The Interconnections Among Environmental Attitudes, Sustainable Energy Use, and Climate Change Perception with Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Abstract

This study explores the interconnections among environmental attitudes, climate change perceptions, and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly energy sources in Hungary. Using data from a nationally representative survey of 2000 adults, we integrate socio-demographic, attitudinal perspectives to examine how social structure, identity, and moral norms shape pro-environmental behaviour. Factor analysis identified four key attitudinal dimensions—environmental self-identity, perceived governmental environmental awareness, personal norms, and social norms—incorporated into a series of linear and logistic regression models. The results show that education and urban residence underpin environmental identity and moral commitment, while income and social capital exert no direct influence. Environmental self-identity is the strongest predictor of the WTP, nearly doubling the likelihood of financial support for greener energy, while personal norms play a secondary but meaningful role. Climate change scepticism significantly reduces the WTP, whereas awareness alone does not, suggesting that knowledge without moral engagement is insufficient to drive behaviour. Interaction effects reveal contextual variation, with settlement type moderating the link between attitudes and behaviour. Overall, the findings demonstrate that pro-environmental action depends less on material capacity than on internalized moral and identity-based motivations, underscoring the importance of strengthening environmental identity and trust-based engagement to advance the energy transition.

1. Introduction

Understanding the patterns leading individuals to pay the higher costs of more environmentally friendly energy resources is a key issue of the green transition. In our paper, we explore the factors influencing the willingness to pay (WTP) for green energy resources. We argue that beside the socio-demographic variables, environmental attitudes and the perception of climate change also play a crucial, although sometimes contradictory, role in such decisions.

1.1. Theories on Willingness to Pay

Theories on WTP for environmentally friendly energy sources are multifaceted, incorporating economic, psychological, and sociological perspectives. These theories aim to understand the factors influencing individuals’ decisions to financially support renewable energy initiatives. This research highlights the complexity of the WTP, suggesting that it is not solely driven by economic considerations but also by environmental awareness, social norms, and personal values.

Liebe et al. [1] draws attention to the fact that these theories provide a comprehensive understanding of the WTP for renewable energy, and that it is important to consider the dynamic nature of these factors. Economic conditions, technological advancements, and policy changes can alter public willingness to pay over time. Integrating these theories can offer a more holistic view, as relying on a single theory may overlook critical explanatory variables

Economic models traditionally focus on the cost–benefit analysis of renewable energy, where individuals weigh the financial costs against the perceived benefits of environmental goods [1]. The theory of public goods suggests that renewable energy, being non-excludable and non-rivalrous, requires collective financial support, which can be gauged through WTP studies [1,2].

Studies on demographic and socioeconomic factors indicate that demographics such as age, income, and education level significantly affect the WTP. For instance, middle-income groups in Turkey show a higher WTP for a 20% renewable energy share, while high-income groups prefer a 30% share [3]. From the EU perspective, environmental awareness and demographic factors like age and gender are crucial determinants of the WTP [4].

Psychological and sociological models like Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour [5,6] posits that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control influence the WTP for renewable energy [1]. Schwartz’s norm-activation model suggests that personal norms and moral obligations significantly impact the WTP, especially among those with high environmental concern [1,7]. The halo effect (the tendency for an impression in one area to influence opinion in another range) and protected values theory suggest that individuals with strong environmental values are more likely to pay a premium for renewable energy, as they perceive it as more comfortable and aligned with their values [8]. Hansla et al. [9] analysed the WTP for green electricity and found that the perception of green electricity has the highest explanatory power, regardless of environmental attitudes. Prete et al. [10] found that environmental concern affects the WTP.

Geographic patterns show varying WTP levels, with southern Europeans generally more willing to pay compared to Asians [11]. Cultural factors and local environmental policies also play a role in shaping public perceptions and the WTP for renewable energy [12].

While, as discussed above, there is a rich body of analysis examining the influence of socio-demographic factors on climate change, considerably less attention has been devoted to understanding how individuals’ perceptions of climate change shape their behaviours and responses. This gap highlights the need for further research that integrates psychological and attitudinal dimensions into climate-related analyses. Kotchen et al. [13] is presenting one of the rare analysis of the effect of perception of global warming on the WTP; they found that it has a major and definite explanation power.

1.2. Theories on Climate Change

The main theories on climate change revolve around the understanding of how human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are altering the Earth’s climate. The concept suggests that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like CO₂, leading to global warming [14,15]. Historical calculations from the end of the 19th century laid the groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, which is now supported by modern climate models and empirical data [16,17].

The anthropogenic global warming concept links human activities to increased CO₂ levels and subsequent warming [18]. This theory has gained widespread acceptance, with international panels like the IPCC providing consensus statements on the severe impacts of continued warming [19].

Complex climate models developed in the 1970s and beyond have predicted significant warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions, with potential temperature rises far exceeding natural variations [18,20]. These models are continually refined and have become more reliable, providing a basis for predicting future climate scenarios and informing policy decisions [18,20].

The paleontological evidence, such as ice core samples, supports the link between CO₂ levels and global temperatures, reinforcing the greenhouse theory [14,18]. This evidence shows that past climate changes were often associated with variations in greenhouse gas concentrations, lending credence to current concerns about anthropogenic emissions [16].

We can conclude that while the greenhouse theory and anthropogenic global warming are widely accepted, there remains some uncertainty in predicting specific future climate changes due to the complexity of the climate system. Factors such as aerosol pollutants and cloud effects introduce variability in climate models [16,18]. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities are driving significant climate change, necessitating urgent action to mitigate its impacts [20].

1.3. Theories on Environmental Attitudes

Theories on environmental attitudes encompass a variety of frameworks that seek to explain how individuals and societies perceive and engage with environmental issues. Key theories include post-materialism, the prosperity hypothesis, gender perspectives, and the influence of elite opinion and media. These theories highlight the complexity of environmental attitudes across different cultural and socio-economic contexts.

Inglehart’s post-materialism thesis suggests that wealthier societies prioritize environmental concerns as basic needs are met [21]. Inglehart’s theories on environmental attitudes primarily revolve around the concept of post-materialism, which posits that as societies become more affluent, their citizens shift focus from material needs to higher-order values, including environmental concerns. However, recent studies challenge the universality of this theory, suggesting that local contexts and specific socio-economic factors play a more significant role in shaping environmental attitudes than previously acknowledged.

Studies indicate that while post-materialist values correlate with pro-environmental attitudes, this relationship is not consistent across all cultures, particularly in developing nations where immediate material concerns prevail [21]. The prosperity hypothesis supports this, indicating that individuals with higher relative income exhibit greater environmental concern, particularly in wealthier nations [22]. Research shows that individual commitment to emancipatory values significantly influences environmental attitudes, with education and income levels enhancing this relationship [23]. Demographic profiling reveals that younger, politically liberal individuals tend to adopt post-materialist views, while older, materialist individuals often prioritize immediate economic concerns [24].

Economic conditions, such as recessions, do not diminish pro-environmental attitudes among citizens, indicating a persistent commitment to environmental issues even in challenging times [25].

The prosperity hypothesis suggests that individuals in wealthier nations exhibit higher environmental concern, reinforcing the link between economic status and environmental attitudes [22].

While Inglehart’s framework provides valuable insights, it is essential to recognize that environmental attitudes are also shaped by immediate socio-economic realities and cultural contexts, which may diverge from the post-materialist narrative.

According to earlier studies, environmental attitudes and attitudes related to environmental conscious energy use [26,27] have four main elements:

• Environmental identity;
• Attributed governmental policies;
• Personal norms in energy use;
• Social norms.

These four elements shape attitudes which influence environmental attitudes and attitudes toward energy consumption.

Environmental self-identity has emerged as a central construct in understanding pro-environmental behaviour, representing the extent to which individuals see themselves as environmentally conscious actors [28,29]. This psychological construct operates at the intersection of personal identity, moral reasoning, and social influence, making it a critical factor in addressing contemporary environmental challenges including climate change and sustainable energy adoption. The theoretical foundations of environmental self-identity draw from social identity theory [30], which posits that individuals derive meaning and motivation from their group memberships and personal identities. In the environmental domain, this translates to individuals who strongly identify as environmentally conscious showing greater consistency in pro-environmental behaviours and stronger resistance to situational barriers [29].

Environmental self-identity is conceptualized as both a stable individual difference and a context-sensitive psychological state. Recent research distinguishes between environmental identity strength and environmental identity salience, with important implications for behavioural prediction [31].

Environmental identity strength refers to how central pro-environmental concerns are to one’s self-concept, while environmental identity salience denotes the frequency with which that identity is activated in relevant life domains. Clayton and Czellar [32] demonstrated that salience measures predict behaviour above and beyond traditional strength measures, suggesting that contextual activation of environmental identity may be more important than stable identity strength for behavioural outcomes.

The literature evidence reveals that environmental self-identity serves as a crucial psychological mechanism linking individual values, social influences, and behavioural outcomes in environmental contexts.

Environmental self-identity represents a fundamental aspect of personal identity where individuals see themselves as pro-environmental actors. Vesely et al. [33] conducted a systematic review demonstrating strong associations with pro-environmental intentions and behaviours across diverse contexts. This identity construct operates through several key mechanisms. Individuals who strongly identify as environmentally conscious show consistent patterns of sustainable behaviour [29]. Environmental self-identity creates psychological pressure for behavioural alignment. Identity influences behaviour both directly and through mediating psychological processes.

The relationship between environmental self-identity and moral obligation represents one of the most robust findings in the environmental psychology literature. Van der Werff et al. [34] demonstrated obligation-based motivation that environmental self-identity predicts stronger feelings of moral duty, which mediate pro-environmental actions. Barbarossa et al. [35] found that green self-identity influences sustainable purchase intentions through ethical motives and moral obligation.

Chen [36] showed that the identity, moral obligation and behaviour pathway extends the theory of planned behaviour models, significantly increasing explanatory power for environmental actions. This suggests that moral framing and identity salience can be powerful intervention targets. Cialdini and Jacobson [37] demonstrate that norms and identity mutually reinforce each other over time. Sweetman and Whitmarsh [38] found that ingroup environmental models increase perceived moral fairness of pro-environmental actions.

Research has identified potential negative consequences of strong environmental self-identity through moral licensing effects. Sparkman et al. [39] found that awareness of large-scale emissions reductions could raise moral self-concept and paradoxically reduce some climate-friendly intentions unless normative cues were activated. This suggests that environmental self-identity interacts with moral self-concept in complex ways that can produce both positive and negative behavioural spillovers.

Social norms play a crucial role in shaping both the formation and behavioural expression of environmental self-identity. The relationship operates bidirectionally: social norms influence identity development, while strong environmental identity makes individuals more responsive to pro-environmental normative messages [40].

Field experiments have shown that combining social information with environmental self-identity primes can boost conservation behaviour, but primarily among individuals with prior pro-environmental engagement [41]. This suggests that identity-based interventions may be most effective for individuals who already possess some level of environmental concern.

The relationship between socioeconomic status and environmental self-identity is complex and context-dependent. Higher income is generally associated with stronger environmental identity, but the relationship with behaviour is moderated by access to sustainable alternatives and competing priorities. There are positive associations with environmental identity and knowledge-based behaviours, though the relationship may be mediated by values and social networks. Professional roles can either reinforce or conflict with environmental identity, with implications for workplace environmental behaviour [42].

Environmental self-identity shows systematic variation across age groups and generations. Younger cohorts generally demonstrate stronger environmental identity and climate concern, though the relationship is complex and mediated by life stage factors and historical context [43,44].

Research on intergenerational responsibility reveals that concern for future generations serves as a powerful motivator for environmental identity and behaviour across age groups [43]. This suggests that framing environmental issues in terms of intergenerational justice may be particularly effective for strengthening environmental self-identity.

2. Materials and Methods

Data collection was carried out by Závecz Research as part of an omnibus survey in November 2022. The survey employed a quota-based sampling design to ensure representativeness of the Hungarian population aged 18 years and older. Quota criteria were established for each settlement based on the latest census data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH), taking into account gender, age group, and highest educational attainment. A total of 2000 starting addresses were selected nationwide, each corresponding to a specific combination of demographic attributes. Interviewers were required to locate respondents matching the assigned gender, age, and education profile at the specified address; if no eligible person was found, they continued the search by visiting every third neighbouring household until a suitable respondent was identified. This systematic substitution procedure ensured that the realized sample closely matched the planned demographic and regional composition.

The sample design applied a five-dimensional cross-quota distribution, achieving representativeness not only for gender, age, and education but also within territorial strata defined by region and settlement type (capital city, county seats, other urban settlements, and villages). Data collection covered the entire country and was conducted through Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) using laptops or tablets. The final dataset comprised 2000 respondents, collectively representing the adult population of Hungary by gender, age, educational attainment, and settlement type.

To correct for potential sampling and nonresponse biases, a multi-dimensional iterative weighting procedure was applied. Weighting was based on the pairwise marginal distributions of gender, age group, educational attainment, and settlement type, benchmarked against the most recent KSH census data. The iterative adjustment continued until the deviation between successive weighting cycles fell below the predefined convergence threshold. To avoid distortion caused by extreme weights, values exceeding 3 were trimmed by replacing the excess with its square root, resulting in a smooth weight distribution with low variance. The final weighted data thus reproduce the demographic structure of the Hungarian adult population with high precision, minimizing sampling error and ensuring robust representativeness for analytical purposes. The main characteristics of the sample are presented in Appendix A.

The analytical strategy was designed to explore the relationships between socio-demographic characteristics, attitudinal factors, and behavioural intentions related to environmental protection and sustainable energy use. The questionnaire first included items measuring the willingness to pay (WTP) for more environmentally friendly energy sources, followed by questions on climate change perceptions, and subsequently on environmental protection attitudes, environmental identity, perceptions of governmental environmental awareness, and personal and social norms. To identify underlying attitudinal dimensions and reduce measurement complexity, factor analyses were performed on these thematic question blocks. The resulting factor scores were then used as independent or dependent variables in a series of regression models. Specifically, linear regression analyses were applied to examine the determinants of environmental identity, personal norms, social norms, governmental awareness, and climate-change-related orientations (awareness and scepticism), while binary logistic regression was employed to model the respondents’ willingness to pay for environmentally friendly energy sources. This stepwise analytical approach made it possible to trace the indirect pathways through which socio-demographic factors, such as education, income, and settlement type, influence environmental behaviour via identity- and norm-based mechanisms. All analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics software package 22, and detailed model specifications and coefficients are presented in the following sections.

3. Results

In this section, we present the factors influencing the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly energy sources among the Hungarian population. First, we present our dependent variable, then the two factors measuring climate change perceptions, and finally the factors measuring environmental attitudes.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the respondents’ overall WTP for greener energy alternatives is relatively low. The measure of the WTP was derived from three survey items asking how much more respondents would be willing to pay for environmentally friendly fuel, electricity, and heating materials. These three variables were subsequently aggregated into a composite indicator.

The largest share of respondents (66.8%) indicated zero willingness to pay more for environmentally friendly energy, selecting 0% as their preferred option. The second most frequent response was 10%, chosen by 16.7% of participants. In total, 31.2% of the sample expressed some willingness to pay a premium, up to a maximum of 20% above the cost of conventional energy. Beyond this threshold, responses decline sharply: only about 2% of respondents were willing to pay more than 20% extra.

For the purposes of the regression analyses, we recoded the continuous WTP measure into a binary variable. Respondents indicating any positive percentage were coded as willing to pay for environmentally friendly energy sources, while those indicating 0% were coded as not willing to pay.

3.1. Climate Change Perception

We measured climate change perception using several items on a five-point scale ranging from −2 to +2. The overall responses indicate that a considerable share of respondents remain undecided or ambivalent about the issue. Based on the pattern of responses, two distinct attitudinal orientations can be identified (see

Table 1. The factor analysis of climate change perception.

	Factor
	CC sceptic	CC conscious
Climate change will have serious impacts on the lives of the next generation.	−0.124	0.701
People’s lifestyle is a major contributor to the climate change that is currently taking place.	−0.119	0.737
The main causes of the climate change currently taking place are man-made emissions of pollutants.	−0.084	0.738
Climate change will have serious negative consequences in my lifetime.	−0.06	0.675
Climate change can be tackled if Europe drastically reduces its CO2 emissions.	−0.005	0.544
I can contribute to solving climate change by saving energy.	0.105	0.617
If I save energy, climate change can be stopped	0.257	0.467
Climate change is an unstoppable process, there is nothing we can do about it.	0.567	0.12
The main causes of the climate change we are experiencing are natural, not caused by human activities.	0.582	−0.062
Overall, the consequences of climate change in my lifetime will be more positive than negative.	0.589	−0.004
Climate change is part of a natural cycle.	0.665	0.015
It makes no sense to save energy because of climate change	0.748	−0.02
It is doubtful whether climate change is really happening.	0.79	−0.069
Too much importance is attached to the issue of climate change.	0.806	−0.063
There is too much focus on climate change these days.	0.807	−0.041

Source: own compilation.

). The first reflects an accepting stance, acknowledging the existence of climate change and recognizing human activity as its primary cause. The second represents a more sceptical orientation, assuming that climate change is either a natural phenomenon or not occurring at all.

The factor analysis shows a clear attitudinal divide:

• One group acknowledges human-caused climate change and supports mitigation.
• The other group dismisses its seriousness, questions its reality, or sees it as a natural process.

There is minimal overlap, indicating these are distinct belief systems. The climate change sceptic factor captures scepticism about solutions (“makes no sense to save energy”), while the climate-change-conscious factor includes belief in individual and collective responsibility. This dichotomy reflects deeper ideological, perceptual, and behavioural orientations toward environmental issues and policy.

The CC-conscious factor includes high positive loadings on items expressing belief in anthropogenic climate change, concern for its current and future impacts, and confidence in individual and collective capacity to mitigate its effects. Respondents aligned with this factor typically acknowledge the role of human activity, especially lifestyle and emissions, in driving climate change and tend to support energy-saving behaviours and CO₂ reduction efforts, particularly within Europe. This group embodies a proactive and responsibility-oriented worldview, where individuals and institutions are seen as capable and obligated to act.

In contrast, the CC-sceptic factor aggregates attitudes that minimize, deny, or relativize the severity and causes of climate change. Respondents scoring highly on this factor are more likely to view climate change as a natural process, question the scientific consensus, or believe that efforts to mitigate it (like saving energy) are futile. Many also express fatigue or frustration with the current focus on climate change in public discourse. This suggests a combination of cognitive scepticism and emotional resistance, possibly linked to ideological beliefs, distrust in institutions, or perceived threats to personal freedom or economic interests.

Importantly, the minimal cross-loading between items suggests that these two worldviews are not just opposites on a spectrum but distinct orientations, each structured around its own internal logic and values. There is little overlap, which may explain polarized public debates around climate change policies and communication strategies.

3.2. Environmental Attitudes

We measured environmental attitudes through a series of survey items designed to capture multiple dimensions of pro-environmental orientation (see

Table 2. Environmental attitudes.

	Environmental Self-Identity	Government’s Environmental Awareness	Personal Norms	Social Norms
Acting pro-environmentally is an important part of who I am.	0.766
I am the type of person who acts pro-environmentally.	0.774
I see myself as a pro-environmentally person.	0.791
I think the government has a goal to minimise its impact on the environment.		0.735
I think the government has implemented policies and procedures to minimise its impact on the environment.		0.789
I think the government has stated its mission to implement a sustainable (pro-environmental) policy		0.725
I feel morally determined to save energy				0.780
It is my moral ideal to save energy				0.792
I would act according to my principles if I save energy				0.799
Most of the people who are important to me think I should try to use as little energy as possible			0.778
Most of the people who are important to me will approve of when I try, to use as little energy as possible			0.799
Most people who are important to me try to use as little energy as possible			0.761

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. KMO: 0.953. Source: own compilation.

). Drawing on the conceptual frameworks and measurement approaches developed in earlier studies by Bogen et al. [27] and Czibere et al. [26], we conducted a factor analysis to identify the underlying attitudinal structures within the dataset. This analytical procedure allowed us to move beyond individual survey items and to detect latent constructs that represent broader patterns of environmental thinking and value orientation. The resulting factor structure reveals how respondents’ views on environmental protection, personal responsibility, and the perceived role of institutions cluster into distinct, interpretable dimensions. These factors serve as the foundation for the subsequent regression analyses, enabling a more nuanced understanding of how environmental values relate to socio-demographic characteristics, climate change perceptions, and behavioural intentions such as willingness to pay for environmentally friendly energy.

A total of four factors were extracted using the Maximum Likelihood extraction method, followed by a Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The rotation converged in six iterations, producing a clear and interpretable factor structure. The results of the factor analysis are presented in the following table.

Each dimension demonstrates strong internal consistency, as evidenced by the high factor loadings, and is supported by acceptable KMO values (all above 0.7), indicating adequate sampling adequacy for reliable interpretation. The analysis supports a multi-dimensional view of pro-environmental behaviour, combining the following factors:

• Individual identity and morality (internal drivers),
• Social influence (external interpersonal),
• Perceptions of institutional behaviour (external systemic).

The factor analysis reveals a clear and well-structured framework of four key dimensions that influence pro-environmental behaviour: environmental self-identity, government’s environmental awareness, personal norms, and social norms.

The environmental self-identity factor underscores the importance of personal identification with environmental action. Individuals who see themselves as inherently environmentally responsible are more likely to engage in consistent pro-environmental behaviour. This identity-driven motivation may be particularly resilient over time, making it a valuable target for long-term behavioural change strategies.

The government’s environmental awareness factor reflects perceptions of institutional commitment. Although this is an external factor, it may significantly influence individual engagement by either legitimizing or undermining the perceived importance of environmental action. High trust in government sustainability efforts could enhance public compliance with environmental policies or inspire voluntary action.

The personal norms factor highlights the role of moral obligation and internalized ethical standards. Respondents who feel a personal duty to save energy are likely to act accordingly, regardless of external pressures or incentives. This suggests that cultivating internal moral responsibility, through education or value-based messaging, can be a powerful behavioural driver.

The social norms factor captures the influence of perceived social expectations and behaviours within important reference groups. The strong loadings here indicate that peer approval and perceived group behaviour are crucial motivators. This highlights the value of community-based interventions, social marketing, and peer influence in promoting sustainable practices.

These four dimensions will be used as composite variables in further analyses to predict CC perception and WTP.

3.3. Results: Factors Influencing WTP

In the following section, we analyse the factors influencing environmental attitudes, climate change perception and, finally, the WTP in seven regression analysis. Building on the initial models (

Table 3. Regression tables on environmental attitudes.

Dependent Variable: Environmental Self Identity (R2: 0.047)			Dependent Variable: Personal Norms R2: 0.05
	Beta	Sig.		Beta	Sig.
(Constant)	0	0	(Constant)	0	0
Sex	0.01	0.755	Sex	0.005	0.873
Age	−0.003	0.93	Age	−0.013	0.685
Budapest	−0.027	0.44	Budapest	−0.022	0.519
Cities	−0.124	0	Cities	−0.153	0
Income (per capita)	0.06	0.071	Income (per capita)	0.098	0.003
Graduate school	0.15	0	Graduate school	0.11	0.002
High school	0.183	0	High school	0.161	0
Social capital	0.071	0.028	Social capital	0.075	0.019
Dependent Var.: Government’s Environmental Awareness R2: 0.021			Dependent Variable: Social Norms R2: 0.052
	Beta	Sig.		Beta	Sig.
(Constant)	0	0.022	(Constant)	0	0
Sex	0.006	0.851	Sex	0.005	0.878
Age	0.011	0.743	Age	0.008	0.821
Budapest	−0.074	0.038	Budapest	0.04	0.257
Cities	−0.162	0	Cities	−0.129	0
Income (per capita)	0.039	0.25	Income (per capita)	0.093	0.005
Graduate school	0.058	0.107	Graduate school	0.12	0.001
High school	0.101	0.007	High school	0.146	0
Social capital	0.038	0.253	Social capital	0.082	0.012

Source: own compilation.

), the analysis next explores how these underlying attitudinal and normative dimensions translate into more specific orientations toward climate change and pro-environmental behaviour. In this stage, climate change scepticism and climate change awareness will be introduced as dependent variables to capture the cognitive and perceptual aspects of environmental engagement, followed by the examination of willingness to pay for more environmentally friendly energy sources as a behavioural indicator. This sequential approach allows for assessing how structural factors such as education, income, and social capital (Social capital is measured by membership in organizations, level of trust and self-efficacy [45,46]) operate indirectly through value, and identity-based mechanisms, and how these, in turn, shape concrete environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. By linking normative, cognitive, and behavioural components, the analysis provides a more comprehensive understanding of the social and psychological pathways that lead from environmental values to tangible pro-environmental action.

The analysis first examined the socio-demographic and social determinants of key attitudinal and normative variables that later serve as predictors of climate change perceptions and willingness to pay. Four separate regression models were estimated for environmental self-identity, personal norms, perceived governmental environmental awareness, and social norms. According to the VIF test, there is no multicollinearity among the variables.

Although the explanatory power of these models was modest (R² ranging from 0.02 to 0.05), several consistent relationships emerged. Education, income, and social capital showed positive and recurring effects across most models, indicating that individuals with higher socio-economic status and stronger social connectedness tend to display more pronounced pro-environmental orientations. Respondents with graduate or secondary education expressed stronger environmental identity and moral commitment to environmental protection, while higher income levels were associated with stronger personal and social norms.

Social capital also played a reinforcing role, suggesting that social engagement and trust contribute to the internalization of environmental values. By contrast, respondents living in smaller cities consistently exhibited lower scores on these attitudinal indicators, while those in Budapest tended to evaluate governmental environmental awareness less positively. Age and gender did not significantly influence any of the examined variables.

Overall, these findings suggest that environmental attitudes and norms are primarily shaped by social and educational factors rather than by basic demographics, forming a structural foundation for subsequent climate-related and behavioural orientations.

To further explore the attitudinal foundations of environmental behaviour, two additional linear regression models were estimated to identify the determinants of climate change scepticism and climate change awareness (see

Table 4. Regression tables on climate change perception.

Dependent Variable: Climate Change Sceptic R2: 0.05			Dependent Variable: Climate Change Aware R2: 0.146
	Beta	Sig		Beta	Sig
(Constant)	0	0.252	(Constant)	0	0.741
Sex	−0.064	0.06	Sex	0.026	0.425
Age	0.026	0.454	Age	0.024	0.461
Budapest	0.049	0.183	Budapest	−0.029	0.412
Cities	0.029	0.422	Cities	−0.015	0.655
Income (per capita)	−0.054	0.122	Income (per capita)	0.058	0.078
Graduate school	0.023	0.542	Graduate school	0.01	0.776
High school	−0.042	0.277	High school	−0.032	0.378
Social capital	−0.025	0.457	Social capital	−0.01	0.758
Env. identity	−0.004	0.942	Env. identity	0.27	0
Government’s environmental awareness	0.271	0	Government’s env. awareness	−0.081	0.068
Personal norms	−0.309	0	Personal norms	0.251	0
Social norms	0.093	0.135	Social norms	−0.068	0.252

Source: own compilation. According to the VIF test, there is no multicollinearity among the variables.

).

The model predicting scepticism accounted for only 5% of the variance (R² = 0.05), indicating limited explanatory power. Nevertheless, two predictors were significant. Personal environmental norms exhibited a strong negative effect, suggesting that individuals who feel a moral responsibility toward environmental protection are markedly less sceptical about climate change. In contrast, perceived governmental environmental awareness was positively associated with scepticism, implying that those who consider the government to be environmentally responsible may paradoxically express higher levels of doubt regarding climate change, possibly reflecting political or institutional distrust. Gender displayed a marginal effect, with men slightly more prone to sceptical attitudes, while other demographic and social variables showed no significant influence.

The model predicting climate change awareness performed considerably better (R² = 0.146), highlighting the importance of internalized environmental values. Environmental identity and personal norms were both strong positive predictors, indicating that awareness is closely tied to how strongly individuals see themselves as environmentally engaged and morally obligated to act. Income showed a weak positive trend, while perceived governmental environmental awareness was negatively related to personal awareness, suggesting that individuals who place greater trust in governmental environmental actions may feel less personal need to remain informed or vigilant. Overall, the results reveal that climate change awareness and scepticism are shaped primarily by moral and identity-based orientations rather than by socio-demographic characteristics, and that scepticism represents not merely a lack of awareness, but a distinct attitudinal position rooted in disengagement from environmental identity and responsibility.

Finally, we delve into exploring the determinants of the WTP for more environmentally friendly energy sources.

The logistic regression model explaining the WTP for environmentally friendly energy sources demonstrates a clear hierarchy of influences, integrating attitudinal, socio-structural, and contextual factors (see

Table 5. Logistic regression tables on WTP.

Dependent Variable: Willingness to Pay for More Environmentally Friendly Energy Source?	R2:		0.189
	B	Sig.	Exp(B)
Income (per capita)	−0.005	0.783	0.995
Social Capital	0.001	0.917	1.001
Env. Identity ***	0.570	0.000	1.768
Government’s env. awareness	−0.075	0.529	0.928
Personal norms *	0.301	0.067	1.351
Social norms	−0.076	0.620	0.927
Climate change aware	−0.104	0.678	0.901
Climate change sceptic *	−0.433	0.047	0.649
Sex (1)	0.239	0.141	1.269
Education ***		0.000
Secondary school ***	−0.823	0.000	0.439
Elementary school ***	−0.820	0.000	0.441
Settlement type **		0.003
Medium-size towns *	0.467	0.038	1.595
Small towns and villages	−0.196	0.443	0.822
Interactions:
Climate change aware * education		0.309
Climate change aware by Secondary	0.341	0.151	1.406
Climate change aware by Elementary school	0.319	0.177	1.376
Climate change sceptic * education		0.213
Climate change sceptic by Secondary	0.179	0.434	1.196
Climate change sceptic by Elementary school	0.383	0.090	1.466
Climate change aware * Settlement type *		0.013
Climate change aware by Medium-size towns	−0.365	0.129	0.694
Climate change aware by Small towns and villages **	−0.790	0.004	0.454
Climate change sceptic * Settlement type *		0.026
Climate change sceptic by Medium-size towns **	0.506	0.014	1.659
Climate change sceptic by Small towns and villages *	0.576	0.023	1.779
Constant	−0.518	0.246	0.596

a Variable(s) entered on step 1: egyfojov, SocCap, fac1_korny1, fac1_korny2, fac1_korny3, fac1_korny4, CC_awere, CC_scept, NEM_1, isk3, Teltip_3, CC_awere * isk3, CC_scept * isk3, CC_awere * Teltip_3, CC_scept * Teltip_3. Significance level: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

). The model exhibits a satisfactory fit (Nagelkerke R² = 0.189), explaining roughly one-fifth of the variation in the WTP, which is a substantial level of explanatory power for social-attitudinal data. The results show that environmental identity and moral commitment, rather than economic or demographic characteristics, are the primary determinants of behavioural willingness to support the energy transition.

Among the attitudinal factors, environmental identity emerges as the strongest predictor (B = 0.57, p < 0.001, Exp(B) = 1.77). Individuals who identify with pro-environmental values are almost twice as likely to express willingness to pay for environmentally friendly energy compared to those with weaker environmental identities. A second attitudinal dimension (personal norms) shows a marginally significant, positive effect (p = 0.067), indicating that social norms or perceived expectations of others may also enhance support for green energy. In contrast, other attitude factors, including perceived governmental environmental awareness, show no direct influence, suggesting that personal commitment outweighs institutional trust as a driver of behavioural intentions.

Socio-structural variables also play a meaningful but secondary role. Education exerts a strong, consistent effect: respondents with lower educational attainment are less than half as likely to support paying more for environmentally friendly energy (Exp(B) ≈ 0.44), confirming the importance of cognitive and informational resources in shaping environmental engagement. Settlement type also matters, with residents of cities more likely to contribute financially to green energy than those in rural areas, underscoring the contextual influence of social and informational environments. Income and social capital, however, do not exert any significant direct effects, indicating that the WTP is not simply a function of financial ability or general social connectedness.

Attitudes toward climate change further clarify these behavioural dynamics. Climate change scepticism has a significant negative impact (B = −0.43, p = 0.047, Exp(B) = 0.65), reducing the likelihood of WTP by roughly 35% per unit increase. Awareness, by contrast, shows no significant main effect, implying that knowledge of climate change alone does not translate into action without moral and identity-based motivation. Interaction effects reveal that the strength of these relationships varies by settlement type: in smaller towns, scepticism’s negative effect is weaker, and awareness’s positive effect diminishes, suggesting that local context and pragmatic considerations—such as energy security or cost—may mediate the link between beliefs and behaviour.

Overall, the findings highlight that willingness to pay for environmentally friendly energy sources is primarily a function of internalized environmental identity and moral conviction, supported but not determined by education and urban context, while economic resources and social capital remain largely irrelevant.

4. Discussion

Our analysis builds on the framework proposed by Liebe et al. [1], incorporating socio-demographic variables as a foundation. In addition to these factors, we extended the analysis by examining the role of social capital in shaping the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly energy sources. Drawing on the findings of Hansla et al. [9], we also investigated the influence of environmental attitudes.

The results reveal a coherent and multi-layered structure in the determinants of pro-environmental orientations and behaviour, consistent with earlier theoretical frameworks linking socio-structural factors and environmental identity [29,34]. At the foundational level, education and social context emerged as key socio-structural factors underpinning environmental identity and moral norms, while income and social capital showed no significant direct effects. This pattern aligns with the prosperity hypothesis and post-materialist theory, which suggest that cognitive and cultural resources—rather than purely economic ones—form the basis of environmental concern [21,22]. Individuals with higher educational attainment and those residing in larger urban areas were more likely to report a clear environmental self-identity and a stronger sense of personal moral obligation toward environmental protection. This supports the view that access to information, exposure to environmental discourses, and social embeddedness in urban networks facilitate the internalization of pro-environmental values [26,27]. Conversely, respondents in smaller towns and rural areas reported lower attitudinal and normative scores, reflecting the limited diffusion of environmental narratives outside large urban centres such as Budapest. The absence of significant gender and age effects across all models reinforces the conclusion that environmental orientations are shaped primarily by social position and cognitive engagement rather than by demographic characteristics [24].

When moving from these structural and attitudinal foundations to climate-related perceptions, the models of climate change awareness and climate change scepticism reveal a complex and asymmetric attitudinal landscape. Although the explanatory power of these models remains modest, both confirm the crucial role of personal moral norms and environmental identity in shaping climate-related beliefs, consistent with norm-activation theory [1,47]. Stronger personal norms significantly reduce scepticism and increase awareness, underscoring the moral and self-referential dimensions of environmental cognition [35,48]. Similarly, identifying as an environmentally responsible person is positively associated with climate change awareness, supporting the idea that self-identity operates as a motivational bridge between environmental values and concrete attitudes [28,29]. In contrast, perceived governmental environmental awareness shows an ambiguous pattern—positively related to scepticism but negatively to awareness—suggesting a form of institutional ambivalence in which confidence in governmental responsibility weakens personal agency [26]. These findings align with previous research showing that attitudes toward climate change are not determined by knowledge alone, but rather by a combination of trust, perceived efficacy, and moral identity [7,13].

In the behavioural model of the WTP for environmentally friendly energy sources, the primacy of identity-based and moral factors becomes even more evident. Environmental identity remains the strongest and most consistent predictor of the WTP, nearly doubling the likelihood of financial support for greener energy. This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that moral obligation and self-concept are key mediators between environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour [1,36,48]. Education and urban residence retain positive effects, confirming that cognitive and contextual advantages indirectly facilitate environmentally responsible action. However, income and social capital remain non-significant, indicating that the capacity to pay is less decisive than the willingness to act based on internalized values [22]. The results also highlight that climate change scepticism has a direct and significant negative impact on the WTP, while climate change awareness alone has no significant effect—demonstrating that factual knowledge without moral engagement does not necessarily translate into behaviour [9,10]. Interaction effects further show that contextual factors, particularly settlement type, influence the strength of these relationships. In smaller towns, scepticism’s negative effect weakens, while awareness’s positive effect diminishes—suggesting that pragmatic motivations such as cost savings or energy independence may partly override ideological orientations [3,12].

Taken together, these findings depict a nuanced yet coherent picture of pro-environmental behaviour. The results show that willingness to pay for environmentally friendly energy arises less from external or economic incentives and more from internalized moral and identity-based motivations. These psychological foundations are themselves conditioned by structural opportunities, education, and social context. Climate scepticism, by contrast, represents not simply the absence of awareness but a distinct attitudinal stance characterised by disengagement from environmental identity and moral responsibility [39]. The overall pattern underscores the importance of conceptualising environmental behaviour as a multi-level process, where structure, context, and moral agency jointly shape how people interpret and respond to environmental challenges [1,32].

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the multi-level determinants of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, extending earlier frameworks by integrating socio-demographic, attitudinal, and moral factors into a unified analytical model [1,29]. The findings reveal that education and social context—rather than income or social capital—provide the structural foundations for environmental identity and personal norms, which, in turn, strongly influence climate-related perceptions and behavioural intentions. Individuals with higher education and those residing in larger urban areas demonstrate clearer environmental self-identities and stronger moral commitments to environmental protection, supporting earlier claims that access to information and social embeddedness enhance pro-environmental engagement [26,48].

The analysis of climate change-related attitudes highlights that moral norms play a pivotal role in shaping both awareness and scepticism. Stronger moral commitments are associated with higher awareness and lower scepticism, confirming that climate-related beliefs are grounded in moral and identity-based motivation rather than cognitive knowledge alone [7,35]. The ambiguous influence of perceived governmental environmental awareness—enhancing scepticism while reducing personal awareness—suggests a form of institutional ambivalence, in which reliance on state responsibility weakens individual engagement.

In behavioural terms, environmental identity remains the most powerful predictor of the WTP for environmentally friendly energy sources, nearly doubling the likelihood of financial support for green energy. Education and urban residence further reinforce pro-environmental behaviour by facilitating access to environmental discourses and peer norms [28,29]. However, income and social capital exert no significant direct effects, indicating that willingness to act on environmental concerns is driven more by moral and identity-based mechanisms than by economic capacity. Climate scepticism has a significant negative impact on the WTP, whereas general awareness alone does not, suggesting that moral and normative engagement are essential for translating concern into action [9].

Overall, the findings depict a complex but coherent structure in which structural opportunities, social context, and moral agency interact to shape environmental orientations and behaviour. Strengthening environmental identity and moral responsibility may therefore represent the most effective pathway for promoting sustainable energy choices and public engagement with climate action [36,48] (Van der Werff et al., 2013; Chen 2020). Communication strategies should be tailored to distinct attitudinal profiles: while cli-mate-conscious individuals may respond best to empowerment and collaborative action, more sceptical citizens might be reached through messages emphasizing co-benefits such as energy security, cost savings, or intergenerational responsibility. By aligning policy instruments with the diverse moral and psychological drivers of behaviour, decision-makers can enhance the legitimacy, inclusiveness, and effectiveness of climate-related interventions. Future research should employ longitudinal and comparative approaches to trace how these moral and identity-based orientations evolve and translate into sustained behavioural change across different socio-political contexts.