Linking Perceived Policy Effectiveness and Proenvironmental Behavior: The Influence of Attitude, Implementation Intention, and Knowledge
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theory of Planned Behavior
2.2. Attitude–Behavior–Condition Theory
2.3. Waste-Sorting Policy Instruments in Shanghai
3. Hypotheses
3.1. Perceived Policy Effectiveness, Implementation Intention, and Proenvironmental Behavior
3.2. The Mediating Roles of Attitude and Implementation Intention
3.3. The Moderating Role of Knowledge
4. Methods
4.1. Participants and Procedure
4.2. Measures
4.3. Data Analysis
5. Results
5.1. Proenvironmental Behavior
5.2. Measurement Model
5.3. Structural Path Model
6. Discussion
6.1. Contributions
6.2. Practical Implications
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sauvé, S.; Bernard, S.; Sloan, P. Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environ. Dev. 2016, 17, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Ecology and Environment. Annual Report on Environmental Pollution Prevention and Control of Solid Wastes in Large and Medium Cities in China in 2019. Available online: http://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/gtfwyhxpgl/gtfw/201912/P020191231360445518365.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2019).
- Liu, A.; Osewe, M.; Wang, H.; Xiong, H. Rural residents’ awareness of environmental protection and waste classification behavior in Jiangsu, China: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Manandhar, A.; Li, G.; Shah, A. Life cycle assessment of integrated solid state anaerobic digestion and composting for on-farm organic residues treatment. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clarke, B.O.; Anumol, T.; Barlaz, M.; Snyder, S.A. Investigating landfill leachate as a source of trace organic pollutants. Chemosphere 2015, 127, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bridges, O.; Bridges, J.W.; Potter, J.F. A generic comparison of the airborne risks to human health from landfill and incinerator disposal of municipal solid waste. Environmentalist 2000, 20, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress. Shanghai Municipal Solid Waste Management Regulation. Available online: http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/nw12344/20200813/0001-12344_58275.html (accessed on 26 February 2019).
- Ntabe, E.N.; LeBel, L.; Munson, A.D.; Santa-Eulalia, L.-A. A systematic literature review of the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model application with special attention to environmental issues. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 169, 310–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirsh, J.B. Personality and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, H.; Mangmeechai, A. Understanding the gap between environmental intention and pro-environmental behavior towards the waste sorting and management policy of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, S. Procedural information and behavioral control: Longitudinal analysis of the intention-behavior gap in the context of recycling. Recycling 2018, 3, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagger, M.S.; Luszczynska, A. Implementation intention and action planning interventions in health contexts: State of the research and proposals for the way forward. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2014, 6, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Webb, T.L.; Sheeran, P. How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 43, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guagnano, G.A.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okumah, M.; Ankomah-Hackman, P. Applying conditional process modelling to investigate factors influencing the adoption of water pollution mitigation behaviours. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dong, F.; Hua, Y. Are Chinese residents willing to recycle express packaging waste? Evidence from a bayesian regularized neural network model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ertz, M.; Karakas, F.; Sarigöllü, E. Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of consumers: An analysis of contextual factors, attitude, and behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3971–3980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. 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. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 97, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, M.-S.; Yeh, H.-M.; Spangler, J. Public constructs of energy values and behaviors in implementing Taiwan’s ‘energy-conservation/carbon-reduction’declarations. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 6, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mu, R. Role of law, position of actor and linkage of policy in China’s national environmental governance system, 1972–2016. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- General Office of the State Council. Implementing the Classification System for Municipal Solid Waste. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-03/30/content_5182124.htm (accessed on 30 March 2017).
- Zhou, M.-H.; Shen, S.-L.; Xu, Y.-S.; Zhou, A.-N. New policy and implementation of municipal solid waste classification in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kostka, G. Command without control: The case of China’s environmental target system. Regul. Gov. 2016, 10, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harring, N. Corruption, inequalities and the perceived effectiveness of economic pro-environmental policy instruments: A European cross-national study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 39, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, M.A.; Swartz, S.M. A multi-dimensional construct of commercial motor vehicle operators’ attitudes toward safety regulations. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2009, 20, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yau, Y. Domestic waste recycling, collective action and economic incentive: The case in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2440–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, J.; Ma, G.; Wei, J.; Wei, W.; He, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Han, X. Evolutionary process of household waste separation behavior based on social networks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 105009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, G.; Horlick-Jones, T.; Walls, J.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.F. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Underst. Sci. 2008, 17, 419–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmunds, J.; Ntoumanis, N.; Duda, J.L. A test of self-determination theory in the exercise domain. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 36, 2240–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G. Perceived policy effectiveness and recycling behaviour: The missing link. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 783–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on recycling intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 37, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubell, M. Collaborative institutions, belief-systems, and perceived policy effectiveness. Political Res. Q. 2003, 56, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Yu, A.T. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 83, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngah, A.H.; Garbarre, S.; Jeevan, J.; Salleh, N.H.M.; Hanafiah, R.M. To pay or not to pay: Measuring the effect of religiosity in the ABC theory. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 795–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Tan, X.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Tao, Y.; Qian, Y. Investigation on decision-making mechanism of residents’ household solid waste classification and recycling behaviors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shipeng, S.; Xin, L.; Ansheng, H.; Xiaoxia, S. Public participation in rural environmental governance around the water source of Xiqin water works in Fujian. J. Resour. Ecol. 2018, 9, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afroz, R.; Rahman, A.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R. The knowledge, awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective in Malaysia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 2304–2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiafu, S.; Yu, Y.; Tao, Y. Measuring knowledge diffusion efficiency in R&D networks. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2018, 16, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babaei, A.A.; Alavi, N.; Goudarzi, G.; Teymouri, P.; Ahmadi, K.; Rafiee, M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadrich, J.C.; Van Winkle, A. Awareness and pro-active adoption of surface water BMPs. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charoensukmongkol, P. The role of mindfulness in reducing English language anxiety among Thai college students. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2019, 22, 414–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau. Shanghai Statistical Yearbook. Available online: http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/nw12344/20200813/0001-12344_58275.html (accessed on 27 April 2020).
- Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.S.; Read, A.D. Using the theory of planned behaviour to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollwitzer, P.M.; Brandstätter, V. Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleveland, M.; Kalamas, M.; Laroche, M. “It’s not easy being green”: Exploring green creeds, green deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimberlin, C.L.; Winterstein, A.G. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2008, 65, 2276–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, L.; Zhang, G.; Zhu, Y.; Lin, T. Promoting public participation in household waste management: A survey based method and case study in Xiamen city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.A.; Stine, R. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociol. Methodol. 1990, 20, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, M.G. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 1985, 36, 305–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rogerson, P.A. Statistical Methods for Geography: A Student’s Guide, 5th ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Preacher, K.J.; Curran, P.J.; Bauer, D.J. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2006, 31, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bruin, M.; Sheeran, P.; Kok, G.; Hiemstra, A.; Prins, J.M.; Hospers, H.J.; Van Breukelen, G.J.P. Self-regulatory processes mediate the intention-behavior relation for adherence and exercise behaviors. Health Psychol. 2012, 31, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Su, J.; Zhang, F.; Chen, S.; Zhang, N.; Wang, H.; Jian, J. Member selection for the collaborative new product iInnovation teams integrating individual and collaborative attributions. Complexity 2021, 2021, 8897784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, T. Live better by consuming less?: Is there a “double dividend” in sustainable consumption? J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, J.; Li, C.; Zeng, Q.; Yang, J.; Zhang, J. A green closed-loop supply chain coordination mechanism based on third-party recycling. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kodama, T. Environmental education in formal education in Japan. Jpn. J. Environ. Educ. 2017, 26, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
District Zone | District | Population (Million) a | Distributed | Returned |
---|---|---|---|---|
Eastern SH | Pudong | 5.550 | 900 | 478 |
Southern SH | Fengxian | 1.152 | 200 | 114 |
Western SH | Qingpu | 1.219 | 200 | 136 |
Northern SH | Baoshan | 2.042 | 300 | 145 |
Central SH | Minhang | 2.544 | 400 | 272 |
Total | 12.507 a | 2000 | 1145 |
Profiles | Survey | Census a |
---|---|---|
Respondent age (%) | ||
≤17 | 10.1 | ≤14 (10.1%) |
18–28 | 27.2 | 15–64 (73.8%) |
29–44 | 33.0 | - |
45–59 | 19.0 | - |
≥60 | 10.7 | ≥65 (16.1%) |
Respondent gender (%) | ||
Male | 52.6 | 49.5 |
Female | 47.4 | 50.5 |
Respondent education level (%) | ||
Below high school | 9.4 | |
High school/Vocational school | 10.4 | |
College/University | 62.2 | |
Master or Ph.D. | 18.0 | |
Monthly salary (%) | ||
≤5000 CNY | 35.2 | Mean 8765 CNY |
5001–10,000 CNY | 29.4 | |
10,001–20,000 CNY | 23.0 | |
≥20,001 CNY | 12.3 |
Items | Loadings | Cα | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived policy effectiveness | 0.920 | 0.641 | 0.925 | |
PPE1: The Government has increased financial investment to support waste sorting. | 0.687 | |||
PPE2: The environmental programs organized by the Government have effectively aroused environmental awareness in the general public. | 0.802 | |||
PPE3: The Government provides clear guidelines and regulations on waste sorting. | 0.856 | |||
PPE4: The Government campaign helps citizens understand the importance of waste sorting. | 0.886 | |||
PPE5: The Government campaign clearly explains the benefits of waste sorting. | 0.878 | |||
PPE6: The Government promotes waste sorting as a positive symbol, label, image, and event. | 0.869 | |||
PPE7: The Government’s policy facilitates me in the separation and recycling of household waste. | 0.574 | |||
Attitude | 0.905 | 0.762 | 0.906 | |
ATT1: Waste sorting is sensible. | 0.863 | |||
ATT2: Waste sorting is useful. | 0.861 | |||
ATT3: My feelings towards waste sorting are favorable. | 0.894 | |||
Implementation intention | 0.889 | 0.729 | 0.890 | |
IMP1: For the next garbage discard, I plan to separate everything in advance when I am at home. | 0.876 | |||
IMP2: For the next garbage discard, I plan to put paper waste and plastic bottles into the recycling bin provided by the Government. | 0.827 | |||
IMP3: For the next garbage discard, I plan to put wet waste into the designated trash can within the stipulated time. | 0.858 | |||
Proenvironmental behavior | 0.891 | 0.628 | 0.894 | |
PEB1: During the previous week, how often did you separate wet waste? | 0.753 | |||
PEB2: During the previous week, how often did you separate dry waste? | 0.777 | |||
PEB3: During the previous week, how often did you recycle paper and paper products? | 0.795 | |||
PEB4: During the previous week, how often did you separate recyclable bottles (e.g., plastic bottles, aluminum/tin cans, glass bottles) and containers? | 0.815 | |||
PEB5: During the previous week, how often did you separate waste for recycling purposes? | 0.821 |
Variables | Categories (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Rarely | Sometimes | Often | Always | |
How often do you separate wet waste? | 0.4% | 1.4% | 7.2% | 40.0% | 51.0% |
How often do you separate dry waste? | 0.5% | 0.7% | 5.5% | 40.4% | 52.8% |
How often do you recycle paper and paper products? | 0.8% | 3.2% | 13.3% | 36.3% | 46.4% |
How often do you separate recyclable bottles and containers? | 0.7% | 2.6% | 12.2% | 38.0% | 46.5% |
How often do you separate waste for recycling purposes? | 1.5% | 2.6% | 13.6% | 36.9% | 45.4% |
Construct | Mean | SD | PPE | ATT | IMP | PEB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PPE | 4.122 | 0.657 | (0.801) | |||
ATT | 4.391 | 0.754 | 0.511 ** | (0.873) | ||
IMP | 4.326 | 0.653 | 0.665 ** | 0.558 ** | (0.854) | |
PEB | 4.315 | 0.666 | 0.533 ** | 0.416 ** | 0.659 ** | (0.792) |
Point Estimate | Product of Coefficients | Bootstrapping | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentile 95% CI | Bias-Corrected 95% CI | Two-Tailed Significance | ||||||
SE | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||
Direct effects | ||||||||
PPE → IMP | 0.541 | 0.040 | 13.525 | 0.456 | 0.613 | 0.461 | 0.619 | 0.000 (***) |
PPE → PEB | 0.128 | 0.044 | 2.909 | 0.040 | 0.215 | 0.039 | 0.215 | 0.004 (**) |
Indirect effects | ||||||||
PPE → IMP | 0.178 | 0.031 | 5.742 | 0.124 | 0.247 | 0.125 | 0.248 | 0.000 (***) |
PPE → PEB | 0.454 | 0.039 | 11.641 | 0.378 | 0.531 | 0.384 | 0.537 | 0.000 (***) |
Total effects | ||||||||
PPE → IMP | 0.719 | 0.026 | 27.654 | 0.664 | 0.765 | 0.666 | 0.767 | 0.000 (***) |
PPE → PEB | 0.583 | 0.031 | 18.806 | 0.520 | 0.640 | 0.520 | 0.640 | 0.000 (***) |
Variable | ATT | IMP | PEB | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 1 | Step 2 | |
Constant | 0.000 | 0.047 | ||||
PPE | 0.352 *** | 0.324 *** | ||||
KNO | 0.276 *** | 0.263 *** | ||||
PPE × KNO | −0.082 *** | |||||
Constant | 0.000 | −0.001 | ||||
ATT | 0.369 *** | 0.370 *** | ||||
KNO | 0.495 *** | 0.395 *** | ||||
ATT × KNO | 0.001 | |||||
Constant | 0.000 | −0.019 | ||||
IMP | 0.536 *** | 0.556 *** | ||||
KNO | 0.215 *** | 0.215 *** | ||||
IMP × KNO | 0.033 * | |||||
F | 259.117 | 185.378 | 433.678 | 288.870 | 498.164 | 335.066 |
R2 | 0.312 | 0.328 | 0.432 | 0.432 | 0.466 | 0.468 |
ΔR2 | 0.312 | 0.016 | 0.432 | 0.000 | 0.466 | 0.002 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, H.; Li, J.; Mangmeechai, A.; Su, J. Linking Perceived Policy Effectiveness and Proenvironmental Behavior: The Influence of Attitude, Implementation Intention, and Knowledge. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062910
Wang H, Li J, Mangmeechai A, Su J. Linking Perceived Policy Effectiveness and Proenvironmental Behavior: The Influence of Attitude, Implementation Intention, and Knowledge. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(6):2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062910
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Huilin, Jiaxuan Li, Aweewan Mangmeechai, and Jiafu Su. 2021. "Linking Perceived Policy Effectiveness and Proenvironmental Behavior: The Influence of Attitude, Implementation Intention, and Knowledge" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6: 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062910