Next Article in Journal
The Interplay of Attitudes, Norms and Control in Sustainable Entrepreneurship: An Experimental Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Offering Carbon Smart Options through Product Development to Meet Customer Expectations
Previous Article in Journal
The Experience Economy in a Wine Destination—Analysing Visitor Reviews
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Do Environmental Knowledge, Eco-Label Knowledge, and Green Trust Impact Consumers’ Pro-Environmental Behaviour for Energy-Efficient Household Appliances?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour amongst Citizens in African Countries: A Cross-National Study amongst Six African Countries

1
Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education, Olabisi Onabanjo University, P.M.B. 2002, Ago-Iwoye 120107, Ogun State, Nigeria
2
Department of Geography, Environmental Management & Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9311; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159311
Submission received: 26 June 2022 / Revised: 20 July 2022 / Accepted: 23 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022

Abstract

:
The role of pro-environmental behaviour in environmental care and mitigation of environmental problems is widely recognised. However, most studies on pro-environmental behaviour have focused on populations living in Western and high-income countries and only a few studies are available in developing countries. In this paper, we explored and compared the determinants of pro-environmental behaviour of citizens in six African countries, namely Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe. We examined the relationship between socio-demographic variables and pro-environmental behaviour of citizens within and across these countries using secondary data collected through Wave 6 of the World Value Surveys. The results showed that there were differences and some similarities in pro-environmental behaviour across the selected countries. Factors such as gender, education, social class, membership of environmental organisations and employment status positively correlated with pro-environmental behaviour among the selected respondents. Based on the study findings, recommendations are made within to improve and increase pro-environmental behaviour in the selected countries.

1. Introduction

During the last four decades and even earlier, the African continent has witnessed considerable human-induced environmental degradation, mainly due to deforestation, fragmentation and the destruction of ecological habitats, solid waste mismanagement, loss of biodiversity as well as air and water pollution [1,2,3]. In many parts of Africa, higher levels of degradation are leading to various kinds of environmental problems which are impairing the functioning of natural ecosystems and reducing the liveability and quality of human settlements [3,4,5,6]. Although some of these environmental challenges may have natural origins, a larger proportion of them are related to what Maloney and Ward [7] describe as “maladaptive human behaviour”. Such behaviour is undesirable from a sustainability perspective and is opposite to the generally acceptable patterns of behaviour across age groups and environmental settings, and it has negative consequences for those who are directly involved and the people around them [8]. Similarly, human behaviour that leads to the destruction of environmental quality and depletion of natural resources is equally undesirable, thus pointing out the need for more pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) which may contribute towards sustainable development and long-term environmental protection.
PEB involves “a set of behaviours practiced by individuals that seek to take measured actions to promote positive changes in the environment and limit the effects of human negligence” [9,10]. What is then required to reduce Africa’s environmental crises is maximising PEB amongst her inhabitants. Such a behavioural shift means the adoption of environmentally friendly practices and the development of positive attitudes that are conducive for the promotion and realisation of sustainable development [11,12]. Increasing PEB would also lead to the adoption of cleaner production practices amongst human activities and their organisations, thus reducing the generation of waste materials [13,14]. In this way, material or energy conservation will be promoted, thus impacting the environment to a minimal extent as well as preserving environmental quality [15].
While PEB may be seen as environmentally friendly, it is not always easy to achieve amongst individuals, society and even across nations, as it is influenced by an array of many different factors [10,16,17,18,19]. Likewise, the extent of environmental attitudes and their influence on environmental behaviour has been researched by the application of different theoretical instruments, including, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [20] and the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale, amongst others [21,22,23]. According to Kollmuss and Agyeman [24] as well as Mikula et al. [16], factors contributing to PEB may be classified into three different categories, namely (1) demographic (for instance, age, gender and educational levels), (2) external (institutional, socio-economic and cultural conditions) and (3) internal (environmental knowledge, values, attitudes, etc.) influences. In a survey conducted amongst university students in the UK and Nigeria, it was found that those with higher knowledge of environmental education issues exhibited relatively higher levels of PEB, thus offering important insights into how education can contribute towards healthier environments [25]. Other studies have examined the influence of socio-demographic factors such as gender, education, income and a number of contextual variables on PEB [26,27,28]. To this extent, cross-cultural research based on the role of environmental knowledge on PEB amongst students in Brazil, Mexico, Spain and the USA indicated differences in the situational factors between developing and developed countries, thereby highlighting the influence of external factors such as culture, services and environmental structures in the different countries [29]. Furthermore, PEB has been studied from a regional context [30,31,32]. In one of these studies, the purpose was to generate information on macroeconomic variables relevant for the assessment of PEB in EU countries [16]. The research found that country-level PEB was correlated with various demographic and economic factors [16]. In addition, there were marked spatial variations in PEB within the EU regional bloc, with countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden displaying more household PEB than Greece, Malta and Romania [16].
In contrast with the aforementioned studies, the TPB emphasises the role of intentions, subjective norms and perceived control in moderating PEB [20]. According to this theory, the immediate determinant of behaviour is individual intentions, and such intentions are influenced by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived controls [20,30]. This theory has been extensively applied in the studies of recycling behaviour across the world [31,32,33,34] and is amenable to the addition of other variables, such as personality and demographical characteristics, that many have a significant contribution towards behavioural outcomes [20]. On the other hand, the NEP scale unravels a wider spectrum of ecological viewpoints, along with environmental items to assess environmental concerns amongst individuals [22]. The original NEP scale was introduced in 1978 and was hinged on 12 items organized within a four-point Likert scale response system [35,36]. In 2000, the NEP scale was subsequently revised to encompass 15 items based on a five-point Likert response scale, the goal being to quantify the five core components of individuals’ environmental concern [36]. In Greece, the environmental attitude of citizens was researched by applying this scale to understand their environmental behaviour and perceptions about the environment [23]. The results revealed high environmental concern amongst citizens for the current and future state of the environment. Although this scale has been criticized for its purported one-dimensional character [37], it has been applied to other studies in different countries to show cultural and other influencers of environmental attitudes [22,38,39,40]. Additionally, similarly, with the TPB, the NEP scale has been broadened and applied to a variety of disciplines such as education, business, psychology and tourism, where an understanding of environmental attitudes and values was needed to predict PEB [41,42,43].
Although the current literature contextualisation in this paper is revealing marked proliferation of PEB studies in predominantly highly developed countries, there is limited understanding of how these factors influence PEB in the developing countries of the world with relatively lower human development indices, particularly in Africa. Unlike countries in the developed world, many African countries face multiple development and sustainability challenges that are often aggravated by rapidly growing populations, increasing urbanisation rates and unemployment levels [44]. Such trends are leading to the unprecedented growth of slums and informal settlements, undermining efforts to increase environmental conservation, as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation [45]. Moreover, in some regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), it has been found that despite increased democratisation, rising foreign direct investments and marked economic expansion, there are significant sustainable development challenges [45]. Moreover, the diversification away from primary economic sectors to service-oriented and knowledge economies is not occurring fast enough, creating huge barriers in the management of such transitions while attempting to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [46].
In light of these development imperatives, our study has investigated the determinants of PEB amongst citizens of six African countries, namely Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Of the few studies that were conducted in some of the African countries, none of them performed any comparative cross-national analyses on the various determinants of PEB [27]. Although Berndt and Gikonyo [27] attempted to study environmental concern and behaviour in Africa, theirs was an exploratory and descriptive study; therefore, it was limited from a regional and continental scale of analysis. Given these shortcomings and the demonstrated literature gap, the rationale and justification for the present research is evident. African cross-country studies on PEB have the potential to contribute to the enrichment of existing theory on PEB while indicating similarities and dissimilarities across the chosen study areas. To help illuminate and enrich the understanding of our research problem, five hypotheses were formulated, and they are briefly summarised as follows:
Hypothesis 1.
There are statistically significant differences in PEB according to the gender of respondents in each country.
Hypothesis 2.
The PEB of respondents from each country differ according to socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., marital status, age, social class, income, employment status, sector of employment and educational level).
Hypothesis 3.
The PEB of respondents display statistically significant differences amongst countries.
Hypothesis 4.
Socio-demographic variables are significantly related to the PEB of respondents in each country.
Hypothesis 5.
Socio-demographic variables are positive predictors of PEB of respondents in each country.

2. Research Methods

In order to address the aim of this paper and test the formulated hypotheses, the World Value Survey (WVS) data were analysed. The WVS [47] is a globally co-ordinated data collection project organised by the WVS Association on various aspects of human society. The survey has been collecting data since the year 1981 and is widely regarded as a major cross-national data collection project on social parameters or factors such as gender roles, good governance, social capital, environmental protection, as well as subjective well-being [47,48,49,50,51]. The data have been used extensively across the world by various researchers to address their research aims, including to quantify PEB and its determinants [52,53,54,55]. Such surveys aimed to learn more about the characteristics of a specific population, but they selected only a sample of the study population to generate insights about the whole population [56].
In terms of the WVS project, data were collected by locallybased survey organisations to ensure nationally representative sample frames in each country [47]. As a result, stratified multistage random sampling was used to obtain representative national samples in the respective countries, and the data were collected by means of face-to-face interviews [47]. The first stage of sampling process involved stratification of the sample and the selection of the primary sampling units. In the second stage, the secondary sampling units were selected, while respondents aged 16 years and above were interviewed in the third stage. The sample size was comprised of 3531 respondents and the estimated sampling error was 1.7. The entire fieldwork period started on the 18 August 2013 and lasted until 6 October 2013 [47].
The data relevant for the present study were collected via WVS Wave 6 conducted between the years 2010 and 2014, and it was comprised of datasets from fifty-eight [47] different countries. Ten of these countries are located on the African continent [47]. Amongst the 10 countries, 5 of them are located in North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco) while another 5 are in the sub-Saharan region (Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe). Out of these 10 countries, Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe were selected for the present study.
Amongst the data sets collected, PEB was conceptualised in this paper as the dependent variable, and it was measured by means of five different environmental items organised on a three-point Likert scale. Statements meant to estimate and represent PEB were as follows: (i) “Caring for nature and saving natural resources”, (ii) “Environmental decline is the most serious problem of the world”, (iii) “Protecting the environment is against economic growth”, (iv) “During past two years, I have given money to an ecological organization” and (v) “During past two years, I have participated in a demonstration for the environment”. On the other hand, the independent variables entailed demographic data such as gender, age, marital status, highest education, employment status, sector of employment, scale of income and active or inactive memberships of environmental groups. Thus, our research sought to assess the relationship between these variables across the respective national populations, with a view of revealing the general patterns that hold for the sample as a whole, as well as enabling predictions of PEB.

2.1. Data Analysis

In analysing the selected data sets, various statistical techniques were performed using SPSS v.20. Firstly, percentages were calculated to measure the responses across the surveyed countries. Secondly, the t-test and analysis of variance statistics were used to test for significant differences between the variables. Thirdly, the Pearson product moment correlation test was used to assess the strengths of statistical relationships, while multiple regression was used to determine which socio-demographic variables were best at predicting PEB in the selected countries. The alpha level was set at 0.05 and the regression analysis was used for the prediction of PEB. To test the various hypotheses formulated for the present research, the multiple linear regression equation was used as follows:
Yi = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + … + bpXp
where Yi represents the dependent variable, which is pro-environmental behaviour (PEB). The independent variables X1 through Xp are p independent or predictor variables; b0 is the value of Y when all of the independent variables (X1 through Xp) are equal to zero; and b1 through bp are the estimated regression coefficients. Each regression coefficient represents the change in Y relative to a one unit change in the respective independent variable.

2.2. Ethical Considerations

All of the data used in this paper were collected anonymously by the WVS organisation and there are no means of tracing the personal information of respondents who participated in the surveys, thus upholding their privacy and confidentiality regarding such interviews.

3. Results

3.1. Demographical Profile of Respondents

Table 1 shows some of the respondents’ socio-demographic attributes in each of the six countries selected for the survey. In Algeria (50.7%), Ghana (50.3%), Nigeria (50.5%) and South Africa (50%), the proportion of men relative to that of women was generally around 50%, but Egypt (32.2%) and Zimbabwe (46%) had lower percentages. While there were slightly more men in four of the selected countries, in terms of overall proportions for all countries considered jointly, the percentage of women was 53%, relatively higher than that of men (46.6%). This pattern was caused by a situation where the individual proportions of women were comparatively higher both in Zimbabwe (54%) and Egypt (67.8%), respectively. The percentages of married and single individuals were nearly equally high in all countries compared to individuals that were either divorced or separated (Table 1). In contrast, the proportion of married respondents was particularly high for Egypt (71.5%), while South Africa exhibited the lowest percentage (33.3%). The classification of respondents according to their social categories was dominated by the lower middle class, as it ranged from 17.6% for South Africa to 39.3% in the case of Egypt. Furthermore, the respondents belonging to the lower class were still markedly high for countries such as Nigeria (33.6%) and South Africa (38.2%), respectively.
In terms of educational attainments (Table 2), the proportion of respondents in Zimbabwe who had completed secondary education was as high as 53.7% compared to those from other countries, which was as low as 3.6% (Algeria) and 7.7% (South Africa), respectively. The respondents with university qualifications were relatively low across all countries—a minimum of 4.8% (South Africa) and a maximum of 14.8% (Egypt), respectively.
The statistical patterns of respondents according to their employment status are indicated in Table 3. There are wide variations in the employment status of respondents. For example, the proportion of respondents who were self-employed was 33.9% for Ghana and 40.8% for Nigeria, while other countries, such as South Africa (3.6%) and Egypt (7.6%), exhibited markedly very low proportions in this category. Similarly, the percentages for housewives were generally low in other countries, although higher proportions were recorded for both Algeria (22.4%) and Egypt (54.4%). In nearly the same manner, unemployment amongst respondents was particularly rife amongst South African (34%) and Zimbabwean (32.3%) respondents, while others revealed lower proportions of respondents in this category. Despite the discrepancies amongst the countries represented in this study, the proportion of respondents who were in full time employment was consistently higher than those who were working part-time.

3.2. Testing of Hypotheses

The results on the various hypotheses that were formulated for the study are presented in this section.

3.2.1. Hypothesis 1

In terms of Hypothesis 1, the results from the t-test revealed significant statistical differences in PEB between male and female respondents in Ghana (Table 4). However, in Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Egypt, no significant statistical differences were observed regarding PEB amongst male and female respondents. Furthermore, when data from all countries were aggregated, female respondents tended to exhibit a higher PEB mean score of 7.930, while male respondents had a mean score of 7.804, thus implying significant statistical differences between the two groups. The finding implies that female respondents on the whole were likely to display more positive PEB than their male counterparts in these countries.

3.2.2. Hypothesis 2

The results from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the socio-demographic variables in the various countries are shown in Table 5. With the exception of Zimbabwe, where there were no significant statistical variations in the PEB of respondents according to socio-demographic variables, most countries exhibited statistically significant variations in PEB based on these factors. For instance, in Algeria, significant statistical differences were observed in the PEB of respondents according to their (1) marital status, (2) age, (3) employment status and (4) educational level. Similarly, South African respondents revealed significant differences in their PEB according to (1) scale of income, (2) social class, (3) employment status, (4) sector of employment and (5) education.

3.2.3. Hypothesis 3

The one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in PEB among the six countries selected for this study (Table 6).
In order to further determine the pattern of differences in PEB between these countries, Tukey HSD pairwise comparison was performed. Results indicated statistically significant differences in the PEB associated with Algeria and Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt. However, no significant differences were observed between Algeria and Zimbabwe, although statistical differences were found between Ghana and the other five countries. In the same vein, significant differences were found between Nigeria and the other five countries. Additionally, significant differences were noted between South Africa and Algeria as well as Ghana and Nigeria; although there were no significant differences between South Africa and Zimbabwe on the one hand, and South Africa and Egypt on the other hand.
Differences in PEB amongst the six countries were contrasted with one another by means of pairwise comparisons, and the results are shown in Table 7. With few exceptions, there were statistically significant differences in PEB between all countries. Moreover, PEB amongst the respondents representing Ghana and Nigeria exhibited statistically significant differences with all countries without any exceptions (Table 7). However, this pattern was different for South Africa (p < 0.372) and Zimbabwe (p < 0.860) as they sometimes revealed no significant statistical disparities with countries such as Egypt, respectively.

3.2.4. Hypothesis 4

The bivariate correlation test was conducted to test the fourth hypothesis. The results are presented in Table 8. For this test, nine socio-demographic characteristics were analysed. Gender, employment status, sector of employment and social class were all positively correlated with the PEB of respondents in some of the countries under consideration. On the contrary, education, scale of income and memberships of environmental organisation were negatively related with PEB. Similarly, age and marital status were not significantly related to PEB. More specifically, in Algeria, there was no significant relationship between factors such as education, sector of employment and social class and PEB. Furthermore, in Ghana, gender, sector of employment and social class were positively correlated with PEB; meanwhile, education, income and environmental organisation membership were significantly negatively correlated with PEB. The results for Nigeria showed that there were no significant relationships between gender, age, marital status, sector of employment and PEB.
For South Africa, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation value for the nine variables of PEB showed that marital status, employment status, sector of employment and social class were positively correlated with PEB. By contrast, education, income and environmental organisation membership were negatively correlated with PEB, whereas gender and age showed no significant correlation.

3.2.5. Hypothesis 5

To test the fifth hypothesis, a multiple regression test was conducted to identify significant socio-demographic variables that best predicted the respondents’ PEB in each country. The results for the six countries are presented in Table 9. The most parsimonious sets of predictors of PEB included social class, age, gender, environmental organisation membership, employment status, highest education, marital status, income and sector of employment. Together, these nine variables explained nearly half (49%) of the variance in PEB which was found to be statistically significant (F (10, 8382) = 43.413, p < 0.005).
Whereas these variables were all influential for determining the PEB of respondents in all countries, their scale of influence was not uniform, thus revealing some variations amongst them. For example, the results for Algeria showed the combined effect of R (0.adding 228) and R2 (0.052), respectively, thus implying that the nine variables selected explained 52% of the variance in PEB. However, for Zimbabwe, this influence was comparatively lower, as it was found to be only 48% (R2 = 0.048). Moreover, the influence of these variables was statistically significant (F (10, 409) = 2.189, p < 0.005) in Algeria. The relative contribution of the predictor variables to the variance in PEB in Algeria are as follows: social class, gender and environmental organisation membership.
In contrast, the results for both Nigeria and South Africa differed markedly from the findings pertaining to the PEB amongst Algerian and Zimbabwean respondents. More specifically, in the case of Nigeria, the nine predictor variables of PEB put together accounted for 59% of the total variance in PEB in that country (R-value = 234, F (10, 1148) = 7.156, p ≤ 0.05). The relative contributions of the predictor variables to the variance of PEB were as follows: social class, sector of employment and environmental organisation membership.
The results for South Africa were even higher; the independent variables explained 78% of the variance in PEB. In this instance, the most parsimonious set of predictors of PEB came to be employment status, membership of environmental organisation, gender, educational qualifications and marital status.

4. Discussion

Our study is the first to conduct cross-national research on the determinants of PEB amongst six countries in Africa, namely, Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Of the few studies [54,55,57] that were conducted in African countries, the focus was predominantly on PEB within individual countries; thus, these studies failed to give a comprehensive overview. In an attempt to shed light on the determinants of PEB in the present study, five different hypotheses were formulated and tested. Both similarities and dissimilarities in PEB were found, and some of the factors responsible for the observed patterns are explained further in this section. In the present study, the selected determinants of PEB were socio-demographical and were comprised of gender, marital status, age, social class, income, education, employment status, employment sector and environmental organisation membership.
In testing our first hypothesis (Hypothesis 1), the results on Ghana revealed significant statistical differences between male and female respondents regarding their PEB, while for the other five countries (i.e., Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Egypt), no differences were found. However, when data for all countries were aggregated together, female respondents exhibited a higher PEB mean score of 7.930, greater than the mean score of 7.804 recorded for male respondents. The reason for the relatively higher PEB amongst women respondents may be ascribed to the point that in African cultural settings, women are culturally socialised at an early age to take responsibility for their household environments, including the maintenance of cleanliness and healthy surroundings [58,59]. To this extent, in recently reported research [55] conducted in South Africa, gender exerted a significant (F(7, 2792) = 4.384; p < 0.001) contribution towards the prediction of environmental awareness amongst respondents, a variable that has been shown to be an important predictor of PEB [60,61]. Similar gender-related differences have been documented by other researchers [62,63,64], who found that women displayed comparatively more positive environmental behaviour than men. Contrary to these findings, no significant statistical differences were found between male (M = 7.491; SD = 1.526) and female (M = 7.606; SD = 1.331), t = −1.688, p = 0.092) respondents in a certain Nigerian study [54]. Given such contrasting patterns, it can be seen that the role of gender towards PEB is not generally straightforward, thus suggesting the existence of underlying influences, varying contexts and even subtle discrepancies in the situational factors involved. For example, two previous studies both conducted in a university setting produced different results for the influence of gender on environmental behaviour. Meanwhile, research conducted by Edumadze et al. [62] in Ghana revealed that male respondents exhibited relatively higher scores, and they were significantly different to women regarding environmentally responsible behaviour and sustainability orientations. Thondhlana and Hlatshwayo [65] found no significant variations in the PEB measured for student residences at Rhodes University in South Africa.
Our results based on Hypothesis 2 showed that in terms of aggregated scores, the only determinant of PEB without significant differences between these countries was the age of respondents. In other words, there were no clear-cut variations in PEB amongst respondents in terms of how old they were, a finding also reported by various studies. For example, research conducted by Ifegbesan and Rampedi [54] in Nigeria revealed no statistically significant differences in PEB according to marital status and the age of respondents, which was similar to the findings of Miner et al. [66], who found no significant variations amongst respondents in terms of their willingness to participate in household electronic waste management in Jos (Nigeria). Likewise, the influence of age on the PEB of respondents in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana was marginally significant (i.e., 0.0007) based on the Logit model that was applied by Amoah and Addoah [57]. By contrast, age was found to be an important predictor of PEB in a recent South African study [55], thereby indicating some geographical discrepancies amongst the countries under consideration. That age can predict PEB seems plausible, and this is ascribed to lifelong learning and the increase in environmental knowledge that individuals acquire over time [57,67]. It is therefore not counterintuitive to find that in other studies, younger (<20 years old) respondents varied significantly in their green purchase behaviour than older respondents [27].
Other results associated with Hypothesis 2 have shown that South African respondents revealed significant differences in their PEB according to (1) scale of income, (2) social class, (3) employment status, (4) sector of employment and (5) education. In nearly the same manner, significant statistical differences in PEB according to the (1) scale of income, (2) social class, (3) employment status and (4) education were found in the data representing the respondents in Egypt. While these findings reveal some similarities, there are also dissimilarities between the countries being considered in the current study, in agreement with some of the results emanating from previous studies. However, it is imperative to recognise that there are subtle variations in these studies depending on both context and specific socio-economic circumstances in any given country [68,69,70,71]. For instance, the fact that income can have an ambiguous effect on PEB was effectively demonstrated in a Chilean study [67]. In the latter study, it was shown that income can positively affect certain kinds of PEB (for example, waste recycling) while negatively affecting others (such as using public transport and bicycles). Similarly, the moderating roles of factors such as education, employment and social class on PEB have been investigated in past studies. In terms of the influence of social class on PEB, Gifford and Nilsson [72] maintained that people are largely affected by the specific social contexts in which they experience their daily lives, and this may be short term or long term. As a result, while increased income or wealth can generate more recognition of environmental issues in Botswana than is the case amongst poorer inhabitants, the transition to a post-materialist lifestyle may also be at play when people begin to value environmental quality relatively more because their material conditions have been satisfied [72,73]. Lastly, the positive role of both employment and education on PEB are widely recognised, whether in developing countries [68,74,75] or in developed countries [23,72], lending credence to the results stemming from the present study.
In terms of the one-way ANOVA conducted to test Hypothesis 3, to a large extent, statistically significant variations in PEB were found between the six countries under consideration. This explained the influence of underlying geographical and domestic factors, such as, for example, their different development trajectories, educational and income levels, degree of environmental conservation as well as the extent of environmental activism amongst them. The observed variations in PEB may be ascribed to differences in their human development indices, a measure of average performance in the key elements of human development. For example, whereas both Zimbabwe and Nigeria had a human development index of 0.509 and 0.540 in the year 2019, respectively, Algeria and South Africa had a human development index of 0.748 and 0.710 (respectively) for the same period [76]. Such national discrepancies in their development profiles may have a bearing on their individual PEB, although the exact nature of the statistical associations with these indices has not yet been determined.
In testing Hypothesis 4, bivariate correlations to determine the nature of the relationship between respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics and PEB were calculated. Factors such as gender, employment status, sector of employment and social class were found to be positively correlated with PEB in certain countries, in agreement with the results stemming from previous studies [55,68,74,77]. On the other hand, for the data pertaining to South Africa, education, income and environmental organisation membership were negatively related to PEB. Such a finding is surprising and unexpected, as several researchers have indicated the positive role of these factors on PEB [78,79,80,81]. Even so, a previous study in South Africa has shown that being a member of an environmental organisation was one of the strongest predictors of PEB amongst their respondents [55]. Such a result is meaningful because being a member of an environmental organisation is expected to reflect some degree of environmental commitment amongst the relevant respondents by virtue of the inherent organisational affiliation and the different pro-environmental activities characteristic of such organisations. Similarly, a study conducted by Sembering et al. [75] in Indonesia has explained how environmental passion gained in the workplace may lead to positive influences on the PEB of employees, while Fatoki [82] indicated significantly positive association between organisational support for the adoption of environmental practices and PEB amongst South African employees.
For the last hypothesis (Hypothesis 5), a multiple regression test was applied to indicate the socio-demographic variables that best predicted PEB in each country. As stated before, the most parsimonious sets of predictors of PEB were factors such as social class, age, gender, membership of environmental organisation, employment status, highest education, marital status, income and employment sector. Considered collectively, these variables explained 49% of the variance in PEB which was found to be statistically significant (F (10, 8382) = 43.413, p < 0.005). Moreover, such a predictive power on PEB was relatively higher for both Nigeria (59%) and South Africa (78%), although it was relatively lower for Algeria (52%) and Zimbabwe (48%). These findings resemble some of the studies conducted in some of the African countries. In conducting a stepwise multiple regression analysis on certain demographical variables in Nigeria to determine whether they can predict the PEB of respondents, Ifegbesan and Rampedi [54] found that social class and membership of environmental organisations were significant predictors of PEB. Both Gifford and Nilsson [72] have indicated that PEB may be seen amongst middle or upper-middle class individuals, thus implying that it is influenced by social class, an outcome that was reported in the USA by Laidley [83] and other related studies [84,85]. As far as membership of environmental organisations is concerned, it is the nature of the activities (for example, waste recycling, energy conservation, wetland protection, etc.) that are performed by such organisations that generate positive environmental attitudes amongst their members [74].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

In this paper, the determinants of PEB amongst the inhabitants of six African countries were investigated. Whereas many of these studies [28,64,70,85,86] were conducted in developed countries, there is paucity of such knowledge in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. This study used the World Value Survey Wave 6 data from six African countries (Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe) to examine the statistical relationships between PEB and its determinants. The study identified key determinants of PEB amongst respondents within and across the six African countries, thereby providing useful insights that may inform environmental policy interventions in the selected countries.
In terms of Hypotheses 1–2, the following conclusions are summarised. Although no statistically significant associations were found between gender and PEB when five of these countries were considered individually, when their data sets were aggregated together, female respondents revealed a higher PEB mean score than male respondents. This implies significant statistical differences between the two groups, therefore necessitating the need for environmental awareness interventions that must be directed to all citizens, including men, as they appear to lack the relevant knowledge of environmentally responsible practices. Such interventions must disseminate critical information on environmental sustainability practices, thus contributing towards positive behavioural change, especially in the case of Ghana, where statistically significant differences in PEB were driven by the gender gap.
Amongst the countries examined in the current study, the only demographical determinant of PEB without significant differences was the age of respondents, similar to the outcome of some of the studies conducted in Nigeria and Ghana [62,63]. However, empirical evidence from other studies has shown that age has a significant moderating influence on PEB, therefore suggesting its positive predictive power. Although there are contrary findings in certain research contexts, older people are more likely to engage in pro-environmental activities than younger individuals due to the effect of lifelong learning, availability of time if they are retired from formal employment, and sometimes for the economic benefits realised from such practices [66,87,88].
Furthermore, the current study found that, with the exception of Zimbabwe, many of the socio-demographical factors displayed statistically significant relationships with PEB, thus pointing out the importance of these factors if their environmental behaviour is to be increased for the better. Such factors included scale of income, educational achievements, social class and employment sector. There is, therefore, a need to broaden opportunities for environmental education and general information dissemination regarding the value of sustainable lifestyles in all organisations, including households, schools, community-based organisations, non-governmental organisations, universities and workplaces, amongst others.
The specific finding associated with Hypothesis 3 is that there are statistically significant differences in PEB between the various countries examined in the present study. Such differences reflect the existence of underlying geographical factors and their national characteristics, which lie outside the scope of this paper. It is therefore worthwhile for future research to examine how national characteristics, including their socio-economic challenges and human development profiles, affect the development of PEB.
With respect to Hypothesis 4, when the data for all countries were aggregated together, the majority of independent variables such as gender, employment status, sector of employment and social class were all positively correlated with the PEB of respondents, although there were few exceptions. Such positive correlations indicate the direction that future policy recommendations at different levels can take to improve PEB in these countries. More pertinently, the role of employment status has featured prominently as a determinant of PEB in countries such as Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt, while the specific sector of employment was predictive among the respondents who represented Egypt, Ghana and South Africa. Therefore, employment organisations must be encouraged to adopt environmental policies and sustainable practices, as such interventions have been found in previous studies to generate a positive message amongst employees while increasing environmental commitment throughout their organisations [74,89].
With respect to Hypothesis 5, variables such as social class, age, gender, environmental organisation membership, employment status, highest education, marital status, income and employment sector explained 49% of the variance in PEB. For certain countries such an influence was low; meanwhile, for others, it was high. If governments, regional planners and policy makers in the countries examined in this study are to bring about increased PEB amongst their citizens, there is a need to recognize the characteristics, as well as the opportunities and constraints associated with these factors, thus maximising the chances of success of planned interventions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.P.I. and I.T.R.; data curation, A.P.I.; formal analysis, A.P.I., I.T.R., B.O. and L.-A.M.; investigation, A.P.I., I.T.R., B.O. and L.-A.M.; methodology, A.P.I., I.T.R. and L.-A.M.; project administration, A.P.I. and I.T.R.; software, A.P.I.; supervision, I.T.R.; visualization, A.P.I. and I.T.R.; writing—original draft, A.P.I. and I.T.R.; writing—review and editing, A.P.I., I.T.R., B.O. and L.-A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Our study made use of secondary data collected by the International Social Survey Programme. The ISSP General Assembly (GA) is the main deliberative, decision making and representative organ of the ISSP, and maintains high ethical standards in the collection of data from participants. The questions are approved by the GA based on their scientific merit, sociopolitical relevance and ethical appropriateness. ISSP members, the national field questionnaires and field work all comply with the given legal requirements in each country. Before data are deposited into the ISSP Archive, national ISSP data are anonymized so that individual survey participants cannot be identified. The ISSP has been duly referenced and acknowledged in keeping with their stated policy and conditions for using their data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study and data anonymity was maintained.

Data Availability Statement

We would like to thankfully acknowledge the World Values Survey, from whom we obtained the data for our research. The data were sourced from the following website: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org owned by the World Values Survey in Sweden. Similarly, the institution has been duly referenced and acknowledged in this paper.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thankfully acknowledge the World Values Survey, from whom we obtained the data for our research. The data were sourced from the following website: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org owned by the World Values Survey in Sweden (accessed 3 September 2019).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bugri, J.T. The dynamics of tenure security, agricultural production and environmental degradation in Africa: Evidence from stakeholders in north-east Ghana. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fayiga, A.O.; Ipinmoroti, M.O.; Chirenje, T. Environmental pollution in Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 41–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Adams, S.; Opoku EE, O. Trade and environmental pollution in Africa: Accounting for consumption and territorial-based emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 44230–44239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wan, P.M.J. Environmental justices and injustices of large-scale gold mining in Ghana: A study of three communities near Obuasi. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2014, 1, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amegah, A.K.; Agyei-Mensah, S. Urban air pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Time for action. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 738–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zaidi, S.; Saidi, K. Environmental pollution, health expenditure and economic growth in the Sub-Saharan Africa countries: Panel ARDL approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 41, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Maloney, M.P.; Ward, M.P. Ecology: Let′s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 1973, 28, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mafumbate, R.; Mkhatjwa, N. Perspectives of teachers on causes of children’s maladaptive behaviour in the upper primary school level: A case of Hhohho Region, Eswatini. S. Afr. J. Child. Educ. 2020, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sara, A.; Nurit, C. Pro-environmental behavior and its antecedents as a case of social and temporal dilemmas. Br. J. Educ. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 508–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Yusliza, M.; Amirudin, A.; Rahadi, R.; Athirah, N.N.S.; Ramayah, T.; Muhammad, Z.; Mas, F.D.; Massaro, M.; Saputra, J.; Mokhlis, S. An Investigation of Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development in Malaysia. Sustainability. 2020, 12, 7083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, Y.-K.; Kimb, S.; Kimc, M.-S.; Choi, J.-G. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mtutu, P.; Thondhlana, G. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: Energy use and recycling at Rhodes University, South Africa. Habitat Int. 2016, 53, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Severo, E.A.; Ferro de Guimaraes, J.C.; Dorion, E.C.H. Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco-innovation: Generations′ perception for a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Suganthi, L. Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 739–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mikuła, A.; Raczkowska, M.; Utzig, M. Pro-environmental behaviour in the European Union countries. Energies. 2021, 14, 5689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kaiser, F.G.; Biel, A. Assessing general ecological behavior: A cross-cultural comparison between Switzerland and Sweden. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2000, 16, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Punzo, G.; Panarello, D.; Pagliuca, M.M.; Castellano, R.; Aprile, M.C. Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: A comparison across four EU countries. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2019, 101, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Farrukh, M.; Ansari, N.; Raza, A.; Wu, Y.; Wang, H. Fostering employee′s pro-environmental behavior through green transformational leadership, green human resource management and environmental knowledge. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 179, 121643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grúňová, M.; Sané, M.; Cincera, J.; Kroufek, R.; Hejcmanová, P. Reliability of the new environmental paradigm for analysing the environmental attitudes of Senegalese pupils in the context of conservation education projects. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Skordoulis, M.; Chalikias, M.; Arabatzis, G. An application of the new environmental paradigm (NEP) scale in a Greek context. Energies 2019, 12, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gareiou, Z.; Zervas, E. Application of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale in Greece. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 899, p. 012047. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ajaps, S.; McLellan, R. We don’t know enough: Environmental education and pro-environmental behaviour perceptions. Cogent Educ. 2015, 2, 1124490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in environmental behaviours in China. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Berndt, A.; Gikonyo, L. Environmental concern behaviours in Africa: An exploratory study. J. Manag. Sustain. 2012, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Takahashi, B.; Theresa Selfa, T. Predictors of pro-environmental behaviour in rural American communities. Environ. Behav. 2014, 47, 856–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. De Groot, J.I.; 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]
  32. Pakpour, A.H.; Zeidi, I.M.; Emamjomeh, M.M.; Asefzadeh, S.; Pearson, H. Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 980–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Poškus, M.S. Predicting recycling behavior by including moral norms into the theory of planned behavior. Psichologija 2015, 52, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Schoeman, D.C.; Rampedi, I.T. Drivers of Household Recycling Behavior in the City of Johannesburg, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “new environmental paradigm”. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hawcroft, L.J.; Milfont, T.L. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chung, S.S.; Poon, C.S. A comparison of waste-reduction practices and new environmental paradigm of rural and urban Chinese citizens. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 62, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ogunbode, C.A. The NEP scale: Measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews in an African context. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1477–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Taye, F.A.; Vedel, S.E.; Jacobsen, J.B. Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2018, 7, 420–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lundmark, C. The new ecological paradigm revisited: Anchoring the NEP scale in environmental ethics. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dunlap, R.E. The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 40, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  43. López-Bonilla, L.M.; López-Bonilla, J.M. From the new environmental paradigm to the brief ecological paradigm: A revised scale in golf tourism. Anatolia 2016, 27, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lange, G.M.; Wodon, Q.; Carey, K. (Eds.) The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Juju, D.; Baffoe, G.; Lam, R.D.; Karanja, A.; Naidoo, M.; Ahmed, A.; Jarzebski, M.P.; Saito, O.; Fukushi, K.; Takeuchi, K.; et al. Sustainability challenges in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). In Sustainability Challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa I; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 3–50. [Google Scholar]
  46. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals—United Nations. 2015. 2. Available online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 23 July 2022).
  47. Inglehart, R.; Haerpfer, C.; Moreno, A.; Welzel, C.; Kizilova, K.; Diez-Medrano, J.; Lagos, M.; Norris, P.; Ponarin, E.; Puranen, B.; et al. (Eds.) World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version; JD Systems Institute: Madrid, Spain, 2014; Available online: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  48. Ma, Z.J. Empirical analysis of Chinese citizens’ willingness to pay the environmental tax/fee. J. Shanxi Acad. Gov. 2012, 26, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, Q.; Wang, B.; Deng, H.; Yu, C. A quantitative analysis of global environmental protection values based on the world values survey data from 1994 to 2014. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Udalov, V. The Impact of Natural Disasters on Individuals’ Choice Between Economic Growth and Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from the World Values Survey. In Behavioural Economics of Climate Change; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
  51. Plombon, E. Factors affecting pro-environmental attitudes. J. Undergrad. Res. 2011, 25, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tam, K.P.; Chan, H.W. Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 48, 182–194. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chan, H.W. When do values promote pro-environmental behaviors? Multilevel evidence on the self-expression hypothesis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 71, 101361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ifegbesan, A.P.; Rampedi, I.T. Understanding the role of socio-demographic and geographical location on pro-environmental behavior in Nigeria. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2018, 17, 335–351. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P. Understanding the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior among South Africans: Evidence from a Structural Equation Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rudolph, J.; Leedy, P.D.; Ormrod, J.E. Practical Research. Planning and Design; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  57. Amoah, A.; Addoah, T. Does environmental knowledge drive pro-environmental behaviour in developing countries? Evidence from households in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2719–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ekejiuba, F.I. Down to fundamentals: Women-centred hearth-holds in rural West Africa. In Women Wielding the Hoe; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 47–61. [Google Scholar]
  59. Anyansi-Archibong, C.; Anyansi, P.M. African entrepreneurs and their philanthropies: Motivations, challenges and impact. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement in Philanthropy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mkumbachi, R.L.; Astina, I.K.; Handoyo, B. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior: A case of university students in Malang city. J. Pendidik. Geogr. 2020, 25, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
  61. Elsantil, Y. Antecedents of green purchasing behavior in the Arabic gulf. Soc. Mark. Q. 2021, 27, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Edumadze, J.K.; Tenkorang, E.Y.; Armah, F.A.; Luginaah, I.; Edumadze, G.E. Electronic waste is a mess: Awareness and proenvironmental behavior among university students in Ghana. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2013, 12, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Longhi, S. Individual Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Household Context; ISER Working Paper Series, No. 2013-21; ISER: Colchester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kennedy, E.H.; Kmec, J. Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environ. Sociol. 2018, 4, 299–310. [Google Scholar]
  65. Thondhlana, G.; Hlatshwayo, T.N. Pro-environmental behaviour in student residences at Rhodes University, South Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Miner, K.J.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P.; Machete, F. Survey on household awareness and willingness to participate in e-waste management in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Otto, S.; Neaman, A.; Richards, B.; Marió, A. Explaining the Ambiguous Relations Between Income, Environmental Knowledge, and Environmentally Significant Behavior. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016, 29, 628–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, X.; Peterson, M.N.; Hull, V.; Lu, C.; Lee, G.D.; Hong, D.; Liu, J. Effects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in urban China. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Milfont, T.; Markowitz, E. Sustainable consumer behavior: A multilevel perspective. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Whitmarsh, L.; Capstick, S.; Nash, N. Who is reducing their material consumption and why? A cross-cultural analysis of dematerialization behaviours. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2017, 375, 20160376. [Google Scholar]
  71. Capstick, S.; Nash, N.; Whitmarsh, L.; Poortinga, W.; Haggar, P.; Brügger, A. The connection between subjective wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviour: Individual and cross-national characteristics in a seven-country study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 133, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. 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]
  73. Chanda, R. Correlates and dimensions of environmental quality concern among residents of an African subtropical city: Gaborone, Botswana. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 30, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, J. How green human resource management can promote green employee behavior in China: A technology acceptance model perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Sembiring, M.J.; Eliyana, A.; Ningrum LS, W. Effect of workplace spirituality on pro-environmental behaviour mediated by environmental passion. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 1282–1290. [Google Scholar]
  76. United Nations 2022. Human Development Index (HDI). Available online: http://undp.org (accessed on 16 July 2022).
  77. Foster, B.; Muhammad, Z.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Faezah, J.N.; Johansyah, M.D.; Yong, J.Y.; Ul-Haque, A.; Saputra, J.; Ramayah, T.; Fawehinmi, O. Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Workplace. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Callan, S.J.; Thomas, J.M. Analyzing Demand for Disposal and Recycling Services: A Systems Approach. East. Econ. J. 2006, 32, 221–240. [Google Scholar]
  79. Monier, S.; Hassan, D.; Nichèle, V.; Simioni, M. Organic food consumption patterns. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2009, 7, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Zheng, J.; Yang, M.; Xu, M.; Zhao, C.; Shao, C. An empirical study of the impact of social interaction on public pro-environmental behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Fatoki, O. Hotel employees’ pro-environmental behaviour: Effect of leadership behaviour, institutional support and workplace spirituality. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Laidley, T.M. The influence of social class and cultural variables on environmental behaviors: Municipal-level evidence from Massachusetts. Environ. Behav. 2011, 45, 170–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Freymeyer, R.H.; Johnson, B.E. A cross-cultural investigation of factors influencing environmental actions. Sociol. Spectr. 2010, 30, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Blankenberg, A.K.; Alhusen, H. On the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Literature Review and Guide for the Empirical Economist. Center for European, Governance, and Economic Development Research (CEGE). 2019. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3473702 (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  86. Skylark, W.J.; Callan, M.J. Personal relative deprivation and pro-environmental intentions. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Barr, S. Strategies for sustainability: Citizens and responsible environmental behavior. Area 2003, 35, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kurisu, K.H.; Bortoleto, A.P. Comparison of waste prevention behaviors among three Japanese megacity regions in the context of local measures and socio-demographics. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1441–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wesselink, R.; Blok, V.; Ringersma, J. Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace and the role of managers and organisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Some of the demographic attributes of respondents.
Table 1. Some of the demographic attributes of respondents.
AlgeriaGhanaNigeriaSouth AfricaZimbabweEgypt
Gender%%%%%%
Male50.750.350.550.046.032.2
Female49.349.749.550.054.067.8
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Marital Status
Married46.842.147.933.352.971.5
Living together as married 2.63.311.52.1
Divorced2.02.60.31.63.70.7
Separated1.21.30.40.83.50.7
Widowed3.22.72.25.18.111.8
Single46.848.645.947.729.715.3
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Social Class
Upper class2.34.42.21.83.91.1
Upper middle class23.818.412.412.115.19.9
Lower middle class31.327.128.717.634.639.3
Working class23.628.723.125.317.525.2
Lower class8.921.433.638.229.024.5
No answer/Do not know10.2 4.9
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Table 2. The proportions of respondents according to their educational achievements.
Table 2. The proportions of respondents according to their educational achievements.
AlgeriaGhanaNigeriaSouth AfricaZimbabweEgypt
Education Background%%%%%%
No formal education16.67.09.11.60.530.6
Incomplete primary school14.512.83.43.35.35.6
Complete primary school15.425.76.95.15.69.6
Incomplete secondary 4.611.910.57.714.14.0
Complete secondary school3.617.334.67.753.724.4
Incomplete university—preparatory15.15.66.124.53.31.5
Complete university—preparatory 10.58.311.739.16.97.8
Some university—without degree9.95.210.35.24.21.7
University-level education, with degree9.86.37.44.86.414.8
No answer0.1 0.9
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Table 3. The proportions of respondents according to their employment status.
Table 3. The proportions of respondents according to their employment status.
AlgeriaGhanaNigeriaSouth AfricaZimbabweEgypt
Employment Status%%%%%%
Full time19.721.612.931.222.915.1
Part time11.64.74.76.67.79.3
Self employed9.033.940.83.617.37.6
Retired6.51.61.28.02.94.1
Housewife22.40.910.16.411.154.4
Students17.221.923.19.95.94.9
Unemployed13.214.97.234.332.34.5
Other0.50.50.1 0.1
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Table 4. Results from the t-test on the PEB of male and female respondents.
Table 4. Results from the t-test on the PEB of male and female respondents.
Countries MaleFemaleStatistics
MeanSDMeanSD
Algeria8.12121.659278.39951.87302t = −2.355; p = 0.019
Ghana7.25001.225667.43651.21485t = −3.011; p = 0.003
Nigeria7.49101.526147.60621.33129t = −1.688; p = 0.092
South Africa7.98101.477898.01361.43064t = −0.652; p = 0.515
Zimbabwe8.04491.526558.11851.53598t = −0.928; p = 0.354
Egypt8.00821.347558.03191.31698t = −0.324; p = 0.746
All six countries7.8041.4957.9301.449t = −4.029; p = 0.001
Table 5. Testing of statistical differences between PEB according to socio-demographic variables amongst countries.
Table 5. Testing of statistical differences between PEB according to socio-demographic variables amongst countries.
Marital StatusAgeScale of IncomeSocial ClassEmployment StatusSector of EmploymentEducation
FpFpFpFpFpFpFp
Algeria8.4150.00010.5380.0003.4560.0321.2750.2786.8220.0000.4230.5163.3240.001
Ghana2.4360.0330.5010.8086.7860.0013.9470.0030.6840.6863.4000.0342.8850.003
Nigeria1.1770.3181.1910.3080.2390.7878.2210.0005.0700.00010.2060.0003.5960.000
South Africa2.8900.0131.1040.35735.8950.00024.3530.0005.0970.0006.1500.00010.2110.000
Zimbabwe2.9660.0111.9910.0641.2190.2961.9760.0960.4040.8770.5220.5942.2380.023
Egypt1.0740.3680.4530.84310.8100.0008.0580.0002.9350.0053.0110.0294.6530.000
All six countries4.5070.0000.2770.094842.0000.00032.1470.00017.2820.00034.7850.00010.7200.000
Table 6. Test of significant differences (ANOVA) of PEB among the selected countries.
Table 6. Test of significant differences (ANOVA) of PEB among the selected countries.
Sum of SquaresDfMean SquareFSig.
Pro-environmental behaviourBetween Groups907.9905181.59887.1850.000
Within Groups22,066.36410,5942.083
Total22,974.35510,599
Table 7. Pairwise comparisons of differences in PEB and related items.
Table 7. Pairwise comparisons of differences in PEB and related items.
Pro-environmental BehaviourMean Difference (I–J)SESig.Lower BoundUpper Bound
AlgeriaGhana0.91388 *0.060470.0000.74151.0862
Nigeria0.70863 *0.059150.0000.54000.8772
South Africa0.25934 *0.054160.0000.10500.4137
Zimbabwe0.172000.060850.053−0.00140.3454
Egypt0.23237 *0.060680.002.05940.4053
GhanaAlgeria−0.91388 *0.060470.000−1.0862−0.7415
Nigeria−0.20526 *0.050260.001−0.3485−0.0620
South Africa−0.65454 *0.044280.000−0.7808−0.5283
Zimbabwe−0.74188 *0.052260.000−0.8908−0.5929
Egypt−0.68151 *0.052050.000−0.8299−0.5331
NigeriaAlgeria−0.70863 *0.059150.000−0.8772−0.5400
Ghana0.20526 *0.050260.0010.06200.3485
South Africa−0.44929 *0.042460.000−0.5703−0.3283
Zimbabwe−0.53663 *0.050720.000−0.6812−0.3921
Egypt−0.47626 *0.050520.000−0.6202−0.3323
South AfricaAlgeria−0.25934 *0.054160.000−0.4137−0.1050
Ghana0.65454 *0.044280.0000.52830.7808
Nigeria0.44929 *0.042460.0000.32830.5703
Zimbabwe−0.087340.044800.372−0.21500.0404
Egypt−0.026970.044570.991−0.15400.1001
ZimbabweAlgeria−0.172000.060850.053−0.34540.0014
Ghana0.74188 *0.052260.0000.59290.8908
Nigeria0.53663 *0.050720.0000.39210.6812
South Africa0.087340.044800.372−0.04040.2150
Egypt0.060370.052500.860−0.08930.2100
EgyptAlgeria−0.23237 *0.060680.002−0.4053−0.0594
Ghana0.68151 *0.052050.0000.53310.8299
Nigeria0.47626 *0.050520.0000.33230.6202
South Africa0.026970.044570.991−0.10010.1540
Zimbabwe−0.060370.052500.860−0.21000.0893
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 8. Summary of correlation analysis of socio-demographic variable and pro-environmental behaviour for the six countries.
Table 8. Summary of correlation analysis of socio-demographic variable and pro-environmental behaviour for the six countries.
AlgeriaGhanaNigeriaSouth AfricaZimbabweEgyptAll
Gender0.079 *0.076 **0.0400.0110.0240.0080.039 **
Age−0.182 **0.000−0.014−0.020−0.060 *0.0320.003
Marital status0.175 **−0.0060.0080.049 **−0.018−0.0220.018
Highest Educational0.036−0.117 **−0.087 **−0.132 **−0.058 *−0.136 **−0.064 **
Employment status0.173 **−0.0190.102 **0.081 **−0.0010.072 **0.075 **
Sector of employment0.0300.067 *−0.0330.062 **0.0300.075 **0.097 **
Social class0.0350.098 **0.125 **0.168 **0.0360.129 **0.108 **
Scale of incomes−0.127 **−0.073 **−0.057 *−0.156 **−0.035−0.153 **−0.108 **
Membership: Environmental organisation−0.142 **−0.112 **−0.122 **−0.190 **−0.163 **0.007−0.141 **
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 9. Multiple regression analysis of socio-demographic characteristics as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour by countries.
Table 9. Multiple regression analysis of socio-demographic characteristics as predictors of pro-environmental behaviour by countries.
AlgeriaGhanaNigeriaSouth AfricaZimbabweEgyptPooled
BβpBβpBβpBΒpBβpBΒpBβp
(Constant)8.921 0.0007.022 0.0006.947 0.0009.027 0.0008.989 0.0008.913 0.0007.587 0.000
Gender−0.033−0.0090.8630.1000.0420.178−0.006−0.0020.9410.0330.0120.5040.0620.0200.524−0.147−0.0520.106−0.005−0.0020.867
Age−0.227−0.2000.004−0.026−0.0290.370−0.005−0.0040.894−0.042−0.0410.048−0.066−0.0560.0990.0010.0010.9700.0090.0090.449
Marital status0.0220.0320.5620.0200.0390.2330.0240.0400.2150.0050.0090.664−0.009−0.0130.677−0.017−0.0260.3170.0160.0260.028
Highest educational−0.032−0.0520.352−0.047−0.0820.022−0.029−0.0450.191−0.074−0.0860.000−0.049−0.0520.139−0.036−0.0770.0110.0010.0020.870
Employment status0.0650.0630.294−0.011−0.0160.5880.0720.0650.0420.0170.0310.228−0.016−0.0230.4680.0450.0580.2220.0160.0240.083
Sector of employment−0.172−0.0530.3580.0450.0160.609−0.270−0.1030.002−0.058−0.0440.082−0.002−0.0010.9830.0160.0150.7670.0630.0470.001
Social class0.0910.0560.3730.1190.1080.0050.2320.1770.0000.1060.0830.0000.0310.0240.5460.0260.0190.5790.1280.1000.000
Incomes0.0220.0260.6800.0130.0220.5750.0450.0670.073−0.045−0.0710.001−0.034−0.0430.278−0.072−0.1090.001−0.019−0.0280.035
Environmental organisation membership−0.869−0.1290.009−0.173−0.0780.009−0.300−0.1350.000−0.386−0.1690.000−0.484−0.1540.0000.3290.0160.536−0.332−0.1280.000
R = 0.228
R2 = 0.052
Adjusted R2 = 0.028
F = 2.189
R = 0.189
R2 = 0.036
Adjusted R2 = 0.027
F = 4.157
R = 0.243
R2 = 0.059
Adjusted R2 = 0.051
F = 7.156
R = 0.280
R2 = 0.078
Adjusted R2 = 0.076
F = 26.635
R = 0.208
R2 = 0.048
Adjusted R2 = 0.034
F = 4.638
R = 0.230
R2 = 0.053
Adjusted R2 = 0.046
F = 8.411
R = 0.222
R2 = 0.049
Adjusted R2 = 0.048
F = 43.413
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ifegbesan, A.P.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ogunyemi, B.; Modley, L.-A. Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour amongst Citizens in African Countries: A Cross-National Study amongst Six African Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159311

AMA Style

Ifegbesan AP, Rampedi IT, Ogunyemi B, Modley L-A. Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour amongst Citizens in African Countries: A Cross-National Study amongst Six African Countries. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159311

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ifegbesan, Ayodeji P., Isaac T. Rampedi, Biodun Ogunyemi, and Lee-Ann Modley. 2022. "Predicting Pro-Environmental Behaviour amongst Citizens in African Countries: A Cross-National Study amongst Six African Countries" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159311

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