Next Article in Journal
Assessing Regional Differences in Green Innovation Efficiency of Industrial Enterprises in China
Previous Article in Journal
Installation Planning in Regional Thermal Power Industry for Emissions Reduction Based on an Emissions Inventory
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph16060939
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Empirical Study on Households’ Energy-Conservation Behavior of Jiangsu Province in China: The Role of Policies and Behavior Results

by
Ting Yue
*,
Ruyin Long
*,
Junli Liu
,
Haiwen Liu
and
Hong Chen
School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(6), 939; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060939
Submission received: 17 January 2019 / Revised: 2 March 2019 / Accepted: 14 March 2019 / Published: 15 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Science and Engineering)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the improvement of living quality and the increase of energy consumption of residents, their energy conservation behavior (ECB) plays an increasingly important role in energy conservation and emission reduction. As a kind of environmental behavior, ECB of residents is a complicated process. In this paper, ECB is divided into four types, considering habit adjustment, quality threshold, efficiency investment, and interpersonal facilitation. A comprehensive conceptual framework is built, adding perception about energy conservation results (PER) and contextual factors from a new perspective. Based on a survey in Jiangsu province of China, this paper examines the impact of intention on behavior under the moderation of contextual factors, as well as the effect of perception of energy-conservation results on intention and ECB by means of multivariate statistical analysis. The results show that the intention of energy conservation is the determinant of behavior, but it does not well transform into behavior, especially into quality threshold and interpersonal facilitation behavior. Different contextual factors have positive effects on the relationship of intention and different behavior. However, modulating effects of contextual factors as amplifiers do not function effectively due to their low rating scores. PER has a positive impact on intention but not on all types of ECB. Finally, this paper presents important implications for policy makers to optimize energy conservation policy.

1. Introduction

Global climate control has recently emerged as one of the most important international issues of the early 21st century. The large amount of carbon dioxide emissions caused by the rapid growth of fossil energy consumption is one of the main causes of global warming [1]. Therefore, to mitigate climate change, an emphasis on diverse actions across sector boundaries is required, and a reduction of energy consumption is urgently needed to limit global warming [2]. Because households are responsible for a considerable amount of the total greenhouse gas emissions [3,4], changes in their behavior to reduce energy consumption is recognized as part of the mitigating actions that are required to reduce emissions. In China, with the rapid development of the economy and society over the past decades, households’ energy consumption has sharply increased [5]. As of 2016, residential direct-life energy consumption accounted for approximately 12.44% of the total energy consumption in China, which has almost doubled since 2005 [6]. Based on the experience of the developed countries, the percentage of household energy use in total energy consumption will increase continuously with the development of the economy and society [7]. An individual resident is the most basic energy consumer, and households are the terminal link of energy consumption. Their behaviors not only directly affect the scale and growth of energy consumption and carbon emissions but also drive the emissions of industry, construction, transportation, and the service industries [8,9]. Therefore, the household potential for reduction is of great significance for environmental conservation.
In most of the studies of energy conservation behavior (ECB), the classical environmental behavior models are always the theoretical basis in which psychological characteristics and contextual factors are usually key variables [10,11,12]. When conducting research on attitudes of energy conservation, a gap between intention and ECB is found [13]. This indicates that individuals seem to have green attitudes but have few actual pro-environmental behaviors. The reason may be that people pay more attention to comfort and convenience. The gap between green travel attitudes and behaviors in China is also confirmed [14]. China has a special background of “high-context culture”. The face sometimes means an individual’s public image in society, which involves concerns of social status and reputation. Face consciousness and conspicuous consumption usually result in high consumption [15,16], an individual behavior that is not only affected by psychological factors but by contextual factors as well [17]. Therefore, in the high-context culture of China, whether there is inconsistency between intentions and residents’ ECB is worthy of study. Between the intention and behavior, the contextual factors that correspond to moderating functions cannot be ignored. Additionally, perception about energy conservation results (PER) has an impact on behavioral intention [18,19]. Furthermore, in the case of inconsistency between intention and behavior, the effect of behavior results are more important.
The purposes of this study are listed below:
(1)
To explore whether there is any inconsistency between intention and ECB.
(2)
To test whether there is a moderating effect of contextual factors.
(3)
To understand if different PER have the same effect on intention and behavior.
To achieve these purposes, this study classified ECB, contextual factors, and PER, built a conceptual framework, and proposed hypotheses. Then, empirical research and statistical analysis and discussion were carried out. The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review. In Section 3, a conceptual framework of behavioral theories and hypotheses is presented. Section 4 presents the survey design, experimental procedures, and sampling strategy. In Section 5, the results of the empirical analysis are presented and discussed. Finally, in Section 6, conclusions are summarized, and policy implications are discussed.

2. Literature Review

A great deal of research has explored the influential factors of ECB. Additionally, the factors of residents’ psychological characteristics and intentions have traditionally been important factors in the formulation of energy policy [3,20]. For instance, a positive attitude towards the environment is conducive to family investment in energy efficiency [21]. Sütterlin et al. (2011) carried out the cluster analysis based on energy-related psychosocial factors and classified energy consumer into six segments [22]. Most psychological factors do not directly play a role in behavior but rather through intention. Intention is the indispensable process of behavior formation and the determinants that occur before the implementation of behavior [23]. Therefore, the intermediary roles of behavior and intention should be included in the study of ECB.
Individual behavior is also affected by contextual factors [24,25]. The contextual factors such as energy conservation policies, price, the behavior of others, the provision of information about energy usage, culture, moral rules, and other social norms can strengthen intention of ECB [26,27,28,29]. Gärling et al. (2003) found that, when compared with price factors, pressure from the public had more obvious and durable effects on ECB [30]. The social norms of perceived environmental stress are particularly significant to ECB in the high-context and collectivist culture in China [7,31]. Studies also show that attributes of energy conservation products such as credibility, quality, and availability are important contextual factors [32,33]. Traditionally, the price of energy and energy efficiency production, subsidies of energy efficiency production, tax preference, rewards, and punishments are common economic policies [34], but economic measures without long-term incentive effects are often considered to be unfair and easy to abuse. Thus, non-price measures such as encouragement, persuasion, and information provision, which are considered to be low-cost and effect-lasting measures, have gained increasing attention [35,36,37].
In addition to the psychological and contextual factors, the outcomes of ECB are also important. Ajzen (2002) conducted a study on residual effects of behavioral outcomes and found that the residual impact of past behavior exists but vanishes when intentions are well-formed [18]. Individuals sometimes misperceive the effectiveness of potential ECB or overestimate the benefit of ECB. Once they learn about the deviations between perception and actual results, their behavior changes [38,39]. As a consequence, PER is also vital to intention and behavior [19,40].
Overall, there have been few surveys of residents’ ECB that consider the inconsistency between intention and behavior, the modulatory role of contextual factors, and the effect of PER in one study. Therefore, in this study, we chose the urban households of Jiangsu province as respondents to examine the effect of contextual factors, the inconsistency between intention and actual behavior, and the effect of PER.

3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework

3.1. Conceptual Framework

Three classical theory models are often used to build models of ECB. The theory of planned behavior proposed by Ajzen (1991) is the succession and expansion of the theory of reasoned action. This theory believes that behavioral intention is the intervening variable between psychological characteristics and behavior. Individual behavior is not only affected by one’s own psychological characteristics but also by the surrounding environment [10,41]. The theory model of responsible environmental behavior proposed by Hines et al. (1987) shows that in the process of behavioral implementation, situational factors have a significant influence on the implementation of behaviors [11]. The theory of interpersonal behavior constructed by Triandis and Harry (1979) indicates that intention and external factors jointly influence behaviors. This theory also focuses on the influence of social factors and external factors on behavior [12].
According to Ajzen’s study about the residual effects of behavioral outcomes, the residual effect of behavior results does exist. When the behavioral intention is consistent with the actual behavior, the residual effect is small. When the behavioral intention is very strong, the expected realistic behavior is bound to be realized, and there is a specific behavioral intention implementation plan, the residual effect no longer exists [18].
This study selected the situational variables and classified ECB and the perception of PER with reference to the relevant literatures above as well as expert consultation and in-depth interviews based on the grounded theory. The variables used in the text are defined as shown in Table 1.
In this study, residents’ ECB was divided into four types: (1) habit adjustment behavior (HAB): turning off the lights when one leaves the room and reducing standby power consumption, and so on; (2) quality threshold behavior (QTB): buying fewer or using fewer electrical appliances, using air conditioning and heating in moderation, and so on; (3) efficiency investment behavior (EIB): choosing energy conservation types while buying lamps and home appliances, and so on; (4) interpersonal facilitation behavior (IFB): advising friends, families, or colleagues about how to save energy, sharing energy saving experiences, taking the initiative to prevent others’ energy wasting behavior, actively participating in energy conservation and the environmental protection community, and so on. Contextual factors include social norms of energy conservation (SNEC), popularization of energy conservation policy (PEP), execution and validity of energy conservation policy (EVEP), execution and validity of information intervention (EVII), price of energy (PRIE), energy conservation product attributes (EPA), and price of energy conservation products (PRIP). Perception about energy conservation results contains perception about energy conservation results on economic savings (PERE) and perception about energy conservation results in spiritual satisfaction (PERS).
The conceptual framework of residents’ ECB was built as shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Hypotheses

The behavior of an individual is not only affected by intention but is also influenced by the surrounding environment and other individuals’ behaviors. Because PER is also vital to subsequent behavior and intention [18,38,39,40], the influence of contextual factors and PER should be considered. Therefore, this paper mainly discusses four acting paths: (1) the acting path of intention on ECB; (2) the modulatory effect of contextual factors on the path of intention to behavior; (3) the effect of PER on behavior intention of energy conservation (BIEC); (4) the effect of PER on behavior.
On the basis of the theory of planned behavior [10,41] and the theory model of responsible environmental behavior [11], there is a significant positive relationship between behavioral intention and behavior. Behavioral intention is the direct antecedent variable of realistic behavior, and other subjective psychological factors all indirectly affect actual behavior through behavioral intention. The first hypothesis is put forward as follows:
H1. 
BIEC has positive effect on all of the four behaviors.
Individual behavior is also affected by external factors, which are otherwise referred to as contextual factors [17,37]. ECB can be modulated by contextual factors such as energy conservation policies, the behavior of others, and the provision of information about energy usage [26]. According to the review of the contextual factors above, the second hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H2. 
Contextual factors have significant modulatory effects on the path of intention to the four types of behavior.
Ajzen (2002) confirmed that behavioral outcomes can act on intentions through antecedent variables of intentions, and behavioral outcomes have a direct impact on behaviors [18]. Additionally, based on the related literature in the literature review, the third and the fourth hypotheses are put forward as follows:
H3. 
The two types of PER have significant impacts on BIEC.
H4. 
The two types of PER have significant impacts on the four types of ECB.

4. Methods

4.1. Survey Design

In reference to the maturity scale [9], this paper modified and improved the scale items based on the related literature, expert consultation, and in-depth interviews with residents. The scales of the questionnaires contained socio-demographic characteristics, ECB, behavior intention, PER, and contextual factors evaluated by the Likert 5 method. Using ECB as an example, examples of four types of energy conservation behavior were presented (e.g., turning off the light when leaving a room). The answers were given on a five-point scale: rarely, sometimes, half the time, mostly, and very often.
To test the reliability and validity of the scales and the rationality of the length and expression of the questionnaire, a small preliminary survey was addressed through a network questionnaire survey after the establishment of the preliminary questionnaire scale. According to the results of the preliminary survey, ambiguous and vague items were modified or deleted to ensure the content validity of the questionnaire scale. On the basis of the results of the reliability test analysis, the items whose values of Cronbach’s alpha were under 0.6 were modified until their values increased up to 0.6, ensuring the scales could be accepted. Based on the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, the items for which the factor loadings were under 0.5 were also deleted, and the formal investigation questionnaire scales were set.

4.2. Procedure and Sample

The combined survey methods of paper and network were used to make up for the inadequacy of the network survey and to obtain a uniform distribution of the demographic characteristics. The formal investigation began on 1 January 2018 in Jiangsu province of China. Until 25 February 2018, a total of 236 paper questionnaires and 478 network questionnaires were recycled. Eventually, there were 195 valid print questionnaires and 368 online effective questionnaires for a total of 563. The effective rate was 78.85%. The valid samples were evenly distributed in social demographic variables, and the samples were representative. Table 2 describes the general characteristics of the respondents. From the statistical description of the demographic characteristics, it can be seen that the sample distribution was uniform and, to a great extent, agreed with the current social situation.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Test of Scales and Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Variables

The results of the reliability and validity tests (Table 3) showed that the scales used in the questionnaires had high internal consistency and reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha. The results of the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure, the chi-square values of Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and significance testing showed that this questionnaire was suitable for factor analysis [42]. The results of the exploratory factor analysis showed that the extracted factors corresponded to the variables of the conceptual framework; therefore, the scales had a high conceptual validity. On the basis of the maximum likelihood estimate method, the normality of the questionnaire survey data was tested, and the results showed that the kurtosis and skewness coefficients conformed to the normality requirement. Thus, related statistical analysis was permissible.
Through descriptive statistical analysis, ECB and its influencing factors could be well understood. The descriptive statistics results of the scale factors are shown in Table 3.

5.1.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis of Energy-Conservation Behavior

As is shown in Table 3, HAB was better implemented than the others, while IFB had the lowest score. As for HAB, it can be seen that the respondents had some energy conservation habits in daily life, such as “turning off lights when leaving”, and half of the respondents noticed the details of energy use such as “opening the refrigerator door as little as possible” and “adjusting or closing the gas valve in time”, but “when the appliance is not in use, cut off the power in time” was poorly implemented. On the whole, respondents had some habits of energy conservation in daily life. However, certain details that are not as easily attained (such as standby energy consumption) were always ignored. About half of the respondents were not familiar with the energy conservation knowledge that standby energy consumption causes a big waste of power. It shows that residents’ knowledge of energy conservation in daily life is not comprehensive enough.
In regard to QTB, life quality was more important than energy conservation for most of the respondents. Most of them were unwilling to limit their quality of life in ways such as “using air conditioning in moderation”, “shortening bath time”, or “choosing green travel”. In terms of daily energy use related to quality of life, the majority of respondents seldom reduced the quality of life to save energy. This was consistent with the conclusion of Valkila and Saari (2013) [13]. People know how to reduce their energy use but are too comfort-loving to make any changes to their energy use. Therefore, advocating energy conservation should try to satisfy residents’ everyday needs and avoid lowering the quality of residents’ lives [43].
As for EIB, most of the respondents gave priority to “efficient bulbs and appliances” when buying household appliances, but few of them regarded fuel efficient or small displacement vehicles as their first choice. On account of the promotion of energy saving lamps and efficient appliances by the Chinese government in recent years, most residents have been able to give priority to energy saving products when choosing necessities of life. However, when buying household cars, the majority of respondents considered safety first, then comfort. At present, there are still barriers in the uptake of electric vehicles, such as low performance of electric vehicles and inconvenient charging [44].
In regard to IFB, a few of the respondents took the initiative to prevent energy waste of others or to share their experiences of energy conservation. Similarly, they rarely took part in activities, community, or energy conservation organizations. In China’s high-context culture, people’s consumption behavior is significant influenced by interpersonal mediation and social status demonstration. At present, China has not formed better low-carbon and green social norms. Under the influence of face consciousness, people tend to show their social status and income level by means of conspicuous and high consumption [15]. Therefore, strengthening pro-environmental education will be more conducive in the process of socialization.

5.1.2. Descriptive Statistics Analysis of Behavior Intention of Energy Conservation

As for BIEC, most of the respondents had strong intentions for energy conservation. Compared to the descriptive statistics analysis of energy conservation, the survey results showed that most of the respondents were willing to change their energy use habits and purchase efficiency appliances, but they were not willing to sacrifice life quality. They were also most reluctant to implement IFB. On the whole, respondents had a strong BIEC when it was not necessary to spend a great deal of effort and they did not lose their own interests. There were inconsistencies between intention and QTB as well as between intention and IFB. People generally know how to reduce their energy use, but sometimes these motives of economics, convenience, and comfort would adjust, disturb, or even change behaviors [14].

5.1.3. Descriptive Statistics Analysis of Perception about Energy-Conservation Results

As for PER, the respondents had better PERE than PERS. Some of them agreed with the viewpoint that "energy conservation can bring economic savings”, but some of them had negative or uncertain perceptions of the spiritual results. Overall, PER should be promoted. One of the reasons may have been because it is difficult for residents to obtain information and measure their amount of energy saving. If given feedback on energy conservation, there would be a significant reduction in energy use [45]. If given interpersonal comparisons, such as publicly setting energy efficiency goals, residents’ energy conservation would be effectively encouraged [45,46].

5.1.4. Descriptive Statistics Analysis of Contextual Factors

With regard to contextual factors, most of the respondents believed that they were not good enough to be conducive to implementing energy conservation behavior. SNEC was not well received, which implies that China’s SNEC is not well established, which is consistent with the view of Mi et al. (2018) [15]. As for PEP and EVEP, energy conservation policies have failed to be well popularized and implemented. There was a certain proportion of respondents who could not understand energy conservation policies or perhaps were not familiar with ways to benefit from preferential policies. Further, guiding policies of energy conservation are not well popularized, such as “Public Energy Conservation Week” and the “Guide for Public Energy Conservation Behavior”. As for EVII, it is not easy to obtain related and useful information of energy conservation. The power sector of Jiangsu province has made a platform to obtain information about real-time electricity consumption since 2010. However, from the research results, users have failed to grasp or been indifferent toward how to use this system. As for EPA and PRIP, most of the respondents considered high scores of EPA, which shows that the market of energy saving products in China is well developed. However, respondents presented more sensitivity to the price of energy conservation products, especially energy efficient appliances. Motives of economics are the key for energy conservation behavior [14]. As for PRIE, most of the respondents rated it at a medium level with few effects on ECB.

5.2. Correlation Analysis of Variables

Correlation analysis between model variables is the basis for further testing of the model. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to test the correlation between independent variables and dependent variables, as well as the correlation between dependent variables and regulatory variables. Table 4 shows the relationship between ECB and its influencing factors. A correlation analysis of ECB and BIEC revealed that there were significant positive correlations between these variables. As for PER, it was significantly correlated with ECB and BIEC. For contextual factors, ECB was significantly correlated with SNEC, PEP, EVEP, EVII, and PRIE. EPA and PRIP were significantly correlated with EIB. On this basis, multiple linear regression analysis and hierarchical regression analysis were adopted to explore the effects of the CF and PER.

5.3. Modulatory Effect of the Contextual Factors

Hierarchical regression equations are often used to test the moderating effects of variables. According to the steps of moderating effect examination, the variables were first normalized, the models were built, and then the product terms of behavior and the contextual factors were constructed. Next, behavior, behavior intention, contextual factors, and product terms were incorporated into the equation step by step. Finally, if the regression coefficients of the product terms were significant, or the decision coefficients of the hierarchical regression model increased significantly, the modulatory effect of that contextual factor was considered to be significant. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis of the modulatory effects are shown in Table 5.

5.3.1. Modulatory Effect on Intention to Habits-Adjustment Behavior

As shown in Table 5, the results of the multiple hierarchical regression analysis of modulatory effects showed that, in terms of the path of BIEC to HAB, the determination coefficients of model 3 were greater than those of models 1 and 2. Among the contextual variables, the positive modulatory effects of SNEC, PEP, EVEP, EVII, and PRIE were significantly present in the interaction between BIEC and HAB with positive effects. That is to say, if the SNEC was improved, households were more willing to do HAB. At the same time, if the related energy conservation policies could be better popularized and implemented, and more useful information and interventions were provided, BIEC could be more effectively transformed to HAB. In addition, the high PRIE could strengthen the transformation of intention to HAB.

5.3.2. Modulatory Effect on Intention to Quality-Threshold Behavior

The results of the multiple hierarchical regression analysis of modulatory effects (Table 5) showed that the determination coefficients of model 3 were greater than those of models 1 and 2 with regard to QTB. The modulatory effects of contextual variables (SNEC, PEP, EVEP, EVII, and PRIE) were significant and positive in the interaction between BIEC and QTB. The same was true for HAB in that an improved SNEC strengthened residents’ willingness to reduce their energy use, although it may have affected their quality of life. Meanwhile, in cases where PEP, EVEP, and EVII were better, BIEC could be transformed to QTB well. Additionally, high PRIE could also strengthen the transformation of BIEC to QTB.

5.3.3. Modulatory Effect on Intention to Efficiency-Investment Behavior

Based on the results of the multiple hierarchical regression analysis of modulatory effects as shown in Table 5, the determination coefficients of model 3 were greater than those of models 1 and 2 with regard to EIB. The modulatory effects of the contextual variables (PEP, EVEP, EVII, PRIE, EPA, and PRIP) were significant in the interaction between BIEC and EIB. Better PEP, EVEP, and EVII could strengthen residents’ willingness to EIB, although it required additional expenditures. Meanwhile, PRIE could also strengthen the transformation of BIEC to EIB. Under conditions of superior EPA, residents had stronger intentions and more behaviors to conserve energy by means of EIB. However, PRIP inhibited the transformation of intention to EIB. It was also notable that SNEC had no significant modulatory role on the path of BIEC to EIB.

5.3.4. Modulatory Effect on Intention to Interpersonal-Facilitation Behavior

The results of the multiple hierarchical regression analysis (Table 5) showed that, with regard to IFB, the determination coefficients of model 3 were greater than those of models 1 and 2. The modulatory effects of the contextual variables (SNEC, PEP, EVEP, and EVII) were significant and positive in the interaction between BIEC and IFB. Better PEP, EVEP, and EVII could strengthen residents’ willingness to promote others’ energy conservation. PRIE had no significant modulatory role in the path of BIEC to IFB, i.e., economic means had no significant effect on this path.

5.3.5. Discussion of Modulatory Effect on Intention to Behavior

To sum up, the better the residents feel about SNEC, the more HAB, QTB, and IFB will be implemented. Energy conservation practitioners might develop effective programs to motivate individuals to engage in ECB from the perspective of SNEC [47,48]. Our study finds that SNEC can strengthen intentions to HAB, QTB, and IFB, but not to EIB. SNEC shaping should be from the different perspectives of promoting HAB, QTB, and IFB.
Existing studies have conveyed concerns about the impact of policy on residential energy consumption, public acceptance, and so on [49,50]. Our study mainly focuses on popularization, execution, and validity of energy conservation policy. From the analysis above, PEP and EVEP have significant regulatory effects on the path of intention to behavior, and although existing energy conservation policies are well established, their popularization, execution, and validity are not good enough. Policy making is important, but popularization, execution, and validity are more important.
Existing studies prove that information intervention is an effective way to encourage energy conservation [27,36,37], and these conclusions were drawn by experimentation. Actually, valid information of encouraging energy conservation cannot be obtained easily. Practitioners should pay more attention to EVII in consideration of its high effectiveness.
PRIE is an effective measure to guide public ECB, but in China, electricity and natural gas are considered to be life necessities, and their prices have an impact on people’s livelihoods and are under the control of the Chinese government. In order to prevent the negative social impact of the adjustment of living energy prices, China has been trying to use a tiered pricing system. The practice shows that although the tiered pricing system has some effect (using tiered electricity price as an example), the main problems still persist, including inadequate levels of public awareness and acceptance, unreasonable tiered and electricity price standards, and insufficient reflection in regional differences [51].
EPA has significant positive moderate effects on intention to EIB, while PRIP has negative effects. Cost, quality, credibility, availability, and efficiency are the important factors that consumers consider the most when purchasing energy efficient appliances [52]. Therefore, EIB, EPA, and PRIP are the key measures, as well as PEP, EVEP, EVII, and PRIE.

5.4. Feedback Effects of Perception of Energy-Conservation Behavior Results

The method of linear regression analysis was used to test the effects of PER to BIEC and behavior. To avoid multi-collinearity among dimensions, variables were decentralized. According to the results of the linear regression analysis (Table 6), PERE showed a positive reinforcement of BIEC, and the regression coefficient was 0.078 under the significance level of 99.99%. As for ECB, PERE had positive reinforcement to HAB, QTB, and EIB, and their regression coefficients were 0.098, 0.135, and 0.146 under the significance level of 99.99%. The regression coefficients showed that the effect of PERE on EIB was greater than on others. However, PERE had no regressive relationship with IFB.
PERS had positive reinforcement to BIEC, and the regression coefficient was 0.293 under the significance level of 99.99%. PERS had positive reinforcement to HAB, QTB, and IFB, and their regression coefficients were 0.085, 0.103, and 0.144 under the significance level of 99.99%. The regression coefficients showed that the effect of PERE on IFB was larger than that of PERS on others. However, PERS had no regressive relationship with EIB. On the whole, BIEC and PERS had more significant and greater impacts than PERE. Because there were significant impacts of PER on BIEC and ECB, it is not only necessary to provide access to the information regarding the economic benefits of energy saving but also to promote spiritual satisfaction of ECB by means of persuasion and education.

5.5. Hypothesis Test and Model Correction

On the basis of the empirical analysis results, the hypotheses could be tested. Hypothesis 1, i.e., BIEC has a positive effect on all of the four behaviors, passed the test. Hypothesis 2, i.e., contextual factors have significant modulatory effects on the path of BIEC to the four types of behavior, partially passed the test, because SNEC had an insignificant modulatory effect on EIB, and PRIE had an insignificant modulatory effect on IFB. Hypothesis 3, i.e., the two types of PER have significant impacts on BIEC, was totally significant and passed the test. Hypothesis 4, i.e., the two types of PER have significant impacts on the four types of behavior, partially passed the test because PERE had an insignificant effect on IFB, and PERS had an insignificant adjustment effect on EIB. Based on the empirical analysis conclusion, the conceptual framework was amended, as shown in Figure 2.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

In this paper, ECB was divided into four types, considering habit adjustment, quality threshold, efficiency investment, and interpersonal facilitation. A comprehensive conceptual framework was built, adding PBR and contextual factors from a new perspective. This study analyzed different effects of the intentions of energy conservation behavior on the four types of ECB through empirical tests, and further excavated the modulatory effects of contextual factors on the relationship between intention and behavior. The effect of perception of energy conservation results on intention and four types of behavior was examined in an empirical analysis. The conclusions and policy implications are as follows.
First, based on the empirical analysis of the investigation results, BIEC is the determinant of behavior, but BIEC does not well translate into behavior. An individual with high BIEC may not have high frequency of implementing the ECB. The degree of transformation of BIEC to different ECB is discrepant. Among the four types of ECB, QTB and IFB residents are most reluctant to act on QTB and IFB. Unless they are environmentalists or residents with high economic pressure, most of the public are reluctant to save energy at the expense of quality of life. Therefore, guiding ECB should pay more attention to the other types of behavior. As for IFB, China is a high-context country where people’s behavior is more influenced by others, but conspicuous consumption is still widely affecting people in our society without a good climate for energy conservation. Energy conservation has not yet become the daily topic concerning the public. A supportive environment for interpersonal facilitation is lacking. The policy should focus on shaping the mainstream consumption concept of green, pro-environmental, and energy conservation to be the new fashion. Platforms and opportunities for energy conservation communication should be provided; consequently, people will be more willing to take the initiative to exchange and promote energy conservation. More efforts should be made to publicize the knowledge and skills of energy conservation, thus residents can master more energy conservation skills and form habits of energy conservation in daily life. Practitioners should standardize the market for energy efficient products and guide people to give priority to energy efficient products when buying energy consuming products.
Second, contextual factors have positive effects on the relationship between intention and behavior, but for different types of energy saving behaviors, the significance is different. SNEC has a positive effect on the relationship between BIEC and HAB. QTB, IFB. PEP, EVEP, and EVII can positively affect the relationship between BIEC and the four types of ECB. There are negative effects of PRIE and PRIP; PRIE has a negative effect on the relationship between BIEC and HAB, QTB, and EIB, while PRIP negatively affects the relationship between BIEC and EIB. The results of the empirical test imply that SNEC is not well received, and that policies of ECB are not well popularized or implemented. It is not easy to obtain related and useful information about energy conservation. To a great extent, modulating effects of contextual factors as amplifiers makes no effective difference. Therefore, it is urgent that it be promoted, and when designing specific contents of policies guiding ECB, it would be beneficial to consider these differences to ensure the effectiveness of the policy. Shaping SNEC, strengthening the PEP and EVEP, and enriching information intervention approaches will be more conducive to guiding the ECB of residents. Optimizing energy saving product attributes and rationalizing prices of energy and efficiency products will be also beneficial.
Finally, PERE has a positive impact on BIEC and HAB, QTB, EIB, while PERS positively affects HAB, EIB, and IFB. PERE has a larger incentive effect on BIEC than PERS, but the evaluations of PER are lower than BIEC. Optimizing the present contextual factors and thereby strengthening PER is particularly important for providing access to the information of economic benefits of energy saving and promoting satisfaction of energy conservation by means of persuasion and education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.Y. and R.L.; Data curation, T.Y., J.L. and H.L.; Formal Analysis, T.Y., J.L. and H.L.; Investigation, T.Y., J.L. and H.L.; Methodology, T.Y.; Resources, T.Y., and R.L.; Validation, R.L. and H.C.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, T.Y., J.L. and H.L.; Writing-Review & Editing, T.Y. and R.L.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the project of National Natural Science Fund of China (Grant no. 71603257, 71874188 and 71603255), the project of General Financial Grant from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant no. 2016M601920), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no. 2015QNA17), the Major project of National Social Science Funding of China (grant No. 18AZD014 and 16ZDA056), and the Innovation Team Program of the China University of Mining and Technology (grant No. 2015ZY003).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wei, J.; Chen, H.; Long, R. Determining multi-layer factors that drive the carbon capability of urban residents in response to climate change: An exploratory qualitative study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018, 15, 1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wang, Q.W.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Shen, N.; Liu, T. Have Chinese cities achieved the win–win between environmental protection and economic development? From the perspective of environmental efficiency. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 51, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? J. Econ. Psychol. 2009, 30, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhou, K.; Yang, S.L. Understanding household energy consumption behavior: The contribution of energy big data analytics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 810–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Q.W.; Su, B.; Sun, J.S.; Zhou, P.; Zhou, D. Measurement and decomposition of energy-saving and emissions reduction performance in Chinese cities. Appl. Energy 2015, 151, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China (NBSC). China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistical Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
  7. Wang, J.M.; Wu, L.C. The impact of emotions on the intention of sustainable consumption choices: Evidence from a big city in an emerging country. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dong, F.; Yu, B.; Hua, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y. A Comparative Analysis of Residential Energy Consumption in Urban and Rural China: Determinants and Regional Disparities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018, 15, 2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Yue, T.; Long, R.Y.; Chen, H. Factors influencing energy-saving behavior of urban households in Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ajzen, I.; Driver, B.L. Prediction of participation from behavior, normative and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leis. Sci. 1991, 13, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Triandis Harry, C. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Neb. Symp. Motiv. 1979, 27, 195–259. [Google Scholar]
  13. Valkila, N.; Saari, A. Attitude–behavior gap in energy issues: Case study of three different Finnish residential areas. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Geng, J.C.; Long, R.Y.; Chen, H.; Li, W. Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mi, L.Y.; Xue, Y.; Yang, J.; Lu, J. Influence of conspicuous consumption motivation on high-carbon consumption behavior of residents—An empirical case study of Jiangsu province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, J.G.; Wang, J.M.; Du, Y. A review of the research on the attitude behavior gap in green consumption and future prospects. Collect. Essays Finan. Econ. 2017, 11, 95–103. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  17. Meyer, A. Heterogeneity in the preferences and pro-environmental behavior of college students: The effects of years on campus, demographics, and external factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3451–3463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ajzen, I. Residual effects of past on later behavior habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2002, 6, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knussena, C.; Yule, F.; MacKenzie, J.; Wells, M. An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: The roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zsóka, Á.; Szerényi, M.Z.; Széchy, A.; Kocsis, T. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gadenne, D.; Sharma, B.; Kerr, D.; Smith, T. The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7684–7694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sütterlin, B.; Brunner, A.T.; Siegrist, M. Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 8137–8152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tongleta, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Bates, M.P. Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behaviour: Waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Z.H.; Zhang, B.; Yin, J.H. Determinants of public acceptance of tiered electricity price reform in China: Evidence from four urban cities. Appl. Energy 2012, 91, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Black, J.S.; Stern, P.C.; Elworth, J.T. Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations. J. Appl. Psychol. 1985, 70, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Han, Q.; Nieuwenhijsen, I.; Vries, B.; Blokhuis, E.; Schaefer, W. Intervention strategy to stimulate energy-saving behavior of local residents. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 706–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Geng, J.C.; Long, R.Y.; Chen, H. Impact of information intervention on travel mode choice of urban residents with different goal frames: A controlled trial in Xuzhou, China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Beunder, A.; Groot, L. Energy consumption, cultural background and payment structure. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behavior: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gärling, T.; Fujii, S.; Garling, A.; Jakobsson, C. Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of pro-environmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chan, Y.K.R. Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Survey findings and implications. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 1999, 11, 25–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Podgornik, A.; Sucic, B.; Blazic, B. Effects of customized consumption feedback on energy efficient behaviour in low-income households. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 130, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gillingham, K.; Newell, R.; Palmer, K. Energy efficiency policies: A retrospective examination. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 161–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oikonomou, V.; Becchis, F.; Steg LRussolillo, D. Energy saving and energy efficiency concepts for policy making. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4787–4796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, K. The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Litvinea, D.; Wüstenhagen, R. Helping “light green” consumers walk the talk: Results of a behavioral intervention survey in the Swiss electricity market. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 462–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Z.H.; Zhang, B.; Ying, J.H.; Zhang, Y. Determinants and policy implications for household electricity-saving behavior: Evidence from Beijing, China. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3550–3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Attari, S.Z.; De Kay, M.L.; Davidson, C.I.; Bruine de Bruin, W. Public perceptions of energy consumption and savings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 107, 16054–16059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hara, K.; Uwasu, M.; Kishita, Y.; Takeda, H. Determinant factors of residential consumption and perception of energy conservation: Time-series analysis by large-scale questionnaire in Suita, Japan. Energy Policy 2015, 87, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Whitmarsh, L. Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gerbing, D.W.; Hamilton, J.G. Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Struct. Equ. Model. 1996, 3, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Selvefors, A.; Karlsson, I.; Rahe, U. Conflicts in everyday life: The influence of competing goals on domestic energy conservation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5963–5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, W.B.; Yang, M.Y.; Sandu, S.W. Electric vehicles in China: A review of current policies. Energy Environ. 2018, 29, 1512–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Du, L.M.; Guo, J.; Wei, C. Impact of information feedback on residential electricity demand in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, E.S.T.; Lin, H.C. Sustainable development: The effects of social normative beliefs on environmental behaviour. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aydin, E.; Brounen, D. The impact of policy on residential energy consumption. Energy 2017, 169, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jia, J.J.; Xu, J.H.; Fan, Y. Public acceptance of household energy-saving measures in Beijing: Heterogeneous preferences and policy implications. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, C.; Zhou, K.; Yang, S.L. A review of residential tiered electricity pricing in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gaspar, R.; Antunes, D. Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in Europe: Consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7335–7346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 16 00939 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of energy conservation behavior (ECB).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of energy conservation behavior (ECB).
Ijerph 16 00939 g001
Ijerph 16 00939 g002 550
Figure 2. The modified conceptual framework of ECB.
Figure 2. The modified conceptual framework of ECB.
Ijerph 16 00939 g002
Table
Table 1. Abbreviations and definitions of variables.
Table 1. Abbreviations and definitions of variables.
VariablesAbbreviationsDefinitions
Energy conservation behavior (ECB)Habit-adjustment behaviorHABThe adjustment of behavior habits to reduce the use of energy without sacrificing the quality of life
Quality-threshold behaviorQTBChanges in the daily use of energy under conditions of sacrifice of a certain quality of life
Efficiency-investment behaviorEIBReducing energy activities by investing in energy efficient products or equipment to improve energy efficiency
Interpersonal-facilitation behaviorIFBPromoting others’ energy conservation behavior through interpersonal activity
Behavior intention of energy conservationBIECIndividual’s intention to make efforts to implement energy conservation behaviors
Perception about energy conservation results (PER)Perception about energy conservation results on economic savingsPEREPerception about the economic savings achieved from the actual energy conservation behavior
Perception about energy conservation results in spiritual satisfactionPERSPerception about the spiritual satisfaction achieved from the actual energy conservation behavior.
Contextual factors (CF)Social norms of energy conservationSNECThe norms including the climate, the code of ethics, the state of public opinion and the code of conduct for energy conservation
Popularization of energy conservation policyPEPThe degree of residents’ familiarity to energy conservation policy
Execution and validity of energy conservation policyEVEPThe influencing degree of energy-conservation policy to residents’ energy conservation behavior
Execution and validity of information interventionEVIIThe availability and usefulness of energy information
Price of energy PRIEThe price level of energy products used by residents in daily life, including electricity and gas prices
Energy conservation product attributesEPAThe attributes including the technical level, service quality, credibility and availability of energy conservation products
Price of energy conservation productsPRIPThe price of efficiency household energy conservation appliances.
Table
Table 2. Distribution of social-demographic characteristics factors.
Table 2. Distribution of social-demographic characteristics factors.
VariablesItemPercent (%)VariablesItemPercent (%)
GenderMale48.85OccupationWorker17.30
Female51.15Civil servant16.79
Age18–28 29.24Educator, scientist13.22
29–4434.46Private enterprise owners or employees16.38
45–5928.39
Over 597.91Individual business owners or employees 19.77
EducationJunior middle school or below4.33Retiree, the unemployed 10.85
Others 5.69
Senior middle school18.45Family incomeLess than ¥3000 11.94
Junior college29.68¥3001 to ¥500017.37
Bachelor32.71¥5001 to ¥10,000 36.51
Master and above14.83¥10,001 to ¥20,000 29.11
Over ¥20,0005.07
Table
Table 3. Results of scales test and descriptive statistics analysis.
Table 3. Results of scales test and descriptive statistics analysis.
VariablesItems (N)Cronbach’s AlphaKMOBartlett’s Test of SphericitySig0.MeansS0.D0.
ECBHAB40.8600.89498,300.4510.00030.4210.168
QTB40.8540.00020.5810.183
EIB30.8160.00020.9910.265
IFB30.8240.00020.3610.376
IECB40.8350.8636920.7740.00030.2500.959
PERPERE20.7010.8457560.2380.00030.0400.912
PERS20.7790.00020.8300.933
CFSNEC40.8120.781146,720.5830.00020.4500.985
PEP40.8240.00020.6610.371
EVEP20.7690.00020.3210.293
EVII20.6750.00020.9500.955
EPA 400.84200.00030.2100.941
PRIE200.88100.00030.4600.927
PRIP200.84300.00030.9500.916
Table
Table 4. Correlativity test of variables.
Table 4. Correlativity test of variables.
HABQTBEIBIFBBIECPERSNECPEPEVEPEVIIPRIEPRIPEPA
HAB1
QTB0.385 **1
EIB0.326 **0.438 **1
IFB0.342 **0.371 **0.384**1
BIEC0.393 **0.246 **0.317**0.269 **1
PER0.352 **0.229 **0.319 **0.265 **0.421 **1
SNEC0.245 **0.231 **0.198 **0.275 **0.173 **0.109 **1
PEP0.134 **0.117 **0.294 **0.177 **0.151 **0.147 **0.134 **1
EVEP0.084 **0.076 **0.114 **0.189 **0.132 **0.165 **0.147 **0.143 **1
EVII0.126 **0.115 **0.104 **0.172 **0.203 **0.175 **0.204 **0.186 **0.221 **1
PRIE0.213 **0.278 **0.305 **0.143 **0.227 **0.245 **0.178 **0.058 *0.106 **0.224 **1
PRIP−0.045−0.032−0.186 **0.013−0.123 **−0.257 **−0.035−0.078 *0.0410.0150.0181
EPA0.0320.086 *0.156 **0.0280.131 **0.143 **0.0340.091 *0.0270.0310.0290.145 **1
Note: * p < 0.05 level, ** p < 0.01 level.
Table
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis of the modulatory effects.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis of the modulatory effects.
HABQTB
IIIIIIIIIIII
BIEC0.412 ***0.385 ***0.357 ***0.406 **0.371 **0.344 **
SNEC 0.198 ***0.112 *** 0.214 **0.143 **
PEP 0.209 **0.167 ** 0.223 **0.189 **
EVEP 0.215 **0.181 ** 0.176 ***0.120 ***
EVII 0.210 **0.165 ** 0.241 ***0.203 **
PRIE 0.186 ***0.132 *** 0.183 ***0.139 **
BIEC×SNEC 0.111 *** 0.074 **
BIEC×PEP 0.095 ** 0.075 **
BIEC×EVEP 0.142 *** 0.099 **
BIEC×EVII 0.079 * 0.091 **
BIEC×PRIE 0.103 ** 0.094 **
R20.2550.2830.3390.2100.2430.285
F-value4090.5671950.2491420.0463450.8642010.5221230.554
EIBIFB
IIIIIIIIIIII
BIEC0.391 ***0.365 ***0.330 ***0.417 **0.384 **0.349 **
SNEC 0.145 ***0.116 *** 0.184 ***0.150 ***
PEP 0.165 ***0.135 *** 0.257 **0.216 **
EVEP 0.238 **0.201 ** 0.193 ***0.154 **
EVII 0.221 **0.186 ** 0.218 **0.183 **
PRIE 0.165 ***0.124 ** 0.204 **0.168 **
PRIP 0.181 ***0.132 **
EPA 0.205 ***0.173 **
BIEC×SNEC 051 0.085 **
BIEC×PEP 0.117 *** 0.031
BIEC×EVEP 0.077 * 0.102 **
BIEC×EVII 0.082 * 0.113 **
BIEC×PRIE 0.105 ** 0.044
BIEC×EPA 0.136 ***
BIEC×PRIP −0.154 ***
R20.2410.2790.3120.1980.2360.274
F-value2470.2361540.3761070.8542590.2451740.6981200.631
Note: * p < 0.05 level, ** p < 0.01 level, *** p < 0.001 level. R2 is the coefficient of determination.
Table
Table 6. Linear regression analysis of perception of energy conservation behavior results.
Table 6. Linear regression analysis of perception of energy conservation behavior results.
Dependent VariableIndependent VariableStandardized Regression Coefficientst-ValueSig0.
BIECC 270.7480.000
PERE0.07840.6730.000
PERS0.29370.7620.000
HABC 210.3650.000
PERE0.09840.8040.000
PERS0.08540.7030.000
QTBC 250.0010.000
PERE0.13550.9550.000
PERS0.10340.9090.000
EIBC 160.0640.000
PERE0.14660.2570.000
PERS0.01310.0530.060
IFBC 170.6340.000
PERE0.04210.1780.033
PERS0.14450.9310.000

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yue, T.; Long, R.; Liu, J.; Liu, H.; Chen, H. Empirical Study on Households’ Energy-Conservation Behavior of Jiangsu Province in China: The Role of Policies and Behavior Results. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060939

AMA Style

Yue T, Long R, Liu J, Liu H, Chen H. Empirical Study on Households’ Energy-Conservation Behavior of Jiangsu Province in China: The Role of Policies and Behavior Results. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(6):939. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yue, Ting, Ruyin Long, Junli Liu, Haiwen Liu, and Hong Chen. 2019. "Empirical Study on Households’ Energy-Conservation Behavior of Jiangsu Province in China: The Role of Policies and Behavior Results" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 6: 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060939

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop