IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i24p13274-d704003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ascertaining the Inconsistency of AEC Students’ Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Sustainability by Mixed Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Yuanxin Zhang

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Liujun Xu

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Wei Wu

    (Department of Construction Management, California State University, Fresno, CA 93740, USA)

  • Zaijing Gong

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Hashem Izadi Moud

    (Construction Management Department, U.A. Whitaker College of Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL 33965, USA)

  • Zhihua Luo

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

Abstract

University students in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) are the main force and future leaders of the construction industry, and their values shape the model and direction of the industry’s future development. The construction industry is the largest contributor of waste and greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is an inconsistency between AEC university students’ perceptions and behaviors regarding sustainability, which has received little attention. This study attempts to shed light on the root causes of the inconsistency from the psychological perspective, incorporating construal level (CL) theory and psychological distance (PD) theory into situational settings of the experiment. We recruited 556 AEC students from 20 different universities to participate in data collection. Research findings revealed that PD has a significant influence on AEC students’ recycling behavior with variance in the effect of different dimensions, even though CL has no significant impact. Furthermore, findings show that spatial distance poses the greatest impact on AEC student recycling behavior, followed by information distance, temporal distance, experience distance, hypothetical distance, and social distance. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by introducing CL and PD into sustainability perception and behavior research in construction and has practical implications for universities with sustainability curricula in AEC.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuanxin Zhang & Liujun Xu & Wei Wu & Zaijing Gong & Hashem Izadi Moud & Zhihua Luo, 2021. "Ascertaining the Inconsistency of AEC Students’ Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Sustainability by Mixed Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13274-:d:704003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13274/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13274/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Synodinos, Nicolaos E., 1990. "Environmental attitudes and knowledge : A comparison of marketing and business students with other groups," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 161-170, March.
    2. Pengya Ai & Wu Li & Wuyue Yang, 2021. "Adolescents’ Social Media Use and Their Voluntary Garbage Sorting Intention: A Sequential Mediation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Kelly, T.C. & Mason, I.G. & Leiss, M.W. & Ganesh, S., 2006. "University community responses to on-campus resource recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 42-55.
    4. Marie Schill & Deirdre Shaw, 2016. "Recycling today, sustainability tomorrow: Effects of psychological distance on behavioural practice," Post-Print hal-02054322, HAL.
    5. Charlotte Jones & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks, 2017. "The Future is Now: Reducing Psychological Distance to Increase Public Engagement with Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 331-341, February.
    6. G. A. A. Wossink, 2003. "Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(4), pages 461-485, December.
    7. Steven Cooke & Jesse Vermaire, 2015. "Environmental studies and environmental science today: inevitable mission creep and integration in action-oriented transdisciplinary areas of inquiry, training and practice," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(1), pages 70-78, March.
    8. Ellen, Pam Scholder, 1994. "Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-52, May.
    9. Jingling Chen & Rob van Tulder & Tao Eric Hu & Thorben Kwakkenbos, 2020. "Why People Do Not Keep Their Promise: Understanding the Pro-Environmental Behavior in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Schill, Marie & Shaw, Deirdre, 2016. "Recycling today, sustainability tomorrow: Effects of psychological distance on behavioural practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 349-362.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Han, Nah Ray & Baek, Tae Hyun & Yoon, Sukki & Kim, Yeonshin, 2019. "Is that coffee mug smiling at me? How anthropomorphism impacts the effectiveness of desirability vs. feasibility appeals in sustainability advertising," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 352-361.
    2. Feiyu Chen & Hong Chen & Jiahui Yang & Ruyin Long & Qianwen Li, 2018. "Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Andrew Mzembe, 2021. "The psychological distance and construal level perspectives of sustainable value creation in SMEs," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 465-478, March.
    4. Melissa Nursey-Bray & Robert Palmer & Bridie Meyer-Mclean & Thomas Wanner & Cris Birzer, 2019. "The Fear of Not Flying: Achieving Sustainable Academic Plane Travel in Higher Education Based on Insights from South Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Hu, Han-fen & Krishen, Anjala S. & Barnes, Jesse, 2023. "Through narratives we learn: Exploring knowledge-building as a marketing strategy for prosocial water reuse," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Jesús Manuel López-Bonilla & María Del Carmen Reyes-Rodríguez & Luis Miguel López-Bonilla, 2018. "The Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours of European Golf Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Wang, Xiaozhen & Zheng, Ying & Jiang, Zihao & Tao, Ziyang, 2021. "Influence mechanism of subsidy policy on household photovoltaic purchase intention under an urban-rural divide in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    8. Hee Sun Park & Ezgi Ulusoy & Soe Yoon Choi & Hye Eun Lee, 2020. "Temporal Distance and Descriptive Norms on Environmental Behaviors: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Construal-Level Theory," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, March.
    9. David V. Boivin & Olivier Boiral, 2022. "So Close, Yet So Far Away: Exploring the Role of Psychological Distance from Climate Change on Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Jiang, Kan & Mo, Silan & Qin, Meilian, 2024. "Descriptive or injunctive? The effect of sustainable normative appeals and advertising orientations on environmentally responsible consumption behavior in a collective action perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Vicky-Lauren Bekoum Essokolo & Elisabeth Robinot, 2022. "«Let’s Go Deep into the Game to Save Our Planet!» How an Immersive and Educational Video Game Reduces Psychological Distance and Raises Awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Müller, Monika & Huber, Christian & Messner, Martin, 2019. "Meaningful work at a distance: A case study in a hospital," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 719-729.
    13. Craig, C.A. & Feng, S. & Gilbertz, S., 2019. "Water crisis, drought, and climate change in the southeast United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Jesús Manuel López-Bonilla & María del Carmen Reyes-Rodríguez & Luis Miguel López-Bonilla, 2019. "Interactions and Relationships between Personal Factors in Pro-Environmental Golf Tourist Behaviour: A Gender Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Malin Jonell & Beatrice Crona & Kelsey Brown & Patrik Rönnbäck & Max Troell, 2016. "Eco-Labeled Seafood: Determinants for (Blue) Green Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Younghan Jung & Kayoung Park & Junyong Ahn, 2019. "Sustainability in Higher Education: Perceptions of Social Responsibility among University Students," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-14, March.
    17. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    18. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    20. Sharp, Anne & Wheeler, Meagan, 2013. "Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: Carbon literacy and carbon label preferences," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 240-249.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13274-:d:704003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.