Environmental Information: Different Sources Different Levels of Pro-Environmental Behaviours?

Abstract

The role of final consumers for reaching different environmental policy targets is crucial. Therefore, raising awareness and fostering pro-environmental behaviours is of importance. However, there are a variety of sources for environmental information which can influence the activities undertaken. The study aims to analyse the relationship between different environmental information sources/channels and pro-environmental behaviours indicated by EU citizens. Based on a Eurobarometer survey covering all EU member states of that time, results revealed that television news remains the dominant source of environmental information (69.3%), followed by internet sources (36.7%) and newspapers (29.1%). On average, respondents perform 4.2 of 14 analysed pro-environmental behaviours. Those who indicate books and scientific literature as a source of environmental information on average perform 5.99 activities, compared to 4.8 activities by those receiving information from the internet, and 4.7 activities when information is received from newspapers. Though scientific literature is a source of environmental information for only 6.8% of EU citizens, regression analysis indicates that usage of books or scientific papers is significantly related to the number of actions performed. Internet sources (websites, blogs, forums), newspapers, and films and documentaries on television are other rather strong predictors of pro-environmental behaviour. Though all sources might be of importance for environmental information provision, less employed ones should be promoted and used to raise awareness of environmental issues and corresponding behaviours.

1. Introduction

The role of citizens in achieving different environmental goals is undeniable because citizens can influence decision makers, as well as the environmental situation, via daily life decisions and behaviours [1]. The role of final consumers in tackling environmental challenges, e.g., climate change, plastic pollution, and contributing to a circular economy or renewable energy implementation, is acknowledged and/or showcased by various policy documents (for, e.g., European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy [2], European Climate Pact [3]) and studies (e.g., [4,5,6]). As pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) is of importance to alter consumption patterns and to reduce related environmental pressures, different factors behind it are analysed [7,8,9]. In addition, depending on the different goals, efforts, and costs needed to perform these behaviours [8,10,11], different factors might be important for different behaviours [12]. In general, according to [13], there are various determinants of PEB that can be classified into socio-demographic factors (personal capabilities), attitudinal (psychological) factors, and habitual and contextual (individual, social, and institutional) factors.

Despite the variety of factors, it is considered that the role of environmental information in driving pro-environmental behaviour is crucial [7,14,15,16]. Hence, the influence of environmental education/information is often discussed [14,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Furthermore, the types of information and messages conveyed are also widely addressed [15,16,17,22,23]. Nevertheless, the role of different informational sources in shaping PEB is underrepresented. In most cases, either several or single sources or specific behaviours in a particular country are analysed, e.g., ref. [24] looks at the influence of traditional, social media, interpersonal, and institutional sources on personal experiences and beliefs regarding climate change. Studies [25,26,27] analyse in more detail the influence of documentaries on concern and PEB. Ref. [28] looks at the role of social media for recreational fisheries. Another study [29] analyses the role of mass media in raising climate change awareness. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse the association of environmental information sources/channels with PEB on the European Union level, altogether addressing 14 pro-environmental behaviours and 12 environmental information sources/channels. The main research questions are to find out (i) whether the usage of different environmental information sources is related to a different level of pro-environmental behaviour, and (ii) which environmental information sources, in line with sociodemographic variables, facilitate PEB the most.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Role of Information and Information Sources for PEB

Public information on environmental issues has a positive and significant influence on PEB [30]. Usually, it is considered that via information provision, environmental knowledge and attitudes are altered. Therefore, environmental knowledge and attitudes are most often the dominant factors associated with pro environmental behaviour [12,15,22,30,31]. A 1% increase in environmental information disclosure increases environmental concern by 1.7%, particularly by adding environmental risk perception and environmental knowledge [21]. Studies [20,32] also find a significant influence of informational tools on pro-environmental behaviours and intentions. The more people are exposed to environmental information, the more they are inclined to behave in a pro-environmental way [18]. Not only information itself, but also the frequency of use of information, is found to be significantly related to PEB [1].

However, despite acknowledged importance [14,18,20,23], informational tools do not always lead to altered environmental knowledge (e.g., [32]). In addition, regarding the influence of knowledge on PEB, mixed results are reported. The awareness–behaviour gap is observed by [33]. Ref. [4] also detects no significant influence of knowledge on attitudes and corresponding behaviours regarding energy conservation. The latter authors indicate that knowledge–awareness–behaviour relationships are not linear, and other factors might be of importance. Ref. [34] summarises that indirect effects might exist and that moderating and mediating factors like social norms or self-efficacy, etc., have to be considered while analysing knowledge–behaviour relationships. In addition, ref. [22] suggests that the type of knowledge could be of importance for PEB. The latter study highlights that action-related knowledge and the effectiveness of the knowledge can influence conservation behaviour directly, while system knowledge only has mediating effects. Ref. [12] indicates that objective and subjective knowledge might influence separate behaviours differently, too. Furthermore, it is suggested that education works only when the audience is already motivated [14]. Ref. [35], in the case of food choices, highlights that consumers who already have an interest in health and sustainability might be more interested in information about food in general; hence, information will most probably reach those who are already motivated, but not the ones who need it most.

Sources/channels (it should be noted that the terms “source” and “channel” quite often are used interchangeably, though sources might use different channels for information dissemination. This study in general represents informational channels but mostly uses the term “source” as it was initially used during the survey) of environmental information can also be of importance for PEB, even considering the case that different sources using different channels might provide mixed and confusing information on certain topics, e.g., on food choices [35]. Ref. [24] shows that the perceived personal experience of climate change is related to the use of traditional media, social media, and interpersonal sources. A study on photovoltaic systems [36] indicates that information from commercial channels influences sustainable attitudes, but only information from third party sources influences the final decision to adopt this technology, i.e., trust in the information provider might be also important [7].

There are various studies on different information sources and their influence on environmental awareness and PEB. In general, media usage is found to promote pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour [37]. Ref. [29] also finds that mass media (television, newspapers, radio, the internet) via awareness, attitudes, and knowledge of climate change influences corresponding PEB. A study on China [37] also reveals that media use (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the internet) is positively related to pro-environmental behaviours. According to [26], mass media generally plays a role in triggering the public awareness. The latter study indicates that the documentary “Under the Dome” has increased the number of calls to hotline concerning air pollution in China. This documentary has increased not only environmental awareness but also the willingness to pay for air quality [27]. Studies [25,38] also state that nature documentaries might have an impact on pro-environmental behaviour. The latter research indicates that watching a nature documentary increases actual donation for animal and environmental protection organizations, but only from those people who already have a strong connectedness to nature.

Regarding television as a source of environmental information, mixed results are reported. Ref. [38] shows television news to contribute to pro-environmental behaviours. A more recent study on China [37] also reveals that television usage is positively related to pro-environmental behaviours, though has less of an influence than newspapers and magazines. Meanwhile, study [39] on six pro environmental behaviours, highlights newspaper use to be positively liked to PEB, but television use (the form of television use not specified) related to fewer pro-environmental behaviours performed. Ref. [40] covering four pro environmental behaviours also found some similar results, in most cases indicating a negative influence of television, in contrast to newspaper use, on the actions taken. It can be the case that viewing more TV can diminish the possibility of using other sources of information. In addition, viewing more TV can be associated with a lack of critical assessment of environmental information or a lack of discussion with others, which, in turn, might lead to lower PEB [39]. The content of TV viewing might also be a significant factor [40]. It is also possible that various information sources have a distinct impact on different behaviours. Ref. [7] finds that the internet contributes to waste reduction and energy saving; TV, radio, and newspapers to energy saving; and other sources like books, publications, and events to water and energy-saving behaviours.

Social media becomes an increasing source of information and is also acknowledged as an appropriate informational channel to shape desired pro-environmental behaviours if accordingly arranged and administrated, as the study on the recreational fishery shows [28]. However, it might be not always the case, as some examples indicate [41]. Social influence and the influence of peers might also be of importance for environmental knowledge and PEB. It is found that communication with friends and family on climate change topics predicts the climate change behaviour of school students [42]. The role of peers, including social networks, for pro-environmental behaviour is also highlighted by [43]. Nevertheless, the influence of peers on PEB is not always found to be significant [20].

2.2. The Role of Sociodemographic Variables for PEB

Socio-demographic variables also shape pro-environmental behaviours. As socio-demographic variables, gender, age, and educational level are often analysed [1,9,12,33]. Research also considers incomes [33,44,45], type/size of community (residential location) [1,9,45], household size [45], employment status [1,12], and even material conditions [1] or social status [9] as predictors for PEB.

Usually, women more often exhibit PEB than men [1,31,33,45]; however, ref. [9] find no effects of gender on PEB. Analysing separate resources and energy-related behaviours [8] also reports different influences of gender e.g., men more often reduced car use and saved energy, but women were more likely to perform other types of analysed behaviours (waste separation, water saving, and other). Hence, gender-related differences in PEB could be determined by the behaviour itself and still existing roles in housekeeping responsibilities. Such characteristics like stronger environmental attitudes, higher level of concern, motivation and socialization, and a higher level of activity in private area-related behaviours might have an influence on the PEB of women, as summarized studies [31] state.

Research regarding age is also not uniform, e.g., ref. [1] finds no significant effect of age on PEB, while [9,18,44] report older people to behave in more responsible ways. When looking for separate behaviours, ref. [8] finds no age influence on buying overpacked products, saving energy, and using a car less, but indicates that older people tend to save water, separate waste, avoid single-use plastic goods, and buy local, eco-labelled products more, in contrast to younger people who more often tend to choose environmentally friendly modes of travel. It is also found that older people tend to save energy and water as well as reducing waste more often [7]. The information, knowledge acquired [18], as well as the cost saving and efforts needed to perform some of the behaviours [8] could explain the influence of age on PEB.

Regarding other sociodemographic factors, no statistically significant effect of the size/type of community on PEB is found [1], but [9] states that respondents from urban areas exhibit higher levels of PEB. Respondents from larger towns tend to avoid single use plastics more often, but separate waste significantly less often [45]. Respondents with higher education levels [1,9] and higher incomes [45] also tend to behave in a more pro-environmental manner.

3. Data and Methods

Analysis is based on Eurobarometer survey covering all EU member states, including the United Kingdom. Cross-sectional study (survey) on environmental attitudes [46] was conducted in December 2019. Survey data for scientific purposes can be obtained at Eurobarometer Data Service. Survey has been conducted by questioning respondents face-to-face in their national language at home (more information on methods can be found in the European Commission [47] report). In total, 27,498 EU citizens were interviewed and 27,057 are included in the analysis (

Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents (N = 27,057).

Variable	%	Variable	%
Gender		Age
Woman	54.2	15–24	8.3
Man	45.8	25–34	12.3
Household size		34–44	14.9
1	22.5	45–54	16.2
2	37.9	55–64	18.8
3	16.9	65 and more	29.5
4 and more	22.7	Difficulties paying bills
Type of community		Most of the time	7.8
Rural area or village	32.9	From time to time	24.5
Small or middle-sized town	38.5	Almost never/never	67.7
Large town	28.6

), excluding respondents who provided no answer in any of analysed variables. The majority of respondents are women and those having no difficulties paying bills (higher income).

During the survey, respondents had to indicate three main sources of information about the environment (“From the following list, which are your three main sources of information about the environment?”). Sources of environmental information included magazines, newspapers, television news, radio, films/documentaries, family/friends/colleagues, books/scientific publications, brochures/informational material, events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.), museums/national or regional parks, online social networks, the internet (websites, blogs, etc.). A dichotomous approach (yes = 1; no = 0) was applied to reveal the main three sources for environmental information.

The study also covered 14 pro-environmental behaviours (

Table 2. Analysed pro-environmental behaviours.

Behaviour	Mean	SD
Chosen a more environmentally friendly way of travelling (walk, bicycle, public transport, electric car)	0.28	0.449
Avoided buying over-packaged products	0.29	0.452
Avoided single-use plastic goods other than plastic bags (e.g., plastic cutlery, cups, plates, etc.) or bought reusable plastic products	0.44	0.497
Separated most of your waste for recycling	0.66	0.474
Cut down your water consumption	0.27	0.446
Cut down your energy consumption (e.g., by turning down air conditioning or heating, not leaving appliances on stand-by, buying energy-efficient appliances)	0.36	0.481
Bought products marked with an environmental label	0.22	0.416
Bought local products	0.44	0.496
Used your car less by avoiding unnecessary trips, working from home (teleworking), etc.	0.19	0.392
Joined a demonstration, attended a workshop, taken part in an activity (e.g., a collective beach or park clean up)	0.06	0.233
Changed your diet to more sustainable food	0.18	0.384
Spoken to others about environmental issues	0.30	0.460
Bought second-hand products (e.g., clothes or electronics) instead of new ones	0.21	0.405
Repaired a product instead of replacing it	0.31	0.463

) undertaken by the respondent during the last 6 months (“Have you done any of the following in the past six months?”). Respondents had a multiple answer option from the list of the behaviours; to capture indicated behaviours, a dichotomous approach was used (1—if respondent has performed certain behaviour, 0—if not). The total number of performed pro-environmental activities by the respondent is used to assess the level of PEB.

A t-test was applied to reveal mean differences in the number of pro-environmental behaviours undertaken within respondents who indicated a particular environmental information source and those who did not. To estimate the influence of different environmental information sources and socio-demographic variables on the number of environmental behaviours performed, a generalized linear regression was applied. The same approach was applied for assessing the influence of sociodemographic variables on the usage of a particular environmental information source.

4. Results

4.1. Sources for the Environmental Information

The results reveal that television news remains the dominant source of environmental information (69.5%), followed by internet sources like websites, blogs, forums, etc. (36.8%), and national, regional, or local newspapers (29.2%) (Figure 1). Online social networks are the source of information for 18% of EU citizens. Only 1.9% of respondents indicated museums and national or regional parks to be a source of environmental information; this was the least often indicated option from the provided ones. Some 1.5% of respondents gained information from some other sources and 1.7% say they were not interested in environment.

Women more often indicate TV news, online social networks, and family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues as a source of environmental information than men, but less often indicate other internet sources, newspapers, and books and scientific publications (

Table 3. Regression results for nine most often indicated sources for environmental information.

Variable	Television News	Other Internet (Websites, etc.)	Newspapers	Radio	Films, Documentaries	Online Social Networks	Family, Friends, Colleagues	Magazines	Books, Scientific Publications
Gender [women]	0.195	−0.158	−0.106	−0.006	0.023	0.11	0.185	−0.013	−0.252
Age	0.326	−0.372	0.288	0.201	−0.047	−0.497	−0.078	0.063	−0.111
Type of community	−0.137	0.111	0.071	−0.149	0.120	0.09	0.015	0.039	0.245
Household size	0.068	0.092	−0.002	−0.062	−0.002	0.107	−0.003	−0.012	−0.044
Incomes	−0.137	0.409	0.416	0.151	0.036	0.041	−0.188	0.02	0.299

Bold values p < 0.001, bold italic p < 0.05; for all sources Omnibus test < 0.05.

). Age is found to have association with all nine sources of environmental information; however, of different pattern. Older respondents tend to indicate television news, newspapers, radio, and magazines as a source of environmental information more often, while younger ones indicate the internet and social media. No relationship between community type and family, friends, and colleagues, as well as magazine use, as a source of environmental information was recorded, but respondents from smaller towns tend to use TV news and radio more often than ones from larger towns. Those having lower incomes more often relied on their peers as a source of environmental information (Table 3).

4.2. Level of Pro-Environmental Behaviours

Regarding the pro-environmental behaviours, the most often indicated pro-environmental behaviour on an EU level is waste separation (mean 0.66) (Table 2), followed by avoiding single-use plastic goods other than plastic bags (mean 0.44) and buying local products. Respondents have least often joined a demonstration, attended a workshop or taken part in an activity (e.g., a collective beach or park clean up) (mean 0.06), or changed their diet to more sustainable food (mean 0.18) (Table 2). In other words, 65.9% of the respondents have separated waste, but only 5.8% have joined some demonstration or taken part in an activity. Some 3.6% have undertaken none of the actions.

On average, respondents performed 4.2 of 14 analysed pro-environmental behaviours. Those who included books and scientific literature within the three main sources of environmental information on average performed 5.99 activities, compared to 5.19 activities of those receiving environmental information during various events, 4.83 activities of those receiving information from the internet, and 4.76 activities when information is received from newspapers (

Table 4. Mean of the number of pro-environmental activities performed according to the source of environmental information indicated by the respondents.

Source of Environmental Information	Mean of Activities Performed		t Test	p
	Indicated as a Source	Not Indicated as a Source
Television news	4.1	4.47	−10.32	<0.001
Magazines	4.36	4.2	2.505	<0.05
Radio	4.37	4.15	5.57	<0.001
Films, documentaries	4.93	3.99	24.13	<0.001
Family, friends, neighbours, or colleagues	4.34	4.19	3.49	<0.001
Books, scientific publications	5.99	4.09	29.07	<0.001
Brochures, informational material	4.71	4.2	5.87	<0.001
Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.),	5.19	4.19	10.01	<0.001
Museums, national or regional parks	4.41	4.21	1.56	>0.05
Online social networks	4.55	4.14	9.37	<0.001
The internet (websites, blogs, forums, etc.)	4.83	3.86	28.49	<0.001
Newspapers	4.76	3.99	21.3	<0.001

Italics p > 0.05.

). TV news is related to the lowest number of pro-environmental behaviours undertaken in general. Also, it is interesting to note that those who have not indicated TV news as a source of environmental information performed more pro-environmental behaviours on average (mean 4.47), compared to those who indicated TV news as one of the main three environmental information sources (mean 4.1) (t = −10.32, p < 0.001). Only in the case of museums and parks were insignificant differences observed, comparing the number of pro-environmental behaviours of those who indicated this source of environmental information and those who did not (t = 1.59, p > 0.05). All other sources (except TV news) seem to indicate a higher number of pro-environmental behaviours undertaken (Table 4).

4.3. Determinants for Pro-Environmental Behaviours

Though scientific literature is the source of environmental information for only 6.8% EU citizens, regression analysis indicates books or scientific papers to be the strongest predictor of the number of actions performed (β = 2.24, p < 0.001). Other relatively strong predictors of PEB include internet sources (websites, blogs, forums) (β = 1.49, p < 0.001), films and documentaries on television (β = 1.39, p < 0.001), and newspapers (β = 1.33, p < 0.001). From the analysed sources of environmental information, television news is the least associated with the number of PEBs (β = 0.56. p < 0.001).

From sociodemographic variables, income has the strongest association with the number of pro-environmental behaviours performed (β = 0.43, p < 0.001), showcasing higher incomes (having no difficulties paying bills) to be positively related to a higher level of PEB. In addition, women, older respondents, and those from larger towns have exhibited more PEB during the last six months, with household size being insignificant (β = 0.03, p > 0.05).

5. Discussion and Implications

As PEB increases with a person’s exposure to environmental information, it is expected that at least some of the persons will act in environmentally friendly way [18]. The representative EU sample was used for this study to reveal the role of different environmental information sources. This study shows that the dominant sources of information on the EU level are television news, followed by internet and newspapers. Studies outside the EU also reveal that TV and newspapers are dominant sources of information, e.g., about climate change in Malaysia [29]. Traditional media is the most often used source in the case of Singapore [24].

The results reveal that socioeconomic variables have an influence on the type of the sources of environmental information used (Table 3). Women more often indicate TV news, online social networks, and family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues as a source of environmental information than men, but men more often use the internet, newspapers, and books and scientific publications. Ref. [40] likewise shows that women tend to spend more time on television, meanwhile newspapers are more preferred by men. This study also reveals that older respondents more often use television news, newspapers, radio, and magazines as a source of environmental information, meanwhile younger respondents tend to use the internet more. The latter is in line with the results of [7], who found that older people use TV, radio, and newspapers more as a source of information, in contrast to younger people who prefer the internet. Other studies also report that older respondents watch more television news [38] and more television in general [40]. Potentially, this could be explained by the ease of use and technology availability, as well as habitual behaviour. The same could be applied to the preference for newspapers. Regarding the usage of other informational sources, it is showcased that older and male respondents more often watch documentaries [38], which is in contrast with the results of this study, indicating that younger respondents tend to use documentaries as a source of environmental information, with gender being insignificant. The results also indicate that respondents from smaller towns tend to use TV news and the radio more often than ones from larger towns; those with lower incomes, women, and younger respondents more often relied on their peers as a source of environmental information. Smaller towns potentially offer fewer options for other channels of information. The same applies for lower income respondents, which might be restricted financially to use other informational sources (books, events). In addition, lower incomes might indirectly indicate lower education, which presupposes a higher television exposure [40].

The most often indicated PEB is sorting waste, followed by avoiding single-use plastic goods other than plastic bags (Table 2). Respondents least often have joined a demonstration or attended a workshop or taken part in an activity (e.g., a collective beach or park clean up). Ref. [8] also indicates waste sorting as being one of the most popular PEBs on the EU level. The latter study explains that sorting is already an easy action to perform as infrastructure is rather well developed, even considering the time and effort needed to perform this action. In total, the level of PEB is not high, with respondents performing a little bit more than four pro-environmental behaviours on average. Though television remains the most dominant source of environmental information, those who indicated TV news as a source of environmental information performed less PEBs, compared to those who did not list TV news among the main three sources of environmental information (Table 4). As already discussed, lower incomes could be associated with more TV exposure and less possibilities for other environmental information sources. In addition, TV viewing is probably more associated with entertainment [40] than information acquisition; it should also be considered that TV news focuses on facts rather than solutions. Ref. [33] states, for example, that television provides enough information on environmental changes and impacts (, e.g., climate change), but lacks information about how one could contribute to solving or reducing the environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the mediating role of television use for pro-environmental behaviours is stressed [38].

A regression analysis indicated that all analysed sources/channels of environmental information are positively associated with PEB, confirming the assumption that at least some information reaches the public, irrespective of the channel used. The results reveal that books and scientific publications facilitate PEBs the most, with TV news having the weakest link to PEB (

Table 5. Results of regression analysis on pro-environmental behaviours.

Factor/Determinant	B Coefficient	SE	95% CI	Wald Chi-Square	p
Television news	0.563	0.037	0.491; 0.637	228.27	<0.001
Magazines	0.698	0.058	0.582; 0.807	147.08	<0.001
Radio	0.926	0.037	0.857; 1.000	641.86	<0.001
Films, documentaries	1.391	0.037	1.313; 1.458	1410.39	<0.001
Family, friends, neighbours, or colleagues	0.931	0.042	0.845; 1.011	484.91	<0.001
Books, scientific publications	2.238	0.062	2.107; 2.350	1300.04	<0.001
Brochures, informational material	0.932	0.082	0.764; 1.084	130.84	<0.001
Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.)	1.357	0.092	1.164; 1.528	216.72	<0.001
Museums, national or regional parks	0.664	0.112	0.434; 0.875	34.92	<0.001
Online social networks	0.998	0.043	0.908; 1.077	537.40	<0.001
The internet (websites, blogs, forums, etc.)	1.488	0.035	1.413; 1.550	1816.83	<0.001
Newspapers	1.327	0.036	1.252; 1.391	1399.75	<0.001
Gender [women]	0.366	0.030	0.425; 0.306	145.87	<0.001
Age	0.074	0.011	0.055; 0.099	43.57	<0.001
Type of community	0.072	0.02	0.034; 0.110	12.44	<0.001
Household size	0.035	0.016	0.004; 0.066	4.475	>0.05
Incomes	0.43	0.025	0.382; 0.478	303.87	<0.001

Omnibus test p < 0.001; Adj R² 0.18; SE: standard error, CI: confidence intervals.

). Other studies showcase some mixed results regarding the influence of environmental sources on PEB. A study on China [37] states that newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the internet are positively related to PEB, with newspapers and magazines having the biggest influence. Research [38] also finds television news to contribute to pro-environmental behaviours. Meanwhile, ref. [39] reports that TV use decreases the number of pro-environmental behaviours. Ref. [40] also states that television (longer watching) leads to less action (donating, etc.), while newspapers are associated with more PEB. However, different behaviours might be influenced differently by informational sources. According to [7], traditional (old) media contributes to energy saving as energy saving is already not a new topic in this type of media. The latter study also highlights that well-known topics attract less attention and that environmental information sources have no effect on, for, e.g., recycling.

As already mentioned, a regression analysis revealed that books and scientific publications have the strongest association with PEB (Table 5). The highest number of performed pro-environmental behaviour is also characteristic for those using books and scientific publications as a source of environmental information (Table 4). Hence, the results indicate that non-traditional media sources have more influence. It might be the case that those who are already interested in environmental issues seek more specific information from less traditional sources. Also, this presupposes the importance of the messages conveyed and trust in the source of the environmental information. The latter aspects should be considered while using traditional sources for environmental information dissemination. In addition, open and more simple access to data and scientific results would be an option to promote PEB. However, books and scientific publications as a source of environmental information are underrepresented in the scientific literature. For, e.g., ref. [7] analysed books and scientific publications only in aggregation with other environmental information sources showcasing a negative influence on energy and water saving. Films and documentaries, as well as various events, could be another example of non-traditional sources of environmental information that are rather strongly associated with PEB. As in the case of books and scientific publications, it might be the case that people who are already environmentally aware are exploring more specific sources for information. In the case of films and documentaries, ref. [38] also indicates that those with a greater concern for negative environmental effects watch nature documentaries more frequently. To add, ref. [24] reveals that nature documentaries increase donations for animal and environmental protection organizations only in the case of respondents who already have a strong connectedness to the nature.

The internet and online social networks are also gaining significance. The internet (blogs, forums) is the second most dominant (Figure 1) and one of the most significant sources of environmental information (Table 5). This could be explained by the fact that internet can offer quick and easy access to information, in line with a variety of options and formats to convey different information. Ref. [7] also indicates that the internet provides easy access to information on some topics, specifically energy saving and waste reduction. Online social media, as well as the internet, as a source of environmental information is more characteristic for younger respondents. Usually, they know better how to use technologies and use them more often. Also, younger people tent to communicate more with their peers. Hence, the internet and particularly social media as channels of environmental information could be of importance for reaching younger people. According to [28], if properly arranged and administrated, social media can shape desirable PEBs. Nevertheless, social media might be not effective on a large scale, for, e.g., in promoting environmentally friendly foods [41].

Within sociodemographic variables, gender and incomes (difficulties paying bills) are the most significant predictors of PEB (Table 5). The results reveal that women perform more PEBs than men. Other studies also report some similar results. Studies [1,12,31,33] show that being a woman is associated with higher levels of PEB. For separate behaviours, women also are more proactive, as another study indicates [20]. Nevertheless, ref. [9] found no significant influence of gender on PEBs in the case of 11 countries. Though no uniform results are reported by the aforementioned studies, higher levels of environmental concern and socialization and higher levels of activity in private daily purchasing and household routines (e.g., [31]) could be the reason for a higher number of PEBs performed by women. Hence, gender has to be considered when shaping informational programmes [31]. The latter study also suggests that men potentially would be more reactive to informational campaigns.

The results also showcase the positive effect of income on PEB. Higher incomes potentially enable people to buy better quality products like local, eco-labelled ones, and also designate more time for specific information searching using more specific sources for environmental information. As the study reveals, respondents with higher incomes indicate a lower use of TV news, but a higher use of internet and books and scientific publications as a source of environmental information is observed (Table 3). It could be the case that these respondents have more possibilities to purchase such books, too. Though it is not analysed, higher incomes might indicate also a higher level of education, which is related with higher levels of PEB (e.g., [1,9]). Nevertheless, other studies suggest that income is insignificant predictor of PEB [33]. Another research [9] finds that those lower on the socioeconomic ladder perform more PEBs; meanwhile, ref. [1] also showcases no statistically significant influence of this variable on PEB.

The study results regarding the age association with PEBs are in line with the majority of the studies [7,12,20,43], indicating older people are more pro-environmentally friendly in general or in undertaking different behaviours. According to [18], older people showcase higher levels of PEB because of life-long learning, suggesting that environmental information and education matters. Nevertheless, ref. [1] reports no age influence on PEB and ref. [9] finds younger respondents to exhibit more PEBs, though admit differences between countries regarding PEB predictors. The differences in the results might be explained by the different behaviours analysed.

The results also reveal that respondents from larger towns perform more PEBs. This is in line with statements from [9] that urban people present more PEBs. However, in the case of different behaviours, ref. [7] showcases that residents of urban areas exhibit lower recycling and energy-saving behaviours. Ref. [45] also finds that people are less inclined to recycle but avoid single-use plastics more often in urban areas. The reason behind the higher level of PEB in urban areas in general could be due to the different level of environmental information available, especially in terms of events, brochures, etc. It also could be the case that there are differences regarding the efforts needed to perform certain behaviours, for example, reduced car use, participation in demonstrations, or the use of public transport in rural areas might be more challenging than in urban ones. In addition, the most significant sources of environmental information in rural areas are TV news and radio (Table 3), which have a relatively weak association with PEB, as the results show (Table 5).

In general, the study suggests that any source of information could be of importance to reach the public in general and especially those who are not interested in environmental issues. However, reaching people is challenging as values and different goals might drive different behaviours [8,33,48]. Information alone is not enough as the effort and costs needed to perform specific behaviours results in certain behaviours undertaken [10]. Trust in the source also might play an important role [7,24]. Another important issue is the influence of information overload, which might require more time to process information, hinder decision making, and, in turn, impede PEB [49]. The number of information sources, information diversity, and the development of information and communication technologies are reasons for this information overload [50]. Hence, more targeted information, the environmental message itself, and the institutional source of information might be of importance [23]. It is suggested that descriptive messages about how others behave [16] or moral norm messages [17] foster pro-environmental behaviour. Also, the messages conveyed should address system, action, or effectiveness-related knowledge, i.e., the impact or effectiveness of the behaviour performed, to promote PEBs [22]. The gap between objective and subjective knowledge should be also tackled to pursue environmental knowledge-based decisions and corresponding behaviours [31].

6. Limitations

Though this study covers a lot of possible sources of environmental information, it does not provide insights on institutional sources like the government, universities, and science centres [51], which might be interesting to analyse. Also, this study only covers three main sources of environmental information indicated by the respondent, hence some of the sources might be not captured or their influence may overlap. Self reporting and response bias might also have an effect on the results, e.g., the number of those not interested in the environment potentially might be higher or the level of PEB could be lower as, in the face-to-face approach, respondents might tend to choose more socially desirable answers. In addition, the frequency of usage of the informational sources [1] as well as the frequency of behaviours is not analysed. According to [9], the list of PEBs is limitless, so potentially not all PEBs are included in the analysis, even though a really big variety of behaviours was covered. The same applies for the factors analysed as PEB might depend on a number of different factors (see [1,7,8]). This study considers PEB as a single item; however, the fact that different behaviours are driven by different factors could also be of importance, as some studies suggest [7,12,45]. Also, in this study, only the direct effects of different environmental information sources are analysed, though mediating effects might exist [38].

7. Conclusions

Based on the Eurobarometer survey, this study contributes to the environmental information and pro-environmental behaviour topic, presenting a wide range of potential sources of environmental information in one study. The results reveal that the most dominant sources of environmental information remain the so-called old media forms (TV news, newspapers, radio). However, new media—the internet and social media—is gaining importance, especially for the younger generation. Out of 14 analysed behaviours, respondents perform only 4.2 pro-environmental behaviours on average, while those indicating books and scientific publications as one of the three sources for environmental information perform 5.99 PEBs on average. Next to books and scientific publications, the internet, events, and films and documentaries are the other most significant determinants of PEB, while the remaining sources have less influence. Though TV news is indicated to be one of the most dominant sources for environmental information, this source has the lowest effect on PEB. The results suggest that despite the fact that all sources might be of importance for PEB, less employed ones should be promoted and used to raise awareness of environmental issues and corresponding behaviours. The content of the messages conveyed via traditional sources (channels) should also be reconsidered to have a higher influence.

The study findings could be of importance for policymakers and those involved in environmental education and communication to establish the need for, cost of, and selection of informational sources, considering their audience reach and, thus, influence on pro-environmental behaviour. While applying the results, it should be taken into account that those respondents who are already more environmentally aware might seek more specific information and consequently explore less traditional sources. This environmental awareness–informational source/channel relationship should be explored in more detail in future research. In addition, there is still a niche for researching the trust in institutional sources of environmental information and its interrelation to PEB. As differences in the main environmental information sources in between countries exist, an analysis of cultural factors and their influence on PEB could be of interest, too.