sustainability

Article
Factors Influencing Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental
Behavior among Mongolian College Students: A Test
of Value–Belief–Norm Theory
Xianwei Liu 1, *,† , Yang Zou 2,† and Jianping Wu 3
1 Institute of Higher Education, Capital Research and Development Center for Engineering Education,
Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
2 School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China; stacey.zou@ruc.edu.cn
3 Department of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Forestry University,
Beijing 100083, China; wujianping05@foxmail.com
* Correspondence: liuxianwei@bjut.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-010-6739-6335
† The authors contributed equally to the study.




Received: 30 March 2018; Accepted: 28 April 2018; Published: 1 May 2018


Abstract: Value–belief–norm (VBN) theory provides a valuable framework for identifying the
social-psychological determinants of various types of pro-environmental behavior. However, limited
empirical study has tested the applicability of VBN theory in the western minority areas of China.
Given Mongolian college students’ crucial role in promoting the sustainable development of the
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR) of China, this study investigates how VBN clusters of
variables, namely, values, the new environmental paradigm (NEP) and pro-environmental personal
norms (PPN), influence Mongolian college students’ self-reported public-sphere pro-environmental
behavior (PSPB). The subjects were 1034 Mongolian college students from three large public
universities in Hohhot. A structural equation model (SEM) and bootstrapping analyses revealed that:
(1) altruistic values have a significant positive influence on PSPB, egoistic values negatively influence
PSPB, and biospheric values have no significant influence on PSPB; (2) egoistic values negatively
predict NEP and biospheric values positively predict NEP, whereas altruistic values have no direct
impact on NEP; (3) NEP has a positive influence on PPN; (4) PPN has a significant positive impact on
PSPB; and (5) biospheric and egoistic values have an indirect effect on PSPB through NEP and PPN.
The findings provided evidence for the cross-cultural applicability of VBN theory in a Mongolian
college student sample. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed, and recommended
directions for future research were suggested.

Keywords: value-belief-norm (VBN) theory; public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB);

values; new environmental paradigm (NEP); pro-environmental personal norms (PPN); Mongolian
college students

1. Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that environmental problems are mainly rooted in human
behavior [1–3]. How to change people’s behavior and construct a harmonious relationship between
nature and human beings has been an unanswered question in various disciplines. In social science,
the endeavors of sociologists and psychologists may be divided into two basic lines of research [4].
One of these research lines has focused on identifying the sociodemographic factors related to
pro-environmental behavior, such as gender [5], age [6], place of residence [7], ethnicity [8], income [9]
and education [10]. Another line has focused on the influences of social-psychological determinants,

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384; doi:10.3390/su10051384 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 2 of 19

such as the influence of values, norms, attitudes, sense of control, personality and place attachment on
pro-environmental behavior and has been tested over the last 40 years [11].
At the same time, theoretical frameworks in sociology and social psychology have been
widely utilized by researchers to build a logical connection between various social-psychological
constructs and pro-environmental behavior. One of the most representative theoretical models
may be the value–belief–norm (VBN) theory proposed by Stern and colleagues [12,13] based on
the norm-activation model (NAM), the value-basis theory and the new environmental paradigm
(NEP) perspective [14–17]. The VBN theory proposes that individuals’ values drive beliefs and, in
turn, norms which directly motivate individuals’ pro-environmental behavior. Empirical research
repeatedly provides empirical support for the predictive power of VBN clusters of variables on various
pro-environmental behavioral indicators. Therefore, it has received substantial recognition and is
widely used to test the relationships among individual values, attitudes and beliefs, and various types
of pro-environmental behavior.
The university setting may be seen as an effective place to promote individual pro-environmental
behavior through the connection of values, beliefs, personal norms and external action.
College students, whose values and beliefs are in a transitional state, are a unique group to test
and expand VBN theory [18]. However, studies of college students’ pro-environmental behavior
and its antecedents within the VBN framework have mainly been conducted in Western contexts.
In recent years, increasing numbers of studies have addressed this topic in China given growing
awareness of worsening environmental conditions in the last decade. Most of these pioneering studies
were conducted in developed areas of China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Nanjing,
and focused on students’ pro-environmental behavior in the private sphere [19–21]. Little empirical
research exists on minority college students in the undeveloped western areas of China.
The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (IMAR), the national strategic energy base and ecological
barrier of China, spans three districts from the north-west to the north-east and north of the country
and plays a vital role in ensuring the energy and ecological security of the nation. Since the
adoption of the Western Development Strategy in 1999, a critical political decision by the central
government of China to promote the economic and social development of the 12 western provinces
and municipalities, the GDP of IMAR experienced rapid growth from 2000 to 2010 through large-scale
resource development and utilization. However, this economic boom did not materially benefit the
local people but instead dampened their future due to the problem of environmental deterioration,
including grassland degradation, air and water pollution [22], which has seriously threatened regional
sustainable development and public health.
Mongolian college students, the reserve forces of local construction in IMAR, have an important
voice and impact on the sustainable development of the local economy, society and environment.
They benefit from the development while suffering from the damage of environmental deterioration,
which motivates their strong demand for environmental improvement. The promotion of their active
participation in public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) may effectively alleviate or even
solve environmental problems in IMAR, since PSPB can indirectly change the behaviors of many people
and organizations by influencing public policies [13]. For example, in the spring of 2011, environmental
damage from mining triggered Mongolian college students’ involvement in massive protests and
conflicts. To quell the widespread protests in IMAR, the government adopted more stringent and
explicit environmental policies to regulate the local mining industry [23,24]. There is an urgent need to
understand the influences of different social-psychological antecedents on Mongolian college students’
PSPB and to promote their participation in PSPB rationally from the actors’ perspectives based on
a comprehensive theory framework.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to examine whether the causal chain of the
VBN model can also be applied to PSPB in a sample of Mongolian college students, thus providing
cross-cultural evidence for the generalization of VBN theory. Furthermore, with a comprehensive
understanding about what motivates Mongolian college students to engage in PSPB, this study can
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 3 of 19

provide practical guidance for the design of environmental education for youth and for environmental
Sustainability
policy 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
decisions. 3 of 19

2. Theoretical
2. Theoretical Background
Background and
and Hypotheses
Hypotheses

2.1. Value–Belief–Norm
2.1. (VBN) Theory
Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) Theory

The VBN
The VBN theory
theorywas wasproposed
proposedby byStern
Sternandand colleagues
colleagues [12,13] and
[12,13] systematically
and systematically integrates the
integrates
norm-activation model (NAM) theory [14,15] in social psychology, the value-basis theory [16] in
the norm-activation model (NAM) theory [14,15] in social psychology, the value-basis theory [16]
environmental
in environmental psychology,
psychology, andandthe thenewnewenvironmental
environmentalparadigm paradigm (NEP) (NEP) perspective
perspective [17] [17] inin
environmental sociology. Social-psychological variables in the VBN model, namely, values, beliefs,
environmental sociology. Social-psychological variables in the VBN model, namely, values, beliefs,
norms and
norms andpro-environmental
pro-environmentalbehavior, behavior, constitute
constitute a causal
a causal chainchain in which
in which each variable
each variable directlydirectly
affects
affects
the nextthe
andnext
mayand also may alsoaffect
directly directly affectfarther
variables variables
downfarther down
the chain. Thethe chain. The
integration integration
mechanism of
mechanism of VBN theory is described as follows.
VBN theory is described as follows.
The basic
The basic premise
premise of of the
the NAM
NAM theorytheory is is that
that moral
moral or or personal
personal norms
norms are direct determinants
are direct determinants of of
pro-environmental behavior
pro-environmental behavior [25],
[25], and
and norms
norms and and behaviors
behaviors are are grounded
grounded in in values
values concerned
concerned with with
the welfare
the welfare of of others
others(altruistic
(altruisticvalues),
values),the thewelfare
welfareofof oneself
oneself (egoistic
(egoisticvalues),
values), andandthethe
welfare of the
welfare of
biosphere
the biosphere(biospheric
(biospheric values) according
values) accordingto value-basis
to value-basistheory [26]. [26].
theory As anAs ecological worldview,
an ecological NEP
worldview,
is not as general or stable as values. Stern et al. [27] developed a connection between NEP and NAM
NEP is not as general or stable as values. Stern et al. [27] developed a connection between NEP
with NAM
and the argument
with the that NEP is a that
argument generalized
NEP is environmental
a generalized belief or a sort ofbelief
environmental “folk ecology”
or a sort that may
of “folk
play a mediating
ecology” that mayrole playina the relationship
mediating role in between generalized
the relationship valuesgeneralized
between and specific attitudes,
values beliefs,
and specific
behavioralbeliefs,
attitudes, intentions and behavior.
behavioral Applications
intentions and behavior.of the VBN vary in theofway
Applications the belief
VBN is measured,
vary and
in the way
most studies focus on general environmental beliefs [18]. In addition, some researchers considersome
belief is measured, and most studies focus on general environmental beliefs [18]. In addition, NEP
an indicatorconsider
researchers of the awareness of consequences
NEP an indicator in NAM inoftesting
of the awareness the relationship
consequences in NAMbetween in testingsocial-
the
psychological factors and pro-environmental behavior [28]. Since its proposal, VBN has been widely
relationship between social-psychological factors and pro-environmental behavior [28]. Since its
employedVBN
proposal, to explain
has beenmany specific
widely pro-environmental
employed to explain many behaviors
specificin the private or public
pro-environmental sphere,insuch
behaviors the
as green consumer behavior [29–32], biodiversity conservation [33,34], travel behavior [35–37],
private or public sphere, such as green consumer behavior [29–32], biodiversity conservation [33,34],
sustainability
travel behaviorbehavior
[35–37], [18,38], recycling
sustainability [39,40],
behavior energy
[18,38], conservation
recycling [39,40],[41–46],
energytransport
conservation modes [47–
[41–46],
49], and support
transport for pro-environmental
modes [47–49], and support forpolicies [50–53]. Because
pro-environmental of value
policies orientations,
[50–53]. Because of thevalue
new
environmental
orientations, theparadigm (NEP) and pro-environmental
new environmental paradigm (NEP) and personal norms (PPN)personal
pro-environmental are vital norms
predictors
(PPN) of
pro-environmental behavior in the VBN framework [54]. This study focuses on the connection among
are vital predictors of pro-environmental behavior in the VBN framework [54]. This study focuses on
three
the types of among
connection values,three
NEP, PPN,
types and public-sphere
of values, NEP, PPN, and pro-environmental behavior (PSPB)behavior
public-sphere pro-environmental among
Mongolian college students. Based on VBN theory, the framework for empirical analysis in this study
(PSPB) among Mongolian college students. Based on VBN theory, the framework for empirical analysis
is demonstrated
in in Figure 1. in Figure 1.
this study is demonstrated

Figure 1. Research framework.

Figure 1. Research framework.

2.2. Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior (PSPB)

Scholars have used various terms to describe behaviors that benefit the environment. The
literature includes a large number of terms that are similar to pro-environmental behavior, including
environmentally significant behavior [13], responsible environmental behavior [55], ecological
behavior [56], and environmentally conscious behavior [57]. Regarding the definition of pro-
environmental behavior, Stern [13] noted that it can be described in two aspects, namely, behavioral
impact and behavioral intention. The former emphasizes the direct changes made by human beings
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 4 of 19

2.2. Public-Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior (PSPB)

Scholars have used various terms to describe behaviors that benefit the environment. The literature
includes a large number of terms that are similar to pro-environmental behavior, including
environmentally significant behavior [13], responsible environmental behavior [55], ecological behavior [56],
and environmentally conscious behavior [57]. Regarding the definition of pro-environmental behavior,
Stern [13] noted that it can be described in two aspects, namely, behavioral impact and behavioral
intention. The former emphasizes the direct changes made by human beings on the environment,
whereas the latter stresses the purpose and goal of environmental protection. To understand and
change target behaviors, it is necessary to adopt an intention-oriented definition that focuses on
people’s beliefs and motives. Following Stern [13], pro-environmental behavior should be defined
as human activities that generate intention that relates to environment protection or environmental
deterioration prevention.
Generally, researchers have treated pro-environmental behavior as multi-dimensional. Similar
to the multiple terminologies and definitions used, the classification of pro-environmental behavior
also varies. For example, Sia et al. [55] classified pro-environmental behavior into five categories
(persuasion, consumer action, ecological management, political action and legal action). Smith-Sebasto
and D’Costa [58] divided it into six dimensions (civic action, educational action, financial action,
legal action, physical action and persuasive action). Karp [59] proposed three dimensions of
pro-environmental behavior (good citizen behavior, environmental activism and healthy consumer
behavior). Stern [13] proposed four types of pro-environmental behavior, namely, environmental
activism, non-activist behaviors in the public sphere, private-sphere environmentalism and other
environmentally significant behaviors (such as influencing the actions of organizations). In recent
studies, Lavelle et al. [60] divided pro-environmental behavior into chronic behavior and occasional
behavior, and then MacDonald and She [61] categorized it into curtailing, political and efficiency
behavior. Although the types of pro-environmental behavior are quite diverse, the basic connotation
of these types is similar to that reflected in public-sphere or private-sphere pro-environmental
behavior [62]. Private-sphere pro-environmental behavior involves practical behaviors by which
individuals can protect the environment through their own individual efforts (time and energy) to
directly influence environmental quality. Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior refers to actions
that cause environmental impacts indirectly through the public domain [63].
Compared to other classifications, one major advantage of the public-private classification is that
it can cover a wide range of behaviors without being limited by the developmental level and cultural
differences of a society. Therefore, the public-private classification is widely used in empirical studies
conducted not only in developed countries but also in developing countries, such as countries in
Latin America, the Philippines [64], Egypt [65] and China [62,66,67]. For instance, Xiao and Hong [66]
used data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) in 2003 to test gender differences in the
pro-environmental behavior of urban residents in China with this classification. However, with regard
to the impact of social psychological factors on pro-environmental behavior, previous studies have
mainly concentrated on the private sphere, and attention to PSPB is relatively lacking. Thus, this paper
specifically focuses on the influence that social psychological variables exert on the PSPB of Mongolian
college students.

2.3. Values
Values are conceptualized as important life goals or standards that serve as guiding principles in
a person’s life [68]. Values are different from beliefs because values play a role as an organizational
system in one’s life and are viewed as determinants of attitudes and behaviors [69]. Schwartz [70,71]
developed a broad model for classifying the dimensions of values, with 56 value items representing
10 universal value types. These 10 value types can be further reduced to 4 value categories: openness
to change, conservatism, self-transcendence, and self-enhancement. Researchers repeatedly found that
self-transcendence and self-enhancement in general values were closely related to pro-environmental
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 5 of 19

attitudes, intentions and behavior [59,72–74]. For example, by means of quantitative research,
Jia et al. [75] revealed that self-transcendence moral values positively predicted environmental actions
of university students in a mid-sized American university, which was supported by their following
narrative research.
Stern and colleagues [16,76,77] extracted three different values that might affect pro-environmental
beliefs and behavior from Schwartz’s universal values, namely, egoistic values (i.e., values focusing
on maximizing individual outcomes), social-altruistic values (i.e., values reflecting concern for the
welfare of others), and biospheric values (i.e., values emphasizing the environment and the biosphere).
Studies have shown that egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values can be clearly distinguished
empirically [78,79]. A large number of studies have examined the relationship between these three
values and pro-environmental behavior [29,79–82]. For example, Jansson et al. [29] found that
biospheric values determine consumers’ willingness to curtail the negative effects of car use and
determine the willingness to use a so-called environmentally friendly car. De Groot and Steg [80]
also found that students who strongly endorsed egoistic values were less likely to prefer a car that
performed highly on environmental aspects, whereas altruistic and, especially, biospheric values were
positively related to the environmental performance of the car. In a recent study, Whitley et al. [18]
revealed that these three values play a stable function in predicting college students’ sustainable
behavior in the public sphere. More specifically, they found that college students who adhered to
biospheric and altruistic values were more likely to engage in PSPB, such as supporting environmental
protection policy, whereas those who adhered to egoistic values were less likely to engage in such
behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: Biospheric values have a significant positive influence on PSPB.
H1b: Altruistic values have a significant positive influence on PSPB.
H1c: Egoistic values have a significant negative influence on PSPB.
Value–belief–norm (VBN) theory assumes that the three types of values have a direct and positive
influence on general beliefs. This assumption has received support from many empirical studies.
For instance, Steg et al. [83] found that the higher the scores on the biospheric value orientations,
the higher the new environmental paradigm (NEP), whereas egoistic values negatively related to
NEP. Similar results were also shown in two studies conducted by De Groot and Steg [79]. In study 1,
the contribution of altruistic values to the explanation of NEP was small but significant, but this result
was not replicated in study 2. However, both study 1 and study 2 found a significant contribution
of biospheric and egoistic values to the explanation of NEP. In a recent survey of paddy farmers in
Malaysia, Chua et al. [54] demonstrated that three values were important predictors of NEP. Specifically,
egoistic and altruistic values exerted small effects, whereas biospheric values exerted medium effects
on NEP. Although the existing literature fails to provide robust evidence for the connection of altruistic
values and NEP, taking the cultural and social differences of samples into consideration, we expect that
all three types of values have direct impacts on NEP. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed:
H2a: Biospheric values have a significant positive impact on NEP.
H2b: Altruistic values have a significant positive impact on NEP.
H2c: Egoistic values have a significant negative impact on NEP.

2.4. New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)

NEP is the fundamental worldview and mind-set that people have toward the environment and
emphasizes the harmonious interaction between humans and nature [17]. In accordance with VBN
theory, beliefs have a direct influence on individual norms. Specifically, individuals who hold general
beliefs about environmental welfare are more likely to develop pro-environmental personal norms
(PPN) [16]. With the framework of VBN theory, several studies have examined the direct link between
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 6 of 19

NEP and PPN. For example, Chua et al. [54] discovered that NEP had a significant positive influence
on PPN in a sample of paddy farmers. In a sample consisting of students, faculty and staff from
Michigan State University, Yeboah and Kaplowitz [84] also found that NEP exerted a positive and
significant effect on PPN. Based on these findings, the direct relationship between the NEP and PPN of
Mongolian college students will be tested in this research. We propose the following hypothesis:
H3: NEP has a significant positive effect on PPN.

2.5. Pro-Environmental Personal Norms (PPN)

PPN are the sense of moral obligation to behave pro-environmentally [54]. In the chain model of
VBN, PPN are the ultimate predictor of pro-environmental behavior. There is ample empirical evidence
that PPN contribute significantly to behaviors performed with pro-environmental intent. Among these
studies, some researchers have tested the predictive effects of PPN on various types of public-sphere
pro-environmental behavior (PSPB). Steg et al. [83] found that PPN explained almost 30% of the
variance in the acceptability of energy policies. More specifically, the stronger the PPN, the more people
supported policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. In a recent study on the determinants of urban
residents’ environmental complaints in China, Zhang et al. [85] demonstrated that the PPN of citizens
could influence environmental complaint intention positively and significantly. In the university
environment, researchers have also found that the PPN of college students are a positive predictor of
support for environmental policies [18]. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4: PPN positively and directly affect PSPB.

2.6. The Mediation Effects among Variables

Value–belief–norm theory postulates the causal order of values, general belief, and norms that
influence specific behavior [12,13]. In other words, values may have an indirect effect on specific
pro-environmental behavior through the multiple mediation of intervening variables in the causal
chain of the VBN model. Most researchers have been interested in testing the indirect effects in part
of the causal chain. For example, Nordlund and Garvill [74] revealed that PPN mediated the path
from general values and environmental values to pro-environmental behavior. Chua et al. [54] found
that NEP functioned as a mediator in the relationship between biospheric values and PPN as well as
between egoistic values and PPN. Although only a few studies have contributed to examining direct
and mediating effects in the entire causal chain with small sample sizes from countries in Europe and
Latin America [36,83], we still anticipate that there exist multiple mediating relationships within the
whole chain model of VBN in this study. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H5a: Values indirectly influence PPN through NEP.
H5b: Values indirectly influence PSPB through NEP and PPN.
H5c: NEP indirectly influences PSPB through PPN.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample
Participants in this study were Mongolian undergraduates at three public universities located
in Hohhot, the capital of Inner Mongolia. Survey questionnaires were administered to a total of
1200 students enrolled in social science elective courses to create a comparable sample. At the end of
the courses, questionnaires were distributed to students by the research assistants. Participation was
voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was given by students. A total of 1118 questionnaires
were returned. After removing questionnaires in which more than 15% of the questions were not
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 7 of 19

answered on any scale, 1034 valid responses were ultimately used for data analysis. The final sample
included 687 females (66.4%) and 347 males (33.6%). In terms of the type of home town, 587 students
(56.8%) came from urban areas and 447 students (43.2%) came from rural or pastoral areas. A total
of 227 students reported monthly family income of less than 1000 RMB (22%), 387 students reported
family income between 1000 RMB and 4000 RMB (37.4%), 203 students reported family income between
4000 RMB and 7000 RMB (19.6%), and 217 students reported family income above 7000 RMB (21%).

3.2. Measurement
The questionnaire was composed of two parts. Part one required participants to provide
their socio-demographic information, including gender and type of home town. Part two was the
measurement of values, NEP, PPN and PSPB. All of the construct measures were adapted from previous
literature. We reworded some items to better fit Mongolian college students’ real experiences.
For the dependent variable, PSPB was measured using five items adapted from the public-sphere
dimension of the pro-environmental behavior scale developed by Xiao and Hong [66]. Participants
were asked to describe how often they had performed 5 different PSPB in the past year. All items were
answered on a five-point Likert type scale from “never” (1) to “always” (5).
For the measurement of values, a 12-item value scale revised by Steg et al. [83] was used to
measure college students’ egoistic (four items), altruistic (four items), and biospheric (four items) value
orientations [71]. The participants were asked to rate to what degree each of the 12 values functioned
as a guiding principle in their life on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not important” (1) to
“very important” (5).
Four items of the Chinese version of the NEP scale were adapted from Wu et al. [86] to evaluate
students’ general beliefs toward the environment in three aspects, namely, humans’ ability to upset
the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth, and humans’ right to rule over the rest of
nature [17]. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree”
(1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Four items used in previous research studies conducted by Gärling et al. [87] were used to assess
students’ PPN. The participants were asked to respond to what extent they agreed with the statements
targeting PPN, and each of the items was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis of measured variables
and items. As shown in Table 1, the mean of the variables ranged from 2.748 to 4.532, the standard
deviation ranged from 0.594 to 1.175, the absolute values of skewness ranged from 0.002 to 1.445,
and the absolute value of kurtosis ranged from 0.023 to 2.429. Skewness values were lower than
3 and kurtosis values were lower than 10 in this research, which indicated that the research data
met the requirement of a multivariate normal distribution and subsequent data analyses could be
conducted [88].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 8 of 19

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items.

Standard
Variables/Measurement Items Mean Skewness Kurtosis
Deviation (SD)
Egoistic values (EV) 3.707 0.705 −0.002 −0.051
EV1: Authority; the right to lead or command 3.577 0.922 −0.135 −0.225
EV2: Wealth; material possessions, money 3.777 0.838 −0.381 0.130
EV3: Social power; control over others, dominance 3.761 0.839 −0.282 −0.134
EV4: Influential; having an impact on people and events 3.714 0.854 −0.292 −0.046
Altruistic values (AV) 4.284 0.594 −0.824 0.641
AV1: A world at peace; free of war and conflict 4.221 0.768 −0.751 0.310
AV2: Equality; equal opportunity for all 4.117 0.810 −0.842 0.898
AV3: Helpful; working for the welfare of others 4.430 0.762 −1.445 2.429
AV4: Social justice; correcting injustice, care for the weak 4.368 0.859 −1.355 1.504
Biospheric values (BV) 4.494 0.602 −1.059 0.448
BV1: Unity with nature; fitting into nature 4.470 0.678 −1.099 0.709
BV2: Respecting the earth; living in harmony with other species 4.469 0.672 −0.989 0.182
BV3: Preventing pollution 4.504 0.684 −1.189 0.676
BV4: Protecting the environment; preserving nature 4.532 0.662 −1.262 1.011
New environmental paradigm (NEP) 3.913 0.843 −0.645 −0.182
NEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support 3.788 1.097 −0.567 −0.469
NEP2: The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset 3.944 1.061 −0.840 0.049
NEP3: Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 4.005 1.095 −0.922 0.023
NEP4: Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature 3.915 1.156 −0.862 −0.188
Pro-environmental personal norms (PPN) 3.905 0.711 −0.420 −0.045
PPN1: I feel a moral obligation to protect the environment 4.001 1.006 −0.929 0.387
PPN2: I feel that I should protect the environment 3.876 0.987 −0.793 0.184
PPN3: I feel it is important that people in general protect the environment 3.711 1.175 −0.625 −0.566
PPN4: Our environmental problems cannot be ignored 4.033 0.961 −0.905 0.332
Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) 3.118 0.780 −0.103 −0.115
PSPB1: Participate in protests and express grievances about environmental problems 3.149 1.068 −0.090 −0.653
PSPB2: Participate in environmental campaigns sponsored by government or university 3.037 1.149 0.059 −0.782
PSPB3: Participate in environmental protection activities sponsored by
2.748 1.048 0.215 −0.519
non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
PSPB4: Make a monetary donation to an environmental protection cause 3.338 1.060 −0.204 −0.619
PSPB5: Openly express support for environmental protection policies 3.320 1.155 −0.197 −0.849

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was a three-step progress. First, the reliability and validity of the instruments
were evaluated. Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of
the scales, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the convergent validity and
discriminant validity of the scales [89]. Second, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to
test the hypothesized relationships among three types of values, new environmental paradigm (NEP),
pro-environmental personal norms (PPN) and pro-environmental behavior (PSPB). The SEM method
was adopted because it allows the establishment and estimation of complex causal relationships among
multiple latent variables while controlling measurement errors. The indices that measured the model’s
goodness-of-fit included the ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom (χ2 /df), goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fix index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). For an index to be acceptable, χ2 /df should not exceed 5, GFI,
AGFI, CFI, IFI and TLI should be higher than 0.90, and SRMR and RMSEA should be smaller than
0.08 [90]. Finally, we used bootstrapping method (5000 bootstrap samples) to test the serial multiple
mediation effects within the causal chain of the VBN model to predict pro-environmental behavior.
A 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval that does not include zero would provide evidence
of significant indirect effects. Compared to the Sobel test or causal steps approach, bootstrapping
procedures have better statistical power while reducing the possibility of Type 1 error [91].
Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and a reliability test were conducted with SPSS 23 for
windows. CFA, SEM and bootstrapping analyses were performed using the Amos 23 software package
with the maximum-likelihood estimation method (see Supplementary Materials).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 9 of 19
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

4.4.Results
Results

4.1.The
4.1. TheMeasurement
MeasurementModel
Model
Basedon
Based onthethetwo-step
two-step procedure
procedure recommended
recommended by by Anderson
Andersonand andGerbing
Gerbing[89],
[89],CFA
CFAwas
wasfirst
first
utilized to assess the fitness of the measurement model to research data before
utilized to assess the fitness of the measurement model to research data before examining the structural examining the
structural relationships
relationships amongThe
among variables. variables. The measurement
measurement model
model included sixincluded six latent
latent variables andvariables and
25 observed
25 observed variables. In CFA, latent variables were allowed to be freely correlated
variables. In CFA, latent variables were allowed to be freely correlated with each other, and observed with each other,
and observed
variables were variables
specified were
to loadspecified
only ontotheir
load respective
only on their respective
latent factors. latent factors.
The result of The
CFAresult
showed of
CFA showed that the measurement model fit the data well (χ 2 = 960.924; df = 260; χ2/df = 3.696; GFI =
that the measurement model fit the data well (χ2 = 960.924; df = 260; χ2 /df = 3.696; GFI = 0.926;
0.926;=AGFI
AGFI 0.907;= 0.907;
CFI = CFI = 0.925;
0.925; IFI =IFI = 0.926;
0.926; TLITLI = 0.925;
= 0.925; SRMR
SRMR = =0.049;
0.049;RMSEA
RMSEA == 0.051
0.051 [90%
[90%CI:
CI:0.048,
0.048,
0.055]). In addition, the factor loadings of all items were significant and above the standardvalue
0.055]). In addition, the factor loadings of all items were significant and above the standard valueofof
0.450 [90], ranging from 0.476 to 0.886, providing support for convergent validity. Figure 2 presents
0.450 [90], ranging from 0.476 to 0.886, providing support for convergent validity. Figure 2 presents the
the results of the CFA.
results of the CFA.

Figure2.2. The
Figure The six-factor
six-factor confirmatory
confirmatory factor
factor analysis
analysis (CFA)
(CFA) results
results of
of the
the measurement
measurementmodel.
model.

We further tested the fitness of two alternative models, including a four-factor model (items of
We further tested the fitness of two alternative models, including a four-factor model (items of
egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values were loaded together on one latent construct) and a one-
egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric values were loaded together on one latent construct) and a one-factor
factor model (all items were loaded together on one latent construct). The results of CFA showed that
model (all items were loaded together on one latent construct). The results of CFA showed that
for the four-factor model: χ2 = 2802.536, df = 269; χ2/df = 10.418; GFI = 0.730; AGFI = 0.752; CFI = 0.795;
for the four-factor model: χ2 = 2802.536, df = 269; χ2 /df = 10.418; GFI = 0.730; AGFI = 0.752;
IFI = 0.731; TLI = 0.699; SRMR = 0.092; RMSEA = 0.095 [90% CI: 0.092, 0.099], and for the one-factor
CFI = 0.795;
model: IFI = 0.731;
χ2 = 5022.907; df =TLI = χ0.699;
275; 2/df = SRMR
18.265; =GFI
0.092; RMSEA
= 0.669; AGFI==0.095 0.609;[90%
CFI =CI: 0.092,
0.493; IFI0.099],
= 0.495;and
TLIfor
=
the one-factor model: χ 2 = 5022.907; df = 275; χ2 /df = 18.265; GFI = 0.669; AGFI = 0.609; CFI = 0.493;
0.447; SRMR = 0.127; RMSEA = 0.129 [90% CI: 0.120, 0.132]. The fit index of both alternative models
IFI = 0.495;
failed TLI
to meet the=recommended
0.447; SRMR criteria
= 0.127;[90].
RMSEA = 0.129
The results of the[90% CI: 0.120,
chi-square 0.132].
statistic alsoThe fit index of
demonstrated
both
that the measurement model fit the data better than the four-factor model (Δχ = 1841.612, chi-square
alternative models failed to meet the recommended criteria [90]. The results
2 of the df = 9, p <
statistic
0.001) oralso
thedemonstrated
one-factor model that (Δχ
the2measurement
= 4061.983, df model
= 15, p fit the data
< 0.001) better
did. These than the four-factor
results model
offered evidence
(∆χ 2 = 1841.612, 9, p < 0.001)
df = validity or measurement
the one-factormodel.
model After 2
(∆χ =the 4061.983, p < 0.001) did.
df = 15, Cronbach’s
of the discriminant of the CFA analysis, α
coefficients were computed to evaluate the internal reliability of the measures. The results
These results offered evidence of the discriminant validity of the measurement model. Aftershowed
the CFA
that the Cronbach’s
analysis, Cronbach’s α α coefficients
coefficients of the computed
were scales ranged from 0.625
to evaluate thetointernal
0.916, greater than
reliability ofthe
thethreshold
measures.
of 0.6
The [92].showed
results Standard factor
that loading of all
the Cronbach’s items and reliability
α coefficients of the scales estimates
ranged for
from the scales
0.625 are listed
to 0.916, in
greater
Table 2.
than the threshold of 0.6 [92]. Standard factor loading of all items and reliability estimates for the
scales are listed in Table 2.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 10 of 19

Table 2. The standard factor loading of items and the reliability of the scales.

Variables Measurement Items Factor Loading Cronbach’s α

EV1 0.771
EV2 0.680
Egoistic values (EV) 0.833
EV3 0.884
EV4 0.659
AV1 0.705
AV2 0.686
Altruistic values (AV) 0.724
AV3 0.670
AV4 0.517
BV1 0.877
BV2 0.886
Biospheric values (BV) 0.916
BV3 0.875
BV4 0.784
NEP1 0.648
New environmental NEP2 0.609
0.762
paradigm (NEP) NEP3 0.735
NEP4 0.678
PPN1 0.562
Pro-environmental PPN2 0.579
0.625
personal norms (PPN) PPN3 0.476
PPN4 0.566
PSPB1 0.597
Public-sphere PSPB2 0.663
pro-environmental PSPB3 0.736 0.755
behavior (PSPB) PSPB4 0.589
PSPB5 0.518

As shown in Table 3, most of the correlation coefficients among variables were significant
and had the anticipated sign. Specifically, public-sphere pro-environmental behavior (PSPB) was
positively related to altruistic values, biospheric values, and pro-environmental personal norms (PPN),
as expected. The expected relations between new environmental paradigm (NEP) and egoistic values,
altruistic values and biospheric values were significant. However, a significant correlation was not
observed between egoistic values and PSPB. Overall, the path model proposed in this study warrants
further analyses.

Table 3. Results of correlations analysis.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1. Egoistic values –
2. Altruistic values 0.246 *** –
3. Biospheric values 0.179 *** 0.641 *** –
4. New environmental paradigm −0.110 *** 0.106 ** 0.152 *** –
5. Pro-environmental personal norms 0.047 0.188 *** 0.250 *** 0.117 *** –
6. Public-sphere pro-environmental behavior −0.013 0.245 *** 0.238 *** 0.052 0.132 ***
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.

4.2. Structural Model

SEM analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized relationships among values, NEP, PPN and
PSPB. The analysis revealed that the initial hypothesized model demonstrated good fit to the data:
χ2 = 1024.439; df = 264; χ2 /df = 3.880; GFI = 0.920; AGFI = 0.901; CFI = 0.919; IFI = 0.919; TLI = 0.908;
SRMR = 0.062; RMSEA = 0.053 [90% CI: 0.049, 0.056]. Next, the statistical significance of the path
coefficients among the variables was examined. Except for the path from altruistic values to NEP and
Sustainability 2018,
Sustainability 10, 1384
2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11
11 of 19
of 19

path coefficients among the variables was examined. Except for the path from altruistic values to NEP
andpath
the the from
path biospheric
from biosphericvalues to values
PSPB,tothe PSPB,
otherthe other hypothesized
hypothesized paths werepaths were statistically
statistically significant.
significant. First, egoistic values (β = −0.132, t = −3.229, p < 0.01), altruistic values (β = 0.310,pt<=0.001),
First, egoistic values (β = − 0.132, t = − 3.229, p < 0.01), altruistic values (β = 0.310, t = 4.048, 4.048,
p < 0.001),
and PPN (β and PPN (βt =
= 0.101, = 0.101, 0.05) phave
2.204, tp=<2.204, < 0.05) have significant
significant effects oneffects
PSPB. onSecond,
PSPB. Second,
egoisticegoistic
values
values
(β (β = −0.213,
= −0.213, t = −5.097,
t = −5.097, p < 0.001) p <and0.001) and biospheric
biospheric values (βvalues (βt == 0.139,
= 0.139, 2.085, pt <= 0.05) p < significant
2.085,have 0.05) have
significant effects on NEP. Lastly, the effects of NEP (β = 0.192, t = 4.123, p < 0.001) on
effects on NEP. Lastly, the effects of NEP (β = 0.192, t = 4.123, p < 0.001) on PPN are PPN are
statistically
statistically significant.
significant. The effect of The effect ofvalues
altruistic altruistic
(β =values
0.116, (β
t == 1.554,
0.116, pt => 1.554,
0.05) onp >NEP
0.05) and
on NEP and the
the effect of
effect of biospheric values on PSPB (β = 0.022, t = 0.324, p > 0.05) are not significant.
biospheric values on PSPB (β = 0.022, t = 0.324, p > 0.05) are not significant.
The initial
The initial model
model was was revised
revised by by removing
removing the the two
two non-significant
non-significant paths.
paths. The
The revised
revised model
model
2 = 1026.918; df = 266; 2 /df = 3.861; GFI = 0.920;
also indicated a good fit to the research data: χ = 1026.918; df = 266; χ /df = 3.861; GFI = 0.920; AGFI
also indicated a good fit to the research data: 2χ 2 χ
= 0.902;
AGFI CFI = CFI
= 0.902; 0.919; IFI = 0.919;
= 0.919; TLI = TLI
IFI = 0.919; 0.908; SRMRSRMR
= 0.908; = 0.063; RMSEA
= 0.063; RMSEA= 0.053 [90% [90%
= 0.053 CI: 0.049, 0.056].
CI: 0.049, The
0.056].
result
The of the
result chi-square
of the chi-squarestatistical testtest
statistical shows
shows that nonosignificant
that significantdifference
differenceexists
existsbetween
between the initial
the initial
model and
model and revised
revised model
model (Δχ (∆χ22==2.479,
2.479,Δdf ∆df= = p >p 0.05),
2, 2, proving
> 0.05), provingthatthat
thethe
revised model
revised modelexplains the
explains
data well. Therefore, this revised model was selected as the final mode to explain further results.
the data well. Therefore, this revised model was selected as the final mode to explain further results.
Figure 33 demonstrates
Figure demonstrates the the SEM
SEM results
results of of the
the revised
revised model.
model.

Figure 3. The structural equation modeling (SEM) results of revised model.

Figure 3. The structural equation modeling (SEM) results of revised model.

Table 4 summarizes the unstandardized and standardized path coefficients among variables in
Table 4 summarizes
the final model and presents the corresponding
unstandardized and standardized
statistical path
significances. coefficientsthe
Specifically, among
effectvariables in
of altruistic
the finalonmodel
values PSPBand is β presents
= 0.330 (tcorresponding statistical
= 6.798, p < 0.001). significances.
The effects Specifically,
of egoistic values onthe
PSPBeffect
andofNEPaltruistic
are β
values on PSPB is β = 0.330 (t = 6.798, p < 0.001). The effects of egoistic values on PSPB and
= −0.135 (t = −3.320, p < 0.001) and β = −0.192 (t = −4.890, p < 0.001), respectively. The effect of biospheric NEP are
β = −0.135
values on NEP −3.320,
(t = is p < (t0.001)
β = 0.224 andp β< =
= 5.840, −0.192
0.001). The = −4.890,
(t effect p < on
of NEP 0.001),
PPNrespectively.
is β = 0.192 (tThe effectpof<
= 4.124,
biospheric values on NEP is β = 0.224 (t = 5.840, p < 0.001). The effect of NEP on
0.001). Lastly, the effect of PPN on PSPB is β = 0.104 (t = 2.285, p < 0.05). Therefore, the hypothesesPPN is β = 0.192
of
(t = 4.124, p < 0.001). Lastly, the effect of PPN on PSPB is β
H1b, H1c, H2a, H3 and H4 are supported, whereas H1a and H2b are not supported.= 0.104 (t = 2.285, p < 0.05). Therefore,
the hypotheses of H1b, H1c, H2a, H3 and H4 are supported, whereas H1a and H2b are not supported.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 12 of 19

Table 4. Path coefficient estimate of the revised model.

Path Unstandardized Coefficient (B) Standardized Coefficient (β) S.E. t

AV→PSPB 0.390 0.330 *** 0.057 6.798
EV→PSPB −0.120 −0.135 *** 0.036 −3.320
EV→NEP −0.191 −0.192 *** 0.039 −4.890
BV→NEP 0.268 0.224 *** 0.046 5.840
NEP→PPN 0.153 0.192 *** 0.037 4.124
PPN→PSPB 0.117 0.104 * 0.051 2.285
EV = egoistic values; AV = altruistic values; BV = biospheric values; NEP = new environmental paradigm;
PPN = pro-environmental personal norms; PSPB = public-sphere pro-environmental behavior. *** p < 0.001,
* p < 0.05.

Bootstrapping analysis was performed to rigorously test the mediating relationships existing in
the causal chain of VBN model. The results indicated that both egoistic values (indirect effect = −0.041,
p < 0.001) and biospheric values (indirect effect = 0.027, p < 0.05) yield an indirect effect through
new environmental paradigm on pro-environmental personal norms. Both egoistic values (indirect
effect = −0.004, p < 0.05) and biospheric values (indirect effect = 0.003, p < 0.05) have an indirect
influence on PSPB through the mediation of NEP and PPN. However, the indirect effects of altruistic
values on PPN and on PSPB are not significant. Thus, the hypotheses of H5a and H5b are only partially
supported. Finally, NEP has a significant indirect effect on PSPB through PPN (indirect effect = 0.019,
p < 0.05). Hence, the hypothesis of H5c is verified. Table 5 demonstrates the results of mediation test
using bootstrapping.

Table 5. Mediation test using bootstrapping.

Bootstrapping 95% Bias-Corrected CI

Path p
Indirect Effect Boot S. E. Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
AV→NEP→PPN 0.022 0.016 −0.003 0.061 0.083
EV→NEP→PPN −0.041 0.013 −0.072 −0.019 0.000
BV→NEP→PPN 0.027 0.017 0.002 0.071 0.031
AV→NEP→PPN→PSPB 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.009 0.063
EV→NEP→PPN→PSPB −0.004 0.002 −0.011 −0.001 0.012
BV→NEP→PPN→PSPB 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.010 0.034
NEP→PPN→PSPB 0.019 0.010 0.004 0.044 0.016
EV = egoistic values; AV = altruistic values; BV = biospheric values; NEP = new environmental paradigm;
PPN = pro-environmental personal norms; PSPB = public-sphere pro-environmental behavior.

5. Discussion
The aim of the present study was to test the cross-cultural applicability of the VBN theory in
a Mongolian college student sample. We investigated the structural relationships among the VBN
clusters of variables, namely, egoistic values, altruistic values, biospheric values, NEP, PPN and PSPB
in this study.
Using SEM analysis, our study confirmed that: (1) altruistic values have a significant positive
influence on PSPB, whereas egoistic values were found to have negative effects on PSPB; (2) egoistic
values significantly and negatively affected NEP, while biospheric value significantly and positively
predicted NEP; (3) NEP was found to have a significant impact on PPN; (4) PPN could significantly and
positively influence PSPB; and (5) there exists multiple mediation in the VBN chain model. Although
no significant relationship exists between altruistic values and NEP and between biospheric values
and PSPB, the findings were basically in line with the causal chain relationship described in VBN
theory and provided new evidence for the applicability and generalization of the VBN theory model
in explaining PSPB.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 13 of 19

First, this study highlighted the direct influence of values on PSPB. Egoistic values had a significant
negative influence on PSPB, whereas altruistic values had a significant positive influence on PSPB and
were the strongest predictor of PSPB based on the size of the standardized coefficients (see Table 3).
The results are supported by previous studies [18,93], implying that college students whose lives
are guided by their own welfare are reluctant to perform PSPB. In contrast, students who consider
the welfare of other people the leading principle in their lives are more likely to engage in PSPB.
Although college students scored the highest on the biospheric values scale, a significant direct
influence of biospheric values on PSPB was not found. Apparently, altruistic values are more powerful
for promoting PSPB than biospheric values are in this study. This may be because Mongolian educated
elites mainly link environmental issues to ethnic politics and identity [24]. For example, when college
students participated in the 2011 protests in IMAR, they expressed their strong discontent regarding
the serious environmental and economic injustice to the local people and culture [23,24] but not directly
regarding the damage to the natural environment itself.
Second, NEP could be positively predicted by biospheric values and could be negatively predicted
by egoistic values. This finding suggests that individuals who value the welfare of the biosphere tend
to form favorable perspectives about human–environmental relations and a higher level of concern
about the natural environment. However, contrary to our expectation and a basic presumption of
VBN theory, we did not find that altruistic values have a significant effect on NEP. This finding is
supported by several previous studies that indicated that altruistic value orientations did not make
a significant contribution to the explanation of NEP [76,83,94]. The major reason for the non-significant
path between altruistic values and NEP may be the statistical artifact [79]. In other words, biospheric
and altruistic values were strongly inter-correlated with a correlation coefficient of 0.641 (p < 0.001)
(see Table 1), which makes it less likely for biospheric and altruistic values to contribute uniquely to
the explanation of PSPB.
Third, this study found that NEP has a significant positive impact on PPN. This finding is
consistent with VBN and NAM theory [13,70], which assert that individuals’ moral obligations to
protect the environment can be activated by their positive view of human–nature interrelationships and
awareness of ecological crises. More specifically, NEP acts as a filter between value orientations and
behavior norms when people are facing or dealing with information about the relationship between
humans and nature. If the information is in line with one’s value orientations, pro-environmental
norms and other specific pro-environmental beliefs are more likely to be generated [16].
Fourth, our findings demonstrated that PPN has a significant positive influence on PSPB.
This means that PPN plays an important role in linking general environmental belief and PSPB.
This result is in accordance with theorists’ viewpoint that specific pro-environmental behavior may
occur as a direct response to personal moral obligation related to such behavior [13,14]. This finding is
also supported by previous studies conducted both in Western countries and in China [74,85,95,96].
However, it is worth noting that PPN is the weakest predictor of PSPB among the variables that
have direct impacts on PSPB in this research. One possible explanation may be the difference in the
predictive power of PPN on different types of pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, PPN appears
to be powerful in explaining low-cost behavior but less successful when behavior is constrained by
economic and behavioral factors, such as time, money, and effort [95]. PSPB is generally viewed as
a purer and more active form of pro-environmental behavior than behavior in the private sphere
because it requires much greater personal cost or sacrifice [97].
Finally, this study revealed that both biospheric values and egoistic values have an indirect
influence on PSPB through the mediation of NEP and PPN. This result points to the fact that students
who adhere to biospheric values tend to be more concerned about the environment, have a higher level
of moral obligation of behaving pro-environmentally, and have a stronger intention to be involved with
the PSPB, whereas those who adhered to egoistic values are less likely to care about the environment,
perceive a lower level of moral obligation to protect the environment, and have a weaker willingness
to perform PSPB. However, the mediation of NEP and PPN in the relationship between altruistic
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 14 of 19

values and PSPB is not significant in this research. This finding is slightly different from previous
studies [48,83] which found that all three types of values have indirect effects on pro-environmental
behavior through NEP and PPN. Just as we have described above, the reason may be that Mongolian
college students tend to link environmental issues with the well-being of their ethnic group directly.

6. Conclusions and Future Directions

This study examined the role of clusters of social-psychological predictors on public-sphere
pro-environmental behavior of Mongolian college students based on the value–belief–norm model.
Our findings have both theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretically, we focused for the first time on empirically testing the applicability of VBN
in an undeveloped minority area of China. The VBN theory framework has been widely used
to explain various types of pro-environmental behavior in different groups with Western cultural
backgrounds. This research further extends the scope of the application and generalization of VBN
theory and provides valuable and validated framework and measurements for the future research in
China. By contrast with previous literature, this research provides in-depth insights into the direct
relationships between values and pro-environmental behavior, thus highlighting the crucial role of
values in the VBN model in predicting the environmentalism of a young generation in minority areas
of China. In addition, this study provides robust and precise evidence for both the direct and indirect
effects in the causal linkage of the VBN model by conducting SEM and bootstrapping analysis rather
than the Sobel tests adopted in previous researches.
Our findings also have important practical implications for educational program design and
environmental policy-making in Inner Mongolia. Given the direct and mediation effects of VBN
clusters of variables on PSPB verified in this study, students’ PSPB can be promoted directly by
strengthening students’ altruistic values and personal norms. Universities should relate the contents
and objects of educational programs more to the well-being of society. For example, a course topic
about “coal mining caused grassland degradation” may not directly influence students’ behavior.
However, an alternative topic “coal mining caused loss and damage to the livelihood of the Mongolian
herders” may strengthen their intention to engage in PSPB. This is not to say that the biospheric
values are not important; on the contrary, biospheric values can exert critical influence on PSPB
through people’s general beliefs about environmental welfare and personal norms to perform
environmentally. Therefore, it is important to foster students’ awareness of the contemporary
environmental crisis and cultivate their sense of responsibility to behave pro-environmentally.
Specifically, universities should increase their cooperation with local governments, communities,
industries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in providing various forms of education for
students, such as community-based [98], project-based [99] and problem-based learning [100] which
can serve as a relevant forum for students to learn the adverse outcomes of environmental problems
on the nature, society, community and people around them and to activate their personal norms to
act in an environmentally friendly way. With regard to designing and implementing environmental
policies, policy-makers should take the welfare of local people and their unique ethnic customs and
cultures into consideration. Furthermore, it is also critical for the policy-maker to listen to the students’
opinions [101], thus enhancing students’ confidence in solving environmental problems and promoting
the formation of personal norms toward environmental protection.
There are several limitations that should be considered in future studies. First, the results cannot
be generalized to Mongolian college students in all types and levels of institutes of higher education
because the sample students were from three major public universities in IMAR. Additionally, China is
the largest developing country with multi-ethnic groups that face severe environmental problems.
Future studies should consider various samples of other major ethnic minorities in China, such as the
Zhuang, Uyghur, Tibetan, and Hui, thus providing further cross-cultural evidence or supplementing
theories used to explain the driving factors of pro-environmental behavior. Second, we collected
data by self-reported surveys during one period. Thus, these data may not reflect the contribution
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 15 of 19

of student development during higher education to changes in students’ values, beliefs, norms and
behavior in a four-year period [102]. Hence, future studies are advised to adopt a longitudinal
design to evaluate the causal relationships among variables in the VBN framework. Finally, China is
the largest developing country with the world’s largest population, fastest-growing economy and
unprecedented pressure from environmental degradation. In addition, Chinese social culture is
different from Western countries and even differs from its neighbors, Korea and Japan. Therefore,
future research should consider the unique cultural factors and cultural conflicts in China. For example,
original Mongolian nomadic cultures maintain a value orientation of harmonious co-existence between
humans and nature [103]. The way these cultures and values influence local people’s environmental
beliefs, attitudes and behaviors should be further explored, which will produce additional theoretical
and practical findings.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1384/

s1.
Author Contributions: X.L. and Y.Z. conceived and designed the research; X.L. and J.W. conduted the survey;
X.L. and Y.Z. analyzed the data and wrote the paper. J.W. contributed to the paper’s revisions.
Funding: This research was funded by [National Social Science Foundation of China] grant number [16ZDA231],
[Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Beijing University of Technology] grant number [103000546317505],
[Program for Rixin Talents of Beijing University of Technology] grant number [103000514118003].
Acknowledgments: This research was financially supported by National Social Science Foundation of
China (No. 16ZDA231), Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Beijing University of Technology
(No. 103000546317505), Program for Rixin Talents of Beijing University of Technology (No. 103000514118003).
The authors thank the reviewers’ valuable comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gardner, G.T.; Stern, P.C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior, 2nd ed.; Pearson Custom Publishing:
Boston, MA, USA, 2002.
2. Winter, D.D.N.; Koger, S.M. The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology for Sustainability, 2nd ed.;
Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
3. Vlek, C.A.J.; Steg, L. Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces,
and research topics. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 1–19. [CrossRef]
4. Berenguer, J.; Corraliza, J.A.; Martin, R. Rural-Urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes,
and actions. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2005, 21, 128–138. [CrossRef]
5. Hunter, L.M.; Hatch, A.; Johnson, A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Q.
2004, 85, 677–694. [CrossRef]
6. Swami, V.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T.; Snelgar, R.; Furnham, A. Personality, individual differences,
and demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste management behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol.
2011, 31, 21–26. [CrossRef]
7. Ambrosius, J.D.; Gilderbloom, J.I. Who’s greener? Comparing urban and suburban residents’ environmental
behaviour and concern. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 836–849. [CrossRef]
8. Meyer, A. Heterogeneity in the preferences and pro-environmental behavior of college students: The effects
of years on campus, demographics, and external factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3451–3463. [CrossRef]
9. Aprile, M.C.; Fiorillo, D. Water conservation behavior and environmental concerns: Evidence from
a representative sample of Italian individuals. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 119–129. [CrossRef]
10. Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015,
116, 108–121. [CrossRef]
11. Gifford, R.; Nilsson, A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour:
A review. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 141–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social
movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 16 of 19

13. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [CrossRef]
14. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279.
15. Schwartz, S.H.; Howard, J.A. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In Altruism and Helping
Behavior; Rushton, J.P., Sorrentino, R.M., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1981.
16. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern. J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 65–84. [CrossRef]
17. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and
preliminary results. J. Environ. Educ. 1978, 9, 10–19. [CrossRef]
18. Whitley, C.T.; Takahashi, B.; Zwickle, A.; Besley, J.C.; Lertpratchya, A.P. Sustainability behaviors among
college students: An application of the VBN theory. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 2, 245–262. [CrossRef]
19. Geng, L.; Xu, J.; Ye, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, K. Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PLoS ONE
2015, 10, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Li, D.; Chen, J. Significant life experiences on the formation of environmental action among Chinese college
students. Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 21, 612–630. [CrossRef]
21. Zhou, K.; Ye, L.; Geng, L.; Xu, Q. How do implicit materialism and postmaterialism affect proenvironmental
behavior? Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 1495–1505. [CrossRef]
22. Dai, G.S.; Ulgiati, S.; Zhang, Y.S.; Yu, B.H.; Kang, M.Y.; Jin, Y.; Dong, X.B.; Zhang, X.S. The false promises of
coal exploitation: How mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of Inner Mongolia.
Energy Policy 2014, 67, 146–153. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z. Environmental justice and sustainability impact assessment: In search of solutions to
ethnic conflicts caused by coal mining in Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8756–8774. [CrossRef]
24. Baranovitch, N. The 2011 Protests in Inner Mongolia: An Ethno-environmental Perspective. China Q. 2016,
225, 214–233. [CrossRef]
25. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of
psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25. [CrossRef]
26. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across
14 countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 255–265. [CrossRef]
27. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context.
Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 723–743. [CrossRef]
28. Wiidegren, Ö. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 75–100.
[CrossRef]
29. Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and
eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 358–370. [CrossRef]
30. Jansson, J.; Marell, A.; Nordlund, A. Elucidating green consumers: A cluster analytic approach on
proenvironmental purchase and curtailment behaviors. J. Euromark. 2009, 18, 245–267. [CrossRef]
31. Han, H.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.J. The value–belief–emotion–norm model: Investigating customers’ eco-friendly
behavior. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 590–607. [CrossRef]
32. Choi, H.; Jang, J.; Kandampully, J. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’
decisions about green hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 51, 87–95. [CrossRef]
33. Johansson, M.; Rahm, J.; Gyllin, M. Landowners’ Participation in Biodiversity Conservation Examined
through the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 295–311. [CrossRef]
34. Menzel, S.; Bögeholz, S. Values, beliefs and norms that foster Chilean and German pupils’ commitment to
protect biodiversity. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2010, 5, 31–49.
35. Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm
theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [CrossRef]
36. Lind, H.B.; Nordfjærn, T.; Jørgensen, S.H.; Rundmo, T. The value-belief-norm theory, personal norms and
sustainable travel mode choice in urban areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 119–125. [CrossRef]
37. Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T. Understanding the internal processes of behavioral engagement in a national
park: A latent variable path analysis of the value-belief-norm theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38, 288–297.
[CrossRef]
38. Andersson, L.; Shivarajan, S.; Blau, G. Enacting ecological sustainability in the MNC: A test of an adapted
value-belief-norm framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 59, 295–305. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 17 of 19

39. Aguilar-Luzón, M.D.C.; García-Martínez, J.M.Á.; Calvo-Salguero, A.; Salinas, J.M. Comparative study
between the theory of planned behavior and the value-belief-norm model regarding the environment, on
Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2797–2833. [CrossRef]
40. Onel, N.; Mukherjee, A. Why do consumers recycle? A holistic perspective encompassing moral
considerations, affective responses, and self-interest motives. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 956–971. [CrossRef]
41. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into
household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [CrossRef]
42. Kaiser, F.G.; Hübner, G.; Bogner, F.X. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm
model in explaining conservation behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 2150–2170. [CrossRef]
43. Fornara, F.; Pattitoni, P.; Mura, M.; Strazzera, E. Predicting intention to improve household energy
efficiency: The role of value-belief-norm theory, normative and informational influence, and specific attitude.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 1–10. [CrossRef]
44. Scherbaum, C.A.; Popovich, P.M.; Finlinson, S. Exploring individual-level factors related to employee
energy-conservation behaviors at work. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 818–835. [CrossRef]
45. Ibtissem, M.H. Application of value beliefs norms theory to the energy conservation behaviour.
J. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 3, 129–139. [CrossRef]
46. Wolske, K.S.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Explaining interest in adopting residential solar photovoltaic systems
in the United States: Toward an integration of behavioral theories. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 25, 134–151.
[CrossRef]
47. Nordlund, A.; Jansson, J.; Westin, K. New transportation technology: Norm activation processes and the
intention to Switch to an electric/hybrid vehicle. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2527–2536. [CrossRef]
48. Jakovcevic, A.; Steg, L. Sustainable transportation in Argentina: Values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2013, 20, 70–79. [CrossRef]
49. Collins, C.M.; Chambers, S.M. Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice.
Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 640–661. [CrossRef]
50. Whitley, C.T.; Gunderson, R.; Charters, M. Public receptiveness to policies promoting plant-based diets:
Framing effects and social psychological and structural influences. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018, 20, 45–63.
[CrossRef]
51. Sanderson, M.R.; Bergtold, J.S.; Heier Stamm, J.L.; Caldas, M.M.; Ramsey, S.M. Bringing the “social” into
sociohydrology: Conservation policy support in the Central Great Plains of Kansas, USA. Water Resour. Res.
2017, 53, 6725–6743. [CrossRef]
52. Kim, S.; Shin, W. Understanding American and Korean students’ support for pro-environmental tax policy:
The application of the value–belief–norm theory of environmentalism. Environ. Commun. 2017, 11, 311–331.
[CrossRef]
53. Dietz, T.; Dan, A.; Shwom, R. Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural
influences. Rural Sociol. 2007, 72, 185–214. [CrossRef]
54. Chua, K.B.; Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J.; Basiruddin, R. The mediating role of new ecological paradigm
between value orientations and pro-environmental personal norm in the agricultural context. Asia Pacific J.
Mark. Logist. 2016, 28, 323–349. [CrossRef]
55. Sia, A.P.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior:
An analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1986, 17, 31–40. [CrossRef]
56. Kaiser, F.G.; Ranney, M.; Hartig, T.; Bowler, P.A. Ecological behavior, environmental attitude, and feelings of
responsibility for the environment. Eur. Psychol. 1999, 4, 59–74. [CrossRef]
57. Ellen, P.; Wiener, J.L.J.; Cobb-Walgren, C.; Scholder Ellen, P.; Wiener, J.L.J.; Cobb-Walgren, C. The role of
perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark.
1991, 10, 102–117.
58. Smith-Sebasto, N.J.; D’Costa, A. Designing a likert-type scale to predict environmentally responsible behavior
in undergraduate students: A multistep process. J. Environ. Educ. 1995, 27, 14–20. [CrossRef]
59. Karp, D.G. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 111–133.
[CrossRef]
60. Lavelle, M.J.; Rau, H.; Fahy, F. Different shades of green? Unpacking habitual and occasional
pro-environmental behavior. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 368–378. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 18 of 19

61. Macdonald, E.F.; She, J. Seven cognitive concepts for successful eco-design. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 23–36.
[CrossRef]
62. Lu, H.; Liu, X.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Yue, T. Who contributed to “corporation green” in China? A view of
public- and private-sphere pro-environmental behavior among employees. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120,
166–175. [CrossRef]
63. Moon, S.G.; Jeong, S.Y.; Choi, Y. Moderating effects of trust on environmentally significant behavior in Korea.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–19. [CrossRef]
64. Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and
national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. Int. Sociol. 2011, 26, 315–345. [CrossRef]
65. Rice, G. Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for Islamic environmental ethics? J. Bus. Ethics
2006, 65, 373–390. [CrossRef]
66. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 88–104.
[CrossRef]
67. Feng, W.; Reisner, A. Factors influencing private and public environmental protection behaviors: Results
from a survey of residents in Shaanxi, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 429–436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
69. Olson, J.; Zanna, M. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993, 44, 117–154. [CrossRef]
70. Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994,
50, 19–45. [CrossRef]
71. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in
20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65.
72. Stern, P.C.; Kalof, L.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude
formation toward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1611–1636. [CrossRef]
73. Schultz, P.W.; Zelezny, L.C. Values and proenvironmental behavior a five-country survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol.
1998, 29, 540–558. [CrossRef]
74. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34,
740–756. [CrossRef]
75. Jia, F.; Soucie, K.; Alisat, S.; Curtin, D.; Pratt, M. Are environmental issues moral issues? Moral identity in
relation to protecting the natural world. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 52, 104–113. [CrossRef]
76. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993,
25, 322–348. [CrossRef]
77. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. A brief inventory of values. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1998, 58, 984–1001.
[CrossRef]
78. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five countries: Validity of an
instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38,
318–332. [CrossRef]
79. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior:
How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 330–354.
[CrossRef]
80. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and
pro-environmental behavioural intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 368–378. [CrossRef]
81. Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between
biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 55–63. [CrossRef]
82. Van Doorn, J.; Verhoef, P.C. Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior. J. Retail. 2015, 91, 436–450.
[CrossRef]
83. Steg, L.; Dreijerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN
theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415–425. [CrossRef]
84. Yeboah, F.K.; Kaplowitz, M.D. Explaining energy conservation and environmental citizenship behaviors
Using the Value-Belief-Norm Framework. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2016, 22, 137–160.
85. Zhang, X.; Geng, G.; Sun, P. Determinants and implications of citizens’ environmental complaint in China:
Integrating theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 148–156.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1384 19 of 19

86. Wu, J.; Zi, F.; Liu, X.; Wang, G.; Yang, Z.; Li, M.; Ye, L.; Jiang, J.; Li, Q. Measurement of new ecological
paradigm: Revision and application of NEP scale in China. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2012, 11, 8–13. (In Chinese)
87. Gärling, T.; Fujii, S.; Gärling, A.; Jakobsson, C. Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants
of proenvironmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 1–9. [CrossRef]
88. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
89. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 3, 411–423. [CrossRef]
90. Wu, M. Structural Equation Model: Operation and Application of AMOS; Chongqing University Press:
Chongqing, China, 2009. (In Chinese)
91. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Loewenthal, K.M. An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, 2nd ed.; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2001.
93. Barbarossa, C.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Moons, I. Personal values, green self-identity and electric car adoption.
Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 190–200. [CrossRef]
94. Sahin, E. Predictors of turkish elementary teacher candidates’ energy conservation behaviors: An approach
on value-belief-norm theory. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2013, 8, 269–283. [CrossRef]
95. Bamberg, S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new
answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 21–32. [CrossRef]
96. Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to
reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 339–347. [CrossRef]
97. Lee, Y.K.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, J.G. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of
pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105. [CrossRef]
98. Nomura, K.; Abe, O. Higher education for sustainable development in Japan: Policy and progress. Int. J.
Sustain. High. Educ. 2010, 11, 120–129. [CrossRef]
99. Segalàs, J.; Mulder, K.F.; Ferrer-Balas, D. What do EESD “experts” think sustainability is? Which pedagogy
is suitable to learn it? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 293–304. [CrossRef]
100. Dobson, H.E.; Tomkinson, C.B. Creating sustainable development change agents through problem-based
learning Designing appropriate student PBL projects. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 431–449. [CrossRef]
101. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [CrossRef]
102. Sheldon, K.M. Positive value change during college: Normative trends and individual differences.
J. Res. Personal. 2005, 39, 209–223. [CrossRef]
103. Zhang, M.D.A.; Borjigin, E.; Zhang, H. Mongolian nomadic culture and ecological culture: On the ecological
reconstruction in the agro-pastoral mosaic zone in Northern China. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 19–26. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).