Human activities are the primary source of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Adopting low-carbon behaviors (LCBs) can effectively reduce carbon emissions, which in turn helps alleviate environmental problems. Previous research shows that low-carbon policies can promote LCBs, while an extensive understanding of the effects of multi-types of low-carbon policies on various LCBs needs to be verified. Analyses on influencing factors regarding LCBs are dominated before, and place attachment and low-carbon behavioral intention as the influencing factors of LCBs, their relationship with low-carbon policy and LCBs needs to be clarified. By taking a questionnaire survey of residents of Hangzhou, China, this study presents a conceptual framework capable of analyzing the relationship between three types of low-carbon policies, including information policy, economic policy, and administrative regulations, and two types of LCBs, including low-carbon consumption (LCCB) and travel (LCTB) behavior, considering the mediation effect of place attachment and low-carbon behavioral intention in a single structural equation model. The results illustrate that administrative regulations and information policy have a direct positive impact on LCCB, and information policy has the most significant influence. Economic policy and administrative regulations directly impact LCTB, and administrative regulations have the most significant influence. The influence of administrative regulations on LCTB is more excellent than on LCCB. Information policy indirectly affects two types of LCBs through the chain mediation effect of place attachment and low-carbon behavioral intention. The results should be helpful to low-carbon policymakers seeking to promote LCBs to consider the importance of place attachment and various low-carbon policies. Moreover, they enrich our understanding of the influencing mechanism of LCBs.
LenzenM. Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in Australian final consumption: an input-output analysis. Energy Policy1998; 26: 495–506.
2.
ChenCLiuGMengF, et al.Energy consumption and carbon footprint accounting of urban and rural residents in Beijing through consumer lifestyle approach. Ecol Indic2019; 98: 575–586.
DuboisGSovacoolBAallC, et al.It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Res Soc Sci2019; 52: 144–158.
5.
National Bureau of Statistics. China statistical yearbook 2021. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2021.
6.
NiamirLIvanovaOFilatovaT. Demand-side solutions for climate mitigation: bottom-up drivers of household energy behavior change in The Netherlands and Spain. Energy Res Soc Sci2020; 62: 101356.
7.
YangSZhangYZhaoD.Who exhibits more energy-saving behavior in direct and indirect ways in China? The role of psychological factors and socio-demographics. Energy Policy2016; 93: 196–205.
8.
GuagnanoGASternPCDietzT. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ Behav1995; 27: 699–718.
9.
LiWLongRChenH, et al. A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 78: 318–328.
10.
ShiHFanJZhaoD. Predicting household PM2.5-reduction behavior in Chinese urban areas: an integrative model of theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory. J Cleaner Prod2017; 145: 64–73.
11.
Van der WerffEStegL. The psychology of participation and interest in smart energy systems: comparing the value-belief-norm theory and the value-identity-personal norm model. Energy Res Soc Sci2016; 22: 107–114.
12.
ChaiABradleyGLoA, et al.What time to adapt? The role of discretionary time in sustaining the climate change value-action gap. Ecol Econ2015; 116: 95–107.
13.
GengJLongRChenH, et al.Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: a theoretical and empirical study. Resour Conserv Recycl2017; 125: 282–292.
14.
MomsenKStoerkT. From intention to action: can nudges help consumers to choose renewable energy?Energy Policy2014; 74: 376–382.
15.
LiQLongRChenH. Empirical study of the willingness of consumers to purchase low-carbon products by considering carbon labels: a case study. J Cleaner Prod2017; 161: 1237–1250.
16.
ZhangBChenHDuZ, et al.Does license plate rule induce low-carbon choices in residents’ daily travels: motivation and impacts. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2020; 124: 109780.
17.
DuLGuoJWeiC. Impact of information feedback on residential electricity demand in China. Resour Conserv Recycl2017; 125: 324–334.
18.
AsensioIODelmasM. The dynamics of behavior change: evidence from energy conservation. J Econ Behav Organ2016; 126: 196–212.
19.
NilssonAStollPBrandtN. Assessing the impact of real-time price visualization on residential electricity consumption, costs, and carbon emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl2017; 124: 152–161.
20.
Geoffrey Beattie. Information of carbon labeling and consumer response. Final project report. University of Manchester (2009).
21.
LiuTWangQSuB. A review of carbon labeling: standards, implementation, and impact. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 53: 68–79.
22.
BergquistMNilssonA. I saw the sign: promoting energy conservation via normative prompts. J Environ Psychol2016; 46: 23–31.
23.
AllcottHRogersT. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am Econ Rev2014; 104: 3003–3037.
24.
StegLDreijerinkLAbrahamseW. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol2005; 25: 415–425.
25.
GadenneDSharmaBKerrD, et al.The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy2011; 39: 7684–7694.
26.
LiGLiuWWangZ, et al.An empirical examination of energy consumption, behavioral intention, and situational factors: evidence from Beijing. Ann Oper Res2017; 255: 507–524.
27.
MakiABurnsRJHaL, et al.Paying people to protect the environment: a meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviors. J Environ Psychol2016; 47: 242–255.
28.
LindenACarlsson-KanyamaAErikssonB. Efficient and inefficient aspects of residential energy behaviour: what are the policy instruments for change?Energy Policy2006; 34: 1918–1927.
29.
McClellandLCanterRJ. Psychological research on energy conservation: context, approaches, and methods. Adv Environ Psychol1981; 3: 1–25.
30.
DeciELKoestnerRRyanRM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull1999; 125: 627–668.
31.
JiaNLiLLingS, et al.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 Pract2018; 111: 108–118.
32.
LiuDDuHSouthworthF, et al.The influence of social-psychological factors on the intention to choose low-carbon travel modes in Tianjin. China. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2017; 105: 42–53.
33.
WangTShenBSpingerC, et al.What prevents US from taking low-carbon actions? A comprehensive review of influencing factors affecting low-carbon behaviors. Energy Res Soc Sci2021; 71: 101844.
34.
DingZJiangBLiuZ, et al.Factors affecting low-carbon consumption behavior of urban residents: a comprehensive review. Resour Conserv Recycl2018; 132: 3–15.
35.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1991; 50: 179–211.
36.
SternPCDietzTAbelT, et al.A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev1999; 6: 81–97.
37.
LiWZhaoSMaJ, et al.Investigating regional and generational heterogeneity in low-carbon travel behavior intention based on a PLS-SEM approach. Sustainability2021; 13: 3492.
38.
ShuaiCDingLZhangY, et al.How consumers are willing to pay for low-carbon products? - Results from a carbon-labeling scenario experiment in China. J Cleaner Prod2014; 83: 366–373.
39.
HuXWu NNChenN. Young people’s behavioral intentions towards low-carbon travel: extending the theory of planned behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 2327.
40.
LinBWangX. Does low-carbon travel intention really lead to actual low-carbon travel? Evidence from urban residents in China. Econ Anal Policy2021; 72: 743–756.
41.
HernándezBHidalgoMCSalazar-LaplaceME, et al.Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. J Environ Psychol2007; 27: 310–319.
42.
HidalgoMCHernandezB. Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. J Environ Psychol2001; 21: 273–281.
43.
LewickaM. On the varieties of people’s relationships with places: hummon’s typology revisited. Environ Behav2011; 43: 676–709.
44.
CastanedaMGMartinezCPMarteR, et al.Explaning the environmentally-sustainable consumer behavior: a social capital perspective. Soc Responsib J2015; 11: 658–676.
45.
ScannellLGiffordR. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol2010; 30: 289–297.
46.
HalpennyEA. Pro-environmental behaviors and park visitors: the effect of place attachment. J Environ Psychol2010; 30: 409–421.
47.
RamkissoonHSmithLWeilerB. Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: a structural equation modelling approach. Tour Manag2013; 36: 552–566.
48.
SongZSoopramanienD. Types of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents in Beijing. Cities2019; 84: 112–120.
49.
SongZDaryantoASoopramanienD. Place attachment, trust and mobility: three-way interaction effect on urban residents’ environmental citizenship behaviour. J Bus Res2019; 105: 168–177.
50.
WilliamsDRVaskeJJ. The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For Sci2003; 49: 830–840.
51.
ScannellLGiffordR. Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing framework. J Environ Psychol2010; 30: 1–10.
52.
FishbeinMManfredoMJ. A theory of behavior change. In: ManfredoMJ (Eds.), Influencing human behavior: theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural resource management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore, 1992, pp. 29–50.
53.
ChengTMWuHC. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J Sustain Tour2015; 23: .557–576.
54.
CevikH. The relationship between park satisfaction, place attachment and revisit intention in neighborhood parks with physical activity facilities. J Educ Learn2020; 9: 178–190.
55.
AbrahamseWStegLVlekC, et al. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol2005; 25: 273–291.
56.
DiekmannAPreisendorferP. Green and greenback: the behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Ration Soc2003; 14: 441–472.
57.
HadlerMKlöschBSchwarzingerS, et al. Measuring environmental attitudes and behaviors. In: Surveying climate-relevant behavior. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, pp. 15–35. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85796-7_2.
58.
ChanR. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol Mark2001; 18: 389–413.
59.
ThogersenJGrenhojA. Electricity saving in households-A social cognitive approach. Energy Policy2010; 38: 7732–7743.
60.
BelaidFGarciaT. Understanding the spectrum of residential energy-saving behaviours: French evidence using disaggregated data. Energy Econ2016; 57: 204–214.
61.
BaiYLiuY. An exploration of residents’ low-carbon awareness and behavior in Tianjin, China. Energy Policy2016; 61: 1261–1270.
62.
ChenHLongRNiuW, et al. How does individual low-carbon consumption behavior occur? An analysis based on attitude process. Appl Energy2014; 116: 376–386.
63.
JorgensenBSStedmanRC. A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. J Environ Manag2006; 79: 316–327.
64.
AntonCELawrenceC. Home is where the heart is: the effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. J Environ Psychol2014; 40: 451–461.
65.
LiuQYouDWangY, et al.The relationship between place attachment and restorative perception of tourists visiting Fuzhou urban parks. Resour Sci2017; 39: 1303–1313.
PetersonRA. A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J Consum Res1994; 21: 381–391.
68.
BagozziRPYiYNassenKD. Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: review of approaches and extention to three-facet designs. J Econom1999; 89: 393–421.
69.
HuLTBentlerPM. Evaluating model fit. In: HoyleRH (Ed.) Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues, and applications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1995, pp. 76–99.
70.
DarbyS. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption. A review for DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing, and direct displays. Oxford: Environmental Change Institute, 2006.
71.
BurchellKRettieRRobertsTC. Householder engagement with energy consumption feedback: the role of community action and communications. Energy Policy2016; 88: 178–186.
72.
HansenJMSaridakisGBensonV. Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions. Comput Human Behav2018; 80: 197–206.
73.
PrioloDMilhabetICodouO, et al.Encouraging ecological behaviour through induced hypocrisy and inconsistency. J Environ Psychol2016; 47: 166–180.
74.
LiobikieneGGrinceviceneSBernatonieneJ. Environmentally friendly behaviour and green purchase in Austria and Lithuania. J Cleaner Prod2017; 142: 3789–3797.
75.
DonaldIJCooperSRConchieSM. An extended theory of planned behaviour model of the psychological factors affecting commuters’ transport mode use. J Environ Psychol2014; 40: 39–48.
76.
KaratasAStoikoAMenassaCC. A framework to achieve large scale energy savings for building stocks through targeted occupancy interventions: Foundations, principles, and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc, 2017.
77.
FishmanEWashingtonSHaworthN, et al.Barriers to bikesharing: an analysis from Melbourne and Brisbane. J Transp Geogr2014; 41: 325–337.
