Structural Equation Model for Environmentally Conscious ......Structural Equation Model for Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior Arslan, T., Yilmaz, V. and Aksoy, H. K. *
Post on 05-Feb-2021
2 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012ISSN: 1735-6865
Received 7 March 2011; Revised 1 July 2011; Accepted 10 July 2011
*Corresponding author E-mail: hkaksoy@ogu.edu.tr
323
Structural Equation Model for Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior
Arslan, T., Yilmaz, V. and Aksoy, H. K.*
Department of Statistics, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, 26480 Turkey
ABSTRACT: In this study, the effect of environmental concern, attitudes and behaviors of the universitystudents on the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior was investigated with the help of StructuralEquation Model (SEM). SEM is an effective data analysis tool that expresses the complicated causativerelations between the latent variables. In this study, we collected the data from 400 university students bymeans of a survey. The results of this research showed that environmental attitudes, environmental behaviorand green product awareness have a positive effect on environmentally conscious purchasing behavior. Thedeveloped model showed that, environmental concern explains 48% of the variation in the environmentalattitudes and 28% of the product recovery awareness; environmental attitudes and product recovery awarenessexplain 55% of green product awareness; environmental attitudes explains 44% of the variation in theenvironmental behavior; environmental attitudes, green product awareness and environmental behavior explain74% of the variation in the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior.
Key words: Structural Equation Model, Latent variable, Environmental consciousness, Green product, Product recovery, Consumers’ behavior
INTRODUCTIONPublic consciousness on environmental issues and
recent more strict environmental legislations have beencompelling manufacturers from various industries andconsumers to produce and dispose of used productsin an environmentally conscious manner. The rapidexhaustion of raw materials and growing amount ofsolid waste also fuel this trend. Gungor and Gupta (1999)reviewed the literature and emphasized the two majorobjectives of the environmentally consciousmanufacturing and product recovery. These objectivesare environmentally friendly product generation anddevelopment of product recovery and wastemanagement technologies. The objective of productrecovery management, as stated by Thierry et al. (1995),is ‘to recover as much of the economic (and ecological)value as reasonably as possible, thereby reducing theultimate quantities of waste’. In a subsequent paper,Ilgin and Gupta (2010) expand the environmentallyconscious manufacturing and product recoveryliterature and examined it under four major categories;environmentally conscious product design, reverse andclosed-loop supply chains, remanufacturing, anddisassembly. Environmental problems and theaccelerating changes in living conditions have becomea fundamental part of the world in general andmetropolises in particular. Earlier, environmental
problems have been considered as technical andeconomic problems; while in the recent decades thesocial dimensions of environmental problems such aspublic attention and people’s attitudes towardsenvironment have became one of the areas ofenvironmental sociology and environmentalpsychology (Kalantari and Asadi, 2010).
Environmentally conscious manufacturing andproduct recovery efforts are directly related with theconsumer’s awareness and involvement into thisprocess. Taking different factors into consideration,the researchers develop many environmental attitudeand environmental behavior models. Hini et al. (1995)examine the relationship between environmentalattitudes and behaviours. Environmental behaviorincludes actions which contr ibute towardsenvironmental preservation and/or conservation (forinstance, energy conservation, water conservation,consumerism, etc). On the other hand the object ofone’s environmental attitude is either the naturalenvironment itself or conservation behavior (Axelrodand Lehman (1993), Kaiser et al. (1999) and (2007)).
The literature in the area of environmental attitudeand behavior involves various models which arearising from the perspective of the researchers towardsthe issue. Some of the researchers used environmental
324
Arslan, T. et al.
attitude as the estimator of the environmental behavior(Chan, 1999; Kaiser et al., 1999; Fraj and Martinez, 2007;Steg and Vlek, 2009). Alternatively, both environmentalattitude and environmental behavior are alsoconsidered simultaneously as the estimator of theenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(ECPB) (Mostafa, 2007; Tilikidou and Delistavrou,2008).
The roots of environmental problems lie in humanbehavior, so the solution could lie in changing thebehavior of organizations and groups and so incultural and lifestyle changes, i.e., environmentalawareness is needed from the point of view of bothsupply and demand (Mondéjar-Jiménez et al., 2011).The main focus of this research is individuals’ ECPB,we considered environmental behavior (EB) as anexogenous latent variable of the ECPB. The majorreasons that we have considered the ECPB in the modelas follows;(1) ECPB together with environmentalist behavior canbe seen as significant actions measuring naturefriendliness and protection.(2) Recent consumer’s trend towards green productsmay direct the enterprises to change their entire wayof production process in an environmentally friendlymanner.3) Companies which fail to put into serviceenvironmentally responsible operation procedures willencounter a loss of competitiveness or loose marketshare. Hereby consumers accompanied by producers/manufacturers will have more effective roles inprotecting the environment.
In this study, we developed an analytical model toexamine the effect of environmental concern, attitudeand behavior of the consumers on theirenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(ECPB). We employed the Structural Equation Model(SEM) to investigate the complex correspondence ofabovementioned factors. SEM describes thecomplicated causative relations between the latentvariables. For this purpose, firstly, environmentalconcern and environmental attitude of the students asthe estimator of the environmental behavior were used.Secondly, environmental concern, environmentalattitude and product recovery awareness were usedas the estimator of the green product awareness.Finally, consumer ’s environmental attitude,environmental behavior and green product awarenesswere used as the estimator of the environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior of the universitystudents.
In the literature, the relationship amongenvironmental concern, environmental attitude,
environmental behavior and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior were analyzedseparately. On the other hand, the most significantdistinction of this work is SEM comprehensivelycomprises all of the factors in the model, viz.environmental concern, environmental attitude,product recovery awareness, green product awareness,environmental behavior and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior of individuals’simultaneously.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2presents mainly relevant literature in the area. Section3 briefly presents Structural Equation Model (SEM)and its’ analysis. Section 4 presents the results of theanalysis. Finally, Section 5 provides conclusion andSection 6 discusses the findings of this study.
Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) indicated thatenvironmental concern could be used as the estimatorsof the environmental behaviors. Kaiser et al. (1999)indicated that environmental attitudes could be usedas the estimator of the environmental behavior.Nordlund and Garvill (2002) determined that personalnorm mediated the effects from general values,environmental values and problem awareness onproenvironmental behavior.
Mannetti et al. (2004), searched the attitudes ofthe Italians towards recycling efforts by means of theSEM. Authors found that, personal judgments have asignificant effect on explaining the product recoveryawareness. Bolaane (2006) determined that educationalstatus considerably affects the contribution to productrecovery efforts. Sidique et al. (2010) pointed out thatdemographic factors like age, educational status,income and number of the individuals in a householdhave an influence on the recycling efforts. Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2006) found that there is a negativecorrelation between the environmental behavior andenvironmental insensitivities among Greek consumers.Also, authors emphasized that females with highereducation contribute the environmental activities more.Mostafa (2007) determined that environmental anxietiesare effective on the attitudes of the people on theconsumption of green products and he found that thereis a weak relationship between the consumers’ greenproduct awareness and their actual green productconsumption behavior. Fraj and Martinez (2007)depicted that environmental attitudes are the estimatorsof the environmental behavior. Tilikidou (2007) foundthat while environmentally concerned consumption hasa positive correlation with environmental awareness;it has a negative correlation with environmentalunconcern. Tilikidou and Delistavrou (2008) determinedthat the consumers, who behave in accordance with
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012
325
environment and who are interested in productrecovery and participate in environment-priorityactivities, are high-educated people. Birgelen et al.(2009) found that env-friendly purchase and disposaldecisions for beverages are related to theenvironmental awareness of consumer and their env-friendly attitude.
Dono et al. (2009) found that there is a significantrelationship between environmental attitudes andenvironmental behaviors. Steg and Vlek (2009)indicated that when the environmental behaviors ofindividuals are to be explained, environmental attitudesrelated to them shall primarily be examined and in casethose environmental attitudes are to be changed, thiswould be reflected on the behavior, as well.
MATERIALS & METHODSThe following notation is used through the paper;
AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
CFI Comparative Fit Index EA Environmental Attitude
EB Environmental Behavior EC Environmental Concern ECPB Environmentally Conscious Purchasing
Behavior GFI Goodness of F it Index GPA Green Product Awareness NFI Normed Fit Index NNFI Non-Normed Fit Index PRA Product Recovery Awareness RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation RMR Root Mean Square Error SECPBM Students’ Environmentally Conscious
Purchasing Behavior Model SEM Structural Equation Model
Structural Equation ModelingSEM is a comprehensive statistical method used
in testing hypotheses about causal relationshipsamong observed and unobserved (latent) variables hasproved to be useful in solving problems and informulating theoretical constructions (Reisinger andTurner, 1999). SEM also can expand the explanatoryability and statistical efficiency for model testing witha single comprehensive method (Pang, 1996).Steenkamp and Baumgartner (2000) reflect on the roleof SEM in marketing modeling and managerial decisionmaking, and discuss some of its benefits. Authorsunderlined that although SEM has potential fordecision support modeling, it is probably most usefulfor theory testing, which is a key phase in developingmodels. Applied to data on attitudes, perceptions,
stated behavioral intentions, and actual behavior, SEMcan be used to specify and test alternative causalhypotheses (for SEM and LISREL see Byrne, 1998;Cheng, 2001; Cudeck et al. 2000; Hayduk, 1987;Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2001).
MeasurementThe measurement tool used in this study was
adapted from Kaiser and Wilson (2000), Fraj andMartinez (2007), Tilikidou and Delistavrou (2008). Inthe measurement tool, the items of attitude andbehavior were measured by 5 point likert scale. Theattitudinal questions were labeled either stronglydisagree to strongly agree. The behavioral questionswere labeled never to always. There are 26 items in themeasurement tool that include various attitudes andbehaviors (fifteen of them are measures attitude andeleven of them are measures behavior). The values ofCronbach Alpha (α), which is the reliability criteriarelated to the factors in the model, are given in Table 1.The Cronbach Alpha (α) value between 0.50 and 0.60means a “close to reliability” and that they are between0.60 and 0.80 means that it is “reliable”. Table 1 showsthat, five of the calculated Cronbach Alpha (α) valuesare between 0.60 and 0.80; one of them is between 0.50and 0.60.
Data collectionIn this research, since the general proportion of
the attitude and behavior expressions within the frameof research was not known, we couldn’t prepared theresearch frame by means of the contingent samplingtechnique. However, to determine the sample size weutilized the acceptable error level method under thenormality assumption for the sample statistic. Thesample size was calculated as 384; on 0.05 relevancelevel, z=1.96 d (sensitivity) =0.05 or p and q values,being 0.5 (for the details of sample size calculationplease see; Kish, 1965).
The survey was applied by talking face to face to400 students, who were chosen randomly within theuniversity campus. Fourty-seven of the appliedsurveys were soon realized that erroneous andinconsistent and they were not included within theanalyses.
Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical premise of this study is based on
the theory of planned behavior. The theory of plannedbehavior was formulated by Ajzen (1985) after thedevelopment of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1980). According to the theory of plannedbehavior, human behavior is under the influence ofcertain factors with certain underlying causes, andexhibits itself in a planned manner. Initially, an
326
Structural Model for Environmentally Conscious Behavior
Tabl
e1. I
tem
s with
in th
e Fac
tors
and
thei
r Mea
nsFa
ctor
s / C
ronb
ach
Alp
ha(α
) / It
ems
M
ale
Fem
ale
Envi
ronm
enta
l Con
cern
(EC
)/ C
ronb
ach
Alp
ha(α
)= 0
.75
a1
. Th
e id
ea th
at h
uman
, as
the
mas
ter
of t
he e
arth
, ha
s th
e rig
ht t
o di
strib
ute
the
natu
ral s
ourc
es i
n w
hate
ver
way
she
/he
wis
hes
to,
frustr
ates
me.
4.
21
4.06
4.
31
a2. T
he fa
ct th
at fa
ctor
ies p
erfo
rm p
rodu
ctio
n w
ithou
t che
ckin
g w
heth
er it
is h
arm
ful t
o na
ture
or n
ot, s
care
me.
4.
37
4.03
4.
58
a3. T
he id
ea o
f not
leav
ing
a cl
ean
wor
ld to
nex
t gen
erat
ions
wor
ries m
e.
4.35
4.
05
4.53
a4
. The
fact
that
peo
ple
hunt
ani
mal
s fo
r the
ir fu
rs a
ggra
vate
s m
e.
4.02
3.
76
4.29
a5
a . I d
on’t
thin
k th
at th
e pr
oble
m o
f env
ironm
enta
l pol
lutio
n is
exa
gger
ated
. 3.
99
3.79
4.
12
Envi
ronm
enta
l Atti
tude
(EA)
/ C
ronb
ach
Alp
ha(α
)= 0
.53
b1
. If
it pr
ovid
ed a
n ad
vant
age
for
the
envi
ronm
ent,
the
prod
ucts
whi
ch a
re p
rodu
ced,
pro
cess
ed a
nd p
acka
ged
in a
frie
ndly
way
to
envi
ronm
ent,
coul
d be
pai
d m
ore.
3.
53
3.26
3.
70
b2. I
f the
re is
to b
e a
choi
ce b
etw
een
two
prod
ucts,
the
prod
uct t
hat c
ause
s th
e le
ast h
arm
to p
eopl
e an
d en
viro
nmen
t sha
ll be
pur
chas
ed.
3.98
3.
80
4.09
b3. P
rodu
cts,
who
se b
asin
s an
d bo
xes c
ould
be
used
for o
ther
pur
pose
s sh
all b
e pr
efer
red.
. 3.
73
3.56
3.
83
b4. R
eact
iona
l act
iviti
es, p
erfo
rmed
in b
ehal
f of p
rote
ctin
g th
e env
ironm
ent,
prov
ide
bene
fit fo
r the
envi
ronm
ent.
2.83
2.
68
2.92
Pr
oduc
t Rec
over
y A
war
enes
s (PR
A) /
Cro
nbac
h A
lpha
(α)=
0.7
7
d1. T
he c
ontri
butio
n, a
cqui
red
as a
resu
lt of
pro
duct
reco
very
, gai
ns fa
vor f
or th
e so
ciet
y.
4.08
3.
84
4.23
d2
. Pro
duct
reco
very
hel
ps to
pro
tect
the
natu
ral s
ourc
es.
4.21
4.
03
4.33
d3
. The
pac
kage
of t
he p
urch
ased
pro
duct
sha
ll be
mad
e of r
ecyc
labl
e m
ater
ial.
4.
16
3.97
4.
27
Gre
en P
rodu
ct A
ware
ness
(GPA
) / C
ronb
ach
Alph
a(α)
= 0.
65
c1
. I b
elie
ve th
at co
nsum
ing
gree
n pr
oduc
ts is
bet
ter f
or h
uman
hea
lth.
3.97
3.
85
4.04
c2
. I th
ink
that
gre
en p
rodu
cts a
re c
ompl
etel
y fr
iend
ly to
nat
ure.
3.
45
3.27
3.
60
c3. T
he w
aste
s of g
reen
pro
duct
s are
har
mle
ss, s
ince
they
can
be
anni
hila
ted
durin
g th
e nat
ural
pro
cess
. 3.
69
3.56
3.
77
Envi
ronm
enta
l Beh
avio
r(E
B) /
Cro
nbac
h A
lpha
(α)=
0.7
4
e1. I
dis
cuss
abo
ut th
e en
viro
nmen
tal p
robl
ems
durin
g th
e fe
llow
con
vers
atio
ns.
2.76
2.
62
2.84
e2
. I th
row
the
was
tes b
y se
para
ting.
3.
20
2.94
3.
37
e3. I
do
not p
urch
ase
the
prod
ucts
of th
e fir
ms t
hat d
amag
e th
e en
viro
nmen
t. 2.
90
2.74
3.
01
e4. I
try
to c
onvi
nce
my
fam
ily m
embe
rs a
nd fr
iend
s no
t to
buy
the
prod
ucts
that
dam
age
the
envi
ronm
ent.
3.
10
2.85
3.
25
e5. I
hav
e ch
ange
d m
y lif
esty
le in
beh
alf o
f pro
tect
ing
the n
atur
e.
2.47
2.
37
2.53
e6
. I d
ecre
ase t
he c
onsu
mpt
ion
of e
lect
ricity
, wat
er a
nd fu
el in
ord
er to
pro
tect
the
natu
re.
3.31
3.
12
3.42
e7
. I d
o at
tend
to p
lant
ing
tree.
3.
05
3.08
3.
03
Envi
ronm
enta
lly C
onsc
ious
Pur
chas
ing
Beh
avio
r (E
CPB
) / C
ronb
ach
Alp
ha(α
)= 0
.77
f1
. Con
side
ring
thei
r dam
ages
, I e
xcha
nge
the
prod
ucts
I ow
n, w
ith e
colo
gica
l pro
duct
s.
2.59
2.
56
2.61
f2
. Whi
le p
urch
asin
g a
prod
uct,
I loo
k w
heth
er th
ere
is a
n ec
olog
ical
pro
duct
labe
l on
the
pack
age
or n
ot.
2.81
2.
58
2.95
f3
. I p
refe
r eco
logi
cal p
rodu
cts s
ince
they
do
not d
istu
rb th
e na
tura
l bal
ance
. 3.
52
3.27
3.
68
f4. I
pur
chas
e eco
logi
cal p
rodu
cts a
lthou
gh th
ey a
re m
ore
expe
nsiv
e th
an th
e si
mila
r pro
duct
s.
2.98
2.
65
3.18
a I
nver
ted
item
s.
327
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012
“Intention” has to be developed in order that a personperforms the behaviour. Factors affecting “Intention”can be listed as “Attitude towards the Behavior”,“Subjective Norm”, and “Perceived BehavioralControl”. According to the planned behavior theory,“Behavior” is directly under the influence of“Intention” (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2005; Ajzen andFishbein, 2000). This paper is based on Ajzen’s (1985)theory of planned behavior and Kaiser et al.’s (1999)environmental attitude and ecological behaviour model.
Research model and hypothesesIn this research model, environmental concern was
used as the estimator of the environmental attitudeand product recovery awareness. Environmentalattitude and product recovery awareness were usedas the estimator of the green product awareness.Environmental attitude, environmental behavior andgreen products awareness were used as the estimatorof the environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(Fig. 1).
Here, we explained the research hypothesis andtheir foundations. These hypotheses are depicted inTable 2. Individuals, who encounter with environmentalproblems, are expected to react to the problem thataffects her/him. This expected reaction constitutes theconcept of concern about environmental problems.Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) indicated that as theconcern of individuals about the environmentincreases, their environmental attitudes increases inparallel to it. In order to investigate the relationshipbetween environmental concern and environmentalattitude, an H1 hypothesis was developed.
Fig. 1. Research Model
Product recovery is being used as an effectiveway in protecting the environment. Environmentallyconcerned enterprises shape their productionprocesses in an environmentally conscious manner.Bolaane (2006), Sidique et al. (2010) stated thatconsumers with environmental concern preferrecyclable products. In order to search the relationshipbetween environmental concern and product recoveryawareness, H2 hypothesis was introduced.
Green products are known to be the products thatplay an effective role in protecting the environment. Itcould be assumed that, product recovery awarenessmay affect green product awareness. Both factors arealso having a positive affect on protecting theenvironment. In order to investigate the relationshipbetween product recovery awareness, which is effectivein protecting the nature, and green products awareness,H4 hypothesis was developed. On the other hand,environmental concern was used as the estimator ofproduct recovery awareness and product recoveryawareness was used as the estimator of green productawareness. H2 and H4 hypothesis, which examine theserelationships, were adapted from Mannetti et al. (2004),Bolaane (2006) and Sidique et al. (2010).
In order to reveal the existence of the relationshipbetween environmental attitude and behavior, H3hypothesis was introduced. It was assumed thatindividuals with environmental attitudes would havegreen product awareness by converting this awarenessinto environmental behavior. Environmental attitudesand behaviors, on the other hand, would turn intoenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior. Inorder to determine the existence of the relationship of
328
Arslan, T. et al.
environmental attitude and environmental behaviorwith green product awareness and environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior, H5, H6 ve H7hypothesis were developed respectively. With theassumption that environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior would develop by converting thegreen product awareness, H8 hypothesis wasintroduced. The relationship between environmentalconcern and environmental attitudes was investigatedby Kaiser and Shimoda (1999). The relationshipbetween the green product awareness andenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior wasexamined in the studies of Mostafa (2007) and Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2008).
H1, H3, H5, H6, H7 and H8 hypothesis, whichwere examined in this study, were adapted from ofKaiser and Shimoda (1999), Mostafa (2007) andTilikidou and Delistavrou (2008) and Fraj and Martinez(2007). Kaiser and Shimoda (1999) examined therelationship between environmental concern andenvironmental attitude; Tilikidou and Delistavrou(2006) examined the relationship betweenenvironmental concern and environmental behavior;Kaiser et al. (1999); Fraj and Martinez (2007) examinedthe relationship between environmental attitude and
Table 2. Research Hypothesis
H yp ot hesis
H 1 As the environme ntal c once rn incr eases, e nvironmenta l attitude incre ase s, as well.
H 2 As the environme ntal c once rn incr eases, product recovery a wa reness incr eases, a s well.
H 3 As the environme ntal a ttitude increases, environmental behavior incre ases, a s we ll.
H 4 As the produc t recovery awar eness incre ase s, gree n pr oduct aware ne ss increa se, as we ll.
H 5 As the envir onm ental attitude inc reases, envir onme ntally conscious purchasing behavior inc reases, as
well.
H 6 As the e nvironm enta l beha vior incre ase s, environm entally consc ious purc ha sing behavior inc reases,
a s we ll.
H 7 As the environme ntal a ttitude increases, green produc ts a wa reness incr ease, as well.
H 8 As the green pr oducts aware ne ss incre ase s, e nvironmenta lly c onscious purchasing behavior incr eases,
a s we ll.
environmental behavior. In this research, in additionto the existing literature a much more comprehensivemodel was developed and hypotheses were tested.The hypotheses, examined within the research, arepresented in Table 2.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONDescriptive statistics
The analysis and averages related to the scale thatwas used in the studied items within the factors aregiven in Table 1. Examination of the items within thefactors show that the statement “The fact that factoriesperform production without checking whether it isharmful to nature or not, scares me.” within the “EC”factor, has the highest average (4.37). The statementof “If there is to be a choice between two products, theproduct that causes the least harm to people andenvironment shall be purchased.” within the “EA”factor, has the highest average (3.98). The statementof “Recycling helps to protect the natural sources.”within the “PRA” factor, has the highest average (4.21).The statement of “I believe that consuming ecologicalproducts is better for human health.” within the “GPA”factor, has the highest average (3.97). The statementof “I decrease the consumption of electricity, water
Table 3. T-test Results for the Comparison of Males and Females with Respect to theFactors Considered in the Study
Factors t s ig . M e an D if fere nce EC -5 .072 p< 0.001 -0 .422 EA -4 .069 p< 0.001 -0 .312
PR A 2 .039 0 .043 -0 .136 G PA -2 .821 0 .005 -0 .236 EB -3 .41 0 .001 -0 .275
ECP B -4 .423 p< 0.001 -0 .437
329
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012
and fuel in order to protect the nature.” within the “EB”factor, has the highest average (3.31). The statement of“I prefer ecological products since they do not disturbthe natural balance.” within the “ECPB” factor, has thehighest average (3.52). Checking the averages relatedto factors, it is seen that the highest average belongsto the “EC” (4.19) factor, which is respectively followedby “PRA” (4.15), “GPA” (3.70), “EA” (3.51), “EB” (2.97)and “ECPB” (2.97).
Examining the green product awareness, it is seenthat females is more concerned about this subject andconsequently, their positive attitudes are higher.Besides, the frequency of environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior is higher in females, being parallelto green product awareness. Examining the study ingeneral, it could be said that females are more concernedand conscious about the issues of environmentalattitude and behavior than males (Table 3).
Structural model resultsThere are more than one goodness of fit index for
Structural Equation Model. When the literature issearched, the most commonly used test statistics inSEM are likelihood ratio chi-square statistics (χ2), rootmean square error of approximation(RMSEA), goodnessof fit index statistics (GFI) and adjusted goodness offit index (AGFI). If the value of {χ2 /d.f.} is less than 3 itmeans that there is an acceptable fit. If the RMSEA isless than 0.05 it shows the perfect fit, 0,05< RMSEA 0,1 means poor fit.GFI is used similar to the statistics of coefficient ofdetermination (R2) in Regression Analysis. AGFI isused similar to the statistics of adjusted coefficient ofdetermination in Regression Analysis. AGFI and GFIhave value between 0 and 1 and generally having thevalue of close to 1 means that the model fits well.(Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006).
LISREL 8.74 program was used in the analysis ofthe data. The goodness-of-fit indexes of the model are
calculated as; 2χ = 487.77; df. =291; 2χ / df. =1.68;
RMSEA=0.047; NFI=0.92; NNFI=0.97; CFI=0.97;RMR=0.068; GFI=0.89; AGFI=0.87. The goodness-of-fit indexes show that the model is within acceptablelimits. Goodness-of-fit indexes acceptable limits arepresented in Table 4 (for more information aboutgoodness-of-fit indexes, see Schermelleh-Engel et al.(2003); Byrne (1998); Hayduk (1987); Jöreskog andSörbom (2001)).
Structural equations, the results related tohypothesis and standardized parameter estimationvalues are given in Table 5. Looking at the Table 5; it isseen that an increase of one unit in the factor of“environmental concern (EC)” causes an increase of0.69 units in “environmental attitude (EA)” and anincrease of 0.53 units in “product recovery awareness(PRA)”. Besides, while an increase of one unit in thefactor of “environmental attitude (EA)” causes anincrease of 0.67 units in “environmental behavior (EB)”and an increase of 0.64 unit in “green productawareness (GPA)”, it could be said that an increase ofone unit in the factor of “product recovery awareness(PRA)” causes an increase of 0.21 unit in “greenproduct awareness (GPA)”. Additionally, it is revealedthat an increase of one unit in the factor of “greenproduct awareness (GPA)” causes an increase of 0.24unit in “environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior (ECPB)” and an increase of one unit in thefactor of “environmental behavior (EB)” causes anincrease of 0.70 unit in “environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior (ECPB)” (Table 5). Besides, sincethe relationship of “EA” “ECPB” was notstatistically found significant, H5 could not beconfirmed. R2 value, related to the “Model of Students’Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior(SECPBM)”, was found as 0.74. This R2 value showsthat the factors explain 74% of the change within “EPB”and 26% of it could be explained through the factors,which do not exist within the model.
It could be said that the increase of environmentalconcern and environmental attitudes of universitystudents display an amplifier effect on their
Table3. T-test Results for the Comparison of Males and Females with Respect to theFactors Considered in the Study
Fact or s t sig. Mean Differe nce
EC -5.072 p
330
Table 5. Standardized parameter estimation values, t values and hypothesis
Hypothesis Path Std. parameter estimation values t -value Result
H1 (EC) (EA) 0.69 6.82 Confirmed
H2 (EC) (PRA) 0.53 6.91 Confirmed H3 (EA) (EB) 0.67 5.52 Confirmed
H5 (EA) (ECPB) 0.02 0.16 Not Confirmed
H7 (EA) (GPA) 0,64 5.38 Confirmed
H4 (PRA (GPA) 0.21 2.66 Confirmed H8 (GPA) (ECPB) 0.24 2.15 Confirmed
H6 (EB) (ECPB) 0.70 5.62 Confirmed
Structural Equations
EA = 0.69*EC R2=0.48 PRA = 0.53*EC R2=0.28
GPA = 0.64*EA + 0.21*PRA R2=0.55
EB = 0.67*EA R2=0.44
ECPB = 0.02*EA + 0.24*GPA + 0.70*EB R2=0.74
EA PRA GPA EB ECPB EC EA 1.00 PRA 0.36 1.00 GPA 0.71 0.44 1.00 EB 0.67 0.24 0.48 1.00 ECPB 0.66 0.28 0.59 0.83 1.00 EC 0.69 0.53 0.55 0.46 0.47 1.00
Table 6. Correlation matrix related to the factors
Table 4. Goodness-of-Fit Indexes Acceptable Limits
Fit Measures Good Fit Acceptable Fit Developed Model
RMSEA 0
331
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012
Fig. 2. Students’ Environmentally Conscious Purchasing Behavior Model (SECPBM) LISREL 8.74 Output
332
Arslan, T. et al.
environmental behaviors. Besides, in the developedstructural equation model, it was seen thatenvironmental concern, environmental attitude andproduct recovery awareness play an amplifier role forthe student’s green products awareness. Finally, it wasrevealed that environmental attitudes, environmentalbehavior and green products awareness display apositive effect on environmentally consciouspurchasing behaviors. Additionally correlation matrix,related to the factors is given in Table 6.
Fig. 2 shows a structural equation model forstudents’ environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior. While environmental concern explains 48%of the change in the environmental attitude and 28%of the product recovery awareness, environmentalattitudes and product recovery awareness explain 55%of the green product awareness. While environmentalattitudes explain 44% of the change in theenvironmental behavior; environmental attitudes,green product awareness and environmental behaviorexplain 74% of the change in the environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior (Fig. 2).
CONCLUSIONThe results of the study revealed that environmental
attitudes could be used as the estimator of theenvironmental behavior (EA EB). This findingcoincides with the findings, acquired through the studieswhich were performed in different cultures in theliterature (Kaiser and Shimoda, 1999; Dono et al. 2009).Considering the fact that the study was conducted withthe university students, it is seen that it has similaritieswith the results of the study conducted by Kaiser andWilson (2000) with the students in California, as well.Besides, the significant relationship betweenenvironmental attitude and environmental behavior(EA EB), which is obtained from the study, depicts asimilarity with the findings of the study done by Donoet al. (2009). No statistically significant relationship wasfound between environmental attitude andenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior(EA ECPB) in this study. Mostafa (2007) determinedthe existence of a weak relationship between the interestof the individuals in green consumption and their realconsumption behaviors. The fact that no statisticallysignificant relationship between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(EA ECPB) could be found in the structural equationmodel, which was developed in this study, confirms thefindings in the study of Mostafa (2007). In addition tothe findings of Mannetti et al. (2004), Bolaane (2006)and Sidique et al. (2010), who investigated the productrecovery awareness, it was seen in the findings of thisstudy that environmental concern effects the productrecovery awareness (EC PRA) positively.
While Bolaane (2006) and Sidique et al. (2010) claimthat educational status influences the product recoveryawareness in their studies, it was additionally determinedthat gender, as well, has also a significant effect onproduct recovery awareness in this study. This resultcould be seen in the result of the t test (Table 3).
The findings of this study show that compared tomales, females have much more environmental concernand attitudes and they also support the view of Tilikidouand Delistavrou (2006), which claims that female withhigh education take more participation in environmentallyactivities than others. As a result of this study, it wasrevealed that there is a statistically significant differencebetween the environmental attitudes of female and maleuniversity students (Table 4).As a result of the study,two situations were emerged to be discussed. The firstof them is the indirect relationship of“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB” ( 46.0=β ) statisticallysignificant, whereas no direct cause-and-effectrelationship was found between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior(“EA” ”ECPB”, 02.0=β ). From the structure ofthis relationship (“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB”), it isunderstood that among the ones who developedenvironmental attitude, only the ones who convertedthese attitudes into environmental behavior, displayenvironmentally conscious purchasing behavior. In thesecond situation, while the relationship of“EA” ”ECPB” ( 02.0=β ) was not foundstatistically significant, the indirect relationship of“EA” ”GPA” ”ECPB” ( 15.0=β ) was foundsignificant. From the structure of this relationship(“EA” ”GPA” ”ECPB”), it is understood that amongthe ones who developed environmental attitude, onlythe ones who supported these attitudes by greenproduct awareness, directed towards environmentallyconscious purchasing behavior. Considering the firstsituation, it might be conceived that there is theconditional dependence structure between greenproduct awareness and environmentally consciouspurchasing behavior, upon realising the environmentalbehavior. In the second situation, on the other hand, itis conceived that there might be the conditionaldependence structure between environmental attitudeand environmentally conscious purchasing behavior,upon realising the green product awareness.
The following could be said for these twosituations; there are actually conditional relationshipsbetween latent structures. On condition that theindividual displays environmental behavior, theremight be a cause-and-effect relationship betweenenvironmental attitude and environmentally conscious
333
Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1):323-334, Winter 2012
purchasing behavior. In order to reveal theseconditional dependence structures, an additional studyis being planned with the help of graphical models. Inthe future studies, the research of(“EA” ”EB” ”ECPB”) and(“EA” ”EPA” ”ECPB”) conditioned dependencestructures and results of their conditional dependencecoefficients are being planned.According to thedescriptive results of the study (Table 1 and Table 3),it could be said that females are more environmentalistcompared to males. Many psychological reasons couldbe depicted among the reasons of this condition;however, probably one of the most important of thesereasons might be the sense of protection, which comesfrom maternal instinct of females.
As a brief summary; in the literature environmentalconcern, environmental attitude, environmentalbehavior, product recovery awareness, green productawareness and environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior concepts analyzed independently from eachother. Whereas these mentioned concepts arecorrelated and in this research we consider their jointeffect by means of the SEM. This research can beextended to evaluate the effect of cultural differenceson the environmentally conscious purchasingbehavior. Although the developed model is statisticallysuggestible for intercultural assessments, still it shouldbe examined with larger samples and different culturesfor the validation purpose.
REFERENCESAjzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudesand predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I . (1985). From intention to actions: A theory ofplanned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (eds), Action-control: From cognition to behavior, 11-39. Heidelberg:Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic process. In W.Stroebe and M. Hewstone (eds), Europen Review of SocialPsychology, 11, 1-33. Chichester: Wiley.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. NewYork: Open University Press.
Axelrod, L. J. and Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding toenvironmental concern: what factors guide individual action?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149-159.
Birgelen, M. V., Semeijin, J. and Keicher, M. (2009).Packaging and pro-environmental consumption behavior.Environment and Behavior, 41 (1), 125-146.
Bolaane, B. (2006). Constraints to promoting peoplecentered approaches in recycling. Habitat International, 30,731–740.
Byrne, M. B. (1998) Structural equation modeling withLISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts,applications, and programming. New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum.
Chan, R. Y. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior ofconsumers in China. Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 11 (4), 25-52.
Cheng, E. W. L. (2001). SEM being more effective thanmultiple regression in parsimonious model testing formanagement development research. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 20 (7), 650-667.
Cudeck, R., Toit, D. S. and Sörbom, D. (2000). Structuralequation modeling: Present and future. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International Inc.
Dono, J., Webb, J. and Richardson, B. (2010). Therelationship between environmental activism, pro-environmental behavior and social identity. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 30 (2), 178-186.
Fraj, E. and Martinez, E. (2007). Ecological consumerbehavior: An emprical analysis. International Journal ofConsumer Studies, 31, 26-33.
Gungor, A. and Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues inenvironmentally conscious manufacturing and productrecovery: A survey. Computers and Industrial Engineering,36, 811-853.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling withLISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: John Hopkins.Hini, D., Gendall, P. and Kearns Z. (1995). The link betweenenvironmental attitudes and behavior. Marketing Bulletin,6, 22-31.
Ilgin, M. A. and Gupta, S. M. (2010). Environmentallyconscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO):A review of the state of the art. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 91 (3), 563-591.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’sreference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software InternationalInc.
Kaiser, F. G. and Shimoda, T. A. (1999). Responsibility as apredictor of ecological behavior. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 19, 243-253.
Kaiser, F. G., Wölfing, S. and Fuhrer, U. (1999).Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 19, 1-19.
Kaiser, F. G. and Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’sgeneral ecological behavior: A cross-cultural measure. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 30 (5), 952-978.
Kaiser, F. G., Oerke, B. and Bogner, B. X. (2007). Behavior-based environmental attitude: Development of an instrumentfor adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,2442-251.
334
Kalantari, Kh. and Asadi, A. (2010). Designing a structuralmodel for explaining environmental attitude and behaviourof urban residents (Case of Tehran). International Journal ofEnvironmental Research, 4 (2), 309-320.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley &Sons Inc.
Loudon, D. L. and Della Bitta, A. J. (1993). Consumerbehavior: Concept and applications (4th edition). McGrawHill: Auckland.
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A. and Livi, S. (2004). Recycling:Planned and self-expressive behavior. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 24, 227–236.
Mondéjar-Jiménez, J . A., Cordente-Rodriguéz, M.,Meseguer-Santamaría, M. L., and Gázquez-Abad, J. C.(2011). Environmental behavior and water saving in Spanishhousing. International Journal of Environmental Research,5 (1), 1-10.
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). A hierarchical analysis of the greenconsciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychology &Marketing, 24 (5), 445-473.
Nordlund, A. M. and Garvill, J. (2002). Value structuresbehind pro-environmental behavior. Environment andBehavior, 34 (6), 740-757.
Pang, N. S. K. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings:a LISREL model. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64-83.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course instructural equation modeling. London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L. (1999). Structural equationmodeling with LISREL: Application in tourism. TourismManagement, 20, 71-88.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. and Müller, H.(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Testsof significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures.Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23-74.
Sidique, S. F., Lupi, F. and Joshi, S. V. (2010). The effects ofbehavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities.Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 163–170.
Steenkamp, B. E. M. and Baumgartner, H. (2000). On theuse of structural equation models for marketing modelling.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, 195-202.
Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmentalbehavior: An integrative review and research agenda . Journalof Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.
Thierry, M., Salomon, M., van Nunen, J. and vanWassenhove, L. (1995). Strategic issues in product recoverymanagement, California Management Review, 37 (2), 114–135.
Tilikidou, I. and Delistavrou, A. (2006). Consumers’ecological activities and their correlates. Retrieved July11,2009, from http://www.ctw-congress.de/ifsam/download/track_9/pap00169.pdf
Tilikidou, I. (2007). The effects of knowledge and attitudesupon Greeks’ pro-environmental purchasing behavior.Corporate Social Responsibility and EnvironmentalManagement, 14, 121–134.
Tilikidou, I. and Delistavrou, A. (2008). Types and influentialfactors of consumers’ non-purchasing ecological behaviors.Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 61-76.
Structural Model for Environmentally Conscious Behavior
top related