Low-Carbon Behavior and  Theory of Planned Behavior Framework: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by Liying Wang.

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) describes individual behavior and has been extensively utilized in studying pro-environmental behavior and low-carbon travel behavior (LTB). According to TPB, an individual’s behavioral intention is determined by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls, and behavior is determined by behavioral intentions. Attitude refers to an individual’s positive or negative attitude towards a certain behavior, subjective norm refers to the social pressure that individuals perceive to participate or not in a certain behavior, and perceived behavioral control refers to the degree of difficulty an individual perceives for a certain behavior.

  • low-carbon travel behavior
  • the theory of planned behavior
  • Attitude-Behavior-Context theory

1. Low-Carbon Travel Behavior

Low-carbon behavior is defined as behavior that enhances the resource efficiency of energy or materials, consequently contributing to the dynamics and structure of ecosystems or biospheres [39][1]. Low-carbon behavior consists of three types: habitual behavior, consumer consumption behavior and resource recycling behavior, and LTB is a subset of low-carbon behavior [44][2]. According to the 2011 China Energy Development Report, LTB refers to a transportation mode where passengers can reduce carbon emissions while traveling. Furthermore, LTB is considered a type of pro-environmental behavior [45][3], contributing to reducing the exacerbation of climate change [46][4]. In urban transportation, individuals can practice LTB by opting for low-carbon travel modes such as walking, cycling and using public transportation [47][5].

2. The Theory of PBlanned Behavior Framework

Theory of planned behavior (TPB) was proposed in 1985, and extends the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to goal-directed behavior, suggesting that intention can control behavior. Building upon TRA, TPB introduces perceived behavioral control, asserting that individual behavioral intention is determined by behavioral attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control [7,30][6][7]. TPB is a well-established psychological theory that provides valuable insights into understanding and predicting individuals’ behavior [35,41,42][8][9][10]. TPB has been widely applied in research on individual pro-environmental behavior [48][11]. It is used to predict individuals’ environmental intention [26,27,28][12][13][14] and environmental behavior [28][14], alternative transportation decision [29][15], intention and behavior related to low-carbon travel [14,28][14][16].

2.1. Attitude (LTA)

Attitude refers to an individual’s positive or negative attitude towards a certain behavior [31][17]. Numerous studies have shown that individuals are inclined to a engage in a behavior when they have a positive attitude [14,45,49][3][16][18]. Attitude is an important predictor of individual behavior [7,18][6][19]. This restudy earch defines LTA as an individual’s positive or negative attitude regarding their low-carbon travel experience. When individuals have positive LTAattitude (LTA), they are more willing to participate in LTB.

2.2. Subjective Norm (LTSN)

Subjective norm refers to the social pressure that individuals perceive to participate or not in a certain behavior [31][17]. Many studies have shown that, when an individual feels a greater social pressure, they will have stronger behavioral intention [50][20]. Several studies have found that subjective norms are an important predictor of behavioral intention [48,51][11][21]. This restudy defines LTSNearch defines subjective norm (LTSN) as the social pressure that individuals perceive to participate or not in TPB. If people have a positive LTSN, they will feel more social pressure and are consequently more intent to engage.

2.3. Perceived Behavioral Control (LTPB)

Perceived behavioral control refers to the degree of difficulty an individual perceives in a certain behavior [41][9]. When the individual’s ability and opportunity to perform a certain behavior are greater, the individual will be more willing to perform that behavior [52][22]. Based on TPB and VBN, Liu et al. [7][6] verified that residents’ attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control can positively predict low-carbon travel behavioral intention (LTI). This study dresearch defines LTPBperceived behavioral control (LTPB) as an individual’s perceived opportunity and ability to perform LTB. When individuals perceive that they have greater opportunity and ability, they are more willing to perform LTB.

2.4. Low-Carbon TIravel Behavioral Intention and LTow-Carbon Travel Behavior 

It is extensively acknowledged that behavioral intention is a main determinant of actual behavior [31][17]. Many studies have verified the predictive impact of behavioral intention on behavior [53][23]. For instance, tourists’ pro-environmental intention accurately predicts their behavior [48][11]. When individuals have positive LTI, they will perform an actual behavior.

2.5. Mediating Effect of Low-Carbon Travel Behavioral Intention

If individuals experience a positive attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control toward a particular behavior, their behavioral intention will further affect actual behavior [31][17]. Behavioral intention is a primary emphasis in the TPB model [54][24], and works as a mediator between three predictors and actual behavior. Individuals’ LTA, LTSN and LTPB can affect LTB through LTI.

3. Moderating Effect of Situational Factor

TPB focus on the impact of individual psychological factors on behavior. However, this model ignores the external influence of contextual factors on individual behavior [36][25]. The transformation of behavioral intention into behavior requires stimulation, and SF is a crucial factor affecting the relationship between LTI and LTB [30][7]. SF is composed of multiple aspects, including economic costs, social systems, social culture, policies and regulations [55][26]. External policies can influence individuals’ preferences for low-carbon behavior [56][27]. As an aspect of SF, transportation policy can lead to individuals’ low-carbon travel preferences [7][6] Low-carbon travel policies are beneficial in guiding individuals’ LTB [57,58][28][29]. For those with weak or no motivation towards low-carbon behavior, transportation policies and management regulations are more effective [59][30]. Furthermore, social culture significantly influences behavioral regulation. Cultural values can influence low-carbon behavior [60][31].

4. Comparison of Individuals’ Low-Carbon TBravel Behavior in Daily Residence and Tourism Destination

Studies have shown that 40% of daily behaviors are habitual [61][32]. Pro-environmental behavior in daily activities is habitual and rarely deliberate, and it is beneficial for individuals to engage in pro-environmental behavior continuously [48,62][11][33]. Hence, it is easier for individuals to maintain LTB in their daily residences. On the contrary, tourism provides a permissive environment for tourists [63][34]. In the tourism context, individuals tend to prioritize personal pleasure over environmental responsibility [64,65,66][35][36][37]. A study conducted by tourism geographers suggests that individuals who engage in environmentally friendly behaviors within their homes and immediate surroundings often find it challenging to transfer these eco-conscious practices when entering a tourist environment. Those who appear highly dedicated to environmental actions still tend to maintain their flights while traveling [6][38]. Individuals feel a sense of freedom and often disregard the daily norms and customary rules in tourism environment [67,68,69][39][40][41]. Individuals’ behavior in the tourism environment differs from that of the daily environment, and the tourism environment can lead individuals disregardomg social norms [70][42].

References

  1. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424.
  2. Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W.; Ford, N. The household energy gap: Examining the divide between habitual-and purchase-related conservation behaviours. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 1425–1444.
  3. Jia, N.; Li, L.; Ling, S.; Ma, S.; Yao, W. Influence of attitudinal and low-carbon factors on behavioral intention of commuting mode choice—A cross-city study in China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 111, 108–118.
  4. Becken, S. Peak oil: A hidden issue? Social representations of professional tourism perspectives. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 31–51.
  5. Liu, Z.; Ma, J.; Chai, Y. Neighborhood-scale urban form, travel behavior, and CO2 emissions in Beijing: Implications for low-carbon urban planning. Urban Geogr. 2017, 38, 381–400.
  6. Liu, D.; Du, H.; Southworth, F.; Ma, S. The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin, China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 105, 42–53.
  7. Lin, B.; Wang, X. Does low-carbon travel intention really lead to actual low-carbon travel? evidence from urban residents in china. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 72, 743–756.
  8. Tang, C.; Han, Y.; Ng, P. Green consumption intention and behavior of tourists in urban and rural destinations. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 66, 2126–2150.
  9. Zhang, S.; Hu, D.; Lin, T.; Li, W.; Zhao, R.; Yang, H.; Jiang, L. Determinants affecting residents’ waste classification intention and behavior: A study based on TPB and ABC methodology. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 290, 112591.
  10. Qin, B.; Song, G. Internal Motivations, External Contexts, and Sustainable Consumption Behavior in China—Based on the TPB-ABC Integration Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7677.
  11. Han, H. Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): A new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Bus Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2815–2828.
  12. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25.
  13. Han, H.; Yu, J.; Kim, W. Youth travelers and waste reduction behaviors while traveling to tourist destinations. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 1119–1131.
  14. Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Cao, J.; Hu, H.; Yu, P. The influence of environmental background on tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 804–810.
  15. Gardner, B.; Abraham, C. Going green? Modeling the impact of environmental concerns and perceptions of transportation alternatives on decisions to drive. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 831–849.
  16. Hu, X.; Wu, N.; Chen, N. Young people’s behavioral intentions towards low-carbon travel: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2327.
  17. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211.
  18. Liu, A.; Ma, E.; Qu, H.; Ryan, B. Daily green behavior as an antecedent and a moderator for visitors’ pro-environmental behaviors. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 1390–1408.
  19. Dolnicar, S.; Gruen, B. Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity among individuals and contexts/ environments be harvested for improved sustainable management? Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 693–714.
  20. Ru, X.; Wang, S.; Chen, Q.; Yan, S. Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: An empirical study in eastern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1317–1327.
  21. Kaiser, F.G.; Scheuthle, H. Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2003, 35, 1033–1048.
  22. Klöckner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 1028–1038.
  23. Ouellette, J.A.; Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol Bull. 1998, 124, 54–74.
  24. Lam, T.; Hsu, C.H. Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from China. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2004, 28, 463–482.
  25. Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 139–158.
  26. Chen, W.; Li, J. Who are the low-carbon activists? analysis of the influence mechanism and group characteristics of low-carbon behavior in Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 729–736.
  27. Pathak, M.; Shukla, P.R. Co-benefits of low carbon passenger transport actions in Indian cities: Case study of Ahmedabad. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 44, 303–316.
  28. Geng, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Li, Q. Urban residents’ response to and evaluation of low-carbon travel policies: Evidence from a survey of five eastern cities in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 47–55.
  29. Geng, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H. Impact of information intervention on travel mode choice of urban residents with different goal frames: A controlled trial in Xuzhou, China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 134–147.
  30. Karatas, A.; Stoiko, A.; Menassa, C.C. Framework for selecting occupancy-focused energy interventions in buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 2016, 44, 535–551.
  31. Chan, Y.L.; Yang, K.H.; Lee, J.D.; Hong, G.B. The case study of furnace use and energy conservation in iron and steel industry. Energy 2010, 35, 1665–1670.
  32. Neal, D.T.; Wood, W.; Quinn, J.M. Habits—A repeat performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 15, 198–202.
  33. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317.
  34. Turner, L.; Ash, J. The Golden Hordes, 3rd ed.; International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery (Constable); London, UK, 2006; pp. 54–76.
  35. Barr, S.; Gilg, A. Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home. Geoforum 2006, 37, 906–920.
  36. Miller, G.; Rathouse, K.; Scarles, C.; Holmes, K.; Tribe, J. Public Understanding of Sustainable Leisure and Tourism: A Research Report Completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the University of Surrey, 1–239. Available online: http://tourismlibrary.tat.or.th/medias/SURREY0002/SURREY0002_fulltext.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  37. Miller, D.; Merrilees, B.; Coghlan, A. Sustainable urban tourism: Understanding and developing visitor proenvironmental behaviours. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 26–46.
  38. Barr, S.; Shaw, G.; Coles, T.; Prillwitz, J. ‘A holiday is a holiday’: Practicing sustainability, home and away. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 474–481.
  39. D’Arco, M.; Marino, V.; Resciniti, R. Exploring the pro-environmental behavioral intention of Generation Z in the tourism context: The role of injunctive social norms and personal norms. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 1–22.
  40. Dolnicar, S. Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 102933.
  41. Tao, L.; Yun, C. The destructive power of money and vanity in deviant tourist behavior. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 152–160.
  42. Pritchard, A.; Morgan, N. Hotel Babylon? Exploring hotels as liminal sites of transition and transgression. Tour. Manag. 2006, 27, 762–772.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback