The Plastic-Reduction Behavior of Chinese Residents: Survey, Model, and Impact Factors

Abstract

The persistent generation of plastic waste represents a critical environmental challenge. Despite the implementation of various management policies spanning from usage to disposal that are aimed at incentivizing plastic reduction, the accumulation of plastic debris continues to pose a significant threat to both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Moreover, this environmental issue adversely impacts economic development and human health. This study seeks to analyze the influencing factors of plastic-reduction behavior at the individual level. Through a diverse sample of 869 participants across 29 provincial-level administrative regions, this research utilizes structural equation modeling to elucidate the intricate factors influencing plastic-reduction behaviors. This study examines the factors influencing plastic-reduction behavior through the frameworks of economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, focusing on two specific behavioral intentions: economically driven behavior and spiritually driven persuasive behavior. Results show that the primary motivator for plastic reduction is the decrease in individual expenses. Environmental values and policy regulations have become important influencing factors, which also promote behaviors regarding plastic reduction through economic savings. The study distinguishes between the impacts of environmental knowledge and skills, highlighting the necessity of practical skills for effective behavior change. Moreover, the study reveals the pivotal role of local attachment in encouraging plastic-reduction actions. The urban natural environment, particularly when characterized by accessible and well-maintained features, such as lakes and rivers, can foster residents’ appreciation for the environment, thereby motivating them to engage in plastic-reduction actions to attain personal spiritual satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Cost-effective plastics play a pivotal role across various sectors, and their desirable properties have led to widespread use in both industrial and domestic settings, including food packaging, daily commodities, industrial materials, and disposable medical products. Plastics have significantly improved human life quality by providing cheaper and lighter alternatives. However, this extensive use of plastics has led to significant challenges, notably the accumulation of non-degradable plastics in the environment over decades, resulting in the alarming issue of plastic waste. A global inventory of plastic debris estimated that the accumulated weight of micro-plastic in 2014 ranged from 93 to 236 thousand metric tons [1]. The estimation of marine plastic emissions suggested that current emissions were about 0.7 million metric tons per year [2], and it is projected that the global plastic waste emission will reach a staggering 53 million tons in 2030 [3]. Plastic pollution stems from improper waste disposal, accidental release during transportation, inadequate waste management, coastal recreational activities, and littering [4,5]. Plastic waste contaminates ecosystems, enters the food chain, and harms both wildlife and human health [6]. As plastic waste traverses through natural environments and enters aquatic ecosystems, it has become the predominant form of marine litter [7], posing significant threats to wildlife and coastal communities through entanglement, ingestion, and asphyxiation [8,9,10]. It also damages the marine economy by reducing fishing revenues and causing losses in coastal tourism [11]. Micro- and nano-plastics further impact marine life, affecting survival, reproduction, behavior, and immune function [12].

Contemporary efforts to mitigate plastic pollution primarily emphasize promoting sustainable plastic usage through regulatory measures on their use and/or sale [13]. However, recent observations indicate an insufficient control over the accumulation of plastic, particularly within marine ecosystems [14]. This underscores the notion that simply discontinuing plastic usage may not be a viable solution. Furthermore, recent findings suggest that reducing single-use plastics (SUPs) can disrupt daily activities, even for environmentally conscious consumers [15]. Concurrently, the 2020 pandemic crisis highlighted the indispensable role of plastic as a crucial material in medical treatment [16]. A significant proportion, approximately 40% globally, of current environmental degradation issues are attributed to residents’ consumption patterns and habits [17]. Therefore, the reduction of plastic pollution requires considering how to more effectively alter the human behaviors associated with the continual use and disposal of plastics [17].

Given that every individual directly participates in the use and disposal of plastics, understanding the factors that drive plastic use and consumption at the individual level is crucial for developing effective interventions to mitigate plastic waste. The research in terms of understanding the practical challenges associated with reducing plastic usage in everyday life remains nascent. The research on pro-environmental consumer behavior at the individual level has categorized the determinants of behavior into five thematic mechanisms: awareness and attitudes, knowledge, efficacy beliefs, personal relevance, and emotions [18]. It has significantly advanced our understanding of the factors influencing these behaviors. Individuals with higher levels of environmental awareness are more likely to engage in behaviors that reduce plastic consumption, such as using reusable bags and avoiding SUPs [19,20].

The main influencing factor of awareness is environmental values. Environmental values represent an individual’s orientation toward environmental issues. These values can be categorized into three types: egoistic, altruistic, and ecological. Egoistic values are concerned with the personal benefits derived from the environment, such as clean air and water for personal health. Altruistic values focus on the welfare of other people, supporting policies that reduce pollution to improve community health. Ecological values are centered on the environment for its own sake, including efforts to protect endangered species and preserve natural habitats. Environmental values are a significant predictor of behavioral intention [21]. In investigating the driving factors of three pro-environmental behaviors—green buying, good citizenship, and environmental activism—value orientation was found to impact all three [22]. However, the relationship between environmental values and behavior is complex, and relying solely on attitudinal variables, such as values, may be insufficient to explain all types of environmental behavior [23]. The current research on plastic consumption and disposal behavior requires a comprehensive consideration of other factors, such as individual knowledge and social norms.

Environmental knowledge is a key variable in explaining pro-environmental behaviors [24]. It can be categorized into general knowledge, which includes an overall understanding of environmental issues, and specific knowledge, which involves detailed information about particular environmental actions [25]. General environmental knowledge refers to an individual’s overall awareness of environmental concepts, including the impact of human activities on the environment and fundamental principles of environmental science. For example, specific environmental knowledge involves detailed, practical information related to particular environmental issues or actions, such as recognizing that plastic pollution affects marine life and ecosystems, and knowing which materials are recyclable and how to properly sort and dispose of them. Knowledge about the environmental impacts of plastic waste is associated with reduced plastic consumption [26]. A study on Chinese university students’ ocean environmental awareness revealed that, although most students are concerned about the ocean environment, their knowledge is insufficient, limiting their willingness to engage in ocean-related behaviors [27]. In a study of urban residents’ waste-sorting intentions in China, system knowledge, action-related knowledge, and effectiveness knowledge positively influenced residents’ attitudes, with effectiveness knowledge having the most significant impact [28]. Research on green travel in major and medium-sized Chinese cities also confirmed that adequate environmental knowledge can enhance residents’ willingness to adopt green travel practices [29]. Furthermore, acquiring specific skills for plastic disposal can also mitigate individual plastic usage [30]. The willingness to engage in environmental behavior is shaped by both knowledge and practical skills [31]. The importance of environmental skills is in turning awareness into action, bridging the gap between knowledge and practice [32]. However, the current research tends to conflate the impact of knowledge and skills on behavior without distinguishing their individual effects. Environmental knowledge is frequently used as an independent variable to analyze pro-environmental behavior, leading to a less comprehensive discussion of environmental skills, which are often either overlooked or mixed into the study of environmental knowledge.

Environmental concern plays a pivotal role as a predictive variable for individuals’ engagement in environmentally friendly actions [33]. Environmental concern encompasses an individual’s emotional traits related to observing, appreciating, enjoying, and worrying about the environment [34]. This concern manifests in various ways, such as understanding the causes and effects of plastic waste, advocating for environmental policies, and participating in education and awareness programs. Addressing the low public concern for environmental issues, as observed in developing countries, is crucial for promoting environmentally friendly individual consumption behaviors and enhancing public satisfaction with governmental responses to environmental challenges [35]. Moreover, environmental responsibility is also an important factor affecting environmental behavior. Research has shown that individuals who feel a sense of responsibility towards the environment are more likely to engage in pro-environmental actions [36]. Studies have reinforced the significance of ethical obligations in influencing environmental behavior [37,38]. These findings underline the critical role that environmental responsibility plays in motivating individuals to adopt behaviors that mitigate environmental harm. Although existing research has examined the role of environmental concerns and responsibilities, there is a lack of quantitative evidence supporting the impact of these abstract influences on specific psychological behaviors.

Policies and regulations play a crucial role in how individuals make decisions related to environmental behaviors [39]. The empirical study demonstrated that both monetary and non-monetary incentives significantly enhance participants’ willingness to recycle waste [38]. The study on 34 provincial-level policies in China compared and analyzed the impact of different local government policies on residents’ environmental behavior across administrative divisions [40]. However, few studies have explored the reasons behind the impacts of various policies and regulations on individual behavior from the perspective of behavioral intent.

Investigating how local attachment influences individual choices can enhance our understanding of plastic-use behavior within specific community contexts. Research indicated that local attachment can affect the relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior [41]. Moreover, local attachment and social norms significantly influence individual choices, with people more likely to reduce plastic use if they perceive it as socially acceptable [42]. However, another study stated that local attachment primarily serves social and personal interests, with a limited promotion of pro-environmental behavior [43]. Therefore, it is important and necessary to study in depth how local attachment affects intentions and pro-environmental behavior.

The investigation in this study, based on a diverse sample of 869 Chinese citizens across 29 provincial-level administrative regions, leverages structural equation modeling (SEM) and mediation-effect analysis to explore proposed hypotheses and relationships within the model. This study extracted key variables from previous research on pro-environmental behavior and proposed a model integrating psychological, social, and economic dimensions. The model in this study effectively quantifies various influencing factors and explains the relationship between independent and dependent variables through mediation-effect analysis. The study used environmental intention at both the material and spiritual levels as a mediating effect, constructing a causal influence chain between internal and external factors and plastic-reduction behavior. This approach distinguishes the influence paths of environmental knowledge and skills on plastic-reduction behavior, clarifying their similarities and differences in pro-environment behavior. Moreover, the study examined the controversial role of local attachment in pro-environment behavior. By establishing and testing hypotheses, it demonstrates that local attachment can motivate individuals to reduce plastic use and persuade others to achieve spiritual satisfaction. The results emphasized the importance of addressing internal and external factors to foster eco-friendly practices. The study also explored how different urban natural environments play a pivotal role in guiding plastic-reduction behaviors, emphasizing the importance of urban planning and environmental management.

2. Methods and Data

The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Initially, drawing on existing research, this study formulated an impact model of plastic-reduction behavior and posited research hypotheses to investigate the interplay among subjective and objective factors, behavioral intentions, and diverse plastic-reduction behaviors. Subsequently, questionnaires were utilized to gather statistical data on plastic usage and specific behaviors. Ultimately, a SEM was applied to test the proposed hypotheses and ascertain the magnitude of influence exerted by each factor on the behavior.

2.1. Hypothesis Development

2.1.1. Environmental Values

Environmental values can lead to economic savings through environmentally friendly behaviors. A study in China revealed that altruism primarily motivates urban residents’ daily energy-saving practices, demonstrating the link between environmental values and economic savings [44]. However, in contexts lacking economic incentives, altruistic values might not sufficiently motivate conservation efforts, suggesting that the relationship between environmental values and economic savings may be context dependent [45]. Environmental values contribute to spiritual satisfaction by providing a sense of purpose and fulfillment in aligning one’s actions with their personal beliefs and values. This alignment between values and actions reinforces individuals’ commitment to environmentally friendly behaviors, providing intrinsic motivation beyond economic considerations. The positive correlation between ecological values and environmental behaviors, as well as the connection between egoistic values and pro-environmental behavior intentions, underscores the importance of nurturing environmental values to encourage sustainable practices [46]. Individuals with strong ecological and altruistic values experience a sense of satisfaction from living a lower-carbon lifestyle and contributing to the well-being of the environment and society [47].

Therefore, cultivating environmental values is essential for motivating individuals to engage in economically beneficial and spiritually satisfying de-plasticizing behaviors. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1:

Influence Path based on Behavioral Intentions Factors:

H1a: 

Environmental values positively affect economic savings;

H1b: 

Environmental values positively affect spiritual satisfaction.

2.1.2. Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Concern

Environmental knowledge indirectly affects behavior through behavioral intentions [31]. Consumers with extensive environmental knowledge are more likely to invest in environmental protection, such as purchasing green products and environmentally friendly items [48,49]. However, the study indicated that ecological knowledge influences only a small part of pro-environmental behaviors [50]. There is ongoing debate about the relationship between knowledge and environmental behavior, with some research showing no clear link [51]. Despite this, knowledge is essential for making informed environmental choices [52,53]. The existing research indicates that, while environmental knowledge may not exert significant direct effects on pro-environmental behaviors, it remains a pivotal distal variable, with its substantial impact being entirely mediated by environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions [54]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2:

Influence Path based on Subjective Scope Factors:

H2a: 

Environmental knowledge positively affects economic savings;

H2b: 

Environmental knowledge positively affects spiritual satisfaction.

Environmental concerns can lead to economic savings through the adoption of behaviors that reduce the costs associated with plastic usage. Individuals who are concerned about the environment are more likely to engage in activities that not only benefit the environment but also result in financial savings. For instance, using reusable bags instead of single-use plastic bags can save money over time. Furthermore, environmentally conscious individuals may opt for products with less packaging or choose products made from recycled materials, which can be cost-effective in the long run. The awareness and concern about environmental issues, such as climate change, have been shown to enhance engagement in low-carbon activities, which can also translate to economic savings [55].

The positive impact of environmental concern on spiritual satisfaction arises from the alignment of individuals’ actions with their values and beliefs regarding environmental protection. Engaging in behaviors that contribute to the well-being of the environment can provide a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction, as it resonates with their concern for the environment. This spiritual satisfaction can be a strong motivator for individuals to continue or increase their environmentally friendly behaviors. For example, a study on urban residents in Jiangsu Province, China, found that individuals’ environmental crisis awareness significantly affects their travel intentions, suggesting that concern for the environment can lead to choices that provide spiritual satisfaction [56].

Environmental concern is a critical factor that positively affects both economic savings and spiritual satisfaction. These two outcomes, in turn, encourage individuals to adopt plastic-reduction behaviors. Economic savings provide a tangible incentive, while spiritual satisfaction offers an intangible reward, both of which are essential for motivating individuals to engage in environmentally friendly practices. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H2c: 

Environmental concern positively affects economic savings;

H2d: 

Environmental concern positively affects spiritual satisfaction.

2.1.3. Environmental Skills and Environmental Responsibility

Environmental skills, which encompass the practical abilities required for implementing environmental actions, play a crucial role in facilitating economic savings. Individuals with proficient environmental skills are better equipped to apply their knowledge in practice, leading to more effective and efficient environmental behaviors [32]. The study indicated that farmers with proficient environmental skills can significantly increase their income [57].

Furthermore, environmental skills can contribute to spiritual satisfaction by enabling individuals to actualize their environmental intentions and values. When individuals possess the skills to implement environmental actions effectively, they experience a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment [58]. This sense of achievement reinforces their environmental values and provides intrinsic motivation to continue engaging in environmentally friendly behaviors [59]. As individuals see the tangible results of their actions, their sense of spiritual satisfaction is enhanced, further motivating them to persist in their environmental endeavors. By equipping individuals with the necessary skills to implement environmental actions, they are more likely to realize economic benefits and experience a sense of fulfillment.

Therefore, this study posits that environmental skills positively influence both economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, leading to enhanced engagement in environmentally friendly behaviors.

Hypothesis 3:

Influence Path based on Perceptions of Control Factors:

H3a: 

Environmental skills positively affect economic savings;

H3b: 

Environmental skills positively affect spiritual satisfaction.

Environmental responsibility, which encompasses an individual’s moral sense and ethical obligations to consider the impact of their actions on others and society, can lead to economic savings. Ethical obligations are a significant factor that influences pro-environmental behaviors, which can include economically prudent practices [31]. Individuals who feel a strong sense of environmental responsibility are more likely to adopt behaviors that are not only environmentally beneficial but also cost-effective. For example, reducing energy consumption, minimizing waste, and choosing sustainable products can result in financial savings.

Moreover, environmental responsibility contributes to spiritual satisfaction by aligning individuals’ actions with their moral and ethical values. When people act in accordance with their sense of responsibility towards the environment, they experience a sense of fulfillment and integrity. This alignment between actions and values provides intrinsic motivation to continue engaging in environmentally friendly behaviors. The substantial influence of environmental responsibility on environmental behavior suggests that this sense of responsibility can enhance spiritual satisfaction [59].

Environmental responsibility plays a crucial role in promoting both economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, which in turn, fosters the adoption of environmentally friendly behaviors. By integrating environmental responsibility into behavioral models, the explanatory power for behavioral intentions is significantly enhanced [24,60]. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H3c: 

Environmental responsibility positively affects economic savings;

H3d: 

Environmental responsibility positively affects spiritual satisfaction.

2.1.4. Situational Variables

By implementing incentives and penalties, these regulatory measures can significantly reduce the costs associated with environmentally friendly behaviors or increase the costs of environmentally unfriendly actions. For instance, incentives for using reusable bags or penalties for using single-use plastics can lead to direct economic savings for individuals. Economic incentives within policies are a significant driving force in their impact on residents, highlighting the potential for policies to foster economic savings through environmentally friendly behaviors [61].

Beyond economic considerations, policies and regulations can also contribute to spiritual satisfaction by providing a framework that aligns individual actions with broader societal goals and values. When individuals perceive that their environmentally friendly behaviors are supported and reinforced by regulatory measures, they experience a sense of alignment with societal norms and values, leading to spiritual satisfaction. This sense of fulfillment is derived from the knowledge that their actions contribute to a collective effort toward environmental sustainability. The moderating role of incentive policies is in connecting behavioral intentions with actual actions [62].

Policies and regulations are integral components of the external situational variables that influence environmental behavior. By providing economic incentives and aligning individual actions with societal goals, these regulatory measures positively affect economic savings and spiritual satisfaction. Consequently, they play a pivotal moderating role in transforming environmental intentions into actual behaviors, thereby fostering the enactment of environmentally friendly actions, such as plastic reduction.

Hypothesis 4:

Influence Path of External Situational Factors:

H4a: 

Policies and regulations positively affect economic savings;

H4b: 

Policies and regulations positively affect spiritual satisfaction.

Local attachment, defined as an individual’s emotional bond with a specific place, can lead to economic savings through environmentally friendly behaviors that are also cost-effective. The geographic origin of interviewees significantly influenced their perception of environmental issues and, in turn, their environmental behavior [63]. This study hypothesizes that local attachment positively influences both economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, thereby encouraging environmentally friendly behaviors.

Individuals with a strong sense of attachment to their local area are more likely to engage in behaviors that protect and preserve their environment, which can also result in financial benefits. Practices such as local waste management initiatives can provide economic benefits by reducing spending on plastic waste disposal. However, to our knowledge, no studies have incorporated local attachment with economic benefits to understand behavioral intention toward plastic reduction. To ensure the integrity of the model, this study proposed a hypothesis of a positive correlation between local attachment and economic savings.

Furthermore, local attachment contributes to spiritual satisfaction by providing a sense of belonging and emotional fulfillment through the connection with one’s environment. Feelings of belonging and emotional attachment impact attitudes toward the natural and social surroundings, thereby shaping environmental behavior [64]. Individuals with a deep local attachment experience a sense of pride and fulfillment in contributing to the well-being of their community and environment. This emotional bond reinforces their environmental responsibility and motivates them to engage in eco-friendly behaviors.

H4c: 

Local attachment positively affects economic savings;

H4d: 

Local attachment positively affects spiritual satisfaction.

2.1.5. Behavioral Intention

Pro-environmental behavior toward plastic reduction can be divided into compliance and advocacy behaviors. Compliance behaviors involve adhering to norms or guidelines that reduce plastic usage, such as using reusable bags or avoiding single-use plastics. Advocacy behaviors go a step further, involving actively promoting plastic reduction through education, persuasion, or participation in environmental campaigns.

Intention is a key factor in individual environmental behavior [65]. Behavioral intention refers to an individual’s conscious plan or decision to engage in a specific environmentally friendly or sustainable action, and it represents the motivational factors that influence an individual’s readiness to perform a particular environmental action [66]. Some scholars argue that abstract variables, such as intention in social psychological models, cannot be measured [67]. In order to solve this controversial problem, this study concretizes the intention according to different plastic-reduction behaviors in order to understand which behavioral intentions can influence an individual to reduce plastic use or what purpose an individual can achieve by reducing plastic use. At the individual level, these intentions are fundamentally propelled by both material and spiritual facets, signifying that behavioral intention is chiefly governed by economic savings and spiritual satisfaction. Economic savings and spiritual satisfaction motivate individuals towards compliance and advocacy in environmental actions [68]. Studies have shown that combined policy interventions effectively promote pro-environmental behaviors by addressing economic savings and enhancing individual motivations, aligning with compliance and advocacy behaviors [69]. Additionally, the study of key models of pro-environmental behavior identified that the factors of economic incentives and personal satisfaction can drive compliance and advocacy [70].

In the context of plastic reduction, economic savings refer to the financial benefits an individual perceives from reducing plastic usage, such as cost savings from reusing or recycling plastics instead of purchasing new products. This financial incentive can be a powerful motivator for individuals to engage in plastic-reduction behaviors, as it aligns with their personal economic interests. Spiritual satisfaction, on the other hand, encompasses the emotional and psychological fulfillment individuals derive from engaging in environmentally friendly behaviors. This may include a sense of personal responsibility, moral satisfaction, or a feeling of contributing to the greater good. Fulfillment is derived from aligning one’s actions with personal values, and beliefs can be a significant driver of behavioral intention in the realm of plastic reduction.

Based on the aforementioned hypotheses, behavioral intentions are influenced by environmental values, knowledge, concern, and other factors that subsequently affect individual behavior. Therefore, in this study, behavioral intentions are used as mediating variables to establish a quantitative correlation between these abstract influencing factors and individuals’ actual environmental behaviors. The following hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 5:

Influence Path based on Behavioral Intention Factors:

H5a: 

Economic savings positively affect compliance with plastic-reduction behavior;

H5b: 

Economic savings positively affect advocacy for plastic-reduction behavior;

H5c: 

Spiritual satisfaction positively affects compliance with plastic-reduction behavior;

H5d: 

Spiritual satisfaction positively affects advocacy for plastic-reduction behavior.

To enhance our understanding of these determinants, this study proposes a model that explores the interplay between attitude, external situational variables, and behavioral intention (See Figure 1).

2.2. Measures and Analytical Approach

The formal questionnaire consists of 13 variables and 66 items. The three constructs consist of 49 items to explain behavioral intention, individual internal variables, external scenario variables, and environmental behavior on plastic reduction. All the constructs were validated through prior studies, as seen in

Table 1. Constructs, indicators, and sources in the questionnaire.

Construct	Indicators	Items	Sources
Behavioral intention	Spiritual satisfaction (SS)	1-1~1-3	[62]
	Economic savings (EcoS)	1-4~1-6	[63]
Behavior	Compliance behavior (CB)	1-7~1-9	[40]
	Advocacy behavior (AB)	1-10~1-12	[64]
Internal individual factor	Environmental values (EV)	2-1~2-11	[65,66]
	Environmental knowledge (EK)	2-12~2-17	[67]
	Environmental concern (EC)	2-18~2-21	[67]
	Environmental skills (ES)	2-22~2-24	[45]
	Environmental responsibility (ER)	2-25~2-28	[62]
External environment factor	Policies and regulations (PR)	3-1~3-6	[68]
	Local attachment (LA)	3-7~3-9	[69]

. A full list of the formal questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. All scales are measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with a range from 5—“very strongly agree” to 1—“very strongly disagree”.

The data were collected by Xiamen University of China from 14 October to 17 November 2022 in a combination of online and offline settings. The survey gathered responses from 1000 individuals in 29 Chinese provincial-level administrative regions, and 131 surveys were unusable because of omissions and inaccurate entries. In this study, the questionnaire consisted of 49 items, and 869 usable samples were collected, meeting the sample-size requirement for SEM analysis.

In this study, we adhered to a two-step validation strategy. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using SPSS 26.0 software to assess the validity and reliability of 49 measurement items. Subsequently, we employed AMOS 26.0 software for SEM to evaluate the fit coefficients and path coefficients of the hypothetical model.

2.3. Measurement Model Test

To mitigate potential error interference from the common method deviation and ensure data accuracy, this study employed the Harman single-factor method to test for such deviation. The results are presented in the Appendix B,

Table A1. Harman single-factor test (n = 869).

Component	Initial Eigenvalue			Extracted Sum of Squared Loadings
	Total	Variance Percentage	Cumulative%	Total	Variance Percentage	Cumulative%
1	13.718	27.997	27.997	13.718	27.997	27.997
2	4.214	8.6	36.596	4.214	8.6	36.596
3	2.348	4.792	41.389	2.348	4.792	41.389
4	2.294	4.681	46.07	2.294	4.681	46.07
5	1.97	4.021	50.091	1.97	4.021	50.091
6	1.855	3.786	53.877	1.855	3.786	53.877
7	1.673	3.415	57.291	1.673	3.415	57.291
8	1.595	3.256	60.547	1.595	3.256	60.547
9	1.403	2.864	63.411	1.403	2.864	63.411
10	1.247	2.545	65.956	1.247	2.545	65.956
11	1.171	2.39	68.346	1.171	2.39	68.346
12	1.147	2.34	70.687	1.147	2.34	70.687
13	1.017	2.076	72.762	1.017	2.076	72.762

. The explanatory variance of the 13 common factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1 does not exceed 40%. These findings indicate the absence of a significant common method bias issue in our scale, suggesting no substantial interference with the subsequent empirical research involving the construction of SEM.

The results of the normality test, convergence validity and discriminant validity of variables, and the results of using a Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) to examine the discriminant validity of the data are indicated in Appendix B,

Table A2. Normality test, and reliability and validity test.

Variable			Normality Test				Reliability	Convergent Validity			Discriminant Validity
Constructs		Items	AVG	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	Standardized Factor Load	CR	AVE	HTMT
Environmental values (EV)	Egoistic values	GT1_1	3.58	1.172	−0.397	−0.843	0.878	0.778	0.879	0.646	0.804
		GT1_2	3.61	1.259	−0.444	−0.971		0.861
		GT1_3	3.57	1.069	−0.381	−0.516		0.770
		GT1_4	3.56	1.193	−0.487	−0.732		0.803
	Altruistic values	GT2_1	3.28	1.096	−0.044	−0.783	0.906	0.913	0.908	0.766	0.875
		GT2_2	3.26	1.205	−0.141	−1.043		0.867
		GT2_3	3.24	1.063	−0.004	−0.764		0.844
	Ecological values	GT3_1	3.49	1.289	−0.437	−0.941	0.905	0.874	0.906	0.706	0.840
		GT3_2	3.47	1.317	−0.294	−1.173		0.853
		GT3_3	3.45	1.247	−0.374	−0.939		0.803
		GT3_4	3.39	1.342	−0.358	−1.086		0.829
Environmental knowledge (EK)		X2_1	3.14	1.027	−0.207	−0.383	0.840	0.734	0.881	0.554	0.744
		X2_2	3.16	1.055	−0.244	−0.424		0.792
		X2_3	3.16	1.007	−0.273	−0.208		0.784
		X2_4	3.23	1.127	−0.222	−0.696		0.784
		X2_5	3.18	1.005	−0.270	−0.165		0.731
		X2_6	3.07	0.915	−0.051	0.072		0.629
Environmental concern (EC)		X3_1	3.20	1.311	−0.193	−1.171	0.881	0.784	0.858	0.601	0.775
		X3_2	3.22	1.338	−0.291	−1.104		0.770
		X3_3	3.12	1.297	−0.180	−1.157		0.776
		X3_4	3.18	1.347	−0.245	−1.153		0.770
Environmental skills (ES)		X4_1	3.41	1.344	−0.470	−1.024	0.858	0.820	0.839	0.636	0.797
		X4_2	3.39	1.278	−0.288	−1.169		0.787
		X4_3	3.32	1.340	−0.287	−1.175		0.785
Environmental responsibility (ER)		X5_1	3.43	1.343	−0.447	−1.022	0.856	0.793	0.856	0.598	0.773
		X5_2	3.37	1.321	−0.478	−0.933		0.769
		X5_3	3.41	1.328	−0.413	−1.034		0.758
		X5_4	3.47	1.324	−0.458	−0.990		0.773
Policies and regulations (PR)		X6_1	3.40	1.318	−0.418	−1.025	0.900	0.774	0.900	0.601	0.775
		X6_2	3.40	1.340	−0.413	−1.061		0.790
		X6_3	3.35	1.340	−0.432	−1.036		0.767
		X6_4	3.44	1.304	−0.438	−0.992		0.775
		X6_5	3.38	1.307	−0.404	−1.027		0.775
		X6_6	3.40	1.307	−0.444	−0.969		0.768
Local attachment (LA)		X7_1	3.33	1.251	−0.334	−0.943	0.848	0.729	0.779	0.541	0.736
		X7_2	3.33	1.260	−0.456	−0.883		0.690
		X7_3	3.29	1.223	−0.308	−0.935		0.785
Economic savings (EcoS)		M1_1	3.37	1.277	−0.311	−1.042	0.780	0.708	0.768	0.525	0.725
		M1_2	3.42	1.197	−0.411	−0.879		0.733
		M1_3	3.40	1.247	−0.328	−1.006		0.733
Spiritual satisfaction (SS)		M2_1	3.34	0.920	−0.426	0.020	0.767	0.866	0.882	0.714	0.845
		M2_2	3.35	0.901	−0.521	0.250		0.833
		M2_3	3.32	0.870	−0.289	0.279		0.835
Compliance with plastic reduction behavior (CB)		Y1_1	3.56	0.970	−0.703	0.288	0.881	0.804	0.848	0.651	0.807
		Y1_2	3.50	0.977	−0.386	−0.169		0.807
		Y1_3	3.47	0.945	−0.378	0.031		0.810
Advocacy for plastic reduction behavior (AB)		Y2_1	3.60	1.033	−0.472	−0.293	0.804	0.796	0.804	0.578	0.760
		Y2_2	3.49	1.012	−0.387	−0.309		0.749
		Y2_3	3.49	0.975	−0.325	−0.205		0.734

. The results demonstrate that the data approximate a normal distribution, meeting SEM requirements. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) for each variable suggest high reliability in the scale. The results also indicate that all HTMT values for each dimension are below the recommended threshold of 0.90 [71], affirming good discriminant validity, with each dimension being distinct from the others.

2.4. Model Fit and Model Revision

Table 2. Results of the hypothesis testing of initial model.

Hypothesis and Path	β	b	S.E.	C.R.	p	Supported
H1a EV → EcoS	0.201	0.312	0.08	3.891	***	YES
H1b EV → SS	0.188	0.257	0.061	4.205	***	YES
H2a EK → EcoS	−0.018	−0.021	0.066	−0.325	0.745	NO
H2b EK → SS	0.100	0.105	0.05	2.1	0.036 *	YES
H2c EC → EcoS	0.169	0.149	0.049	3.04	0.002 **	YES
H2d EC → SS	0.106	0.082	0.037	2.226	0.026 *	YES
H3a ES → EcoS	0.144	0.119	0.046	2.589	0.010 *	YES
H3b ES → SS	0.145	0.105	0.035	3.019	0.003 **	YES
H3c ER → EcoS	0.169	0.126	0.032	3.879	***	YES
H3d ER → SS	0.175	0.149	0.043	3.474	***	YES
H4a PR → EcoS	0.227	0.202	0.049	4.141	***	YES
H4b PR → SS	0.195	0.153	0.037	4.141	***	YES
H4c LA → EcoS	0.075	0.075	0.053	1.418	0.156	NO
H4d LA → SS	0.104	0.091	0.04	2.283	0.022 *	YES
H5a EcoS → CB	0.210	0.178	0.045	3.972	***	YES
H5b EcoS → AB	0.130	0.101	0.042	2.392	0.017 *	YES
H5c SS → CB	0.131	0.126	0.048	2.623	0.009 **	YES
H5d SS → AB	0.169	0.149	0.046	3.265	0.001 **	YES

Note: β: Standardized path coefficient; b: nonnormalized coefficient; S.E.: standard error; C.R.: critical ratio; → indicates cause and effect; p: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

shows the results of the hypothesis testing of the initial model, which reveals regression coefficients and significance for each pathway. By strict criteria (C.R. > 1.96, p < 0.05), 16 out of 18 hypotheses were confirmed, underlining their validity. Notably, two hypotheses, H2a (S.E. = 0.066, C.R. = −0.325, p = 0.745) and H4c (S.E. = 0.053, C.R. = 1.418, p = 0.156), did not attain statistical significance. This suggests that the impact of EK on EcoS and LA on EcoS lacks support. Therefore, it is imperative to eliminate the aforementioned two non-essential paths from the model, enhancing its precision and relevance.

3. Results

3.1. Structural Results

After a combination of stringent model-fit assessment and path analysis, the structural results of the revised model are presented in

Table 3. Initial and revised models fit summary for the proposed research model.

Index	c2/df	RMSEA	GFI	CFI	IFI	TLI	AGFI
Norm *	1 < c2/df < 5	<0.080	>0.800	>0.800	>0.800	>0.800	>0.800
The initial model
Value	2.082	0.035	0.921	0.956	0.956	0.951	0.908
Judgment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
The revised model
Value	2.079	0.035	0.921	0.956	0.956	0.951	0.909
Judgment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note: * source: [72].

and Figure 2. The fit indices, documented in

Table 4. Results of the hypothesis testing of revised model.

Hypothesis and Path	β	b	S.E.	C.R.	p	Supported
H1a EV → EcoS	0.206	0.319	0.078	4.112	***	YES
H1b EV → SS	0.188	0.257	0.061	4.203	***	YES
H2b EK → SS	0.100	0.106	0.050	2.125	0.034 *	YES
H2c EC → EcoS	0.163	0.144	0.048	3.019	0.003 **	YES
H2d EC → SS	0.106	0.082	0.037	2.223	0.026 *	YES
H3a ES → EcoS	0.134	0.110	0.043	2.578	0.010 *	YES
H3b ES → SS	0.145	0.105	0.035	3.015	0.003 **	YES
H3c ER → EcoS	0.169	0.127	0.032	3.895	***	YES
H3d ER → SS	0.208	0.176	0.038	4.696	***	YES
H4a PR → EcoS	0.251	0.223	0.046	4.882	***	YES
H4b PR → SS	0.196	0.153	0.037	4.153	***	YES
H4d LA → SS	0.102	0.089	0.040	2.229	0.026 *	YES
H5a EcoS → CB	0.212	0.180	0.045	4.017	***	YES
H5b EcoS → AB	0.130	0.101	0.042	2.399	0.016 *	YES
H5c SS → CB	0.130	0.125	0.048	2.609	0.009 **	YES
H5d SS → AB	0.169	0.149	0.046	3.273	0.001 **	YES

Note: β: Standardized path coefficient; b: nonnormalized coefficient; S.E.: standard error; C.R.: critical ratio; → indicates cause and effect; p: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

, indicated favorable model fit: c²/df = 2.079 (<5), RMSEA = 0.035 (<0.080), GFI = 0.921, CFI = 0.956, IFI = 0.956, TLI = 0.951, and AGFI = 0.909 (>0.800). These results affirm the revised model’s compliance with the data requirements and its suitability for conducting comprehensive SEM analysis. Figure 2 graphically depicts the complex interrelationships among the variables in the revised model.

We conducted the hypothesis testing on the refined model, and the results are presented in Table 4. Notably, the standardized estimates of EV, ER, and PR to the mediating variables all exhibited statistically significant values.

EVs were found to play a crucial role in shaping environmental behaviors (β = 0.188, p < 0.001; β = 0.057, p < 0.001). These values not only drive intentions toward economic prudence but also result in profound psychological contentment from engaging in plastic-reducing environmental behaviors. This supports Hypotheses H1a and H1b and underscores that an individual’s overall environmental stance significantly influences their behavioral choices.

Furthermore, the study revealed the positive influence of environmental responsibility on an individual’s inclination for plastic-reducing environmental behaviors. This validation aligns with Hypotheses H3c and H3d, emphasizing the crucial role of heightened subjective responsibility in prompting deliberate shifts in consumption patterns and reducing plastic usage. It is worth noting that an increase in environmental responsibility significantly enhances the sense of psychological contentment (β = 0.208, p < 0.001), confirming that individuals voluntarily engage in environmental conservation behaviors to attain self-identification and gratification. Similarly, a similar trend is observed with environmental skills (β = 0.145, p = 0.003), where individuals with greater skills tend to exhibit more plastic-reduction behaviors, primarily driven by economic conservation (β = 0.163, p = 0.003).

Among external influencing factors, policies and regulations significantly impact residents’ economic conservation (β = 0.251, p < 0.001) and spiritual satisfaction (β = 0.196, p < 0.001). Conversely, local attachment primarily pertains to intrinsic psychological elements. While it may not have as significant an impact on plastic-reduction environmental behaviors as policy and regulations (β = 0.102, p = 0.026), it indirectly stimulates such behaviors by influencing individual psychological contentment.

3.2. Mediation-Effect Analysis

To validate these mediating effects, we employed the Bootstrap method with 5000 replications, utilizing a 95% confidence interval and bias-corrected methods for verification. The path coefficients’ significance was determined from the output results. The full model, incorporating the mediating variables (Table 3), displayed fitting indices that met the necessary criteria.

As shown in

Table 5. Mediation-effect test of economic savings and spiritual satisfaction.

Hypothesis and Path	Direct Effect	S.E.	95% Lower Limit	95% Upper Limit	p
EV → EcoS → CB	0.057	0.028	0.017	0.127	0.000
EV → EcoS → AB	0.032	0.020	0.003	0.085	0.020
EC → EcoS → CB	0.026	0.012	0.007	0.057	0.002
EC → EcoS → AB	0.015	0.009	0.002	0.038	0.017
ES → EcoS → CB	0.020	0.010	0.005	0.044	0.006
ES → EcoS → AB	0.011	0.007	0.001	0.030	0.019
ER → EcoS → CB	0.032	0.011	0.013	0.059	0.000
ER → EcoS → AB	0.018	0.009	0.003	0.039	0.015
PR → EcoS → CB	0.040	0.014	0.017	0.076	0.000
PR → EcoS → AB	0.023	0.011	0.004	0.050	0.016
EV → SS → CB	0.032	0.020	0.003	0.081	0.030
EV → SS → AB	0.038	0.019	0.010	0.086	0.004
EK → SS → CB	0.013	0.009	0.001	0.039	0.031
EK → SS → AB	0.016	0.009	0.002	0.041	0.023
EC → SS → CB	0.010	0.007	0.001	0.029	0.029
EC → SS → AB	0.012	0.007	0.002	0.031	0.012
ES → SS → CB	0.013	0.008	0.002	0.033	0.022
ES → SS → AB	0.016	0.008	0.004	0.035	0.003
ER → SS → CB	0.016	0.008	0.003	0.037	0.020
ER → SS → AB	0.019	0.008	0.006	0.040	0.003
PR → SS → CB	0.019	0.010	0.003	0.044	0.021
PR → SS → AB	0.023	0.010	0.007	0.048	0.003
LA → SS → CB	0.011	0.008	0.001	0.033	0.025
LA → SS → AB	0.013	0.008	0.002	0.036	0.012

Note: S.E.: Standard error; → indicates cause and effect.

, the seven variables, encompassing EV, EK, EC, ES, ER, PR, and LA, are interconnected through EcoS and SS, influencing 24 intermediary pathways affecting the compliance and advocacy behaviors that are related to plastic reduction (CB, AB). The p-values for all these intermediary pathways are significantly below the 0.05 significance threshold, indicating the presence of mediating effects.

Specifically, the mediating effect of EcoS on CB exhibits a significantly larger direct path coefficient compared to SS. Conversely, the mediating effect of SS on AB is notably stronger than that of EcoS. These results collectively underscore that the motivation for compliance with plastic-reduction behavior primarily arises from individual economic considerations, while the inclination to advocate for plastic-reduction behavior stems from individuals’ aspirations for spiritual satisfaction.

4. Discussion

4.1. Quantitative Analysis of Influencing Factors Based on Behavioral Intention

This study provides an examination of the factors influencing plastic-reduction behavior by employing a behavioral intentions framework. The results offer a structured insight into how economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, as distinct behavioral intentions, mediate the relationship between individual capabilities and plastic-reduction behaviors. The quantitative results of the model indicate that environmental values significantly impact individual plastic-reduction behavior, followed by environmental responsibility and concern. The findings demonstrate that environmental knowledge positively influences pro-environmental behavior. The previous literature that weakens or denies this relationship may have done so due to the simplistic treatment of influence pathways and the omission of reasonable mediating variables to establish causality. Regarding external factors, this study explores the efficacy of punitive policies and regulations for reducing plastic use. Since economic savings is a primary behavioral intention, punitive policies, which impose direct economic losses, such as fines and taxes, are more effective than incentive-based policies at curbing personal plastic consumption.

In terms of behavioral intentions, the analysis reveals that economic savings significantly influence individual decisions regarding plastic usage, aligning with the theory of planned behavior, which posits that intentions such as the desire for cost savings powerfully motivate specific actions [66]. In addition to economic incentives, this study underscores the importance of spiritual satisfaction in driving plastic-reduction behaviors. Individuals who derive intrinsic satisfaction from engaging in behaviors that align with their personal values are more likely to persist in these behaviors, even in the absence of immediate economic benefits. This finding aligns with research that focuses on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and their influence on behavior and performance outcomes [73]. Building on the verified positive effects of economic savings on pro-environmental behavior, this study integrates the psychological behavioral intention of spiritual satisfaction into the analysis model, thereby enriching the category of behavioral intention within the theory of planned behavior. In the context of plastic reduction, achieving greater personal spiritual satisfaction is considered equivalent to economic savings, thus influencing individuals to engage in plastic-reduction behaviors.

By integrating the concepts of economic savings and spiritual satisfaction within the framework of behavioral intentions, it provides a nuanced understanding of how different types of motivations can interact and influence environmental behavior. Empirically, the study extends previous findings by demonstrating that not only do these factors affect plastic-reduction behavior independently, but they also interact in complex ways that can enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing plastic usage.

4.2. Differences between Environmental Knowledge and Skills in the Behavior of Plastic Reduction

Environmental knowledge and skills are pivotal in environmental behavior research. However, prior research into environmental behavior typically concentrated on either environmental knowledge or environmental skills as isolated variables. This lack of differentiation between knowledge and skill has hindered our comprehension of their individual impacts on environmental behavior. Furthermore, most research has concluded that insufficient environmental knowledge alone cannot support the development of pro-environmental behavior, often overlooking the practical skill between knowledge and behavior. Consequently, this study seeks to differentiate between environmental knowledge and environmental skills concerning pro-environmental behavior by introducing behavioral intentions as mediating variables, thereby shedding light on their distinct roles in shaping environmental behaviors.

In this study, two behavioral intentions are utilized to clarify the unique yet interconnected roles of environmental skills and knowledge in the theoretical framework of environmental behavior. The findings reveal that environmental skills have a significant impact on economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, which in turn, drive individual behavioral intentions. While environmental knowledge does not directly influence environmental behavior, it indirectly molds it through economic considerations. Overall, environmental skills have a more pronounced effect on individual plastic-reduction behavior than environmental knowledge. The development of practical skills is shown to be more effective in achieving personal plastic-reduction goals than theoretical knowledge alone. Individuals with advanced environmental skills, such as the ability to classify plastics and recognize plastic symbols, exhibit more effective plastic-reduction behaviors than those with similar levels of environmental knowledge, due to the satisfaction derived from applying these skills. Consequently, environmental skills are identified as the practical application of knowledge.

4.3. The Promotion of Local Attachment to Plastic-Reduction Behavior

This study explores the impact of various urban natural environments on plastic-reduction behaviors, emphasizing the critical role of urban landscapes in shaping individuals’ approaches to plastic consumption and waste reduction. Prior research has underscored the positive influence of urban green spaces in fostering environmental awareness and pro-environmental behaviors [74,75]. This study further explains the causal relationship between the urban natural environment and pro-environmental behavior by introducing the variable of local attachment. Urban regions featuring well-maintained and accessible natural environments tend to promote eco-friendly practices. In these cities, individuals are more inclined to engage in plastic-reduction behaviors, driven by a heightened sense of responsibility for environmental conservation. Urban areas with accessible natural elements, such as lakes and rivers, often encourage reduced plastic consumption, potentially mitigating plastic pollution in oceans. This connection between urban dwellers and their natural surroundings goes beyond aesthetics; it fosters profound environmental stewardship. Conversely, urban areas lacking accessible natural spaces face distinct challenges. Residents here may struggle to form a personal connection with the environment, potentially diminishing their motivation for plastic reduction.

This study refined the analysis by subdividing the behavior intentions to reduce plastic use into two mediating variables: economic savings and spiritual satisfaction, forming four hypotheses. The revised model retained only the influence path of local attachment through spiritual satisfaction, offering a clearer and more comprehensive method for understanding local attachment. Comparing our findings with previous research indicating a disconnect between local attachment and pro-environmental behaviors, it reveals that the previous research’s survey group consisted of residents from countries with large immigrant populations [43]. This influx of foreigners prevents local residents from developing a strong local attachment. The variation in conclusions due to different survey groups highlights the need for careful consideration in future social investigations.

Well-preserved and accessible natural features within urban settings are powerful tools for enhancing pro-environmental behaviors. Therefore, urban planners and policymakers should prioritize the integration of such natural spaces into urban landscapes as part of their comprehensive strategy for addressing plastic pollution and instilling environmental consciousness among residents.

5. Conclusions

This study extensively investigated plastic-reduction behavior among Chinese citizens, utilizing path analysis and mediation-effect analysis to explore the factors influencing individual plastic-reduction behavior. Environmental values emerged as a pivotal driver, impacting both economic savings and psychological satisfaction. Their influence, which encompasses economic considerations and self-identity, underscores the importance of tapping into individuals’ intrinsic motivations to promote plastic reduction. Additionally, environmental knowledge, skills, responsibility, and policy regulations played substantial roles in promoting plastic-reduction behaviors. These findings emphasize the significance of enhancing environmental knowledge and subjective concern to instigate conscious changes in consumption habits. This underscores the role of individual factors and external interventions in shaping behaviors.

Notably, this study clarified the distinctions between environmental knowledge and skills. While knowledge indirectly influenced behavior through economic savings, skills had a more direct and substantial impact. This knowledge–skills dichotomy suggests that environmental education should encompass not only knowledge but also practical skills for effective behavior change. Furthermore, the impact of policy regulations and local attachment was evident in steering individuals toward plastic-reduction behaviors. Understanding these interconnected determinants is crucial for developing targeted strategies to reduce plastic waste.

The research also examined how diverse urban natural environments can shape plastic-reduction behaviors. Easily accessible, well-maintained natural features, such as lakes and rivers, provide residents with a strong sense of spiritual satisfaction in environmentally friendly practices on plastic reduction. Urban planners and policymakers should prioritize the integration of these natural elements into urban landscapes to enhance environmental awareness and nurture a sense of responsibility among residents.

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the multifaceted aspects of plastic-reduction behaviors and emphasizes the importance of addressing individual values, knowledge, skills, and the surrounding urban environment in fostering eco-friendly practices. By differentiating between knowledge and skills and exploring the role of urban landscapes, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing environmentally friendly behaviors. The findings have important implications for educational interventions, urban planning, and environmental management strategies aimed at reducing plastic pollution and fostering a sustainable relationship between individuals and their environments. However, there are a few limitations underlying this research. It analyzes widely discussed behavioral intentions but does not explore unique behavioral intentions different from other pro-environmental behaviors. Future research should integrate relevant theories to conduct extensive social investigations and refine the behavioral intention of plastic-reduction behavior. Additionally, this study focused on the relationship between natural environment quality and local attachment. Future research could incorporate individual life locations and explore the role of local policies, regional culture, and social climate in shaping plastic-reduction behavior.