Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The importance of environmental education in the determinants of

green behavior: A meta-analysis approach


Laura Varela-Candamio a, *, Isabel Novo-Corti b, María Teresa García-Alvarez c

a
University of A Coruna, Department of Economics, CþD Jean Monnet Research Group and RIFDE Group, Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus de
~ a, s/n, 15071, A Coruna, Spain
Elvin
b
University of A Coruna, Department of Economics, EDaSS Research Group, Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus de Elvin ~ a, s/n, 15071, A Coruna,
Spain
c ~ a, s/n, 15071, A Coruna, Spain
University of A Coruna, Department of Business, GREFIN Research Group, Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus de Elvin

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study moves toward a better understanding of the mechanisms behind people's green behavior with
Received 18 March 2017 a general framework. A questionnaire was designed based on intrapersonal, motivational, interpersonal,
Received in revised form and educational factors focusing on the environmental education as the main driver of the green
19 September 2017
behavior under a comprehensive theoretical framework. Our proposal is the CADMIACA model based on
Accepted 23 September 2017
Available online 28 September 2017
the theories of the Comprehensive Action Determination Model (CADM), other motivational and inter-
personal ones (MI) and the Action Competence Approach (ACA). Additionally, this model contains a
Handling Editor: Yutao Wang broad range of control conditions to be considered in the general definition of the determinants of green
behavior such as global warming, energy savings, recycling, green purchasing, and pollution. The data
JEL Classification: were collected in the A Coruna metropolitan area (Spain) in order to analyze empirically the causal
Q01 relationship among those variables included in the model by using structural equation methodology
Q56 (SEM). Findings confirm that environmental education reveals as a powerful tool in order to generate
I25 green behavior among citizens. Moreover, the comprehensive CADMIACA model proposed appears to be
Keywords: a good fit with the data since all the factors included in this model (intrapersonal, motivational, inter-
Pro-environmental behavior personal, and educational) are determining green behavior. However, environmental education and
Environmental education intrapersonal factors were revealed as the main drivers to predict green behavior whilst interpersonal
Structural equation modeling and motivational factors were less common forms of shaping green behavior. Therefore, our results
indicate that human behavior become a critical role in protecting the environment.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Global warming and other environmental destruction actions
involve important consequences for human health, ecosystems,
and many social and economic sectors, such as energy production,
tourism, and agriculture (WIR, 2008). Both the promotion of
environmental protection and green consumption by the govern-
ments have been revealed as effective predictors of green con-
sumption behavior (Chan, 1999). For instance, the European Union
has developed the European Climate Change Programme (EECP)
that is based on a package of policy measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, the main driver of global warming (European
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: laura.varela.candamio@udc.es (L. Varela-Candamio).
Commission, 2000), in which each member state has to set its
own domestic actions. Nevertheless, in order to achieve the target
of greenhouse gas emission reduction required by the Kyoto Pro-
tocol these political measures need to be reinforced (European
Commission, 2005).
Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) or, simply, green behavior is
not only the result of statutory control conditions through social
norms but arises from the intrapersonal values held by the citizens.
As citizens are nowadays extremely concerned about environ-
mental protection, behavioral attitudes as well as awareness have
become key factors in the determination of green behavior towards
shaping environmentally sustainable economic development (Wu
and Chen, 2014). In addition, individuals consume a significant
percentage of energy in their domestic use and personal transport.
For this reason, the establishment of pro-environmental habits to
persuade citizens to cut their greenhouse gas emissions is essential

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.214
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1566 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
(Boyes and Stanisstreet, 2012) as the accumulation of many
individual-level actions would result in significant positive envi-
ronmental impacts (Jensen and Schnack, 2006). In this sense,
motivation can act as a force to initiate behavior.
Under this approach, education can lead to changes in green
behavior and the incorporation of daily life pro-environmental
choices. The environmental education is defined as a way of
rethinking our relations with the biosphere as well as an instru-
ment of social transformation towards a sustainable development
(Colom and Sureda, 1981). Thus, environmental education may play
a critical role facing two inescapable challenges. First, the ecological
challenge, which involves helping to train not only young people
and children, but also managers, planners to guide their values and
behaviors towards a harmonious relationship with nature. Second,
the social challenge that impels us to radically transform the
structures of management and redistribution of the resources of
the earth (Novo, 2009; Zso
ka et al., 2013). In turn, a better
comprehension about how education impact on green behavior
become an essential issue for policy-makers.
The majority of the studies focus the green behavior on the
identification of relationships between specific behaviors such as
recycling, bus use or purchase of green products (Smith et al., 2009;
Wu and Chen, 2014; Ofstad et al., 2017). However, to the best of our
knowledge, we do not find any study adopting a general framework
for the analysis of green behavior with a general framework, at least
empirically (Steg and Vlek, 2009; McDonald, 2014). Environmental
education includes a bunch of components such as awareness,
knowledge and attitudes to the environmental challenges, skills to
identify and help resolve them, and also participation in activities
that lead to the resolution of them. Then, environmental education
teaches individuals how to weigh various sides of an issue through
critical thinking and it enhances their own problem-solving and
decision-making skills. So, it does not advocate a particular view-
point or course of action (EPA, 2007). In this sense, a general
framework of environmental education is needed for individuals to
develop a deeper understanding of environmental issues and also
have the skills to make informed and responsible decisions.
This paper proposes a meta-analysis for the analysis of green
behavior through an overview of the factors involving an integrated
framework in order to test interrelationships among environmen-
tally relevant variables. This general approach is summarized as
CADMIACA based on the theories of CADM, motivational and
interpersonal ones (MI) and ACA. Since demographic factors such
as level of education, gender, age or place of residence play a sig-
nificant role in environmental behavior (Bamberg and Mo € ser,
2007), our pilot study focus on the particular case of the munici-
pality of A Coruna (Spain). This general green behavior scheme
allows us to study the effects in comparison to the control condi-
tions (global warming, energy savings, recycling, green purchasing,
and pollution) over different factors such as awareness, attitudes,
social interaction, energy savings (as proxy of personal habits), and
education. The research questions to be addressed are the
following:
(1) Does the comprehensive modeling framework provide a
good description of the factors impacting the overall green
behavior at the daily life?
(2) Does the particular control conditions suggested in the study
change the level of central variables in the model, and, if so,
which variables are these?
(3) Does the environmental education affect the strength of the
relations between the model variables or the model
structure?
Therefore, the aim of this research is to explain in which
pathways and control conditions green behavior is triggered more
intensely by using the comprehensive CADMIACA model proposed.
This analysis contributes to provide a better understanding of the
factors behind people's green behavior from a general perspective.
Moreover, in particular, the paper reveals to what extent the
(informal) environmental education is important in explaining
green behavior, or also called pro-environmental behavior.
2. Materials and methods
A questionnaire is carried out in the next phase of this research
to confirm the causal relationship between the different factors
affecting green behavior and to confirm the validity and reliability
of the overall meta-analysis. Additionally, empirical research is
warranted to provide clarity on the impact of these factors on green
behavior. Thus, the sample and the measurement instruments are
firstly described and, then, the research design for this study is
presented under a structural equation modeling (SEM).
2.1. Literature review
The systematization of the theories used in research on PEB
required combining very different strategies, factors, and in-
terpretations. The need to integrate psychological and objective
situational variables to fully understand green behavior has been
€
repeatedly stated (McDonald, 2014; Thøgersen and Olander, 2006).
Despite the numerous factors involving the general pro-
environmental theories, we can structure them by their main ap-
proaches examined in order to provide a more comprehensive
framework for PEB. These approaches were four: intrapersonal,
motivational, interpersonal, and educational factors (Fig. 1).
2.1.1. Intrapersonal approach
Most literature looking at the influence of intrapersonal factors
on PEB. This approach can be broadly categorized into three theo-
retical domains: moral, rational choice, and non-rational choice.
The first group was identified with the moral theories where the
most representative theory is the Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN)
(Stern, 2000). VBN is considered to be the comprehensive moral
theory where environmental values were the main driver for PEB as
automatic behavioral responses. This theory was the result of the
integration of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap,
2008) and the Norm Activation Theory (NAT) (Schwartz and
Howard, 1981) based on factors related to pro-social motivators.
Supporters of NAT assumed that altruistic reason was the cause of
PEB. Therefore, personal norms created by awareness of conse-
quences and ascription of responsibility were a potent motivator
for an environmentally friendly behavior. Then, VBN considered the
influence of the beliefs in conjunction with the ecological world-
view (NEP) to activate self-responsibility and the consequences of
citizens' actions that, in addition, would affect their green behavior.
The second group corresponded to the rational choice theories
and it was dominated by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991) where the attitudes explained the PEB in the form of
self-interest and reasoned action. The basic assumption of the
theory was that PEB required the intention to do so, which, in turn,
was predicted by positive attitudes towards green behavior. This
theory stated two ways to achieve PEB: subjective norms, which
were a representation of expectations of relevant other people, i.e.,
social pressure, and perceived behavioral control, which was a
feeling of being able to perform the intended behavior.
The third group belonged to the non-rational choice theories
where habit constituted the level of routinized behavior. Triandis'
Theory of Interpersonal Behavior (TIP) (1979) recognized the non-
rational human behavior and extended TPB to cover emotive as
 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578 1567

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of PEB theories.

well as habits into four dimensions: intention, affect, habit, and
facilitating conditions. In this sense, behavior was influenced by
moral beliefs, but the impact of these was moderated by both
emotional drives and cognitive limitations.
The multidimensionality of PEB contained in the above three
groups of theories can be integrated in the so-called Comprehen-
sive Action Determination Model (CADM) addressing in particular
the following ones: NAT (moral theory), TPB (rational choice the-
ory), and TIP (habit, the non-rational component). The CADM
model (Klo € ckner and Blo
€ baum, 2010) incorporated intentional and
normative directly and situational and habitual influences indi-
rectly through personal and social norms. It has been successfully
applied, with good empirical support, to a series of studies in
different behavioral domains such as recycling, travel mode choice,
and energy-efficient investment behavior (Ofstad et al., 2017).
2.1.2. Motivational approach
Apart from the aforementioned intrapersonal factors, the
motivational theories have been also applied to explain general
PEB. On the one hand, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) estab-
lished that attitudes toward climate change prevention (perceived
severity, response efficacy, and self-efficacy) are predictors of the
intentions to engage in a series of PEBs (Kim et al., 2013). On the
other hand, Lazarus and Folkman's Cognitive Theory of Stress (CTS)
1568 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
stated that perceiving environmental stressor as a threat, such as
climate change or environmental pollution, in conjunction with
self-efficacy could explain PEB (Homburg and Stolberg, 2006).
2.1.3. Interpersonal approach
The last field of research examined the effect of interpersonal
factors on PEB including Structuration Theory, Focus Theory of
Normative Conduct and Self Identity Theory. Giddens' Theory of
Structuration (ST) suggested that the repetition of actions of indi-
vidual agents reproduced the social structure (traditions, in-
stitutions and moral codes) but also that this structure can be
changed with different people's behavior (Giddens, 1984). In rela-
tion to environmental behavior, she stated that individuals were
active actors to institutional interpretations of environmental
problems through communication. It generated connections be-
tween the forms of knowledge that links to everyday and experi-
ential environments (Hargreaves, 2008). Within these
interpersonal theories, the one that specifically looking at the in-
fluence of social norms on PEB was the Focus Theory of Normative
Conduct (FTNC) (Cialdini, 2003). It argued that there were two kind
of norms: descriptive, related to the perception to normal behavior,
and normative, related to moral rules and guidelines. Social norms
therefore operated providing examples of how we should behave
and also providing guidance. The third theory of this interpersonal
approach was the Self Identity Theory (SIT) (Jenkins, 2008). Social
identity was a sense of belonging to a specific group (in-group) as a
source of pride and self-esteem that can also increase a discrimi-
nation or prejudice effect against the group individuals don't
belong to (out-group) to enhance their self-image. This view has
been applied to PEB concluding that self-identity can be a signifi-
cant predictor for certain pro-environmental behaviors
(Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010).
2.1.4. Educational approach
Some authors suggested that the solution lied on the provision
of information and knowledge dissemination through learning and
education to alter behavior accordingly to the awareness of the
green issues and then contribute to solve them. The Action
Competence Approach (ACA) was a current trend that argued the
necessity of knowledge based on experience and statistical evi-
dence for an environmentally friendly action (Jensen and Schnack,
2006). In this sense, the reinforcement of environmental education
in the classrooms or the awareness campaign in the mass media
have been nowadays developed to educate the general public
(Palmer, 2002).
Thus, past literature reflected little understanding of the impact
of psychological factors with regard to green behavior at the daily
life in a general perspective. By applying a comprehensive and
rigorous psycho-sociological model, including the integration of
the aforementioned theories, this present study resulted in insights
into the determinants of green behavior through the called CAD-
MIACA. This comprehensive model included the main drives in
explained PEB which are summarized in Fig. 1 based on the above
theories contemplated: awareness, attitudes, intention,1 motiva-
tion, social norms, and environmental education.
2.2. Study area
In this work we have selected A Coruna as a basis for case study
1
Although non-rational choice theories (in particular, TIP) refer to habit, since
our empirical CADMIACA conducted in next sections correspond to a cross-
sectional case study, we have change the factor habit (dynamic) for intention
(static).
because this city is becoming an emerging environmental aware-
ness among the public as it has a specific program for environ-
mental sustainability. Thus, the city of A Coruna is part of the
network of so-called Smart Cities. A Smart City needs citizens to
actively participate and become part of the new urban model. The
concept of smart city supports the idea that cities, as engines of
growth and generate wealth, must manage a number of environ-
mental issues such as air quality and water, energy, waste, and
natural resources. In many ways, cities offer solutions to lead a
more sustainable way of life. However, despite improvements in
the quality of water and air as well as efforts to the adaptation of
climate change and mitigate its effects, European cities still have to
deal with various environmental challenges. For these reasons,
Smart City initiative includes a Smart Training program that brings
this new concept to the youngest citizens to familiarize them with
the idea of intelligent city, in the design of the Smart Cities. This
project should be known by the different actors of the city so that
everyone can benefit from improving the environment. Specifically,
college students should know the business development oppor-
tunities that Coruna Smart City offers to jump-start their knowl-
edge and create an environmental culture. This young group, highly
trained, will inherit this smart city management and, therefore,
they are the main audience to know all the new services and tools
that smart city can offer and benefit them from it.
The participants of the study were 117 inhabitants selected in
the A Coruna metropolitan area. This group was asked to sign up
this quantitative study, during the spring term of the academic year
of 2014, with the convenience sampling method. A variety of
techniques was used to distribute the survey to A Coruna-area
residents. The most time-intensive technique consisted of
canvassing homes across the three strategically selected neigh-
borhoods to distribute paper questionnaires. In addition to neigh-
borhoods, the team distributed the survey at the University of A
Coruna among their students gathering the cohort of the sample
characterized by their youth and high levels of education. Data
were collected by paper-and-pencil questionnaires and most of the
participants were approached in person asking for their participa-
tion. All participants were independent from each other (as iden-
tified by a self-generated code). We decided against a longitudinal
design because of the high fluctuation of participants.
Before starting the questionnaire, a process of revision of the
items that composes it has been carried out, in order that this
methodological tool provides solid and relevant results. Then, the
unclear and no relevant items were removed. The validation pro-
cedure was based on two phases. The first one was a validation of
its content through the consensus of experts and then by con-
ducting a pre-test test (more concretely, we conducted and
analyzed forty questionnaires). The experts were mainly re-
searchers in the field of energy (four experts) and consumers'
behavior (five experts). For the second phase, before to conduct the
questionnaire, we have repeated twice (twenty, every time) the test
among a smaller sample in order to check if the questions were
fully understandable and therefore the responses were consistent.
Then, we have used a factorial analysis. This analysis contains in
turn two parts: first, the Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and
second, the Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA). The EFA was used
to know how many factors must be in the model proposed and
what variables form each factor in order to create a consistent
theory. Later, the CFA, in a more advance process, tries to validate
the hypothesis of the theory (based on previous research) in an
empirical way, after collecting data. Moreover, the internal reli-
ability of the model was measured by the Cronbach's alpha coef-
ficient and the global measure of fit for the whole model was also
measured by using CFI.
The questionnaire was based on relevant literature and modified
 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the sample.
Gender
Age <25
Between 25 and 40
Between 40 and 60
>60
Educational Level Primary
High school
University
Field of specialization Social Sciences
Sciences,
Architecture and
Engineering
Arts and humanities
Primary/Secondary
studies
Attendance to courses related to the Yes
environment when you were a student No
TOTAL 117 individuals
for the particular context of the present study. The questionnaire
was divided into two parts: the first solicited information related to
green behavior, with responses measured on a five-point Likert-
type scale; the second captured demographic information with a
nominal scale. The results from the second part of the question-
naire along with values from the Census 2014 for A Coruna in-
habitants are presented in Table 1.
In this work we have selected A Coruna as a basis for study
because this city is becoming an emerging environmental aware-
ness among the public as it has a specific program for environ-
mental sustainability.2 The province of A Coruna is Galicia's most
significant district and has the highest population, the greatest
number of towns and cities, and the most prosperous economy of
the region, mainly based on the service sector (Galicia Guide, 2016).
The municipality of A Coruna has a population of 244,810 in-
habitants (Spanish National Institute of Statistics, 2014) and the city
- with 215,227 inhabitants - is the most populated city in the
northwest of Spain. Population data for all A Coruna neighborhoods
were obtained from the Spanish National Institute of Statistics
(2014) and the city hall Capital Area Metropolitan Planning. The
three neighborhoods selected were chosen by zip codes: core
(15001, 15002, 15003, 15004, and 15005), periphery (15006, 15007,
15008, 15009, 15010, and 15011) and dormitory towns (15170,
15190, 15191and 15192). Thus, this sample represents a valuable
cross-section analysis of the A Coruna region in terms of age,
gender, levels of education, and attendance to environmental
courses.
While sample gender and field of specialization are in line with
Census values, there are more students in the sample than in the
overall population; this is not unexpected because the survey was
distributed widely among undergraduate students email lists. The
sample is also biased towards more educated people, due to the
nature of our analysis, with 60% of respondents holding a bachelor's
degree or higher. This stratification of the sample is justified for
several reasons. First, the University of A Coruna, as an institution
with public governance, has a program of environmental sustain-
ability and the group of college students studying (or the ones that
have already studied) is high in this city and, therefore, very
representative for our study. Second, college students are the heirs
of smart city management in the city of A Coruna so it is important
to consider this social group as the target in our study. More details
2
Thus, the city of A Coruna is part of the network of the so-called Smart Cities.
1569
on questions posed and responses provided can be found in
Appendix 1, which also provides summary statistics and associated
Male Female covariates of each item in the questionnaire.
54 63
18 21 2.3. Materials
21 27
9 12 The data analysis, according to the features of qualitative
6 3
research (for more detailed information, see Bendassolli, 2013), was
8 7
13 18 done in three stages: analysis of the data, categorization of the data,
33 38 and identification of relationships between categories.
27 39 The first stage comprises the data acquisition and relates to
17 11
describing overall features of green behavior. From the analysis of
the data, the variables involved in this phenomenon were identified
2 6 and labeled and then it took place the process of selecting and
8 7 naming categories. Particularly, in this study, the questionnaire was
built around the theoretical model CADMIACA aforementioned. A
35 46
multiple choice test adapted from Hori et al. (2013) and Vicente-
19 17
Molina et al. (2013) was applied as the data collection tool using
the Likert scale (1e5). The items in the questionnaire were adapted
from previous research (McDonald, 2014; Ofstad et al., 2017). The
listing of the items used can be found in the Appendix 1. The target
population for sampling was anonymous citizens in A Coruna
(Spain). Thus, the questionnaire includes seven main categories
covering energy savings behavior, awareness of global warming,
green behavior, environmental social interaction, environmental
informal education, and environmental attitudes. For content val-
idity, all the questions in this test were selected considering the
individuals taught within the scope of the environmental educa-
tion. In this respect, all behavior intended to be measured was
included in the data collection. Following the validity of these
previous studies (Hori et al., 2013; Vicente-Molina et al., 2013), the
comprehensibility of the statements found in the questions was
checked by field experts. For the distribution of the questions,
special attention was paid to the fact that, on the one hand, there
would be only one question regarding a specific subject and, on the
other hand, the statement used in a question would not provide a
clue for the answer to another question.
In the second stage, the data collected were put together to
identify causal relationships between categories. This process is
often referred to as the “paradigm model” and involves explaining
explicit connections between categories in order to understand the
green behavior to which it is related. Since this research deals with
psycho-social variables, we face the challenge of assessing some
variables that we cannot measure, at least in a direct way. Those
kinds of variables are the so called “latent variables”, referring to
their not measurable essence. In accordance with the CADMIACA
theoretical model proposed, a factorial analysis was performed to
select sub-categories within the survey to be in turn identifying as
the latent variables involved in this model. Thus, this study applied
the above framework to explore the green behavior. By using
awareness, attitudes, motivation, environmental education, and
intention as endogenous variables, social norms as exogenous
variable and green behavior as the dependent variable, this study
aimed to develop a relationship CADMIACA model of green
behavior (Table 2).
More specifically, environmental education and intention are
the important predictors of green behavior, although the depen-
dent variable is also influenced indirectly by attitudes, social norms,
and awareness. These latest variables are, in turn, the determinants
of intention and only two of them (social norms and attitudes) are
the ones influencing environmental education. In the last place,
motivation is determining by environmental education. Thus, these
latent variables (this concept comes from their nature since there
are unobservable variables composed and constructed by other
measurable variables) work together to form a complete theoretical
1570 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
framework for predicting green behavior. Notice that each latent
variable is explained by two to three items established in the sur-
vey, according to the different control conditions that were
analyzed, such as global warming, energy savings, recycling, green
purchasing, and pollution. These items were presented as state-
ments where participants declared to what extent they agree with
each statement on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The
observed items identified as the indicators that form the latent
variables were done through a factorial analysis (Table 3).
The last stage involves the process of selecting and identifying
the core category (in this case, green behavior) and systematically
relating it to the others. It involves validating those relationships,
filling in and refining and developing those categories or sub-
categories. To do so, next sub-section develops the quantitative
analysis through a structural equation modeling (SEM).
2.4. Procedure
According to the above qualitative research design, the inte-
grated CADMIACA model is performed through a SEM by analyzing
multiple regression system jointly with a multiple correlation
system. SEM is a multivariate statistical technique with the capa-
bility of measuring the underlying latent variables or constructs,
which are not directly measured, through a factor analysis. In
addition, this method allows both to establish causal relations and
to evaluate simultaneously multilevel inter-relationships between
variables (Hair et al., 2010; Klem, 2000; Hershberger, 2003;
Schumacker and Lomax, 2004).
This experimental research design allows determining the main
drivers that causes and describes the aforementioned latent vari-
ables (Awareness, Attitudes, Environmental Education, Intention,
Motivation, and Social Norms) in explaining green behavior. Thus,
these latent variables (the unobservable ones) are defined from the
items showing statistical significance in the questionnaire used in
this study (the observable ones) (for more detailed information, see
Appendix 2.A). Then, the SEM allows us to evaluate the causal re-
lationships which are stated in our model in a similar way to the
regression analysis. All these relationship and interaction are
described in Fig. 2.
Mathematically,
h1 ¼ b14 h4 þ z1
h2 ¼ b24 h4 þ z2
h3 ¼ b34 h4 þ z3
h4 ¼ b42 h2 þ g4 x1 þ z4
h5 ¼ b51 h1 þ b52 h2 þ g5 x1 þ z5
Table 2
CADMIACA model: specification of the model.
Endogenous variables
Awareness h1
Attitudes h2
Motivation h3
Environmental education h4
Intention h5
Green behavior h6
Exogenous variables
Social norms x1
h6 ¼ b64 h4 þ b65 h5 þ g5 x1 þ z6 [6]
3. Results and discussion
This section presents the comprehensive meta-analysis devel-
oped by analyzing generally the impact of the previously defined
latent variables determining green behavior and also the relation-
ship among them. The items gathered from the survey showing
statistically significant for explaining the exogenous latent variable
(Social Norms, ðx1 Þ and the endogenous latent variables (Aware-
ness, h1 ; Attitudes, h2 ; Motivation, h3 ; Environmental Education,
h4 ; and Intention, h5 including the core variable Green behavior, h6
(with p-value< 0.001 in all cases) were called indicators and can be
found in Table 4 (for more detailed information, see Appendix 2.B).
Additionally, among all the indicators, it is also important to
take into account that the latent variables of the model are con-
taining a broad range of control conditions such as global warming
(item 18), energy savings (item 6), recycling (items 20, 22 and 23),
green purchasing (items 21, 25, 26, and 31), and pollution (item 17).
The results of the analysis of liability of the latent variables (or
constructs) indicate that the coefficients for most indicators listed
have relatively high internal consistency with conventional past
literature. Particularly, this internal reliability measured mainly by
the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to meet values greater
than 0.7, with the only exception in the case of Motivation, although
acceptable.3 Thus, the global measure of fit for the whole model,
measured by using CFI, is also high (0.916).
The causal relationships obtained in this study are described in
Fig. 3. Since this is a cross-sectional approach, in this causal analysis
it must be taken into account that the relationship among the latent
variables should be interpreted as significantly correlated instead of
a strictly causal relationship. It can be seen that the core variable,
Green Behavior, is explained directly by both Intention (0.28) and
Environmental Education (0.60), being clearly more decisive the
influence of the latter one. In turn, it is also shown that environ-
mental education has a direct influence on Awareness (0.65), At-
titudes (0.72), and specially Motivation (0.98). Hence,
Environmental Education reveals as a powerful tool in order to
generate green behavior among citizens. Notice that environmental
[1]
education refers to informal education (media, Internet use, and
social interaction). Thus, although it is expected that formal envi-
[2] ronmental education (academic and other training) have similar
effects, this model does not enable to establish a direct relationship.
[3] However, these results could suggest that the establishment of
mandatory pro-environmental subjects in the educational system
[4] by the policy-makers could determine improvements related to
green behaviors in the current society. Future lines of this research
[5] could shed light on the connection between formal education and
green behavior.
Mathematically, in relation to the multilevel inter-relationships
between variables, the results of the multiple regression model can
be also seen in the equations( (7)e(12) where all regression co-
efficients are significant, with p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 and p < 0.001
(***) (see Appendix 2.C). R2 is meaning the proportion of the
3
The liability of the scale of measurement, called Cronbach Alpha ðaÞ, is calcu-


lated from the variance-covariance matrix, a ¼ N1 N 1  Sitemsofthediagonalofthematrix
Sallitemsatthematrix
and it must should be > 0,7. At the same time, the validity of the construct (Average
Sli
of Variance Extracted, AVE), AVE ¼ Nº indicators should be > 0,6 and also the com-
S
ðSlj Þ2
posite reliability of the construct, rc , rc ¼ S should be > 0,7.
ðSlj Þ2 þSdj
 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578 1571

Table 3
CADMIACA model: latent variables.

Endogenous variables Explicative variables Influence Hypothesis

Awareness Environmental Education Direct H01: Environmental education do not influence Awareness
Attitudes Environmental Education Direct H02: Environmental education do not influence Attitudes
Motivation Environmental Education Direct H03: Environmental education do not influence Motivation
Environmental education Social Norms Direct H04: Social Norms do not influence Environmental Education
Attitude Direct H05: Social Norms do not influence Environmental Education
Intention Attitude Direct H06: Attitude do not influence Intention
Social Norms Direct H07: Social Norms do not influence Intention
Awareness Direct H08: Awareness do not influence Intention
Green behavior Environmental Education Direct H09: Environmental education do not influence Green Behavior
Intention Direct H10: Intention do not influence Green Behavior
Attitude Indirect by means of Intention
Social Norms Indirect by means of Intention
Awareness Indirect by means of Intention
Exogenous variables
Social norms

Fig. 2. Hypothesized structural model.

Table 4
Specification of the structural model.

Observable variable Indicators Squared multiple Factor Alpha AVE f

correlation (l2) loading (l) Cronbach

Awareness It is necessary to share expenses (ex. the car) reducing global warming (17) 0.73 0.85 0.75 0.78 0.62
For reducing the risk of global warming involvement of society is needed (not do it 0.50 0.71
alone) (18)
Social norms I consider the collective activities as an opportunity (39) 0.45 0.67 0.77 0.81 0.68
I give my opinion in this type of events (41) 0.91 0.95
Attitudes I buy and use LED (6) 0.44 0.66 0.70 0.69 0.47
I buy natural food (25) 0.58 0.76
Related to the fact of performing a friendly nature life: I use natural detergent (26) 0.40 0.63
Motivation I hear messages from the relevant authorities (38) 0.40 0.63 0.55 0.62 0.38
I consider myself an altruistic person (45) 0.36 0.60
Green behavior I buy products with Eco-brand (21) 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.93 0.86
I buy green products (31) 0.80 0.89
Environmental Media (watch TV and/or read newspapers) improve my knowledge about 0.75 0.87 0.85 0.69 0.82
education environmental issues (42)
I do use the Internet to improve my knowledge about environmental issues (43) 0.87 0.93
My social interaction (with family, friends, etc.) improve my knowledge about 0.83 0.91
environmental issues (44)
Intention I recycle my bags (20) 0.81 0.90 0.85 0.69 0.82
I use paper on both sides (22) 0.79 0.89
I use recycled paper (23) 0.85 0.92
1572 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
Fig. 3. Results of the structural equation model.
variance in the dependent variable which is predictable from the
independent variables. As an example, in our model, it is estimated
that the predictors of Attitudes explain 83.1 percent of its variance.
In other words, the error variance of Attitudes is approximately 16.9
percent of the variance of Attitudes itself.
 
h1 ¼ 0:65*** h4 R2 ¼ 0:43
 
h2 ¼ 0:72*** h4 R2 ¼ 0:83
 
h3 ¼ 0:98*** h4 R2 ¼ 0:96
 
h4 ¼ 0:66*** h2 þ 0:44** x1 R2 ¼ 0:99
 
h5 ¼ 0:44*** h1 þ 0:30* h2 þ 0:32** x1 R2 ¼ 0:81
 
h6 ¼ 0:60*** h4 þ 0:28* h5 R2 ¼ 0:71
In this case, it is observed more clearly the direct predictors of
Green Behavior ðh6 Þ: Environmental Education ðh4 Þ and Intention
ðh5 Þ. The first one is influenced by Attitudes (0.66) and Social Norms
(0.44) in the same way as the second one (0.30 and 0.32, respec-
tively), influenced by the same variables and also Awareness (0.44).
In both cases, psychological factors such as attitudes and awareness
are more important than the social ones (in this case, social norms).
These results are in line with the current research studied for
partial approaches (see Smith et al., 2009; Vicente-Molina et al.,
2013; Zso
ka et al., 2013; Wu and Chen, 2014; Ofstad et al., 2017).
Consequently, the comprehensive CADMIACA here proposed ap-
pears to be a good fit with the data since all the factors included in
this model (intrapersonal, motivational, interpersonal, and educa-
tional) are determining green behavior. However, environmental
education and indirectly intrapersonal factors were revealed as the
main drivers to predict green behavior whilst interpersonal and
motivational factors were less common forms of shaping green
behavior.
Therefore, in the formulation of the comprehensive CADMIACA
model all the approaches contained in the recent literature review
have been included: intrapersonal (awareness as moral theories,
attitudes as rational choice theories, and intention as non-rational
choice ones), motivational (motivation), interpersonal (social
norms), and educational (environmental education). Thus, CAD-
MIACA model can be considered a good description of the factors
[7] impacting the overall green behavior at the daily life.
According to the research questions contemplated in the paper,
we can provide the three following important implications. First,
[8] the comprehensive CADMIACA model includes all the approaches
contained in the recent literature review: intrapersonal (awareness
as moral theories, attitudes as rational choice theories, and inten-
[9] tion as non-rational choice ones), motivational (motivation),
interpersonal (social norms), and educational (environmental ed-
ucation). Therefore, this empirical model can be considered a good
[10] description of the factors impacting the overall green behavior at
the daily life. Second, control conditions contained in the survey
change the level of central variables. Thus, concerns about general
[11]
problems (such as global warming or recycling bags or paper) or
other particular ones (such as the use of LED as energy savings,
[12] green purchasing in Eco-brand and green products, natural food or
detergent or even shared expenses, for instance, in transport to
avoid pollution) are forming indirectly the shape of PEB through
the definition of the items that defines the factors of the CADMIACA
model. Third, environmental education is the main driver in
explaining PEB (green behavior) and it is also the key factor in
determining pro-environmental awareness, attitudes, and moti-
vation. Then, environmental education is revealed as the principal
component that affects the strength of the relations of the model
structure based on green behavior.
Findings also reveal that the framing of policy for PEB can be
important. Thus, by focusing on individual behavior, policymakers
cannot influence longer-term transformations of culture and
practice. If policymakers intend to work on effective values it
should always be linked to intrapersonal, motivational, interper-
sonal, and educational drivers to produce stable PEB. But, how is
possible to improve pro-environmental awareness, attitudes,
motivation, intention or social norms through policy actions to get
enhanced environmental education? To do so, policy instruments
should have three instruments: market-based ones, regulation and
information that led to a behavioral change. First, there is a need for
 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578 1573

policy interventions to kick-start green behavior financed through
taxes, penalties, and grants, especially in the aforementioned sig-
nificant control conditions for PEB: global warming, energy savings,
recycling, green purchasing, and pollution. Second, sustainable
consumption needs to be more mainstreamed into politics
including consistency with the behavior of government to get a
progressive and enhanced PEB among citizens (“attitudes”). Third,
other policy interventions could involve pro-environmental prod-
uct standards through regulation (“social norms”). They could also
involve the use of media (“awareness”) and marketing standards by
ensuring products are not misrepresented as environmental and
therefore improving the image of pro-environmental behavior
(“intention”).
In any case, to be successful, environmental policy needs an
appropriate context and consistency since PEB requires the shared
responsibility of public authorities, citizens, and industry. More-
over, the balance between theoretical insights and practical ap-
proaches must be combined with feedback to ensure adaptation
throughout the development of initiatives (“motivation”). This will
depend on the reversibility of behavior change. Finally, public au-
thorities should consider the incorporation of formal environ-
mental education in schools aforementioned to avoid lock-in
behaviors against the environment and also create a pro-
environmental culture among childhood.
4. Conclusions
In the present study, a comprehensive meta-analysis framework
is employed to study the behavioral and psychological factors
explaining the green behavior through a categorization of the main
theoretical approaches established in the current literature. Then,
an integrated model (CADMIACA) is proposed with a specific
example of empirical test of these theories by using a sample from
the northwest of Spain (A Coruna) (n ¼ 117 inhabitants), distinguish
by age, gender and education level. This area has been chosen
because it has become an emerging environmental awareness
among the citizens as it has the specific program “SmartCity” for
environmental sustainability.
Since the majority of the studies about green behavior only
reflect a partial view of the aspects related to this issue (where the
socio-demographic factors are dissociated from the psychological
factors), the novelty of this paper is to tackle this social problem in a
more complete way. Additionally, this model contains a broad
range of control conditions to be considered in the general defini-
tion of the determinants of green behavior such as global warming,
energy savings, recycling, green purchasing, and pollution. Thus,
the aim of the paper was twofold. First, the study of factors related
to environmental education that influence green behavior, ac-
cording to the current literature, revealing that awareness, atti-
tudes, intention, motivation, environmental education, and even
social norms are the main predictors of a PEB. Second, the
comprehensive empirical meta-analysis through structural equa-
tion modelling (SEM) to evaluate to what extend the impacts of
both socio-demographic (awareness, social norms, environmental
education) and psychological factors (attitudes, intention, motiva-
tion) can determine changes in green behavior. In this regard,
findings confirm that environmental education reveals as a
powerful tool in order to generate green behavior among citizens.
Moreover, environmental education and indirectly intrapersonal
factors were revealed as the main drivers to predict green behavior
whilst interpersonal and motivational factors were less common
forms of shaping green behavior. Therefore, the human behavior
has become a critical role to play in environmental protection.
Finally, this integrated framework for environmentally friendly
behavior in the daily life highlighted common findings as well as
new insights that emerged from the analysis of the reviewed
literature. The knowledge of the drivers in determining PEB has an
important applicability in the development of new policies. Poli-
cymakers can influence longer-term transformations of culture and
practice in green behavior by influence attitudes, awareness,
intention, motivation, social norms, and especially environmental
education through regulation, information (media), and market-
based instruments. Notice that control conditions contained in
the survey for this specific geographical area (A Coruna, Spain) may
change the level of central variables. Therefore, future research
should include case studies in different geographical areas to
confirm whether green behavior practices targeting these variables
have the worldwide desired effect.
Acknowledgement
The third author gratefully thanks the financial support from the
xxxx (Regional Government of xxx) under Grant xxx.The survey
instrument for this paper was obtained from Hori et al. (2013) and
Vicente-Molina et al. (2013).We are indebted to local institutions of
A Coruna, and with all their staff, for their assistance in the survey
process, whose anonymous support was instrumental in obtaining
survey permissions and other administrative activities.
Appendix 1

Questionnaire: Summary statistics

Items Maximum Minimum Average Standard

value value value deviation

Classification questions
0. Gender e e e e
1. Age e e e e
2. Level of education e e e e
3. You are specialized in … e e e e
4. Have you ever attended any course related to the environment when you were a student? e e e e
Energy saving behaviour
5. Related to energy saving lighting: I do not turn the lights on excessively 2 5 3.974 0.8755
6. Related to energy saving lighting: I buy and use LED 1 5 3.068 1.3308
7. Related to energy saving on TV: I never watch TV 1 5 2.35 1.2548
8. Related to energy saving on TV: The whole family watch TV in the same device 1 5 2.949 1.4194
9. Related to energy saving on TV: I use the automatic shutdown of TV device 1 5 3.077 1.2605
10. Related to energy saving in the refrigerator: I adjust the temperature to avoid excessive energy consumption 1 5 3.162 1.1368
11. Related to energy saving in the refrigerator: I put hot food in the refrigerator after cooling 1 5 3.35 1.1089
(continued on next page)
1574 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578

(continued )

Items Maximum Minimum Average Standard

value value value deviation

12. Related to energy saving in air conditioning: I put the highest temperature 1 5 2.376 1.0482
13. Related to energy saving in air conditioning: I often open the window 1 5 3.863 0.946
14. Related to energy saving in air conditioning: I use curtains 1 5 3.932 1.0232
Awareness of global warming
15. The main cause of global warming is the use of electricity 1 5 3.684 0.9795
16. The main cause of global warming is the use of air conditioner 1 4 2.641 0.7481
17. It is necessary to share expenses (e.g. the car) to reduce global warming 1 5 3.744 0.9391
18. For reducing the risk of global warming involvement of society is needed (not do it alone) 1 5 4.06 1.0111
19. It is necessary to rise up the prices of goods and services to reduce global warming 1 5 2.239 1.0393
Green behaviour
20. Related to recycling: I recycle my bags 1 5 3.735 1.0537
21. Related to recycling: I buy products with Eco-brand 1 5 2.402 1.1895
22. Related to recycling: I use paper in both sides 1 5 3.581 1.1465
23. Related to recycling: I use recycled paper 1 5 2.65 1.3666
24. Related savings in water consumption: I reuse water for several uses 1 5 2.803 1.0275
25. Related to the fact of performing a friendly nature life: I buy natural food 1 5 2812 0,982
26. Related to the fact of performing a friendly nature life: I use natural detergent 1 5 2222 0,9202
27. Related to the fact of performing a friendly nature life: I make homemade food 1 5 3641 1,1557
28. Related to the fact of performing a friendly nature life: I let fresh air coming into the rooms 2 5 3957 0,8241
29. Related to green behavior: I recycle 1 5 3342 1,0841
30. Related to green behavior: I use the public transport 1 5 3342 1,3207
31. Related to green behavior: I buy green products 1 5 2444 1,1329
Environmental social interaction
32. Related to communication with neighbours to promote respect for the environment: I talk to them about it 1 5 2248 0,9905
33. Related to communication with neighbours to promote respect for the environment: I discuss with them about it 1 5 2239 0,9795
34. Related to communication with neighbours to promote respect for the environment: I respect their opinions 1 5 3573 1,0612
35. Related to compliance with rules to promote respect for the environment: I meet standards of environmental 1 5 3043 0,9413
friendliness
36. Related to compliance with rules to promote respect for the environment: I agree with environmental standards 1 5 2974 0,8755
developed by the relevant authorities
37. Related to communication with the government to promote respect for the environment: I send messages to the 1 5 1701 0,7573
appropriate authorities
38. Related to communication with the government to promote respect for the environment: I hear messages from 1 5 2923 0,984
the relevant authorities
39. Related to awareness of community involvement to promote respect for the environment: I consider the 1 5 3709 0,9654
collective activities as an opportunity
40. Related to awareness of community involvement to promote respect for the environment: I wish to participate in 1 5 3265 1,0859
group activities
41. Related to awareness of community involvement to promote respect for the environment: I give my opinion in 1 5 3 1,1963
this type of events
Environmental Informal Education
42. Media (watch TV and/or read newspapers) improve my knowledge about environmental issues 1 5 3598 0,9654
43. I do use the Internet to improve my knowledge about environmental issues 1 5 2897 1309
44. My social interaction (with family, friends, etc.) improve my knowledge about environmental issues 1 5 3077 1,1383
Environmental Attitudes
45. Motivation: I consider myself an altruistic person 1 5 3667 0,851
46. Motivation: I am sensitive to the price of products purchased 1 5 3675 1,1128
47. Attitudes: The resources I consume are indispensable to what I will not cause pollution 1 5 2641 1,0944
48. Attitudes: It is important to establish incentives for green purchasing 1 5 3564 0,9227
49. Attitudes: I am concerned about the risk of global warming 1 5 3,65 1,0448
50. Perceived effectiveness of my behavior will reduce environmental problems 1 5 3504 1,0308
51. Perceived effectiveness of my behavior carries no effect on environmental issues 1 5 2051 0,9635

Source: Own elaboration adapted from Hori et al. (2013) and Vicente-Molina et al. (2013).

Appendix 2
h ¼ Вh þ Gx þ z [A.1]
A. The specification of the model
where:
In the proposed model there are “p” observable variables
(items from the questionnaire associated with indicators of the h ¼ vector of endogenous latent variables ðhn Þ (nx1), in the
latent variables) for the exogenous variable (Social Norms). In this model (6  1)
case p ¼ 2 (39 &41), “q” observable variables (indicators) for the В ¼ matrix of regression coefficients ðbn;n Þ for relation between
endogenous variables (Awareness, Attitudes, Motivation, Envi- the endogenous latent variables (nxn), in the model (6  6)
ronmental Education, Intention & Green Behavior). In this model G ¼ matrix of regression coefficients ðln;m Þ for the relation be-
q ¼ 15 (6, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 38, 42, 3, 44 & 45). The tween the exogenous latent variables and the endogenous latent
only exogenous latent variable are the Social Norms (m ¼ 1) and, variables (nxm), in the model (6  1)
finally, in this model there are 6 endogenous latent variables, then x ¼ vector of exogenous latent variables ðxm Þ (mx1), in the
n ¼ 6) model (1  1)

The correspondent equations in the causal model are:

 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578 1575

2 3 2 32 3 2 3 2 3
h1 b11 b12 b13 b14 b15 b16 h1 g1 z1
6 h2 7 6 b21 b22 b23 b24 b25 b26 7 6 h2 7 6 g2 7 6 z2 7
6 7 6
6 h3 7 6 b31
76 7 6 7 6 7 X2 ¼ lX21 x1 þ d2 [A.13]
6 7¼6 b32 b33 b34 b35 b36 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
76 h3 7 þ 6 g3 7x1 þ 6 z3 7
6 h4 7 6 b41 b42 b43 b44 b45 7 6 7 6
b46 76 h4 7 6 g4 7 7 6 z4 7 For the endogenous variables.
6 7 6 6 7
4h 5 4b b56 54 h5 5 4 g5 5 4 z5 5
5 51 b52 b53 b54 b55
h6 b61 b62 b63 b64 b65 b66 h6 g6 z6 Y ¼ LY h þ εY [A.14]
[A.2]
where:

2 3 2 32 3 2 3 2 3 Y ¼ a (qY x 1) vector of the q indicators for the endogenous

h1 0 0 0 b14 0 0 h1 0 z1 constructs
6 h2 7 6 0 0 0 b24 0 76 7 6
0 76 h2 7 6 0 7 7 6 z2 7 LY ¼ Matrix (qxn) for the lYq coefficients of the indicators of the
6 7 6 6 7
6 h3 7 6 0 07 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 7¼6 0 0 b34 0 76 h3 7 þ 6 0 7x1 þ 6 z3 7 endogenous latent variables
6 h4 7 6 0 b42 0 0 0 76 7 6
0 76 h4 7 6 g4 7 7 6 z4 7 h ¼ vector of endogenous latent variables ðhn Þ (nx1), in the
6 7 6 6 7
4h 5 4b 54 h5 5 4 g5 5 4 z5 5
5 51 b52 0 0 0 0 model (6  1)
h6 0 0 0 b64 b65 0 h6 0 z6 εY ¼ vector (qx1) of measure errors of the indicators for the
[A.3] endogenous latent variable. In the model (2  1)

2 3
That is to say: lY11 lY12 lY13 lY14 lY15 lY16
2 6
3 6 lY 7 2 3
y1 lY22 lY23 lY24 lY25 lY26 7 ε1
6 21 Y 7
6 y2 7 6 lY31 lY32 lY33 lY34 lY35 l36 7 6 7
h1 ¼ b14 h4 þ z1 6 7 66
7 6 ε2 7
[A.4] 6 y3 7 6 lY41
6 7 lY42 lY43 lY44 lY45 lY46 77 6 ε3 7
6 7
6 y4 7 6 Y
lY52 lY53 lY54 lY55 lY56 7
7 6 ε4 7
6 7 6 l51 6 7
6 y5 7 6 6
72 3 6 ε5 7
h2 ¼ b24 h4 þ z2 [A.5] 6 7
6 y6 7 6
lY61 lY62 lY63 lY64 lY65 lY66 77 h1 6
6
7
6 7 6 7 ε6 7
6 y7 7 6 lY71 lY72 lY73 lY74 lY75 lY76 76 h 7 6 7
6 7 6 76 27 6
6 h3 7 6 ε7 7
7
6 y8 7 ¼ 6 lY81 lY82 lY83 lY84 lY85 lY86 7 6
76 7 þ 6 ε8 7
7 6
6 7 66 h4 7 6 7
h3 ¼ b34 h4 þ z3 6 y9 7 6 lY91
6 7 lY92 lY93 lY94 lY95 lY96 776 ε9 7
[A.6]
6 y10 7 6 Y 74 h5 5 6 7
6 ε10 7
6 7 6 l10;1 lY10;2 lY10;3 lY10;4 lY10;5 Y
l10;6 7 6 7
6 y11 7 6 7 h6 6 ε11 7
6 7 6 lY11;1 lY11;2 lY11;3 lY11;4 lY11;5 lY11;6 7 6 7
6y 7 6 7 6 7
6 12 7 6 7 6 ε12 7
6y 7 6 lY12;1 lY12;2 lY12;3 lY12;4 lY12;5 7
Y
l12;6 7 6ε 7
h4 ¼ b42 h2 þ g4 x1 þ z4 [A.7] 6 13 7 6 6 13 7
4y 5 6 6 lY13;1 lY13;2 lY13;3 lY13;4 lY13;5
7
lY13;6 7 4ε 5
14 6 7 14
y15 6 lY lY14;2 lY14;3 lY14;4 lY14;5 l14;6 7
Y ε15
4 14;1 5
h5 ¼ b51 h1 þ b52 h2 þ g5 x1 þ z5 [A.8]
lY15;1 lY15;2 lY15;3 lY15;4 lY15;5 lY15;6
[A.15]
h6 ¼ b64 h4 þ b65 h5 þ g5 x1 þ z6 [A.9]

For the exogenous variable:

2 3
X
lY11 0 0 0 0 0
X ¼ LX x þ d [A.10] 2 3 6
6 lY21 0 0 0 0 0
7
7 2 3 2 3
y1 6 7 ε1 ε1
6 y2 7 6 0 lY32 0 0 0 0 7 6 ε2 7 6 ε2 7
where: 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 y3 7 6 Y 7 6 ε3 7 6 ε3 7
6 7 6 0 l42 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 6 7
6 y4 7 6 Y 7 6 ε4 7 6 ε4 7
X ¼ vector of the p indicators for the exogenous construct 6 7 6
6 0 l52 0 0 0 0 7
72 3 6 7 6 7
6 y5 7 6 6 7 6 7
Lx ¼ matrix (pxm) of the coefficients of indicators for the 6 7 0 0 lY63 0 0 0 7 h 6 ε5 7 6 ε5 7
6 y6 7 6 7 1 6
76 7 6 6 7 6 6 7
ε 7 6 ε
exogenous latent variable. In the model (2  1) 6 7 6 0 lY73 7
6 y7 7 6 0 0 0 0 76 h2 7 6
76 7 6 ε7 7 6 7
x ¼ vector of exogenous latent variables ðxm Þ (mx1), in the 6 7 6 7 6 ε7 7
6 y8 7 ¼ 6 76 h3 7 6
Y
model (1  1) 6 7 6
0 0 0 l84 0 0 76 7 6 8 7 6 8 7
þ ε 7 þ 6 ε 7
6 y9 7 6 Y 76 h4 7 6
74 5 6 ε9 7 6 7
dX ¼ vector (px1) of measure errors of the indicators for the 6 7 6 0 0 0 l94 0 0 7 6 ε9 7
6 y10 7 6 Y 7 h5 6 ε 7 6 ε 7
exogenous latent variable. In the model (2  1) 6 7 6 0 0 0 l10;4 0 0 7 6 10 7 6 10 7
6 y11 7 6 7 h6 6 ε11 7 6 ε11 7
6 7 6 lY11;5 7 6 7 6 7
6y 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 6ε 7 6ε 7
6 12 7 6 7 6 12 7 6 12 7
6y 7 6 0 0 0 0 lY12;5 0 7 6 7 6 7

 " # " # 6 13 7 6 7 6 ε13 7 6 ε13 7
X1 lX11 dX1 4y 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 lY13;5 0 7
7 4 ε14 5 4 ε14 5
14 6 7
¼ x1 þ [A.11]
X2 lX21 dX2 y15 6 Y 7 ε ε15
4 0 0 0 0 0 l14;6 5 15

0 0 0 0 0 lY15;6
That is to say:
[A.16]

X1 ¼ lX11 x1 þ d1 [A.12] y1 ¼ lY11 h1 þ ε1 [A.17]

1576 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578

y2 ¼ lY21 h1 þ ε2 [A.18] 2 3 2 3 2 3
y1 0:85 0 0 0 0 0 ε1
6 y2 7 6 0:71 0 7 6 7
y3 ¼ lY32 h2 þ ε3 6 7 6 0 0 0 0 7 6 ε2 7
[A.19] 6 y3 7 6 0 0:65 0 0 0 0 7 6 ε3 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 y4 7 6 0 0:77 0 0 0 0 7 6 ε4 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 y5 7 6 0 0:64 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 6 ε5 7
y4 ¼ lY42 h2 þ ε4 [A.20] 6 7 6 7 h1 6 7
6 y6 7 6 0 0 0:63 0 0 7
0 76 7 6 ε6 7 6
6 7 6 h 7
6 y7 7 6 0 0 7 6 27 6 7
6 7 6 0 0:60 0 0 76 h 3 7 6 ε7 7
Y
y5 ¼ l52 h2 þ ε5 6 y8 7 ¼ 6 0 0 0 0:74 0 0 7 6 7 þ 6 ε 7
[A.21] 6 7 6 76 h 4 7 6 8 7
6 y9 7 6 0 0 0 0:86 0 0 76 7 6 ε9 7
6 7 6 74 h 5 6 7
6 y10 7 6 0 7 6 7
6 ε10 7
0 0 0:83 0 0 7 5
6 7 6 h
Y
y6 ¼ l63 h3 þ ε6 [A.22] 6 y11 7 6 0 0 0 0 0:82 0 7 6 6 ε11 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6 y12 7 6 0 0 0 0 0:79 0 7 6 ε12 7
6 7 6 7 6 7
6y 7 6 0 0 0 0 0:85 0 7 6ε 7
Y
y7 ¼ l73 h3 þ ε7 6 13 7 6 7 6 13 7
[A.23] 4y 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0:96 5 4 ε14 5
14
y15 0 0 0 0 0 0:90 ε15
Y
y8 ¼ l84 h4 þ ε8 [A.24] [A.35]

Y
y9 ¼ l94 h4 þ ε9 [A.25]

Y
y10 ¼ l10;4 h4 þ ε10 [A.26] y1 ¼ 0:85h1 [A.36]

y11 ¼ lY11;5 h5 þ ε11 [A.27] y2 ¼ 0:71h1 [A.37]

y12 ¼ lY12;5 h5 þ ε11 [A.28] y3 ¼ 0:65 h2 [A.38]

y13 ¼ lY13;5 h5 þ ε13 [A.29] y4 ¼ 0:77h2 [A.39]

y14 ¼ lY14;6 h6 þ ε14 [A.30] y5 ¼ 0:64h2 [A.40]

y15 ¼ lY15;6 h6 þ ε15 [A.31] y6 ¼ 0:63h3 [A.41]

y7 ¼ 0:60h3 [A.42]

B. The measurement model y8 ¼ 0:74h4 [A.43]

B.1) The exogenous variable

All the items have shown significant for explaining the exoge- y9 ¼ 0:86h4 [A.44]
nous latent variable (Social Norms) (with p-value< 0.001).

y10 ¼ 0:83h4 [A.45]


 " #
X1 0:69 dX1
¼ x þ [A.32]
X2 0:93 1 dX2 y11 ¼ 0:82h5 [A.46]

X1 ¼ 0:69 x1 [A.33] y12 ¼ 0:79h5 [A.47]

X2 ¼ 0:93 x1 [A.34]
y13 ¼ 0:85h5 [A.48]

y14 ¼ 0:96 h6 [A.49]

B.2) The endogenous variables

All the indicators have shown significant for explaining the
endogenous latent variables (Awareness, Attitudes, motivation, y15 ¼ 0:90h6 [A.50]
Environmental Education, Intention and Green behavior, according
to the values indicated below) (with p-value< 0.001).
 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578 1577

C. The causal model

Mathematically, 50, 179e211.

Bamberg, S., Mo € ser, G., 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a
2 3 2 32 3 new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
h1 0 0 0 0; 65 0 0 h1 behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14e25.
6 h2 7 6 0 07 6 7
6 7 6 0 0 0; 72 0 76 h2 7 Bendassolli, P.F., 2013. Theory building in qualitative research: reconsidering the
6 h3 7 6 0 07 6 7
6 7¼6 0 0 0; 98 0 76 h3 7 problem of induction. Qual. Soc. Res. 14, 1e20.
6 h4 7 6 0 07 6 7 Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., 2012. Environmental education for behavior change:
6 7 6 0; 66 0 0 0 76 h4 7
4 h 5 4 0; 44 0; 30 0 0 0 0 54 h5 5
which actions should be targeted? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34 (10), 1591e1614.
5 Chan, R.Y.K., 1999. Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers. J. Int. Cons.
h6 0 0 0 0; 60 0; 28 0 h6 Mark. 11 (4), 25e52.
2 3 2 3 Cialdini, R.B., 2003. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Curr.
0 z1 Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 105e109.
6 0 7 6 z2 7
6 7 6 7 Colom, A.J., Sureda, J., 1981. Hacia una teoría del medio educativo (bases para una
6 0 7 6 z3 7 Pedagogía ambiental). Palma de Mallorca: Servicio de Publicaciones Uni-
þ6 7 6 7
6 0; 44 7x1 þ 6 z4 7 [A.51] versidad de Palma de Mallorca.
6 7 6 7
4 0; 42 5 4 z5 5 Dunlap, R.E., 2008. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to
worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 3e18.
0 z6 EPA, 2007. Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices. United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.
European Commission, 2000. First European Climate Change Programme (ECPP)
2000-2004. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2005. Second European Climate Change Programme (ECPP).
References European Commission, Brussels.
Galicia Guide, 2016. Available at: http://www.galiciaguide.com/A-Coruna-index.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. html. . (Accessed 31 January 2016).
1578 L. Varela-Candamio et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 170 (2018) 1565e1578
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structura-
tion. Polity Press, Oxford, UK.
Hershberger, S.L., 2003. The growth of structural equation modeling: 1994-2001.
Struct. Eq. Model 10, 35e46.
Hargreaves, T., 2008. Making Pro-environmental Behaviour Work: an Ethnographic
Case Study of Practice, Process and Power in the Workplace. Unpublished (Ph.D.
thesis). University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Homburg, A., Stolberg, A., 2006. Explaining pro-environmental behavior with a
cognitive theory of stress. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 1e14.
Hori, S., Kondo, K., Nogata, D., Ben, H., 2013. The determinants of household energy-
saving behavior: survey and comparison in five major Asian cities. Energy
Policy. 52, 354e362.
Jenkins, R., 2008. Social Identity. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Jensen, B.B., Schnack, K., 2006. The action competence approach in environmental
education: reprinted from environmental education research (1997). Environ.
Educ. Res. 12, 471e486.
Klem, L., 2000. Structural equation modeling. In: Grimm, L.G., Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.),
Reading and Understanding More Multivariable Statistics. American Psycho-
logical Association, Washington, D.C.
Kim, S., Jeong, S.-H., Hwang, Y., 2013. Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of
American and Korean students the application of the theory of reasoned action
and protection motivation theory. Sci. Commun. 35, 168e188.
€ckner, C.A., Blo
Klo € baum, A., 2010. A comprehensive action determination model:
toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of
travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 574e586.
McDonald, F.V., 2014. Developing an integrated conceptual framework of pro-
environmental behavior in the workplace through synthesis of the current
literature. Adm. Sci. 4, 276e303.
Novo, M., 2009. Environmental education, a genuine education for sustainable
development. Rev. Educ. 195e217.
Ofstad, S.P., Tobolova, M., Nayum, A., Klo €ckner, C.A., 2017. Understanding the
mechanisms behind changing People's recycling behavior at work by applying a
comprehensive action determination model. Sustainab. 9 (2), 204.
Palmer, J., 2002. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice,
Progress and Promise. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
Schwartz, S.H., Howard, J.A., 1981. Normative decision-making model of altruism.
In: Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior. Erl-
baum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp. 89e211.
Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G., 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, C., Fowler, M., Greene, E., et al., 2009. Carbon emissions and climate change:
a study of attitudes and their relationship with travel behavior. In: Presentation
to the Transportation Research Board's National Transportation Planning Ap-
plications Conference (Washington DC).
Spanish National Institute of Statistics, 2014. Population by Municipalities and
Gender, Corun ~ a (A) and Nomencla
tor. Overview of Urban Agglomerations,
Corun ~ a (A). Spanish National Institute of Statistics, Madrid.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative
review and research agenda. J. Envir. Psych. 29, 309e317.
Stern, P.C., 2000. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of envi-
ronmentally. Signif. Behav. J. Soc. Issues 56, 407e424.
€
Thøgersen, J., Olander, F., 2006. The dynamic interaction of personal norms and
environment-friendly buying behaviour: a panel study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36,
1758e1780.
Vicente-Molina, M.A., Ferna
ndez-Sa
inz, A., Izagirre-Olaizola, J., 2013. Environmental
knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behavior: com-
parison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean.
Prod. 61, 130e138.
Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S., 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 305e314.
WIR, 2008. World Investment Report 2007: Transnational Corporations, Extractive
Industries and Development. United Nations: Academic Foundation.
Wu, S.-I., Chen, J.-Y., 2014. A model of green consumption behavior constructed by
the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 6 (5), 119e132.

ka, A., Szere
Zso
nyi, Z.M., Sze
chy, A., Kocsis, T., 2013. Greening due to environmental
education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and
everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university
students. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 126e138.