported by previous studies conducted both in Western countries and in China [74,85,95,96]. However, it is worth noting that PPN is the weakest predictor of PSPB among the variables that have direct impacts on PSPB in this research. One possible explanation may be the difference in the predictive power of PPN on different types of pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, PPN appears to be powerful in explaining low-cost behavior but less successful when behavior is constrained by economic and behavioral factors, such as time, money, and effort [95]. PSPB is generally viewed as a purer and more active form of pro-environmental behavior than behavior in the private sphere because it requires much greater personal cost or sacrifice [97].
Finally, this study revealed that both biospheric values and egoistic values have an indirect influence on PSPB through the mediation of NEP and PPN. This result points to the fact that students who adhere to biospheric values tend to be more concerned about the environment, have a higher level of moral obligation of behaving pro-environmentally, and have a stronger intention to be involved with the PSPB, whereas those who adhered to egoistic values are less likely to care about the environment, perceive a lower level of moral obligation to protect the environment, and have a weaker willingness to perform PSPB. However, the mediation of NEP and PPN in the relationship between altruistic values and PSPB is not significant in this research. This finding is slightly different from previous studies [48,83] which found that all three types of values have indirect effects on pro-environmental behavior through NEP and PPN. Just as we have described above, the reason may be that Mongolian college students tend to link environmental issues with the well-being of their ethnic group directly.

6. Conclusions and Future Directions

This study examined the role of clusters of social-psychological predictors on public-sphere pro-environmental behavior of Mongolian college students based on the value–belief–norm model. Our findings have both theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretically, we focused for the first time on empirically testing the applicability of VBN in an undeveloped minority area of China. The VBN theory framework has been widely used to explain various types of pro-environmental behavior in different groups with Western cultural backgrounds. This research further extends the scope of the application and generalization of VBN theory and provides valuable and validated framework and measurements for the future research in China. By contrast with previous literature, this research provides in-depth insights into the direct relationships between values and pro-environmental behavior, thus highlighting the crucial role of values in the VBN model in predicting the environmentalism of a young generation in minority areas of China. In addition, this study provides robust and precise evidence for both the direct and indirect effects in the causal linkage of the VBN model by conducting SEM and bootstrapping analysis rather than the Sobel tests adopted in previous researches.
Our findings also have important practical implications for educational program design and environmental policy-making in Inner Mongolia. Given the direct and mediation effects of VBN clusters of variables on PSPB verified in this study, students’ PSPB can be promoted directly by strengthening students’ altruistic values and personal norms. Universities should relate the contents and objects of educational programs more to the well-being of society. For example, a course topic about “coal mining caused grassland degradation” may not directly influence students’ behavior. However, an alternative topic “coal mining caused loss and damage to the livelihood of the Mongolian herders” may strengthen their intention to engage in PSPB. This is not to say that the biospheric values are not important; on the contrary, biospheric values can exert critical influence on PSPB through people’s general beliefs about environmental welfare and personal norms to perform environmentally. Therefore, it is important to foster students’ awareness of the contemporary environmental crisis and cultivate their sense of responsibility to behave pro-environmentally. Specifically, universities should increase their cooperation with local governments, communities, industries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in providing various forms of education for students, such as community-based [98], project-based [99] and problem-based learning [100] which can serve as a relevant forum for students to learn the adverse outcomes of environmental problems on the nature, society, community and people around them and to activate their personal norms to act in an environmentally friendly way. With regard to designing and implementing environmental policies, policy-makers should take the welfare of local people and their unique ethnic customs and cultures into consideration. Furthermore, it is also critical for the policy-maker to listen to the students’ opinions [101], thus enhancing students’ confidence in solving environmental problems and promoting the formation of personal norms toward environmental protection.
There are several limitations that should be considered in future studies. First, the results cannot be generalized to Mongolian college students in all types and levels of institutes of higher education because the sample students were from three major public universities in IMAR. Additionally, China is the largest developing country with multi-ethnic groups that face severe environmental problems. Future studies should consider various samples of other major ethnic minorities in China, such as the Zhuang, Uyghur, Tibetan, and Hui, thus providing further cross-cultural evidence or supplementing theories used to explain the driving factors of pro-environmental behavior. Second, we collected data by self-reported surveys during one period. Thus, these data may not reflect the contribution of student development during higher education to changes in students’ values, beliefs, norms and behavior in a four-year period [102]. Hence, future studies are advised to adopt a longitudinal design to evaluate the causal relationships among variables in the VBN framework. Finally, China is the largest developing country with the world’s largest population, fastest-growing economy and unprecedented pressure from environmental degradation. In addition, Chinese social culture is different from Western countries and even differs from its neighbors, Korea and Japan. Therefore, future research should consider the unique cultural factors and cultural conflicts in China. For example, original Mongolian nomadic cultures maintain a value orientation of harmonious co-existence between humans and nature [103]. The way these cultures and values influence local people’s environmental beliefs, attitudes and behaviors should be further explored, which will produce additional theoretical and practical findings.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1384/s1.

Author Contributions

X.L. and Y.Z. conceived and designed the research; X.L. and J.W. conduted the survey; X.L. and Y.Z. analyzed the data and wrote the paper. J.W. contributed to the paper’s revisions.

Funding

This research was funded by [National Social Science Foundation of China] grant number [16ZDA231], [Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Beijing University of Technology] grant number [103000546317505], [Program for Rixin Talents of Beijing University of Technology] grant number [103000514118003].

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 16ZDA231), Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Beijing University of Technology (No. 103000546317505), Program for Rixin Talents of Beijing University of Technology (No. 103000514118003). The authors thank the reviewers’ valuable comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gardner, G.T.; Stern, P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2nd ed.; Pearson Custom Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. Winter, D.D.N.; Koger, S.M. The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology for Sustainability, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vlek, C.A.J.; Steg, L. Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Berenguer, J.; Corraliza, J.A.; Martin, R. Rural-Urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2005, 21, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hunter, L.M.; Hatch, A.; Johnson, A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Q. 2004, 85, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Swami, V.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T.; Snelgar, R.; Furnham, A. Personality, individual differences, and demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste management behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ambrosius, J.D.; Gilderbloom, J.I. Who’s greener? Comparing urban and suburban residents’ environmental behaviour and concern. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 836–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meyer, A. Heterogeneity in the preferences and pro-environmental behavior of college students: The effects of years on campus, demographics, and external factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3451–3463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aprile, M.C.; Fiorillo, D. Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: Evidence from a representative sample of Italian individuals. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
  13. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schwartz, S.H.; Howard, J.A. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In Altruism and Helping Behavior; Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  16. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Whitley, C.T.; Takahashi, B.; Zwickle, A.; Besley, J.C.; Lertpratchya, A.P. Sustainability behaviors among college students: An application of the VBN theory. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 2, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Geng, L.; Xu, J.; Ye, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, K. Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Li, D.; Chen, J. Significant life experiences on the formation of environmental action among Chinese college students. Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 21, 612–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhou, K.; Ye, L.; Geng, L.; Xu, Q. How do implicit materialism and postmaterialism affect proenvironmental behavior? Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dai, G.S.; Ulgiati, S.; Zhang, Y.S.; Yu, B.H.; Kang, M.Y.; Jin, Y.; Dong, X.B.; Zhang, X.S. The false promises of coal exploitation: How mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of Inner Mongolia. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z. Environmental justice and sustainability impact assessment: In search of solutions to ethnic conflicts caused by coal mining in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8756–8774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baranovitch, N. The 2011 Protests in Inner Mongolia: An Ethno-environmental Perspective. China Q. 2016, 225, 214–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 723–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wiidegren, Ö. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Elucidating green consumers: A cluster analytic approach on proenvironmental purchase and curtailment behaviors. J. Euromark. 2009, 18, 245–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, H.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.J. The value–belief–emotion–norm model: Investigating customers’ eco-friendly behavior. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Choi, H.; Jang, J.; Kandampully, J. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Johansson, M.; Rahm, J.; Gyllin, M. Landowners’ Participation in Biodiversity Conservation Examined through the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Menzel, S.; Bögeholz, S. Values, beliefs and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils’ commitment to protect biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2010, 5, 31–49. [Google Scholar]
  35. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lind, H.B.; Nordfjærn, T.; Jørgensen, S.H.; Rundmo, T. The value-belief-norm theory, personal norms and sustainable travel mode choice in urban areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T. Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Andersson, L.; Shivarajan, S.; Blau, G. Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 59, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aguilar-Luzón, M.D.C.; García-Martínez, J.M.Á.; Calvo-Salguero, A.; Salinas, J.M. Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the value-belief-norm model regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2797–2833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Onel, N.; Mukherjee, A. Why do consumers recycle? A holistic perspective encompassing moral considerations, affective responses, and self-interest motives. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 956–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kaiser, F.G.; Hübner, G.; Bogner, F.X. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 2150–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fornara, F.; Pattitoni, P.; Mura, M.; Strazzera, E. Predicting intention to improve household energy efficiency: The role of value-belief-norm theory, normative and informational influence, and specific attitude. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Scherbaum, C.A.; Popovich, P.M.; Finlinson, S. Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 818–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ibtissem, M.H. Application of value beliefs norms theory to the energy conservation behaviour. J. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wolske, K.S.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems in the United States: Toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 25, 134–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nordlund, A.; Jansson, J.; Westin, K. New transportation technology: Norm activation processes and the intention to Switch to an electric/hybrid vehicle. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2527–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jakovcevic, A.; Steg, L. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: Values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2013, 20, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Collins, C.M.; Chambers, S.M. Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 640–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Whitley, C.T.; Gunderson, R.; Charters, M. Public receptiveness to policies promoting plant-based diets: Framing effects and social psychological and structural influences. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018, 20, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sanderson, M.R.; Bergtold, J.S.; Heier Stamm, J.L.; Caldas, M.M.; Ramsey, S.M. Bringing the “social” into sociohydrology: Conservation policy support in the Central Great Plains of Kansas, USA. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 6725–6743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, S.; Shin, W. Understanding American and Korean students’ support for pro-environmental tax policy: The application of the value–belief–norm theory of environmentalism. Environ. Commun. 2017, 11, 311–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dietz, T.; Dan, A.; Shwom, R. Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol. 2007, 72, 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chua, K.B.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Basiruddin, R. The mediating role of new ecological paradigm between value orientations and pro-environmental personal norm in the agricultural context. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 2016, 28, 323–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sia, A.P.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1986, 17, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kaiser, F.G.; Ranney, M.; Hartig, T.; Bowler, P.A. Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment. Eur. Psychol. 1999, 4, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ellen, P.; Wiener, J.L.J.; Cobb-Walgren, C.; Scholder Ellen, P.; Wiener, J.L.J.; Cobb-Walgren, C. The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark. 1991, 10, 102–117. [Google Scholar]
  58. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Karp, D.G. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lavelle, M.J.; Rau, H.; Fahy, F. Different shades of green? Unpacking habitual and occasional pro-environmental behavior. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Macdonald, E.F.; She, J. Seven cognitive concepts for successful eco-design. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lu, H.; Liu, X.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Yue, T. Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of public- and private-sphere pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Moon, S.G.; Jeong, S.Y.; Choi, Y. Moderating effects of trust on environmentally significant behavior in Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. Int. Sociol. 2011, 26, 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rice, G. Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for Islamic environmental ethics? J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 65, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Feng, W.; Reisner, A. Factors influencing private and public environmental protection behaviors: Results from a survey of residents in Shaanxi, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 429–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  69. Olson, J.; Zanna, M. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993, 44, 117–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  72. Stern, P.C.; Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1611–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values and proenvironmental behavior a five-country survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1998, 29, 540–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jia, F.; Soucie, K.; Alisat, S.; Curtin, D.; Pratt, M. Are environmental issues moral issues? Moral identity in relation to protecting the natural world. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. A brief inventory of values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 984–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van Doorn, J.; Verhoef, P.C. Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior. J. Retail. 2015, 91, 436–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yeboah, F.K.; Kaplowitz, M.D. Explaining energy conservation and environmental citizenship behaviors Using the Value-Belief-Norm Framework. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2016, 22, 137–160. [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhang, X.; Geng, G.; Sun, P. Determinants and implications of citizens’ environmental complaint in China: Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wu, J.; Zi, F.; Liu, X.; Wang, G.; Yang, Z.; Li, M.; Ye, L.; Jiang, J.; Li, Q. Measurement of new ecological paradigm: Revision and application of NEP scale in China. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2012, 11, 8–13. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  87. Gärling, T.; Fujii, S.; Gärling, A.; Jakobsson, C. Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  89. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 3, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wu, M. Structural Equation Model: Operation and Application of AMOS; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2009. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  91. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Loewenthal, K.M. An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  93. Barbarossa, C.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Moons, I. Personal values, green self-identity and electric car adoption. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sahin, E. Predictors of turkish elementary teacher candidates’ energy conservation behaviors: An approach on value-belief-norm theory. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2013, 8, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lee, Y.K.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, J.G. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nomura, K.; Abe, O. Higher education for sustainable development in Japan: Policy and progress. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2010, 11, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Segalàs, J.; Mulder, K.F.; Ferrer-Balas, D. What do EESD “experts” think sustainability is? Which pedagogy is suitable to learn it? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dobson, H.E.; Tomkinson, C.B. Creating sustainable development change agents through problem-based learning Designing appropriate student PBL projects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sheldon, K.M. Positive value change during college: Normative trends and individual differences. J. Res. Personal. 2005, 39, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhang, M.D.A.; Borjigin, E.; Zhang, H. Mongolian nomadic culture and ecological culture: On the ecological reconstruction in the agro-pastoral mosaic zone in Northern China. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 10 01384 g001 550
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 10 01384 g001
Sustainability 10 01384 g002 550
Figure 2. The six-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results of the measurement model.
Figure 2. The six-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results of the measurement model.
Sustainability 10 01384 g002
Sustainability 10 01384 g003 550
Figure 3. The structural equation modeling (SEM) results of revised model.
Figure 3. The structural equation modeling (SEM) results of revised model.
Sustainability 10 01384 g003
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items.
Variables/Measurement ItemsMeanStandard Deviation (SD)SkewnessKurtosis
Egoistic values (EV)3.7070.705−0.002−0.051
EV1: Authority; the right to lead or command3.5770.922−0.135−0.225
EV2: Wealth; material possessions, money3.7770.838−0.3810.130
EV3: Social power; control over others, dominance3.7610.839−0.282−0.134
EV4: Influential; having an impact on people and events3.7140.854−0.292−0.046
Altruistic values (AV)4.2840.594−0.8240.641
AV1: A world at peace; free of war and conflict4.2210.768−0.7510.310
AV2: Equality; equal opportunity for all4.1170.810−0.8420.898
AV3: Helpful; working for the welfare of others4.4300.762−1.4452.429
AV4: Social justice; correcting injustice, care for the weak4.3680.859−1.3551.504
Biospheric values (BV)4.4940.602−1.0590.448
BV1: Unity with nature; fitting into nature4.4700.678−1.0990.709
BV2: Respecting the earth; living in harmony with other species4.4690.672−0.9890.182
BV3: Preventing pollution4.5040.684−1.1890.676
BV4: Protecting the environment; preserving nature4.5320.662−1.2621.011
New environmental paradigm (NEP)3.9130.843−0.645−0.182
NEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support3.7881.097−0.567−0.469
NEP2: The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset3.9441.061−0.8400.049
NEP3: Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist4.0051.095−0.9220.023
NEP4: Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature3.9151.156−0.862−0.188
Pro-environmental personal norms (PPN)3.9050.711−0.420−0.045
PPN1: I feel a moral obligation to protect the environment4.0011.006−0.9290.387
PPN2: I feel that I should protect the environment3.8760.987−0.7930.184
PPN3: I feel it is important that people in general protect the environment3.7111.175−0.625−0.566
PPN4: Our environmental problems cannot be ignored4.0330.961−0.9050.332
Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB)3.1180.780−0.103−0.115
PSPB1: Participate in protests and express grievances about environmental problems3.1491.068−0.090−0.653
PSPB2: Participate in environmental campaigns sponsored by government or university3.0371.1490.059−0.782
PSPB3: Participate in environmental protection activities sponsored by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)2.7481.0480.215−0.519
PSPB4: Make a monetary donation to an environmental protection cause3.3381.060−0.204−0.619
PSPB5: Openly express support for environmental protection policies3.3201.155−0.197−0.849
Table
Table 2. The standard factor loading of items and the reliability of the scales.
Table 2. The standard factor loading of items and the reliability of the scales.
VariablesMeasurement ItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s α
Egoistic values (EV)EV10.7710.833
EV20.680
EV30.884
EV40.659
Altruistic values (AV)AV10.7050.724
AV20.686
AV30.670
AV40.517
Biospheric values (BV)BV10.8770.916
BV20.886
BV30.875
BV40.784
New environmental paradigm (NEP)NEP10.6480.762
NEP20.609
NEP30.735
NEP40.678
Pro-environmental personal norms (PPN)PPN10.5620.625
PPN20.579
PPN30.476
PPN40.566
Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB)PSPB10.5970.755
PSPB20.663
PSPB30.736
PSPB40.589
PSPB50.518
Table
Table 3. Results of correlations analysis.
Table 3. Results of correlations analysis.
Variables12345
1. Egoistic values–
2. Altruistic values0.246 ***–
3. Biospheric values0.179 ***0.641 ***–
4. New environmental paradigm−0.110 ***0.106 **0.152 ***–
5. Pro-environmental personal norms0.0470.188 ***0.250 ***0.117 ***–
6. Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior−0.0130.245 ***0.238 ***0.0520.132 ***
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Path coefficient estimate of the revised model.
Table 4. Path coefficient estimate of the revised model.
PathUnstandardized Coefficient (B)Standardized Coefficient (β)S.E.t
AV→PSPB0.3900.330 ***0.0576.798
EV→PSPB−0.120−0.135 ***0.036−3.320
EV→NEP−0.191−0.192 ***0.039−4.890
BV→NEP0.2680.224 ***0.0465.840
NEP→PPN0.1530.192 ***0.0374.124
PPN→PSPB0.1170.104 *0.0512.285
EV = egoistic values; AV = altruistic values; BV = biospheric values; NEP = new environmental paradigm; PPN = pro-environmental personal norms; PSPB = public-sphere pro-environmental behavior. *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Mediation test using bootstrapping.
Table 5. Mediation test using bootstrapping.
PathBootstrapping95% Bias-Corrected CIp
Indirect EffectBoot S. E.Boot LLCIBoot ULCI
AV→NEP→PPN0.0220.016−0.0030.0610.083
EV→NEP→PPN−0.0410.013−0.072−0.0190.000
BV→NEP→PPN0.0270.0170.0020.0710.031
AV→NEP→PPN→PSPB0.0020.0020.0000.0090.063
EV→NEP→PPN→PSPB−0.0040.002−0.011−0.0010.012
BV→NEP→PPN→PSPB0.0030.0020.0000.0100.034
NEP→PPN→PSPB0.0190.0100.0040.0440.016
EV = egoistic values; AV = altruistic values; BV = biospheric values; NEP = new environmental paradigm; PPN = pro-environmental personal norms; PSPB = public-sphere pro-environmental behavior.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, X.; Zou, Y.; Wu, J. Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test of Value–Belief–Norm Theory. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051384

AMA Style

Liu X, Zou Y, Wu J. Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test of Value–Belief–Norm Theory. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5):1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051384

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Xianwei, Yang Zou, and Jianping Wu. 2018. "Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test of Value–Belief–Norm Theory" Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051384

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop