**3. Results and Discussion**

Our results show that PEAs cluster in space and have, on average, higher values in the pedestrian-oriented zones than in the car-oriented zones. We found that PEA influenced environmentally significant behaviors regarding household energy, clothing, and produce, but it did not have an effect on the amount of GHG emissions from local, national, or international travel. Residents of car-oriented zones were more likely to conserve heating at home, but less likely to purchase environmentally-friendly produce than residents of the pedestrian-oriented zones, after controlling for socio-demographic variables and the PEA. Residents of pedestrian-oriented zones generated lower emissions from local travel and were more likely to participate in emissions from international travel than residents of the remaining urban zones. In the following, we present the results of the spatial and multivariate analyses divided into three topical sections: PEAs, PEBs, and emissions from travel. Each section is followed by a short discussion that relates the results to previous studies.

## *3.1. Pro-Environmental Attitudes*

#### 3.1.1. Results

Those with low income tended to have higher PEA factor scores and the same can be said about those with a high level of education (Figure 2a). Although there was a correlation between income and education (rs = o.225, *p* < 0.001, n = 847), respondents with the highest PEA scores were the most highly educated while the opposite can be said regarding income: Respondents with high income had a lower PEA score. Household size did not have a strong effect on PEA, although single people did have the lowest PEA factor scores. Women had considerably higher factor scores than men. Residents of the pedestrian-oriented zone had the highest PEA score of the three zones.

Pro-environmental attitude factor scores were significantly spatially autocorrelated (Moran's I = 0.23, *p* < 0.001). Areas with values higher than expected were located in pedestrian-oriented parts of Helsinki (Figure 2b). It is of note that the spatial association was not very strong, and residents with high factor scores lived next to residents with low factor scores, and vice-versa.

**Figure 2.** (**a**) Mean pro-environmental attitude factor scores by education, household type, gender, zone, and income categories; (**b**) Hot spot (Getis-Ord Gi\*) map of pro-environmental attitude factor scores (n = 814). Areas highlighted in red (hot spots) have a local mean higher than the global mean, and areas highlighted in blue (cold spots) have a local mean lower than the global mean scores.

#### 3.1.2. Discussion

In regards to our bivariate results for education level, similar trends were established [62]. The same study found that being male and having a high income were indicators of high concern, which contradicts our results. However, the high pro-environmental attitude scores of women are in line with other previous research [63,64]. Although we found clusters of high PEAs in central areas, the environmental concern of central and suburban residents has previously been found to not differ [65]. On the urban-rural scale, differences in environmental attitudes and concerns depend largely on specific issues [66], and therefore, the results of various studies might differ depending on the types of questions used. As our PEA variable consisted of quite broad terms (considerations of environmental impacts, concern for environmental issues, and wanting to live ecologically), specific environmental issues were not determined. The spatial and bivariate analysis of PEAs lays the foundation for the next two results sections of PEBs and travel emissions; it shows the distribution of our specific PEA factor scores in space, and within sociodemographic variables.
