The influence of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainable intention and behaviour of Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate students

Abstract

The study aims to examine Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate students’ sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitudes and the impact on their sustainability intention and sustainable behaviour. An online survey was conducted using 953 respondents. The SmartPLS (Partial Least Squares) analysis demonstrated that sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude significantly impact the students’ sustainability intention. Nevertheless, the effect of sustainability knowledge was less than the sustainable attitude. The results confirmed that sustainability intention is important to influence sustainable behaviour among university students. Interestingly, Malaysian undergraduate students recorded higher effect levels of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainable intention and sustainability intention on sustainable behaviour compared to Indonesian students.

Keywords

Sustainability knowledge sustainable attitude sustainability intention sustainable behaviour Malaysia Indonesia

Introduction

Sustainability is crucial and linked to various aspects: economics, construction, manufacturing and agriculture (Tang, 2018). Sustainability is also an integral part of universities which attracts significant attention worldwide due to pressure from society, students and policy (Radwan and Khalil, 2021). Some universities in Malaysia and Indonesia have become sustainable universities as sustainability is an essential agent in changing students’ sustainable awareness and behaviour (Hübscher et al., 2021). Sustainability knowledge and new educational practices related to sustainability are essential (Sclater, 2018). Universiti Sains Malaysia has significantly progressed in imparting sustainability knowledge and awareness to the students via courses, research and events and thus ranked first in the Times Higher Education (THE) Malaysia University Global Impact Rankings 2019, 2020 and 2021 for sustainable university (Mohamad Saleh et al., 2022). Similarly, Indonesian universities, such as Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, are highly active in promoting environmental programmes and research and conducting environmental activities among students on campus (Nomura and Suyono, 2014). A sustainable university allows the students to obtain green information and participate in sustainable activities at the university (Dagiliūtė et al., 2018).

Undeniably, the role of the university in sustainability is crucial to accelerate the achievement of sustainable future and sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030 (Kohl et al., 2022). Furthermore, universities are responsible for engaging with external communities and increasing sensitivity to sustainability issues through community projects (Fissi et al., 2021). The university can reach the community by embracing the local culture, specifically the Asian community that is rich with cultures. For instance, Foroudi et al. (2019) emphasised the crucial role of culture in higher education institutions and sustainability. Some cultures can affect the progress of sustainability, such as Malaysia (Bakar et al., 2016). For example, the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome made people commit illegal waste dumping (Watanabe et al., 2014) as the syndrome makes people less concerned about environmental issues that do not impact them or their families. Thus, understanding and handling these cultures is vital if the university intends to discuss about sustainability in Asian communities. Hence, the implementation of SDGs by the university is considered a complex process.

The university plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable development (Aleixo et al., 2021). Meanwhile, university students, specifically from Asian and developing countries resembling Malaysia and Indonesia with severe environmental concerns, should contribute to sustainable development by disseminating information to the public, friends and family for awareness and education purposes (Koch et al., 2013; Kamarul Kamarul Zaman et al., 2018; Yusliza et al., 2020, Mohd Mohd Jaafar et al., 2020; Wee et al., 2017; Kamaruddin et al., 2022). University students are the biggest stakeholders in the university with great potential to influence sustainability (Dagiliūtė et al., 2018). Additionally, students are the key stakeholders and future leaders in fulfilling the SDGs (Ribeiro et al., 2021). Therefore, university students could significantly contribute to the achievement of SDGs with significant knowledge, attitude and behaviour in sustainable development.

Although students can promote sustainable development (Mazon et al., 2020) and achieve the SDGs (Cuzdriorean et al., 2020; Yusliza et al., 2020), past studies on university students’ sustainability knowledge, attitude, intention and behaviour emphasised Western perspectives using theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Heeren et al., 2016; Wendlandt Amézaga et al., 2021; Maiorescu et al., 2020). Few research highlighted the issue from Asian perspectives (specifically in Malaysia and Indonesia) (Wee et al., 2017) excluding several studies in Malaysia (Harun et al., 2011; Sivapalan, 2017; Yusliza et al., 2020). Similarly, limited comparative studies investigated Southeast Asian university students and sustainability (Leal Leal Filho et al., 2021). From a larger population scale, important misconceptions require intervention through education, information and motivation despite the positive attitude towards sustainable development (García-González et al., 2020).

The present study was conducted to fill past study gaps based on Malaysian and Indonesian sustainability knowledge and attitude and the influence on sustainable intention and behaviour. The study is unique as it compares two Asian neighbour countries sustainability and the role of the higher education institutions as not many studies undertook such a topic. Both countries share many common things, such as race, culture, religion, environment, environmental issues, collaboration and prospects (Ministry of Energy, 2018). Moreover, both countries are classified as developing countries and progressing in achieving sustainability; thus, the study provides useful information that might aid both countries in planning for a better future with sustainable education among university students.

Theoretical foundation

The theoretical framework is based on TPB (Ajzen, 1991), which is the most influential behavioural theory (Kwon and Silva, 2020; Longo et al., 2019; Heeren et al., 2016) and is widely applied in sustainability and behavioural studies, such as behaviours related to the environment and sustainability (pro-environmental behaviour, recycling and energy-saving behaviour) (Banytė et al., 2020). For instance, Cuzdriorean et al. (2020) adopted TPB to identify the factors of students’ sustainable behaviour at a Romanian university. Traditionally, TPB was employed to form constructs, such as attitude, intention, behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behaviour. Intention is the best predictor of behaviour determined by attitude towards action (Gkargkavouzi et al., 2019).

Past models and studies include the knowledge construct as a behaviour predictor (Ajzen et al., 2011; Heeren et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019). For instance, Ardoin et al. (2015) proposed that environmental knowledge can encourage the adoption of pro-environmental and sustainable behaviour (Liu, 2021). Sun et al. (2019) revealed that environmental knowledge positively impacts green consumption behaviour. The TPB assumptions and past studies findings (Klöckner, 2013; Sujata et al., 2019) emphasised that individuals’ actual behaviour can be predicted through intention influenced by other variables. The present study applied TPB in understanding the impact of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainability intention and the impact of sustainability intention on Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate students’ sustainable behaviour (see Figure 1). The hypotheses were developed based on the study theoretical framework as follows.

Figure 1.

Proposed research framework on the influence of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainable intention and behaviour.

Hypotheses development

Maichum et al. (2016) found that environmental attitudes, social norms and perceived behaviour control positively influence the purchase intention of green products. Environmental attitude has the most significant impact and thus the strongest predictor of green product purchase intention. Organic food consumption studies in developing countries such as Tanzania and Kenya revealed that personal attitudes could significantly influence consumers’ purchase intentions ((Wang et al., 2019)). Thus, the first hypothesis was proposed:

H1: Sustainable attitude positively affects sustainability intention.

Wang and Mangmeechai (2021) demonstrated that citizens with a strong perception and implementation intention of management policies tend to practice high-level environmental protection behaviours. Sustainability intentions, sustainability knowledge and orientation promote the sustainable development of entrepreneurial behaviour in the research on the legalisation strategy of sustainable development entrepreneurs (Reynolds et al., 2018). Therefore, the second hypothesis was proposed:

H2: Sustainability intention positively affects sustainable behaviour.

Research on Korean fashion product consumers revealed that knowledge and information from corporate sustainability are positively connected to consumer behavioural intentions (Kong et al., 2016). Several studies on green product purchasing behaviour also support the view that green product knowledge is considered a direct precondition variable of green purchasing intention (Newton et al., 2015; Kanchanapibul et al., 2014). Hence, the third hypothesis was proposed:

H3: Sustainability knowledge positively affects sustainability intention.

Based on the holistic factors analysis, prior sustainability knowledge assists entrepreneurs in achieving sustainable development via entrepreneurial intentions (Reynolds et al., 2018). Environmental knowledge about green consumption influences the perceived behaviour of business school students through their attitude towards the environment and intention towards green vehicles (Mohiuddin et al., 2018). Therefore, the fourth hypothesis was proposed:

H4: Sustainability knowledge indirectly affects sustainable behaviour through sustainability intention.

Echegaray and Hansstein (2017) mentioned that the TPB theory is a good explanation for the e-waste recycling process. Positive attitudes and strong social norms positively affect the recycling behavioural intention and, ultimately, public e-waste recycling behaviour. Similarly, farmers’ attitude towards pro-environment behaviour significantly influences environmental intention, which exhibits positive predictive effects on pro-environment behaviour (). Thus, the fifth hypothesis was proposed:

H5: Sustainable attitude indirectly affects sustainable behaviour through sustainability intention.

The theoretical framework is formulated based on the theories and hypotheses formulation and the influence of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainable intention and behaviour.

Methodology

The study was conducted among Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate university students. An online survey was adopted to gather respondents’ data in both nations for two weeks in April 2021. The online survey was selected as the study method due to its advantage in acquiring the data easily and faster compared to the traditional technique (Singh and Sagar, 2021). As the data collection process was completed during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the online survey was chosen as the study method (Nazar et al., 2020) to ensure the researchers’ and respondents’ safety through an online instead of face-to-face medium. The researchers used an online survey platform (Google Forms) to publish the questionnaire and generate the answer link for the respondents and distributed using the snowballing technique (Chen et al., 2021). The online survey was widely shared through social media, specifically the WhatsApp application (Bastani et al., 2022) based on its wide usage among the students.

The survey questions were designed to assess Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate university students’ sustainability knowledge, sustainable attitude, their impact on sustainability intention and the impact of sustainability intention on sustainable behaviour. The questionnaire comprised five sections including demographic information, such as gender, country of study, university, year of study and questions related to the study objectives. The questionnaire items were adapted from existing studies on similar topics (see Table 1). The items of sustainability knowledge were adapted from Michalos et al. (2012), while sustainable attitude items were adapted from Sujata et al. (2019). Additionally, sustainability intention items were adapted from Sujata et al. (2019), while sustainable behaviour items were adapted from Michalos et al. (2012).

Table 1.

Summary of construct items and sources.

Construct	Questionnaire items	Sources
Sustainability knowledge	1. Economic development is necessary for sustainability	Michalos et al. (2012)
	2. Sustainability requires businesses to behave responsibly to their employees, customers, and suppliers
	3. Sustainability requires people to understand how the economy works
	4. Protecting the environment is necessary for sustainability
	5. Human actions are contributing to changes in the atmosphere and climate systems
	6. Sustainability requires individuals to reduce all kinds of waste
	7. Sustainability requires shifting to the use of renewable resources as much as possible
	8. I have taken a course in which sustainability was discussed
	9. Good citizenship is necessary for sustainability
	10. Sustainability requires access to good quality education for everyone
	11. Sustainability requires people to reflect on what it means to improve the quality of life
Sustainable attitude	1. Sustainability is good	Sujata et al. (2019)
	2. I believe that my sustainable behaviour will help reduce pollution
	3. I believe that my sustainable behaviour will help reduce wasteful use of landfills
	4. I believe that my sustainable behaviour will help conserve natural resources
	5. I feel good about myself when I behave sustainably
Sustainability intention	1. I plan to take part in sustainability activities	Sujata et al. (2019)
	2. I am willing to take part in the sustainability activities advocated in social media in the near future
	3. I intend to behave in a sustainable way in the future
Sustainable behaviour	1. I pick up litter when I see it in a park or a natural area	Michalos et al. (2012)
	2. I volunteer to work with local charities or environmental groups
	3. I have thought considerably about how to live sustainably
	4. I choose to walk or bike to places instead of using a motor vehicle
	5. I never waste water
	6. I recycle as much as I can at home
	7. I have changed my personal lifestyle to reduce waste

A non-probability sampling technique was employed to obtain 953 valid respondents where 461 (48%) and 492 (51.2%) were from Indonesia and Malaysia, respectively. The online survey was only open to active undergraduate university students in Malaysia and Indonesia, hence excluding alumni or postgraduate students. Following the research ethics, respondents were provided with all the study information, including the study purposes and the use of the study for academic purposes only on the first page of the survey (Brown et al., 2022). Student participation was on a voluntary basis with information on the confidentiality of their participation and an option to withdraw from the survey any time before they submitted it (Paulin et al., 2022). No monetary rewards were provided for the respondents (Sousa et al., 2022). Moreover, a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) measured all the study variables. The survey data were analysed using a statistical software package for social sciences (SPSS) and SmartPLS software.

Table 2 presents the demographic profile of Malaysian and Indonesian undergraduate university students. The data suggested that most respondents were female (Malaysia, n = 380; Indonesia, n = 291) and in their second year of study (Malaysia, n = 209; Indonesia, n = 168). Generally, most respondents (Malaysia, n = 390; Indonesia, n = 361) attended the universities they considered sustainable.

Table 2.

Respondents’ demographic profile (n = 953).

Demographics	Frequency
Demographics	Malaysia (n = 491)	Indonesia (n = 462)
Gender
Male	111	171
Female	380	291
Year of study
1^st year	169	65
2^nd year	209	168
3^rd year	91	91
4^th year	20	101
5^th year and above	2	37
Type of university
Sustainable	390	361
Unsustainable	2	19
Not sure	99	82

Data analysis

The model included the measurement and structural models of the current study assessed using variance-based structural equation modelling. SmartPLS Version 3.0 software was employed to evaluate the model constructs. The measurement model was examined for convergent and discriminant validity, while construct reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (see Table 3). Meanwhile, the structural path analyses were examined to test the hypotheses proposed in the preceding section.

Table 3.

The measurement model assessment results.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	Cronbach’s alpha	AVE	CR
Sustainability knowledge	SK1	0.915	0.977	0.817	0.980
	SK2	0.918
	SK3	0.904
	SK4	0.941
	SK5	0.929
	SK6	0.915
	SK7	0.910
	SK8	0.695
	SK9	0.916
	SK10	0.932
	SK11	0.941
Sustainable attitude	ATS1	0.932	0.970	0.894	0.977
	ATS	0.952
	ATS3	0.950
	ATS4	0.956
	ATS5	0.938
Sustainability intention	SI1	0.944	0.942	0.896	0.963
	SI2	0.952
	SI3	0.943
Sustainable behaviour	SB1	0.869	0.938	0.728	0.949
	SB2	0.854
	SB3	0.894
	SB4	0.822
	SB5	0.812
	SB6	0.822
	SB7	0.895

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted, CR = composite reliability.

Results

Measurement model

Table 3 demonstrates that the convergent validity was assessed using factor loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). All loadings were over 0.4 and the AVEs were over 0.5. The Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) were performed to measure the internal consistency reliability where all construct values exceeded the recommended limit of ≥ 0.60 (Avkiran and Ringle, 2018). Nevertheless, the CR values exceeded 0.90, which was not desirable due to the indication of item redundancy (Sarstedt et al., 2017). Discriminant validity reflects the degree to which indicators differentiate across constructs, which was assessed by the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) instead of Fornell-Larcker due to the superior performance of HTMT (Avkiran and Ringle, 2018). Table 4 depicts the establishment of the discriminant validity where the HTMT values did not exceed 0.90 (Avkiran and Ringle, 2018) excluding sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude. The results demonstrated an adequate internal consistency in the proposed model.

Table 4.

Discriminant validity (HTMT criterion).

	1	2	3
1. Sustainable attitude
2. Sustainable behaviour	0.849
3. Sustainability intention	0.861	0.786
4. Sustainability knowledge	0.922	0.798	0.831

Note: HTMT = heterotrait-monotrait, which is the ratio of correlations across constructs.

Structural model

The structural model was evaluated to examine the relationships between constructs within the theoretical model. Therefore, a bootstrapping resampling was conducted with 5000 re-samples and 95% bias-corrected, while accelerated (BCa) was applied to investigate the significance of structural path coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R²). Table 5 presents all three hypotheses of the direct effect in the model sustainability intention with sustainable attitude (β = 0.558, p < 0.01) and sustainability knowledge (β = 0.296, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, sustainability intention positively affects sustainable behaviour (β = 0.748, p < 0.01). Figure 2 displays the structural model with the path coefficients. The coefficient of determination (R²) suggests that the exogenous construct(s) explains the endogenous construct(s). The R² value presents 69.6% of sustainable attitude and sustainability knowledge impact on sustainability intention, which is considered a moderate value, and 55.9% impact of sustainability intention on sustainable behaviour.

Table 5.

Hypotheses testing results (direct effects).

	Hypothesis/relationship	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	t-value
H1	Sustainable attitude → sustainability intention	0.558	0.557	0.055	10.124
H2	Sustainability intention → sustainable behaviour	0.748	0.748	0.014	53.179
H3	Sustainability knowledge → sustainability intention	0.296	0.298	0.058	5.136

Figure 2.

Structural model (direct effect and effect size).

Table 6 reveals that the two hypotheses of the indirect effect in the model were supported. The findings implied that sustainable attitudes significantly and indirectly affect sustainable behaviour, hence confirming that sustainability intention towards sustainable behaviour mediated the relationship between sustainable attitude and sustainable behaviour. Similarly, sustainability knowledge significantly and indirectly impacts sustainable behaviour, thus reflecting that sustainability intention towards sustainable behaviour mediated the relationship between sustainability knowledge and sustainable behaviour.

Table 6.

Results of hypotheses testing (indirect effects).

	Hypothesis/relationship	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	t-value	P-values
H4	Sustainability knowledge → sustainability intention → sustainable behaviour	0.221	0.223	0.043	5.117	0.000
H5	Sustainable attitude → sustainability intention → sustainable behaviour	0.418	0.416	0.043	9.782	0.000

Multigroup analysis (MGA)

The data were collected from university students in Malaysia and Indonesia. One of the study objectives was to test the differences between the two groups (Malaysian and Indonesian). The difference in the path coefficients among the model constructs (structural model) was investigated. Summarily, a multigroup analysis was executed to reveal differences between the two groups through path coefficients among the variables. Table 7 demonstrates the significant differences between the two groups of students in Malaysia and Indonesia concerning three of the relationships. The positive impact of sustainable attitude and sustainability knowledge on sustainable intention were stronger for the Malaysian sample (β = 0.586, p < 0.01; β = 0.315, p < 0.01), not unlike the relationship between sustainable intention and sustainable behaviour (β = 0.805, p < 0.01).

Table 7.

Results of hypotheses testing using MGA.

Relationships	I	M	(I−M)	I	M	I	M	I	M
Relationships	Path coefficients		Difference in path coefficients	STDEV		t-value		p-value
Sustainable attitude → sustainability intention	0.534	0.586	−0.053	0.079	0.071	6.769	8.284	0.000	0.000
Sustainability intention → sustainable behaviour	0.710	0.805	−0.095	0.020	0.019	35.711	42.332	0.000	0.000
Sustainability knowledge → sustainable behaviour	0.266	0.315	−0.049	0.085	0.074	3.146	4.286	0.002	0.000

Note: I = Indonesia; M = Malaysia.

Discussion

The results suggested that sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude significantly impact the behavioural intention of sustainability. Nonetheless, the effect of sustainability knowledge was lesser than the sustainable attitude. The results aligned with past studies (Heeren et al., 2016; Connell and Kozar, 2012; Ajzen et al., 2011). Thus, other factors such as attitude are more crucial and produce a stronger effect than knowledge despite sustainability knowledge being essential in influencing individual intention and behaviour (Liu, 2021; Mohiuddin et al., 2018). Summarily, sustainability knowledge is less significant in predicting sustainability intention and sustainable behaviour. Interestingly, Heeren et al. (2016) and Ahamad and Ariffin (2018) stressed that sustainability knowledge does not necessarily produce sustainable behaviour, but sufficient environmental and sustainability knowledge is required to influence one’s intention towards sustainable behaviour (Liu, 2021; Sun et al., 2019).

Sustainability intention can be influenced by the sustainable behaviour, as indicated in previous studies (Swaim et al., 2014; Sujata et al., 2019; Al Al Mamun et al., 2018; Braßler and Sprenger, 2021). Similarly, Gkargkavouzi et al. (2019) reported that intention is the best predictor of environmental behaviour. Moreover, sustainability intention plays a partial mediating role in the study model where direct and indirect effects were significant. Hence, sustainability intention can mediate sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude in line with previous studies (Saari et al., 2021; Kimuli et al., 2020; Sabri et al., 2019; Safari et al., 2020).

The overall discriminant validity among variables was acceptable except between the two independent variables (sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude). The result might be a limitation where both independent constructs were conceptually similar. Moreover, the remaining results met the acceptance level. Future studies should emphasise conceptually similar constructs to establish discriminant validity among model variables. Additionally, careful attention to question (items) selection can contribute to the determination of the relationships among variables, specifically questions regarding knowledge tests (Ajzen et al., 2011).

The current study differs from previous studies (Maneejuk and Yamaka, 2021; Ulkhaq et al., 2019) in its focus on the comparison between two largely homogeneous groups (students) of Malaysians and Indonesians and introducing the differences between the effects of the sustainability knowledge and sustainable attitude on sustainability intention. From one perspective, MGA results demonstrate the differences between Malaysian and Indonesian students where both developing countries supporting the sustainability agenda share similar backgrounds. Malaysian students recorded higher levels of the effect of sustainability knowledge and attitude on sustainability intention and a higher level of the effect of sustainability intention on sustainable behaviour than Indonesian students. Correspondingly, Koch et al. (2013) concluded that educational planners should pay more attention to ecological knowledge and how to integrate it with other fields of knowledge in Indonesian universities. In Indonesia, sustainable development remains an exclusive terminology used in limited contexts and communities, such as the government, academics and practitioners directly involved in sustainable development issues (Razzaq and Ridho, 2019). Particularly, Indonesian students’ low understanding and attitude towards sustainable development and sustainability may indicate the low frequency and intensity of the concept in academic discussions in the university.

The higher level of sustainability knowledge, attitude, intention and behaviour among Malaysian undergraduate students is linked with the effort of Malaysian higher education to emphasise sustainability knowledge through green campus initiatives of several universities, including Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia (Reza, 2016). Nonetheless, universities in Indonesia such as Universitas Diponegoro (UNDIP) Indonesia is not far behind in the effort to promote sustainability knowledge to the students (Budihardjo et al., 2021).

The study proposed several recommendations for institutions (higher education ministries and universities), policymakers and individuals (students and staff). For instance, higher education ministries and policymakers in Malaysia and Indonesia should impose policies and regulations to apply sustainability at the centre of daily institutional operations. Furthermore, Malaysian and Indonesian universities should educate and empower students and staff to believe in sustainability and practice necessary steps and actions to achieve the desired economic, environmental and social change. The practice can be managed through curriculum, research, seminars, workshops and activities that will disseminate sustainability knowledge and awareness among individuals and ultimately encourage sustainable behaviour (Msengi et al., 2019).

As a future generation affected by the environmental concerns caused by current human activities, university students in Malaysia and Indonesia should become agents of change for sustainable development. Promoting sustainability knowledge in the university can further strengthen students’ attitudes towards sustainable development, thus affecting sustainable behaviour (Braßler and Sprenger, 2021; Alsaati et al., 2020). Education for sustainable development should be added to the teaching system at the higher education stage in Malaysia and Indonesia as an undergraduate course to support the integration of high-level sustainability knowledge with their careers (Al Naqbi & Alshannag, 2018).

Malaysian and Indonesian universities should regularly invite experts in relevant fields to hold sustainable development seminars or lectures to encourage students to participate. Universities should also establish recycling stations on campus for students to practice recycling and further encourage them to choose sustainable projects in their final study year (Alsaati et al., 2020), thus ensuring sustainable behaviour among the students in Malaysia and Indonesia. Furthermore, the use of social media and persuasive design to popularise sustainability education concepts and methods can reinforce the potential of university students to transform sustainable behaviours and foster practical actions (Al Mulla et al., 2022) among Malaysian and Indonesian students.

Conclusions

The main results revealed that sustainability knowledge has less impact on sustainable intention than sustainable attitude. The relationship between sustainability intention and sustainable behaviour was stronger than the relationships between sustainable attitude, sustainability knowledge and intention among undergraduate students in Malaysia and Indonesia. Therefore, the university plays an active role in promoting sustainable behaviour development. Meanwhile, sustainable education in universities should stress teaching sustainability knowledge and the cultivation of a sustainable attitude among university students.

The findings provided substantial practical implications. First, the results are useful for researchers and education stakeholders, specifically the Malaysian and Indonesian governments in improving the current policies regarding sustainability knowledge, attitude, intention and behaviour. Specifically, the higher education ministry in Malaysia and Indonesia can benefit from the study output and use it as a means of focusing on organising the sustainable attitude cultivation activities among the undergraduate university students via university courses, workshops or events to enhance their future sustainability intention and sustainable behaviour. Moreover, the study contributes to the current literature to allow several similar studies to be conducted in other Asian countries.

The study has several limitations despite its contribution to the sustainability communication and education field in Asia, particularly in Malaysia and Indonesia, which is rare in studies. First, the use of a survey instrument as a self-report behavioural measure instead of observed behaviour might be the major limitation of the current study. The findings might be more interesting and realistic if the data were collected through observation. Hence, qualitative and quantitative analyses (mixed methods) would better explain sustainable behaviour. Second, the respondents could include students from elementary to higher education levels on how the awareness of the continuity of sustainability knowledge can start from a young age. Given that the study only focused on Malaysia and Indonesia, future research should conduct a comparative study on the students in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Singapore, Thailand, Brunei and the Philippines.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The researcher would like to express heartfelt gratitude to the respondents for their time and effort and the reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Mohamad Saifudin Mohamad Saleh holds a PhD degree in Environmental Communication from the Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany (2016). Upon receiving his PhD in September 2016, he began his career as a Senior Lecturer at the School of Communication, USM. His area of specialisation includes environmental and sustainability communication; media and environmental non-governmental organisation (ENGO) studies. Furthermore, he has a strong interest and passion for sustainability communication-oriented issues relating to culture and religion.

Ali Mehellou is currently a PhD candidate of Environmental Communication at the School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is interested in environmental communication and Islam.

Huang Miao is an associate professor at School of Animation and Digital Arts, Communication University of China, Nanjing. He is a PhD student at the School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia under the supervision of Dr Mohamad Saifudin Mohamad Saleh and Dr Izzal Asnira Zolkepli. His main research areas include social media and game development.

Rizki Briandana holds a PhD degree from School of Communication, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is a senior lecturer at Fakultas Ilmu Komunikasi Universitas Mercu Buana Jakarta, Indonesia, and currently holds the position as Director of Academic and Research at the university. His research interests involve the areas of Communication, Film and Television Studies, New Media and Audience Studies.

References

Ahamad

Ariffin

(2018) Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice towards sustainable consumption among university students in Selangor, Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption 16: 88–98.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.

Ajzen

Joyce

Sheikh

, et al. (2011) Knowledge and the prediction of behavior: The role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 33(2): 101–117.

Al Mamun

Mohamad

Yaacob

MRB

, et al. (2018) Intention and behavior towards green consumption among low-income households. Journal of Environmental Management 227: 73–86.

Al-Mulla

Ari

Koç

(2022) Social media for sustainability education: Gaining knowledge and skills into actions for sustainable living. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29: 1–17.

Aleixo

Leal

Azeiteiro

(2021) Higher education students’ perceptions of sustainable development in Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production 327: 129429.

Al-Naqbi

Alshannag

(2018) The status of education for sustainable development and sustainability knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of UAE University students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19(3): 566–588.

Alsaati

El-Nakla

(2020) Level of sustainability awareness among university students in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 12(8): 3159.

Ardoin

Wheaton

Bowers

, et al. (2015) Nature-based tourism’s impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(6): 838–858.

10.

Avkiran

Ringle

(2018) Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market Research, 267.

11.

Bakar

Osman

Bachok

, et al. (2016) Investigating rationales of Malaysia quality of life and wellbeing components and indicators. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 222: 132–142.

12.

Banytė

Šalčiuvienė

Dovalienė

, et al. (2020) Sustainable consumption behavior at home and in the workplace: Avenues for innovative solutions. Sustainability 12(16): 6564.

13.

Bastani

Bahrami

Kapellas

, et al. (2022) Online oral health information seeking experience and knowledge, attitudes and practices of oral health among iranian medical students: an online survey. BMC Oral Health 22(1): 1–7.

14.

Braßler

Sprenger

(2021) Fostering Sustainability Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours through a Tutor-Supported Interdisciplinary Course in Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 13(6): 3494.

15.

Brown

Scobbie

Worrall

, et al. (2022) A Multinational Online Survey of the Goal Setting Practice of Rehabilitation Staff with Stroke Survivors with Aphasia. Aphasiology. pp. 1–25.

16.

Budihardjo

Ramadan

Putri

, et al. (2021) Towards Sustainability in Higher-Education Institutions: Analysis of Contributing Factors and Appropriate Strategies. Sustainability 13(12): 6562.

17.

Chen

, et al. (2021) An online survey of the attitude and willingness of Chinese adults to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 17(7): 2279–2288.

18.

Connell

KYH

Kozar

(2012) Sustainability knowledge and behaviors of apparel and textile undergraduates. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 394–407.

19.

Cuzdriorean

Fekete

Vladu

(2020) Identifying the Promoters of Students Sustainable Behaviour: An Empirical Study. Amfiteatru Economic 22(54): 432–446.

20.

Dagiliūtė

Liobikienė

Minelgaitė

(2018) Sustainability at universities: Students’ perceptions from Green and Non-Green universities. Journal of Cleaner Production 181: 473–482.

21.

Echegaray

Hansstein

(2017) Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 180–190.

22.

Fissi

Romolini

Gori

, et al. (2021) The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. Journal of Cleaner Production 279: 123655.

23.

Foroudi

Gupta

, et al. (2019) Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 138: 218–227.

24.

García-González

Achón

Carretero Krug

, et al. (2020) Food Sustainability Knowledge and Attitudes in the Spanish Adult Population: A Cross-Sectional Study 12(10): 3154.

25.

Gkargkavouzi

Halkos

Matsiori

(2019) Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 148: 145–156.

26.

Harun

Hock

Othman

(2011) Environmental knowledge and attitude among students in Sabah. World Applied Sciences Journal 14(11): 83–87.

27.

Heeren

Singh

Zwickle

, et al. (2016) Is sustainability knowledge half the battle? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 17(5): 613–632.

28.

Hübscher

Hensel-Börner

Henseler

(2021) Social marketing and higher education: partnering to achieve sustainable development goals. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 12(1): 76–104.

29.

Kamaruddin

Patittingi

Assidiq

, et al. (2022) Legal Aspect of Plastic Waste Management in Indonesia and Malaysia: Addressing Marine Plastic Debris. Sustainability 14(12): 6985.

30.

Kamarul Zaman

NAF

Kanniah

Kaskaoutis

(2018) Satellite data for upscaling urban air pollution in Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 169, 012036.

31.

Kanchanapibul

Lacka

Wang

, et al. (2014) An empirical investigation of green purchase behaviour among the young generation. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 528–536.

32.

Kimuli

SNL

Orobia

Sabi

, et al. (2020) Sustainability intention: Mediator of sustainability behavioral control and sustainable entrepreneurship. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 16(2): 81–95.

33.

Klöckner

(2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 1028–1038.

34.

Koch

Barkmann

Strack

, et al. (2013) Knowledge of Indonesian University Students on the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources. Sustainability 5(4): 1443–1460.

35.

Kohl

Hopkins

Barth

, et al. (2022) A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: a crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23(2): 218–236.

36.

Kong

Chae

, et al. (2016) Understanding fashion consumers’ attitude and behavioral intention toward sustainable fashion products: Focus on sustainable knowledge sources and knowledge types. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 7(2): 103–119.

37.

Kwon

Silva

(2020) Mapping the Landscape of Behavioral Theories: Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Literature 35(2): 161–179.

38.

Leal Filho

Dinis

MAP

Sivapalan

, et al. (2021) Sustainability practices at higher education institutions in Asia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23, 1250–1276.

39.

Liu

C-H

(2021) Conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses of sustainable behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60:102474.

40.

Longo

Shankar

Nuttall

(2019) “It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis. Journal of Business Ethics 154(3): 759–779.

41.

Maichum

Parichatnon

Peng

(2016) Application of the extended theory of planned behavior model to investigate purchase intention of green products among Thai consumers. Sustainability 8(10): 1077.

42.

Maiorescu

Sabou

Bucur

, et al. (2020) Sustainability barriers and motivations in higher education-A students' perspective. Amfiteatru Economic 22(54): 362–375.

43.

Maneejuk

Yamaka

(2021) The Impact of Higher Education on Economic Growth in ASEAN-5 Countries. Sustainability 13(2): 520.

44.

Mazon

Pereira Ribeiro

Montenegro de Lima

, et al. (2020) The promotion of sustainable development in higher education institutions: top-down bottom-up or neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 21(7): 1429–1450.

45.

Michalos

Creech

Swayze

, et al. (2012) Measuring knowledge, attitudes and behaviours concerning sustainable development among tenth grade students in Manitoba. Social Indicators Research 106(2): 213–238.

46.

Ministry of energy’s technology environment and climate change (2018) Malaysia’s Third National Communication and Second Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC. Reportno. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution.

47.

Mohamad Saleh

Md Kassim

Alhaji Tukur

(2022) The influence of sustainable branding and opinion leaders on international students’ intention to study: a case of Universiti Sains Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23(3): 565–586.

48.

Mohd Jaafar

Maulud

KNA

Muhmad Kamarulzaman

, et al. (2020) The influence of deforestation on land surface temperature-A case study of Perak and Kedah, Malaysia. Forests 11(6): 670.

49.

Mohiuddin

Al Mamun

Syed

, et al. (2018) Environmental knowledge, awareness, and business school students’ intentions to purchase green vehicles in emerging countries. Sustainability 10(5): 1534.

50.

Msengi

Doe

Wilson

, et al. (2019) Assessment of knowledge and awareness of “sustainability” initiatives among college students. Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain 4: 6.

51.

Nazar

Leszkowicz

Pieńkowska

, et al. (2020) Before-and-after online community survey on knowledge and perception of COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Infectious Diseases 20(1): 1–14.

52.

Newton

Tsarenko

Ferraro

, et al. (2015) Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of Business Research 68(9): 1974–1981.

53.

Nomura

Suyono

(2014) The environment, sustainability and universities in Indonesia: An examination of the nexus. Schooling for Sustainable Development across the Pacific. Springer, pp.159–173.

54.

Paulin

Caney

Cosford

(2022) Online survey to determine client perceptions of feline chronic lower airway disease management: response to therapy, side effects and challenges encountered. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. Epub ahead of print.

55.

Radwan

Khalil

EMAS

(2021) Knowledge, attitude and practice toward sustainability among university students in UAE. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 22(5): 964–981.

56.

Razzaq

Ridho

SLZ

(2019) The Education Measurement Specific Effect on Sustainable Development: An Experience of Indonesia. 3rd International Conference on Accounting, Management and Economics 2018 (ICAME 2018). Atlantis Press, 110–118.

57.

Reynolds

Sheehan

Hilliard

(2018) Exploring strategic agency in sustainability-oriented entrepreneur legitimation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 24(2): 429–450.

58.

Reza

MIH

(2016) Sustainability in higher education: Perspectives of Malaysian higher education system. Sage Open 6(3): 2158244016665890.

59.

Ribeiro

JMP

Hoeckesfeld

Dal Magro

, et al. (2021) Green Campus Initiatives as sustainable development dissemination at higher education institutions: Students’ perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production 312: 127671.

60.

Saari

Damberg

Frömbling

, et al. (2021) Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economics 189: 107155.

61.

Sabri

Razak

Wijekoon

(2019) The mediation effect of intention in the pro-environmental workplace (PEW) behavior of Malaysian public employees. Management Science Letters 9(10): 1567–1576.

62.

Safari

Salehzadeh

Panahi

, et al. (2020) Multiple pathways linking environmental knowledge and awareness to employees’ green behavior. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 18(1): 81–103.

63.

Sarstedt

Ringle

Hair

(2017) Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of Market Research 26(1): 1–40.

64.

Sclater

(2018) Sustainability and learning: Aesthetic and creative responses in a digital culture. Research in Comparative and International Education 13(1): 135–151.

65.

Singh

Sagar

(2021) A critical look at online survey or questionnaire-based research studies during COVID-19. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 65:1–3.

66.

Sivapalan

(2017) Sustainability, blended learning and the undergraduate communication skills classroom: negotiating engineering undergraduates’ expectations and perceptions. On the Horizon 25(1): 7–23.

67.

Sousa

Marôco

Gonçalves

, et al. (2022) Digital Learning Is an Educational Format towards Sustainable Education. Sustainability 14(3): 1140.

68.

Sujata

Khor

K-S

Ramayah

, et al. (2019) The role of social media on recycling behaviour. Sustainable Production and Consumption 20: 365–374.

69.

Sun

Liu

Zhao

(2019) Factors and mechanisms affecting green consumption in China: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 481–493.

70.

Swaim

Maloni

Napshin

, et al. (2014) Influences on Student Intention and Behavior Toward Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 124(3): 465–484.

71.

Tang

KHD

(2018) Correlation between sustainability education and engineering students’ attitudes towards sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 19(3): 459–472.

72.

Ulkhaq

Prakoso

MFA

Sari

, et al. (2019) Assessing Students' Perceptions to Sustainability: A Comparison between Two Universities. In: Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies. pp. 25–29.

73.

Wang

Mangmeechai

(2021) Understanding the gap between environmental intention and pro-environmental behavior towards the waste sorting and management policy of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2): 757.

74.

Wang

Liang

Yang

, et al. (2019) Analysis of the environmental behavior of farmers for non-point source pollution control and management: An integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Journal of Environmental Management 237: 15–23.

75.

Watanabe

Adnan

Haji Abdullah

, et al (2014) Waste Management in Japan and Malaysia: Centralise or De-centralise? ISIS Focus, 5–9.

76.

Wee

Ariffin

, et al. (2017) Awareness and Attitudes towards Sustainable Development Amongst Higher Education Students in Penang, Malaysia. In: Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education. Springer, pp.49–64.

77.

Wendlandt Amézaga

Camarena

Celaya Figueroa

, et al. (2021) Measuring sustainable development knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors: evidence from university students in Mexico. Environment, Development and Sustainability 24: 765–788. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01467-0

78.

Yusliza

Amirudin

Rahadi

, et al. (2020) An Investigation of Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development in Malaysia. Sustainability 12(17): 7083.