Pro-Environment Behaviors,Efficacy Beliefs,Perceived Individual and Social Norms: A Questionnaire Survey in a Sample of Young Adults From Pakistan

Abstract

The aim of this work was to examine the relationships between climate change experiences and perceived individual and social norms related to climate change, individual and collective efficacy, and implementation of pro-environmental behaviors among a group of young adults from Pakistan. We examined these variables among 373 young adults in Pakistan and differentiated them into those who reported direct experience with climate change and those who did not. Findings show that 179 participants felt they had directly experienced a climate change event. Results also show that they were more likely to follow individual and social norms, perceive higher levels of individual and collective efficacy, and were more likely to adopt pro-environmental behaviors. Among participants who reported having had a direct experience, perceived social norms and individual self-efficacy emerged as predictors of pro-environmental behaviors, whereas among participants who reported not having had a direct experience, only perceived social norms were significant predictors. These results underscore the importance of sharing information about good environmental practices.

Keywords

pro-environment behavior young adults climate change

Introduction

Climate change phenomena are occurring more and more frequently, and consequently more and more people are affected. Extreme weather events and natural disasters are likely to increase in the foreseeable future, affecting large numbers of people. Adaptation and mitigation of environmental problems caused by climate change are among the most important challenges of our time. Many researchers agree that behavioral changes are needed to address this problem and that actions at the individual household level have great mitigation potential (e.g., Atchike et al., 2022; Elavarasan et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022; Jinru et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2023; Schultz & Kaiser, 2012). Studies in the U.S., for example, have shown that direct residential energy use accounts for 38% of national and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Dietz et al., 2009; Gardner & Stern, 2008; Pistochini et al., 2022). Thus, as Qin et al. (2022) suggest, households that engage in many pro-environmental behaviors (PEB, hereafter) could lead to significant reductions in GHG emissions. PEB has been described by Rezapouraghdam et al. (2018) as engaging in activities that promote sustainable practices by reducing or eliminating negative environmental impacts (see also Javeed et al., 2022). Thus, as Mackay and Schmitt (2019) and Chang et al. (2022) point out, it is important to understand what influences people’s attitudes toward climate change and their PEB.

Literature Review

Studies have shown that individual experiences of climate-related events-such as flooding-are most strongly associated with PEB (Myers et al., 2013; Spence et al., 2011; van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019; Whitmarsh et al., 2022). Although most empirical results are based on cross-sectional comparisons between individuals, it is not clear whether or not experiencing an extreme weather event is correlated with PEB. This question is very interesting because personal experiences of climate change may have a greater impact by making certain climate change events more accessible. In addition, experiencing extreme weather events can evoke strong emotional feelings about environmental issues. Because being personally affected also increases the perceived risk of further negative impacts, it should increase the propensity to engage in mitigating behaviors, that is, PEB (Clayton, 2020; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020; Clayton & Manning, 2018; Doherty, 2018; Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Howe et al., 2019; Rüttenauer, 2021; Simon et al., 2022; Swim et al., 2009).

According to Higginbotham et al. (2014) and Lawrance et al. (2022), responses to climate change begin with experiences (direct or indirect) that correspond to the emotional response, which may lead to problem solving, for example. The link between perceived threat and climate action is based on the assessment of the ability to cope with the threat, which can be described as self-efficacy, an important predictor of behavior (Bandura, 1983; Rainear & Christensen, 2022). Self-efficacy is confidence in one’s ability to successfully handle a situation or accomplish a task (Bandura, 1977; Nelson et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that promoting PEB such as recycling and waste prevention has a positive impact on perceptions of environmental harm (Fatima & Azhar, 2021). It has been shown that people who learn, understand, and apply PEB feel more competent about the solutions and are therefore more likely to adopt such behaviors (Buttigieg & Pace, 2013; Vorobeva et al., 2022). People who feel powerless over climate change may feel relief when they take action and realize that they are capable of making a difference. In addition, confidence in one’s own abilities and feelings of self-efficacy can increase simply by trying to solve the problem (Sultana, 2022). Like individual self-efficacy, collective efficacy is also important and can be developed through involvement in environmental organizations (Ding, 2022). When working together within the community, individuals often experience a type of collective efficacy that overcomes feelings of powerlessness and grows from the awareness that they are not alone, but that others are also working on solutions to environmental problems such as climate change (Buttigieg & Pace, 2013; Schwartz et al., 2023): It acts as a motivator for protective behaviors in response to health threats (Pakmehr et al., 2020).

Perceived individual and societal norms appear to play an important role in the decision to engage in PEB. Individuals place themselves and others into social groups based on salient aspects of their social identity (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Hornung, 2022). According to Fritsche et al. (2018), individuals form appraisals and exhibit pro-environmental (or anti-environmental) behaviors according to the norms of the groups to which they assign themselves (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Social group norms can be particularly influential in shaping these rules or defining group goals (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Individuals influence and promote norms among their followers thanks to the sense of strong identification they evoke because they are prototypical representatives of their group and because they constantly emphasize an inclusive group identity (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Davidson & Kecinski, 2022). After identifying with a group, individuals align their evaluations and actions with the environmental standards and goals of their group (Fritsche et al., 2018).

As Davidson and Kecinski (2022) suggest, direct experience with climate change and even gradual ecological change have been shown to trigger acute negative emotional reactions that can, in some cases, lead to disengagement. On the contrary, some studies suggest that climate change events can also have the opposite effect, reinforcing people’s thinking about and responses to climate change (e.g., Albright & Crow, 2019; Davidson & Kecinski, 2022; Demski et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2018), so immediate experiences may be an important precondition for PEB. For example, Spence et al. (2011) found that experiencing disasters caused by climate change leads to increased concern and willingness to reduce energy consumption (see also Davidson & Kecinski, 2022). As described by Tierney (2019) and Chang et al. (2022), previous disaster experiences, as well as the perception of being part of a collective, lead to the use of a larger repertoire of adaptation strategies, which includes PEB.

Extreme climate events have become a regular phenomenon in South Asia, and Pakistan has faced weather-related problems in almost all parts of the country (Abid et al., 2019; Fahad & Wang, 2020). In Pakistan, the average temperature increase over the last 50 years has been about 0.3°C per decade. This one-third increase per decade is slightly higher than the global average, which was about 0.2°C per decade over the same period. Therefore, a retrospective estimate shows that the temperature in Pakistan will increase by about 1.0°C from 2000 to 2030 (Hussain et al., 2021). For example, as described in the Climate Knowledge Portal (2019), average rainfall in the arid plains of Pakistan and the coastal belt has declined by 10% to 15% since 1960. The number of heavy rainfall events has increased since 1960, and the nine heaviest rainfall events in a 24-hr period were recorded in 2010. Recent evidence suggests that glaciers in the upper reaches of the Indus Basin may be growing due to increased winter precipitation in the Himalayan region over the past 40 years. In addition, a German think tank recently ranked Pakistan fifth on its list of countries most affected by climate change. Yale College’s Environmental Performance Index is even more alarming, listing Pakistan at 176th (followed by Bangladesh at 177th and India at 180th). Lahore, here in Pakistan, is one of the most polluted cities in the world. A United Nations report estimates Pakistan’s annual economic losses from climate change at $26 billion in the worst-case scenario (EPI, 2022; Fahad & Wang, 2020; Hussain et al., 2021). The issue is gaining momentum in the country, and several studies have been conducted recently that demonstrate interest in PEB (Abdel Wahed et al., 2022; Nisar et al., 2021; Tariq et al., 2022).

Current Study

Ogunbode et al. (2022) conducted a study of negative emotions, climate change, and PEB in 32 countries. They found that climate anxiety had no significant positive association with PEB in Pakistan, where the weakest association between climate anxiety and PEB was observed. Based on these premises, we aimed to examine the relationships between climate change experiences and perceived individual and social norms related to climate change, individual and collective efficacy, and PEB implementation in a group of young adults from Pakistan. More specifically, we aimed to describe perceived individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy beliefs, and PEB by comparing those who believe they have had direct experience with climate change (DEX from here in the text) with those who believe they have not (NOT-DEX from here in the text). In this distinction lies the novel aspect of the study: we identified two groups of subjects, those who believe they have experienced a climate change event and those who do not. The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that PEB needs to be understood in a systemic perspective, not only at the political, economic, and social levels, but also at the behavioral level: individuals, groups, and communities all need to adapt to the new environmental and social challenges we face. Therefore, studies of how direct experiences of climate change relate to various psychological and social predictors of PEB could lead to more effective improvement of these behaviors.

The second objective of this study was to analyze how individual and social norms and efficacy beliefs are related to PEB implementation at DEX and NOT-DEX. The third objective of the study was to examine whether individual and social norms and efficacy beliefs function as predictors of PEB on DEX and NOT-DEX.

Based on the above literature, we hypothesized that DEX participants would have higher levels of individual and social norms related to climate change, individual and collective efficacy gains, and PEB. Second, we hypothesized that PEB would be positively related to all variables included in both DEX and NOT-DEX. Regarding the more specific causal relationship between environmental norms, self-efficacy, and PEB in DEX and NOT-DEX, we did not have a specific hypothesis due to the controversial results of previous studies and assumed an exploratory goal.

Method

Participants

Based on the consideration that the total number of possible participants was1,570, the minimum number of observations to achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error was 309. About 373 young adults residing in Pakistan participated in the survey (61% men and 39% women). Thus, the responses we collected allowed for a sufficient margin. Their ages ranged from 18 to 30 years (Mean = 24.22; SD = 2.88). Eighty-six percent of the participants were single and 14% were married. Thirty-seven percent were enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program and 63% were enrolled in a master’s degree program. Participation in the study was voluntary, and there was no compensation (or additional benefits) for participation.

Measures

An anonymous paper and pencil questionnaire, specifically designed for the purpose of the study, was distributed to the sample. Below are the sections of the questionnaire. An anonymous paper and pencil questionnaire, specifically designed for the purpose of the study, was distributed to the sample.

− Experience with climate change was measured by one item, developed by one of the authors of this study based on the work of van der Linden (2015). Participants were asked if they perceived they were affected by climate change. A 5 point Likert scale anchored at strongly disagree to strongly agree.

− Perceived individual norms related to climate change were measured using two items (Doran & Larsen, 2016). Participants were asked the extent to which they perceived concern for the environment as an important part of themselves and their existence as a young person (responses 1–5 Likert scale). Range: 2 to 10. Cronbach’s alpha: .76.

− Perceived social norms related to climate change were measured using four items (Doran & Larsen, 2016). Participants were asked the extent to which the four statements applied to people of the same age related to concerns and fears about climate change and its future impacts (responses 1–5 Likert scale). Range: 4 to 20. Cronbach’s alpha: .79.

− Climate self-efficacy (individual and collective) was assessed using the Perceived Climate Self-Efficacy Scale (Doran et al., 2015, 2017). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of statements, five of which related to individual self-efficacy and five of which related to collective efficacy. For example, “Through my own everyday behaviors (e.g., purchasing, consumption, and energy use practices), I can make an important contribution to mitigating climate change”; “I trust that we as young people can do our part to solve the climate crisis” (responses 1–5 Likert scale). Range of each scale: 5 to 25. Cronbach’s alpha: .85 and .89, respectively.

− PEB were examined using a list of 14 items (Ojala, 2018). Participants were asked to indicate how often they engaged in each of these behaviors or activities to protect or minimize negative impacts on the environment in the past year. For example, “Used alternative or public transportation (e.g., bus, train, bicycle, scooter, etc.)”; “Consciously reduced waste.” (responses 1–5 Likert scale). Range: 14 to 70. Cronbach’s alpha: .92.

Procedure and Data Analysis

The ethics committee of the National College of Business Administration & Economics of Lahore approved this research project, which included the department chair and academic director. Data were completed and collected by the research students who were specially trained by one of the researchers. In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Health Organization, 2019; see also Shrestha & Dunn, 2019), an information letter and informed consent form were given to the participants along with the questionnaire. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 15 min. Economics students (from different cities in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces) were asked to complete the questionnaire during class. Permission was obtained from the teacher and the coordinator. To increase the number of participants, the snowballing method was used. Students then collected 2 to 5 additional questionnaires each from other students within 2 to 3 weeks. There were no grades, credits, or money for this activity, so it was voluntary.

Data were processed using SPSS version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Reliability of measurements was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. One-way ANOVA analyses were performed to measure differences between DEX and NOT-DEX. Eta squared was calculated to estimate effect size. Correlations were calculated to examine relationships between climate change experiences and perceived individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy, and PEB.

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the effects of perceived individual and social norms and individual and collective efficacy on PEB.

Findings

Descriptive Statistics

To examine the relationships between climate change experiences and perceived individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy, and PEB, correlation analyses were conducted. For results, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlation Analysis Between Climate Change Experience and Perceived Individual and Social Norms, Individual and Collective Efficacy and PEB.

	Climate change experience (N = 373)
Perceived individual norms	.508**
Perceived social norms	.389**
Individual self-efficacy	.404**
Collective efficacy	.407**
PEB	.221**

Note. PEB = pro-environment behavior. **Correlation is significant at .01. *Correlation is significant at .05.

As shown in Table 1, the increase in direct experience of climate change is associated with a significant increase in all variables included in the study. For a more focused comparison between those who reported direct experience with climate change and those who did not, we decided to exclude from the analyses those who were in the middle range of the “being directly affected by climate change” item, that is, those who answered “neither agree nor do I agree.” Thus, 59 individuals were excluded.

Based on the item measuring perceived experience of climate change, we constructed a dummy variable that divided the remaining subjects into two groups of 314 participants (82.4% of the total sample). The first group (indicated as DEX) consisted of participants who reported having direct experience with climate change; more specifically, it included individuals who responded “agree” or “strongly agree” to the item “directly affected by climate change” The second group (indicated as NOT-DEX) included individuals who felt they had no direct experience with climate change (they responded “disagree” or “strongly disagree”). The two groups are mutually exclusive and did not overlap. DEX included 179 participants (57%) and NOT-DEX included 135 participants (43%). A one-way Anova analysis was conducted to compare DEX and NOT-DEX on perceived individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy, and PEB. The results can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Perceived Individual and Social Norms, Individual and Collective Efficacy and PEB: Comparison Between DEX and NOT-DEX (One-Way ANOVA).

	DEX (N = 179)M (SD)	NOT-DEX (N = 135)M (SD)	F	p	η²
Perceived individual norms	7.90 (1.59)	6.13 (2.24)	67.16	.001	.18
Perceived social norms	14.60 (2.85)	12.38 (3.93)	33.17	.001	.10
Individual self-efficacy	19.82 (2.76)	17.06 (5.17)	36.26	.001	.11
Collective efficacy	20.40 (3.09)	17.53 (5.64)	32.35	.001	.10
PEB	48.58 (12.17)	44.07 (11.52)	9.87	.002	.03

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; F = Fisher’s ratio; p = p value; η2 = eta squared.

As shown in Table 2, compared to NOT-DEX, DEX showed a stronger orientation toward environmental norms (both individual and social norms), higher levels of individual and collective efficacy, and stronger implementation of PEB.

Correlation Analysis

To find out how perceived individual and social norms and individual and collective efficacy are related to PEB in DEX and NOT-DEX, correlation analyses were performed. Tables 3 and 4 show the results for DEX and NOT-DEX, respectively.

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis in DEX.

	PIN	PSN	ISE	CSE	EFB
PIN	-
PSN	.353**	-
ISE	.335**	.410**	-
CE	.289**	.278**	.631**	-
PEB	.193*	.396**	.372**	.256*	-

Note. PIN = perceived individual norms; PSN = perceived social norms; ISE = individual self-efficacy; CE = collective efficacy; PEB = pro-environment behavior.

Correlation is significant at .01. *Correlation is significant at .05.

Table 4.

Correlation Analysis in NOT-DEX.

	PIN	PSN	ISE	CSE	EFB
PIN	-
PSN	.395**	-
ISE	.508**	.544**	-
CE	.549**	.584**	.874**	-
PEB	.450**	.587**	.520**	.549**	-

Note. PIN = perceived individual norms; PSN = perceived social norms; ISE = individual self-efficacy; CE = collective efficacy; PEB = pro-environment behavior. **Correlation is significant at .01. *Correlation is significant at .05.

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, all variables included in the study were related to each other at both DEX and NOT-DEX. In particular, perceived individual and social norms and individual and collective efficacy were significantly and positively related to PEB. The correlations were particularly strong in the case of NOT-DEX. Even though all variables considered in DEX had higher values (see Table 2), the relationships between them were particularly strong in the case of NOT-DEX.

Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess the effects of perceived individual and social norms and individual and collective efficacy on PEB. Tables 5 and 6 show the results for DEX and NOT-DEX, respectively. The regression model explained approximately 20% of the variance for DEX (R² = .218) and 40% for NOT-DEX (R² = .403).

Table 5.

Regression Analysis in DEX. Dependent Variable: PEB.

	Standardized coefficients
	β	T	Significance
Perceived individual norms	.02	0.27	.314
Perceived social norms	.31	3.86	.001
Individual self-efficacy	.22	2.25	.03
Collective efficacy	.03	0.27	.874
R² = .218

Table 6.

Regression Analysis in NOT-DEX. Dependent Variable: PEB.

	Standardized coefficients
	β	T	Significance
Perceived individual norms	.16	1.77	.956
Perceived social norms	.48	3.83	.004
Individual self-efficacy	.11	0.68	.211
Collective efficacy	.60	0.90	.833
R² = .403

As shown in Tables 5 and 6, in the case of DEX, perceived social norms and individual self-efficacy were found to be predictors of PEB, whereas in the case of NOT-DEX, only perceived social norms were significant predictors.

Discussion

In our literature review, we found that the decision to engage in PEB was related to perceived individual and social norms, as well as individual and collective efficacy. For our study, we examined these variables among a group of young adults in Pakistan and differentiated them into those who reported having direct experience with such climate change events and those who did not. The results show that DEX is more likely to follow individual and social norms, perceive higher levels of individual and collective efficacy, and be more willing to adopt PEB. Thus, the first hypothesis was confirmed. This result is particularly interesting. According to Ogunbode et al. (2022), the data on the nature of experience (direct or not) can be explained by climate change. They suggest that when studying PEB, variables need to be introduced that target what type of climate change experience is perceived. One possible explanation lies in the construct theory of psychological distance (Cheng et al., 2022; Rudiak-Gould, 2014). According to this theory, an event perceived with a high psychological distance appears abstract to the subject, with few details and low emotional correlates. In contrast, an event experienced firsthand is characterized by trauma, negative emotions, and experienced stress. At the same time, it could also lead to a greater awareness of the need to change the environment to mitigate the effects of climate change. It triggers a concrete concern for one’s own future and that of one’s community (Innocenti et al., 2023; Pahl & Bauer, 2013). This concern can lead to the adoption of PEB. In addition, DEX perceived greater self-efficacy than NOT-DEX. This may be related to the need to feel able to cope with further climate change events and environmental stressors, to learn from past experiences, and to grow after trauma, both for themselves and for the community. Survivors of climate change events may have the capacity to grow after these events (Hwong et al., 2022; Sattler et al., 2018; Yuhan et al., 2021; Zeligman et al., 2019). Kurian et al. (2016) examined another potentially mediating factor, spirituality, and associated individuals’ daily spiritual practice with “more perceived growth” and “lower PTSD symptoms” (p. 6). Werdel (2020) highlighted the unique role that religion and spirituality play in trauma disasters due to climate change. The author suggested that people who perceive (and experience) natural disasters could also be helped to grow through spirituality. In addition, work by Schultz and Zelezny (1998) has shown that values, particularly Schwartz’s self-transcending values, play a central role in predicting PEB (see also Lin & Li, 2022). This is a variable that we did not consider. Future research could further explore the possible mediating role of values, such as spirituality, in motivating people to engage in PEB after a direct experience with a climate change event.

As expected (hypothesis 2), all variables included in the study (perceived individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy, and PEB) were related to each other at both DEX and NOT-DEX. Interestingly, the relationships between the variables were particularly strong in the case of NOT-DEX, although all variables considered had higher values on DEX. This result is not easy to interpret and we intend to explore it with further data analysis, considering, for example, the mediating role that other variables might play.

As Tabernero and Hernández (2011) found, individuals who care more about PEB set more ambitious goals, are more satisfied with the behaviors adopted, and feel more intrinsically motivated. Their study highlights the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in the relationship between self-efficacy and PEB. From a social cognitive perspective, Bandura (1977) asserts that creating appropriate learning contexts and experiences generates interest and new input, with self-efficacy and affective responses playing an important role. According to Bandura (1983), perceptions of self-efficacy explain how people develop an implicit interest in tasks for which they originally had no intrinsic motivation, as evidenced by the satisfaction they experience when participating in PEB (Salehi & Pazokinejad, 2022). Similarly, Locke and Latham (2002) discuss that any activity can arouse people’s implicit interest if the activity is challenging and provides feedback on success and goal achievement (Mar et al., 2023). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were not examined in this study. Further research could consider this and analyze this variable in more detail.

Because correlation analysis does not provide information about the causal relationship between variables, these results should be interpreted with great caution. For example, it is possible that the respective perceptions of one’s direct experience with climate change were in turn influenced by individual and social norms, individual and collective efficacy, or other variables that we did not consider.

Regarding the causal relationship between environmental norms, self-efficacy, and PEB, in the case of DEX, perceived social norms and individual self-efficacy were found to be predictors of PEB, whereas in the case of NOT-DEX, only perceived social norms were significant predictors. One possible explanation for the significant role of perceived social norms in both groups lies in the reference groups that influence individual and social norms and, consequently, the decision to participate (or not) in PEB (Boon-Falleur et al., 2022; X. Wang et al., 2016). A reference group that is particularly important to adolescents and young adults is a person or group of people who significantly influence another person’s behavior (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Crandon et al., 2022). By enforcing conformity to group norms, reference groups influence individual PEB, lifestyle, self-concept development, and attitude formation. Group members who tend to conform to the group norm, in turn, influence members’ perceptions and ultimately their behavior. The opinions of reference groups can lead to positive attitudes toward members of that group and influence an individual’s decision about which PEB to pursue. Accordingly, people are more likely to engage in a particular behavior if it is consistent with the norms of a behaviorally relevant group membership (Constantino et al., 2022; White et al., 2009). For example, Terry et al. (1999) found that individual and social identity influenced intentions to participate in household recycling and to report recycling behavior. They found that the perceived norm of a behaviorally relevant reference group influences behavioral intentions (see also Lu & Wang, 2022). Thus, people’s decision making seems to be influenced by the norms of the reference group (Koo et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2022). Finally, individual self-efficacy plays an important role only at DEX. It is likely that individual self-efficacy influences PEB implementation especially among those who have experienced climate change and therefore have tested their own capabilities and are more aware of their direct role in intervening on behalf of the environment.

Limits

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study, so the results can only refer to the sample included in the study. The results may not be generalizable. Long-term studies and investigations before and after a climate change event could be useful to better understand the phenomenon and the influence of the studied variables on PEB. Second, we did not analyze possible differences in responses based on sociodemographic data. For example, J. Wang and Kim (2018) and Weckroth and Ala-Mantila (2022) found that higher income leads to more environmental awareness and less skepticism, so this variable could influence climate change perceptions and concerns. Further research could analyze in more detail how sociodemographic variables influence PEB. In addition, we did not consider climate change consequences such as eco-anxiety and eco-worry (Innocenti et al., 2023, Ogunbode et al., 2021) and media exposure (Maran & Begotti, 2021): many people know about climate change because they receive information indirectly through the media. Such content can elicit a variety of emotional responses, including anger, sadness, despair, fear, and guilt. Future studies could examine the relationship between media exposure and responses related to climate anxiety. Another limitation is that we measured perceived direct experience of climate change with a single item and did not give a specific definition of a climate change event, so participants may not have perceived that they were exposed to a climate change event because they tend to deny or downplay it. Or, on the contrary, they emphasize a weather phenomenon that has nothing to do with a climate change event (Osaka & Bellamy, 2020). Further research could analyze in more detail the different weather phenomena associated with climate change (e.g., temperature anomalies, floods, melting ice) and their perceptions of climate change or other phenomena, such as seasonal variations. Finally, social desirability (Van de Mortel, 2008), that is, the tendency of participants to give answers that they believe convey a positive image of them, might have influenced the results of the study. In addition, individuals who are particularly environmentally conscious may have chosen to participate in the study. Further research might consider using a scale to examine propensity for social desirability and levels of concern about climate change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides insight into the possibility of developing PEB in a group of young adults from Pakistan. Overall, consistent with previous studies, the results show that PEB are related to perceived individual and collective efficacy and norms. These findings underscore the importance of sharing information about good environmental practices, both to people who have perceived climate change and to those who have not. In this context, Corral-Verdugo et al. (2016) and Steg (2023) recommend a number of strategies to encourage individuals and groups to adopt PEB, such as informing people about the impacts of climate change and how to deal with it through the media. As mentioned earlier, studies show how information about reducing energy consumption can influence individuals’ behavior, and this reduction could lead to significant reductions in GHG emissions (e.g., Atchike et al., 2022; Elavarasan et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022; Jinru et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2022). These strategies require whole community input: social policies, for example, could help reward PEB at the individual and group levels. In their meta-analysis, Maki et al. (2016) found that both financial and cash incentives had a stronger effect on PEB adoption (see also Vorobeva et al., 2022). An example might come from the university in Pakistan: Akhtar et al. (2022) described that green training and development programs (e.g., workshops and seminars) can provide participants with expertise and skills for managing environmental activities. It should be noted that reward packages relate to the acquisition of specific skills and competencies (and not just performance), as these are considered important factors for long-term performance (Vorobeva et al., 2022). In addition, knowledge of environmental laws can prevent serious accidents or illegal emissions. Disincentives include negative reinforcements such as criticism and warnings and may be necessary to encourage people to adopt PEB. Therefore, governments and communities could develop reward systems to encourage PEB through the use of incentives and disincentives.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Daniela Acquadro Maran

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abdelwahed

N. A. A.

Soomro

B. A.

Shah

(2022). Climate change and pro-environmental behaviours: the significant environmental challenges of livelihoods. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 33(5), 1187–1206. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-10-2021-0236

Abid

Scheffran

Schneider

U. A.

Elahi

(2019). Farmer perceptions of climate change, observed trends and adaptation of agriculture in Pakistan. Environmental Management, 63(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1113-7

Akhtar

Khan

K. U.

Atlas

Irfan

(2022). Stimulating student’s pro-environmental behavior in higher education institutions: An ability–motivation–opportunity perspective. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 4128–4149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01609-4

Albright

E. A.

Crow

(2019). Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding. Climatic Change, 155(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02461-2

Atchike

D. W.

Irfan

Ahmad

Rehman

M. A.

(2022). Waste-to-renewable energy transition: Biogas generation for sustainable development. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.840588

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura

(1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.464

Bearden

W. O.

Etzel

M. J.

(1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1086/208911

Boon-Falleur

Grandin

Baumard

Chevallier

(2022). Leveraging social cognition to promote effective climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 12(4), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01312-w

10.

Buttigieg

Pace

(2013). Positive youth action towards climate change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 15(1), 15–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2013-0002

11.

Chang

M. Y.

Kuo

H. Y.

Chen

H. S.

(2022). Perception of climate change and pro-environmental behavioral intentions of forest recreation area users—A case of Taiwan. Forests, 13(9), 1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091476

12.

Cheng

Mao

(2022). Influential factors of environmental behavior to reduce air pollution: Integrating theories of planned behavior and psychological distance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65(13), 2490–2510.https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1973972

13.

Cialdini

R. B.

Jacobson

R. P.

(2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005

14.

Clayton

(2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263

15.

Clayton

Karazsia

B. T.

(2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434

16.

Clayton

Manning

(Eds.) (2018). Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses. Academic Press.

17.

Climate Knowledge Portal. (2019). Country profiles. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/

18.

Constantino

S. M.

Sparkman

Kraft-Todd

G. T.

Bicchieri

Centola

Shell-Duncan

Vogt

Weber

E. U.

(2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(2), 50–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221105279

19.

Corral-Verdugo

González-Lomelí

Rascón-Cruz

Corral-Frías

V. O.

(2016). Intrinsic motives of autonomy, self-efficacy, and satisfaction associated with two instances of sustainable behavior: Frugality and equity. Psychology, 07(05), 662–671. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.75068

20.

Crandon

T. J.

Scott

J. G.

Charlson

F. J.

Thomas

H. J.

(2022). A social–ecological perspective on climate anxiety in children and adolescents. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01251-y

21.

Davidson

D. J.

Kecinski

(2022). Emotional pathways to climate change responses. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 13(2), e751. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.751

22.

Demski

Capstick

Pidgeon

Sposato

R. G.

Spence

(2017). Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change, 140(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1837-4

23.

Dietz

Gardner

G. T.

Gilligan

Stern

P. C.

Vandenbergh

M. P.

(2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(44), 18452–18456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908738106

24.

Ding

(2022). The effects of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on customer food waste reduction intention: The mediating role of ethical judgment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5, 752–770.

25.

Doherty

T. J.

(2018). Individual impacts and resilience. In Clayton

S. D.

Manning

C. M.

(Eds.), Psychology and climate change: Human perceptions, impacts, and responses (pp. 245–266). Academic Press.

26.

Doherty

T. J.

Clayton

(2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change. The American Psychologist, 66, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023141

27.

Doran

Hanss

Larsen

(2015). Attitudes, efficacy beliefs, and willingness to pay for environmental protection when travelling. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415580360

28.

Doran

Hanss

Larsen

(2017). Intentions to make sustainable tourism choices: do value orientations, time perspective, and efficacy beliefs explain individual differences? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1179129

29.

Doran

Larsen

(2016). The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions to choose eco-friendly travel options. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2042

30.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Naumann

S. E.

(2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960

31.

Elavarasan

R. M.

Pugazhendhi

Irfan

Mihet-Popa

Campana

P. E.

Khan

I. A.

(2022). A novel Sustainable Development Goal 7 composite index as the paradigm for energy sustainability assessment: A case study from Europe. Applied Energy, 307, 118173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118173

32.

EPI. (2022). 2022 EPI results. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

33.

Fahad

Wang

(2020). Climate change, vulnerability, and its impacts in rural Pakistan: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(2), 1334–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06878-1

34.

Fatima

Azhar

(2021). Examining the pro-environmental behavior of employees in private organizations of Pakistan. Governance and Management Review, 5(2), 1–26.

35.

Fritsche

Barth

Jugert

Masson

Reese

(2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090

36.

Gardner

G. T.

Stern

P. C.

(2008). The short list: The most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.3200/envt.50.5.12-25

37.

Higginbotham

Connor

L. H.

Baker

(2014). Subregional differences in Australian climate risk perceptions: Coastal versus agricultural areas of the Hunter Valley, NSW. Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0529-0

38.

Hoffmann

Muttarak

Peisker

Stanig

(2022). Climate change experiences raise environmental concerns and promote green voting. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8

39.

Hogg

M. A.

Turner

J. C.

(1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x

40.

Hornung

(2022). Social identities in climate action. Climate Action, 1(1), 1–12.

41.

Howe

P. D.

Marlon

J. R.

Mildenberger

Shield

B. S.

(2019). How will climate change shape climate opinion? Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 113001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab466a

42.

Huang

Chau

K. Y.

Kit

I. Y.

Nureen

Irfan

Dilanchiev

(2022). Relating sustainable business development practices and information management in promoting digital green innovation: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 930138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.930138

43.

Hussain

Qamar

F. M.

Adhikari

Hunzai

A. I.

Rehman

A. U.

Bano

(2021). Climate change, mountain food systems, and emerging opportunities: A study from the Hindu Kush Karakoram Pamir Landscape, Pakistan. Sustainability, 13(6), 3057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063057

44.

Hwong

A. R.

Wang

Khan

Chagwedera

D. N.

Grzenda

Doty

Benton

Alpert

Clarke

Compton

W. M.

(2022). Climate change and mental health research methods, gaps, and priorities: A scoping review. The Lancet. Planetary Health, 6(3), e281–e291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00012-2

45.

Innocenti

Perilli

Santarelli

Carluccio

Zjalic

Acquadro Maran

Ciabini

Cadeddu

(2023). How does climate change worry influence the relationship between climate change anxiety and eco-paralysis? a moderation study. Climate, 11(9), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090190

46.

Javeed

S. A.

Teh

B. H.

Ong

T. S.

Chong

L. L.

Abd Rahim

M. F. B.

Latief

(2022). How does green innovation strategy influence corporate financing? corporate social responsibility and gender diversity play a moderating role. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148724

47.

Jinru

Changbiao

Ahmad

Irfan

Nazir

(2022). How do green financing and green logistics affect the circular economy in the pandemic situation: key mediating role of sustainable production. Economic Research, 35(1), 3836–3856. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2021.2004437

48.

Koo

Chung

Nam

(2015). Assessing the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators on smart green IT device use: Reference group perspectives. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.001

49.

Kurian

A. G.

Currier

J. M.

Rojas-Flores

Herrera

Foster

J. D.

(2016). Meaning, perceived growth, and posttraumatic stress among teachers in El Salvador: Assessing the impact of daily spiritual experiences. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000070

50.

Lawrance

E. L.

Thompson

Newberry Le Vay

Page

Jennings

(2022). The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: A narrative review of current evidence, and its implications. International Review of Psychiatry, 34(5), 443–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725

51.

Lin

C. I.

Y. Y.

(2022). Empowering undergraduate students to take action: An empathetic mindset toward education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-07-2021-0319

52.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

53.

Wang

(2022). How can residents be motivated to participate in waste recycling? An analysis based on two survey experiments in China. Waste Management, 143, 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.02.034

54.

Luo

Yimamu

Irfan

Hao

(2023). Digitalization and sustainable development: How could digital economy development improve green innovation in China? Business Strategy and the Environment, 32, 1847–1871. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3223

55.

Lyons

B. A.

Hasell

Stroud

N. J.

(2018). Enduring extremes? Polar vortex, drought, and climate change beliefs. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 876–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1520735

56.

Mackay

C. M. L.

Schmitt

M. T.

(2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323

57.

Maki

Burns

R. J.

Rothman

A. J.

(2016). Paying people to protect the environment: A meta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.006

58.

Maran

D. A.

Begotti

(2021). Media exposure to climate change, anxiety, and efficacy beliefs in a sample of Italian university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9358. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179358

59.

Mar

K. A.

Schäpke

Fraude

Bruhn

Wamsler

Stasiak

Schroeder

Lawrence

M. G.

(2023). Learning and community building in support of collective action: Toward a new climate of communication at the COP. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, 14, e832. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.832

60.

Myers

T. A.

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Akerlof

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2013). The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 343–347. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1754

61.

Nelson

S. M.

Ira

Merenlender

A. M.

(2022). Adult climate change education advances learning, self-efficacy, and agency for community-scale stewardship. Sustainability, 14(3), 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031804

62.

Nisar

Khan

N. R.

Khan

M. R.

(2021). Determinant analysis of employee attitudes toward pro-environmental behavior in textile firms of Pakistan: A serial mediation approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(5), 1064–1094. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0270

63.

Ogunbode

C. A.

Doran

Hanss

Ojala

Salmela-Aro

van Den Broek

K. L.

Bhullar

Aquino

S. D.

Marot

Schermer

J. A.

Wlodarczyk

Jiang

Maran

D. A.

Yadav

Ardi

Chegeni

Ghanbarian

Zand

… Karasu

(2022). Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887

64.

Ogunbode

C. A.

Pallesen

Böhm

Doran

Bhullar

Aquino

Marot

Schermer

J. A.

Wlodarczyk

Jiang

Salmela-Aro

Hanss

Maran

D. A.

Ardi

Chegeni

Tahir

Ghanbarian

Park

Lomas

M. J.

(2021). Negative emotions about climate change are related to insomnia symptoms and mental health: cross-sectional evidence from 25 countries. Current Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01385-4

65.

Ojala

(2018). Eco-anxiety. RSA Journal, 164, 10–15.

66.

Osaka

Bellamy

(2020). Natural variability or climate change? Stakeholder and citizen perceptions of extreme event attribution. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 62, 102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102070

67.

Pahl

Bauer

(2013). Overcoming the distance: Perspective taking with future humans improves environmental engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511417618

68.

Pakmehr

Yazdanpanah

Baradaran

(2020). How collective efficacy makes a difference in responses to water shortage due to climate change in southwest Iran. Land Use Policy, 99, 104798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104798

69.

Pistochini

Dichter

Chakraborty

Dichter

Aboud

(2022). Greenhouse gas emission forecasts for electrification of space heating in residential homes in the US. Energy Policy, 163, 112813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112813

70.

Gong

Yang

Sun

(2022). The impact of the gain-loss frame on college students’ willingness to participate in the Individual Low-Carbon Behavior Rewarding System (ILBRS): The mediating role of environmental risk perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 11008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711008

71.

Qin

Liu

Fei

Tan-Soo

J. S.

(2022). Electricity consumption in the digital era: Micro evidence from Chinese households. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 182, 106297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106297

72.

Rainear

A. M.

Christensen

J. L.

(2022). Examining pre-existing environmental beliefs: Using a PSA to investigate the role of self-efficacy and response efficacy on behavioral intentions. Communication Studies, 73(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2022.2026426

73.

Rezapouraghdam

Alipour

Darvishmotevali

(2018). Employee workplace spirituality and pro-environmental behavior in the hotel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(5), 740–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1409229

74.

Rudiak-Gould

(2014). The influence of science communication on indigenous climate change perception: Theoretical and practical implications. Human Ecology, 42(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9605-9

75.

Rüttenauer

(2021). Extreme weather events elevate climate change belief but not pro-environmental behaviour. Working paper. https://10.31235/osf.io/574uf. Accessed 20 July 2022

76.

Salehi

Pazokinejad

(2022). Household energy consumption and its social determinants in Mazandaran. Innovation The European Journal of Social Science Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2092076

77.

Sattler

D. N.

Whippy

Graham

J. M.

Johnson

(2018). A psychological model of climate change adaptation: Influence of resource loss, posttraumatic growth, norms, and risk perception following cyclone Winston in Fiji. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for coastal communities. climate change management (pp. 427–443). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70703-7_22.

78.

Schultz

P. W.

Kaiser

F. G.

(2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In Clayton

S. D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). Oxford University Press.

79.

Schultz

P. W.

Zelezny

L. C.

(1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003

80.

Schwartz

S. E. O.

Benoit

Clayton

Parnes

M. F.

Swenson

Lowe

S. R.

(2023). Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as buffer. Current Psychology, 42, 16708–16721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02735-6

81.

Shrestha

Dunn

(2019). The declaration of Helsinki on medical research involving human subjects: A review of seventh revision. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 17(4), 548–552. https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v17i4.1042

82.

Simon

P. D.

Pakingan

K. A.

Aruta

J. J. B. R.

(2022). Measurement of climate change anxiety and its mediating effect between experience of climate change and mitigation actions of Filipino youth. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 39(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2022.2037390

83.

Singh

Iyer

New

M. G.

Few

Kuchimanchi

Segnon

A. C.

Morchain

(2022). Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Climate and Development, 14(7), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937

84.

Spence

Poortinga

Butler

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2011). Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1059

85.

Steg

(2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905

86.

Sultana

(2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638

87.

Swim

Clayton

Doherty

Gifford

Howard

Reser

Weber

(2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. American Psychological Association.

88.

Tabernero

Hernández

(2011). Self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation guiding environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 658–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510379759

89.

Tariq

Yasir

Majid

(2020). Promoting employees’ environmental performance in hospitality industry through environmental attitude and ecological behavior: Moderating role of managers’ environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 3006–3017. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2019

90.

Terry

D. J.

Hogg

M. A.

White

K. M.

(1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-identity, social identity and group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology/the British Psychological Society, 38(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164149

91.

Tierney

(2019). Disasters: A sociological approach. John Wiley & Sons.

92.

Van de Mortel

T. F.

(2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.210155003844269

93.

van der Linden

(2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012

94.

van Valkengoed

A. M.

Steg

(2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y

95.

Vorobeva

Scott

I. J.

Oliveira

Neto

(2022). Adoption of new household waste management technologies: The role of financial incentives and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132328

96.

Wang

Kim

(2018). Analysis of the impact of values and perception on climate change skepticism and its implication for public policy. Climate, 6(4), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6040099

97.

Wang

Yang

Guo

Yuan

Liu

(2016). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption intention in rural China: The role of traditional cultures, personal attitudes and reference groups. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12142

98.

Weckroth

Ala-Mantila

(2022). Socioeconomic geography of climate change views in Europe. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 72, 102453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102453

99.

Werdel

M. B.

(2020). Reconciling disaster and deity: Trauma, spirituality, and growth in the context of natural and technological disasters induced by climate change. In S. E. Schulenberg (Ed.), Positive psychological approaches to disaster: Meaning, resilience, and posttraumatic growth (pp. 45–59). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32007-2_4

100.

White

K. M.

Smith

J. R.

Terry

D. J.

Greenslade

J. H.

McKimmie

B. M.

(2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt 1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X295207

101.

Whitmarsh

Player

Jiongco

James

Williams

Marks

Kennedy-Williams

(2022). Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866

102.

World Health Organization. (2019). Ethical considerations for health policy and systems research. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330033/9789241516921-eng.pdf

103.

Yuhan

Wang

D. C.

Canada

Schwartz

(2021). Growth after trauma: The role of self-compassion following Hurricane Harvey. Trauma Care, 1(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare1020011

104.

Zeligman

McElroy-Heltzel

S. E.

Davis

E. B.

Dispenza

Davis

D. E.

DeBlaere

(2019). Posttraumatic growth and trauma in flood survivors: Contributions of attitudes toward God. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 41(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.41.2.03