This study merged principles from the Diffusion of Innovation Theory with the Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Environmentalism to understand how values and knowledge together shape pro-environmental behavior (PEB) in a rural landscape. We examined how a series of behavioral antecedents varied by the timing of behavioral adoption among 617 survey respondents in Illinois, USA. We observed that biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic values, alongside environmental knowledge, predicted PEB, while knowledge mediated the value-behavior relationship. We then classified and compared subgroups of early, late, and non-adopters of sustainable practices using latent variable modeling. Findings showed that biospheric values were universally important in shaping PEB, that altruistic values decreased environmental knowledge among late adopters, and that non-adopters’ environmental knowledge played a less prominent role in influencing PEB. Our results provide insight into how to encourage the uptake of sustainable practices by recognizing the heterogeneity among community residents in their values and knowledge formation that shape PEB.
Aguilar-LuzónM. C.CarmonaB.Calvo-SalgueroA.Castillo ValdiviesoP. A. (2020). Values, environmental beliefs, and connection with nature as predictive factors of the pro-environmental vote in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1043.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
3.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
4.
AndradeR.van RiperC. J.GoodsonD. J.JohnsonD. N.StewartW.López-RodríguezM. D.Cebrián-PiquerasM. A.Horcea-MilcuA. I.LoV.RaymondC. M. (2023). Values shift in response to social learning through deliberation about protected areas. Global Environmental Change, 78, Article 102630.
5.
BambergS.MöserG. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25.
6.
BaigS.FunerK. (2022). The state of value education in early childhood: The challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 15(2), 17.
7.
BielingC.EserU.PlieningerT. (2020). Towards a better understanding of values in sustainability transformations: Ethical perspectives on landscape stewardship. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 188–196.
8.
CanigliaG.LuederitzC.von WirthT.FazeyI.Martín-LópezB.HondrilaK.KönigA.von WehrdenH.SchäpkeN. A.LaubichlerM. D.LangD. J. (2021). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 93–100.
9.
Cebrián-PiquerasM. A.van RiperC. J.AndradeR.RaymondC. M.GoodsonD. J.KellerR.PlieningerT. (2025). Weaving values, knowledge and context to care for human-nature relationships in protected areas. People and Nature, 7, 1952–1971.
10.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
11.
CieciuchJ. (2017). Exploring the complicated relationship between values and behaviour. In RoccasS.SagivL. (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross cultural perspective (pp. 237–247). Springer.
12.
ClearyA.FieldingK. S.BellS. L.MurrayZ.RoikoA. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 119–128.
13.
CoonJ. J.van RiperC. J.MortonL. W.MillerJ. R. (2020a). Evaluating nonresponse bias in survey research conducted in the rural Midwest. Society & Natural Resources, 33(8), 968–986.
14.
CoonJ. J.van RiperC. J.MortonL. W.MillerJ. R. (2020b). What drives private landowner decisions? Exploring non-native grass management in the eastern Great Plains. Journal of Environmental Management, 276, 111355.
15.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
16.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2007). Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries:Validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(3), 318–332.
17.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 368–378.
18.
DietzT.FitzgeraldA.ShwomR. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 335–372.
19.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412.
20.
El BilaliH.AllahyariM. S. (2018). Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role of information and communication technologies. Information Processing in Agriculture, 5(4), 456–464.
21.
Engqvist JonssonA. K.NilssonA. (2014). Exploring the relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviour: The influence of locus of control. Environmental Values, 23(3), 297–314.
22.
FitzgeraldD. K. (2003). Every farm a factory: The industrial ideal in American agriculture. Yale University Press.
23.
FrattiniF.BianchiM.De MassisA.SikimicU. (2014). The role of early adopters in the diffusion of new products: Differences between platform and nonplatform innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 466–488.
24.
GeigerS. M.GeigerM.WilhelmO. (2019). Environment-specific vs. general knowledge and their role in pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 718.
25.
GendreauM. S. (2022). Valuing out of context. Environmental Values, 31(4), 381–396.
26.
GolebieE. J.van RiperC. J.HitzrothG.Joffe-NelsonN. (2024). Confronting the “knowledge-action gap” in invasive species prevention: A study of biosecurity behaviors among aquarium hobbyists in Illinois, USA. Water Biology and Security, 4(3), 100337.
27.
GolebieE.van RiperC. J.SuskiC.StedmanR. (2021). Reducing invasive species transport among recreational anglers: The importance of values and risk perceptions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 41(6), 1812–1825.
28.
GolebieE. J.van RiperC. J. (2023). Enhancing aquatic invasive species outreach through values-framed messages. Environmental Communication, 17(1), 67–86.
29.
HairJ. F.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
30.
Horcea-MilcuA.-I.ZamanS.FilyushkinaA.López-RodríguezM. D.Cebrián-PiquerasM. A.RaymondC. M. (2022). The relationship between values and knowledge in visioning for landscape management: Relevance for a collaborative approach. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 498–513.
31.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
32.
HutaV. (2016). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In ReineckeL.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being (pp. 14–33). Routledge.
33.
JoshanlooM. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2023–2036.
34.
KaiserF. G.HübnerG.BognerF. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150–2170.
35.
KansangaM. M.Bezner KerrR.LupafyaE.DakishoniL.LuginaahI. (2021). Does participatory farmer-to-farmer training improve the adoption of sustainable land management practices?Land Use Policy, 108, 105477.
36.
KhanA.HameedW.IqbalJ.ShahA.TariqM.AhmedS. (2022). Adoption of sustainability innovations and environmental opinion leadership: A way to foster environmental sustainability through Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Sustainability, 14, 1–19.
37.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
38.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
39.
KotheE. J.LingM.NorthM.KlasA.MullanB. A.NovoradovskayaL. (2019). Protection motivation theory and pro-environmental behaviour: A systematic mapping review. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(4), 411–432.
40.
LandonA. C.WoosnamK. M.KyleG. T.KeithS. J. (2021). Psychological needs satisfaction and attachment to natural landscapes. Environment and Behavior, 53(6), 661–683.
41.
LangeF.DewitteS. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100.
42.
LarsonL. R.StedmanR. C.CooperC. B.DeckerD. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 112–124.
43.
LarsonL. R.SzczytkoR.BowersE. P.StephensL. E.StevensonK. T.FloydM. F. (2019). Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature: Troubling trends among rural youth?Environment and Behavior, 51(8), 966–991.
44.
LaurenN.SmithL. D.LouisW. R.DeanA. J. (2019). Promoting spillover: How past behaviors increase environmental intentions by cueing self-perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 51(3), 235–258.
45.
LeitschuhB.StewartW. P.van RiperC. J. (2022). Place-making in the Corn Belt: The productivist landscapes of the “good farmer”. Journal of Rural Studies, 92, 415–424.
46.
LindenbergS. (2023). Goal framing theory. In MarchandD.WeissK.PolE. (Eds.), 100 Key concepts in environmental psychology (pp. 65–69). Routledge.
47.
LindenbergS.StegL. (2013). Goal-framing theory and norm-guided environmental behavior. In van TrijpH. C. M. (Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behavior (pp. 37–54). Psychology Press.
48.
LiobikienėG.PoškusM. S. (2019). The importance of environmental knowledge for private and public sphere pro-environmental behavior: Modifying the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability, 11(12), 3324.
49.
MaczkaK.ChmielewskiP.JeranA.MatczakP.van RiperC. J. (2019). The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network. Ecosystem Services, 35, 173–183.
50.
MardiaK. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530.
51.
MedeirosS.CamposA.FreitasL. B.MondoT.SthapitE. (2023). Capturing eudaimonic feelings in tourism experience: A construct proposal and preliminary empirical evidence. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(4), 636–642.
52.
MillerR. L. (2015). Rogers’ innovation diffusion theory (1962, 1995). In Al-SuqriM.Al-AufiA. (Eds.), Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends (pp. 261–274). IGI Global.
53.
MontgomeryD. R. (2017). Growing a revolution: Bringing our soil back to life. WW Norton & Company.
54.
NoppersE. H.KeizerK.BolderdijkJ. W.StegL. (2014). The adoption of sustainable innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52–62.
55.
NordlundA. M.GarvillJ. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 740–756.
56.
OgisiO. D.BeghoT. (2023). Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of the progress, barriers, gender differences and recommendations. Farming System, 1(2), 100019.
57.
OsbaldistonR.SchottJ. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299.
58.
PalmA. (2020). Early adopters and their motives: Differences between earlier and later adopters of residential solar photovoltaics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, 110142.
59.
PatryJ. L.WeyringerS.WeinbergerA. (2007). Combining values and knowledge education. In AspinD. N.ChapmanJ. D. (Eds.), Values education and lifelong learning: Principles, policies, programmes (pp. 160–179). Springer Netherlands.
60.
PisoZ.WerkheiserI.NollS.LeshkoC. (2016). Sustainability of what? Recognising the diverse values that sustainable agriculture works to sustain. Environmental Values, 25(2), 195–214.
61.
PlourdeJ. D.PijanowskiB. C.PekinB. K. (2013). Evidence for increased monoculture cropping in the Central United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 165, 50–59.
62.
PriceJ. C.LevistonZ. (2014). Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices: The social, psychological and contextual influences on land management. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 65–78.
63.
RaymondC. M.FazeyI.ReedM. S.StringerL. C.RobinsonG. M.EvelyA. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1766–1777.
64.
RogersE. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
65.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
66.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.
67.
SchultzP. W.GouveiaV. V.CameronL. D.TankhaG.SchmuckP.FraněkM. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475.
68.
SchultzP. W.ZeleznyL. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540–558.
69.
SchwartzS. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
70.
SerebrennikovD.ThorneF.KallasZ.McCarthyS. N. (2020). Factors influencing adoption of sustainable farming practices in Europe: A systemic review of empirical literature. Sustainability, 12(22), 9719.
71.
ShaoK.Elahi ShirvanM.AlamerA. (2022). How accurate is your correlation? Different methods derive different results and different interpretations. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 901412.
72.
ShinS.van RiperC. J.StedmanR. C.SuskiC. D. (2022). The value of eudaimonia for understanding relationships among values and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 80, 101778.
73.
ShipleyN. J.JohnsonD. N.van RiperC. J.StewartW. P.ChuM. L.SuskiC. D.SteinJ. A.ShewJ. J. (2020). A deliberative research approach to valuing agro-ecosystem services in a worked landscape. Ecosystem Services, 42, 101083.
74.
StedmanR. C.ConnellyN. A.HeberleinT. A.DeckerD. J.AllredS. B. (2019). The end of the (research) world as we know it? Understanding and coping with declining response rates to mail surveys. Society and Natural Resources, 32(10), 1139–1154.
75.
StegL.BolderdijkJ. W.KeizerK.PerlaviciuteG. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115.
76.
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163–192.
77.
StegL.VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
78.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
79.
SunX.LyuJ.GeC. (2022). Knowledge and farmers’ adoption of green production technologies: An empirical study on IPM adoption intention in major Indica-rice-producing areas in the Anhui Province of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14292.
80.
TengöM.HillR.MalmerP.RaymondC. M.SpierenburgM.DanielsenF.ElmqvistT.FolkeC. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25.
81.
TiffinR.BalcombeK. (2011). The determinants of technology adoption by UK farmers using Bayesian model averaging: The cases of organic production and computer usage. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55(4), 579–598.
82.
TraugerA. (2004). ‘Because they can do the work’: Women farmers in sustainable agriculture in Pennsylvania, USA. Gender, Place & Culture, 11(2), 289–307.
83.
ÜnalA. B.StegL.GorsiraM. (2018). Values versus environmental knowledge as triggers of a process of activation of personal norms for eco-driving. Environment and Behavior, 50(10), 1092–1118.
84.
Unay-Gailhardİ.BojnecŠ. (2021). Gender and the environmental concerns of young farmers: Do young women farmers make a difference on family farms?Journal of Rural Studies, 88, 71–82.
85.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Statistical abstract of the United States2010. Government Printing Office.
86.
Van der WerffE.StegL.KeizerK. (2014). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626–657.
87.
van RiperC.Winkler-SchorS.FoelskeL.KellerR.BraitoM.RaymondC.ErikssonM.GolebieE.JohnsonD. (2019). Integrating multi-level values and pro-environmental behavior in a US protected area. Sustainability Science, 14(5), 1395–1408.
88.
van RiperC. J.KyleG. T. (2014). Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 288–297.
89.
WardropperC. B.DayerA. A.GoebelM. S.MartinV. Y. (2021). Conducting conservation social science surveys online. Conservation Biology, 35(5), 1650–1658.
90.
Winkler-SchorS.van RiperC. J.LandonA. C.KellerR. (2020). Determining the role of eudaimonic values in conservation behavior. Conservation Biology, 34(6), 1404–1415.
91.
WongP.WanC. (2024). Exploring the moderating effects of incidental emotions on rewards for encouraging hotel guests’ towel reuse behavior. Environment and Behavior, 56(5–6), 440–467.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
