IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i17p11068-d906371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for New Human Behavior Model in the Climate Change Age: Analyzing the Impact of Risk Perception and Government Factors on Intention–Action Consistency in Particulate Matter Mitigation

Author

Listed:
  • Yeji Shin

    (Energy Transformation Policy Research Center, Social Science Research Institute, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

  • Seoyong Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

  • Sohee Kim

    (Energy Transformation Policy Research Center, Social Science Research Institute, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze factors influencing citizens’ intentions to take protective action against particulate matter (PM) and their actual actions in response to PM. There were few research on the role of government factors and the issue of intention–action inconsistency in the context of PM mitigation action. Therefore, this study set not only variables in the risk perception paradigm but also ones in government factors as independent variables, while intention and action in response to PM were set as dependent variables. This study’s analysis was based on survey data collected from Korean people. For representativeness of the samples, this study adopted the quota sampling method, considering region, gender, and age. Five hundred respondents finished the survey. To verify the hypotheses, this study used regression and binomial logistic analysis. Analysis showed that (1) negative emotions, trust, knowledge, government competency, policy satisfaction, and policy awareness had significant effects on intention and action in response to PM, and (2) perceived benefits only affected intention, whereas government accountability only affected action. Logistic analysis showed that there were groups in which intentions and actions did not match. Negative emotions and government competence induce intention–action consistency, whereas the perceived benefits and trust in government tend to encourage inconsistency. Knowledge is a variable that induces both consistency and inconsistency in the intention–action relationship. The determinant structures of independent variables affecting the likelihood of belonging to the four groups differed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeji Shin & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in the Climate Change Age: Analyzing the Impact of Risk Perception and Government Factors on Intention–Action Consistency in Particulate Matter Mitigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-26, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:11068-:d:906371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/11068/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/11068/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Litvine, Dorian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2011. "Helping "light green" consumers walk the talk: Results of a behavioural intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 462-474, January.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Feng‐Yang Kuo & Mei‐Lien Young, 2008. "A study of the intention–action gap in knowledge sharing practices," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(8), pages 1224-1237, June.
    4. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    6. Michal Carrington & Benjamin Neville & Gregory Whitwell, 2010. "Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 139-158, November.
    7. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Paolo Antonetti & Stan Maklan, 2014. "Feelings that Make a Difference: How Guilt and Pride Convince Consumers of the Effectiveness of Sustainable Consumption Choices," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 117-134, September.
    2. Veronika A. Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2014. "Do Information, Price, or Morals Influence Ethical Consumption? A Natural Field Experiment and Customer Survey on the Purchase of Fair Trade Coffee," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 6, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    3. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    4. Zhengxia He & Yanqing Zhou & Jianming Wang & Cunfang Li & Meiling Wang & Wenbo Li, 2021. "The impact of motivation, intention, and contextual factors on green purchasing behavior: New energy vehicles as an example," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1249-1269, February.
    5. Fernández Jardón, Carlos Mª, 2018. "Motivaciones de compra en consumidores de productos de comercio justo/Motivations of Purchase in Consumers of Fair Trade Products," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 579-602, Mayo.
    6. Wenchun Ran & Ling Zhang, 2023. "Bridging the intention-behavior gap in mobile phone recycling in China: the effect of consumers’ price sensitivity and proactive personality," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 938-959, January.
    7. Louise M. Hassan & Edward Shiu & Deirdre Shaw, 2016. "Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 219-236, June.
    8. William Sun, 2020. "Toward a theory of ethical consumer intention formation: re-extending the theory of planned behavior," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 10(3), pages 260-278, December.
    9. Elena Kossmann & Mónica Gómez-Suárez, 2018. "Decision-making processes for purchases of ethical products: gaps between academic research and needs of marketing practitioners," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 15(3), pages 353-370, September.
    10. Charis X. Li & Xiao-xiao Liu & Jun Ye & Siyu Zheng & Songyin Cai, 2024. "Ethical Pursuit or Personal Nirvana? Unpacking the Practice of Danshari in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(4), pages 675-695, May.
    11. Fang, Xingming & Wang, Lu & Sun, Chuanwang & Zheng, Xuemei & Wei, Jing, 2021. "Gap between words and actions: Empirical study on consistency of residents supporting renewable energy development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    12. Lianne Foti & Avis Devine, 2019. "High Involvement and Ethical Consumption: A Study of the Environmentally Certified Home Purchase Decision," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Nieves García-de-Frutos & José Manuel Ortega-Egea & Javier Martínez-del-Río, 2018. "Anti-consumption for Environmental Sustainability: Conceptualization, Review, and Multilevel Research Directions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 411-435, March.
    14. Alex Hiller & Tony Woodall, 2019. "Everything Flows: A Pragmatist Perspective of Trade-Offs and Value in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 893-912, July.
    15. Nguyen, The Ninh & Lobo, Antonio & Greenland, Steven, 2016. "Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: The role of consumers' biospheric values," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 98-108.
    16. Yadav, Rambalak & Pathak, Govind S., 2017. "Determinants of Consumers' Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-122.
    17. Thapa Karki, Shova & Hubacek, Klaus, 2015. "Developing a conceptual framework for the attitude–intention–behaviour links driving illegal resource extraction in Bardia National Park, Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 129-139.
    18. Ervin L. Black & F. Greg Burton & Joshua K. Cieslewicz, 2022. "Improving Ethics: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to Include Moral Disengagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 945-978, December.
    19. Yun-Chin Paya Hsu & Fiona Chan, 2015. "Surveying Data on Consumer Green Purchasing Intention: A Case in New Zealand," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1-14, May.
    20. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.

    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:19:y:2022:i:17:p:11068-:d:906371. 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.