Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict intentions to

purchase sustainable housing
Madeline Judge a, *, Georgia Warren-Myers b, Angela Paladino a
a
Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne, Australia
b
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Homebuyers today are faced with a spectrum of choices when deciding to build a new home. However,
Received 12 June 2018 encouraging more sustainable choices in housing and construction decisions has been challenging. In
Received in revised form this paper, we apply the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to investigate the factors predicting
2 January 2019
homebuyers’ intentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification. Three hundred and
Accepted 4 January 2019
Available online 7 January 2019
thirty Australian residents who had recently purchased property were recruited via an online panel
provider. Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and green consumer identity each
independently predicted higher intentions to purchase a sustainability-certified dwelling, and in com-
Keywords:
Theory of planned behaviour
bination accounted for 65% of the variance in intentions. Green consumer identity also significantly
Sustainability certifications moderated the effect of subjective norms on intentions. In a separate analysis, the two strongest pre-
Green consumer identity dictors of willingness to pay for a sustainability certification were familiarity with current sustainability
Housing purchase intentions certifications and subjective norms. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction which have been poorly implemented and communicated to con-

Electricity and heat production from the burning of fossil fuels is
one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emis-
sions globally (Environmental Protection Authority, 2018). In the
building sector, both the energy consumed in the construction of
new homes and ongoing household energy usage are significant
contributors to emissions, and consequently have implications for
climate change and environmental degradation. In Australia, the
residential sector alone accounts for 7.7% of annual energy con-
sumption and contributes significantly to water usage and solid
waste sent to landfill (Department of Industry, Innovation and
Science, 2016; Pitt & Sherry, 2014). Accordingly, it is imperative to
develop a better understanding of how to promote the adoption of
sustainability initiatives at a local level, regarding consumer
decision-making in residential contexts. At present, approaches to
promoting more sustainable housing in Australia have been limited
to establishing a mandatory energy rating for new homes and
providing a selection of voluntary sustainability tools, both of
* Corresponding author. The University of Melbourne, Level 10, 198 Berkeley St,
Vic, 3010, Australia.
E-mail addresses: madeline.judge@unimelb.edu.au (M. Judge), g.warrenmyers@
unimelb.edu.au (G. Warren-Myers), a.paladino@unimelb.edu.au (A. Paladino).
sumers (Pitt & Sherry, 2014; Warren-Myers, 2017).
Evidence suggests that most homebuyers value energy effi-
ciency in a home (see, for example, Brounen and Kok, 2011; Deng
et al., 2012; Fuerst et al., 2015; Fuerst and Shimizu, 2016; Kahn
and Kok, 2014; Noiseux and Hostetler, 2010). In the Australian
context, Fuerst and Warren-Myers (2018) found premiums associ-
ated with energy efficiency ratings and the presence of certain
sustainability features in the home. However, this has not trans-
lated to an increased consumer demand for or awareness of sus-
tainability certifications for new dwellings across Australia, due in
part to poor communication and offerings by builders (Bryant and
Eves, 2012; Hurst, 2012; Pitt & Sherry, 2014; Warren-Myers, 2017).
A recent Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Orga-
nisation (CSIRO) survey of 456 Australian residents found that
participants expressed positive attitudes towards homes that were
more energy efficient and reported that rating tools would be one
of the key information sources they would seek (Romanach et al.,
2015). This study identified that participants had a desire for
more energy efficient homes, yet it did not specifically examine
their views on current sustainability rating tools and certifications.
Additionally, the range of competing motivations when purchasing
a home can include the relationship between an increased sub-
stantial cost and capital outlay, borrowing capacity, and ‘dream

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.029
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
260 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
home’ ideals, all of which contend for attention and play a unique
role in decision-making, which differs from other lower-
investment purchasing contexts.
Given the need to encourage more sustainable housing choices
by consumers, more research is needed to understand prospective
homebuyers' attitudes toward sustainability certifications for
dwellings, and the psychological factors that motivate or inhibit
intentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification.
The current research applies a psychological model of decision-
making processes, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen,
1991), to investigate the subjective attitudes and beliefs contrib-
uting to intentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustainability
certification. At present, most research on the psychological factors
contributing to pro-environmental behaviours has focused on
relatively low-investment behaviours, such as reducing one's
overall consumption, increasing recycling, or choosing ‘green’ al-
ternatives in the context of organic food, energy-efficient appli-
ances, green mobile phones green hotels, electric cars, or energy
providers (e.g. Carfora et al., 2017; Nigbur et al., 2010; Paladino and
Ng, 2013; Smith and Paladino, 2010; Verma and Chandra, 2018;
Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010; Yadav and Pathak, 2016;
Yazdanpanah and Forouzani, 2015). Relatively little research has
examined the role of sustainability concerns in consumer decision-
making regarding one of the most significant investments that an
individual may make in their lifetime; the purchase of a dwelling.
Therefore, the present research makes a unique contribution to the
literature by being one of the first to apply the TPB to intentions to
purchase sustainable housing. The research also aims to provide
clear directives for the housing sector stakeholders and govern-
ment organizations who are trying to promote sustainability in
housing, regarding what approaches will be more effective in
enhancing sustainability uptake in housing.
1.1. Sustainability certifications and rating systems for dwellings in
Australia
In countries such as Australia, sustainability certifications for
dwellings come in both voluntary and mandatory forms. Due to the
National Construction Code, all newly constructed dwellings (and
to an extent, dwellings that are being extended), are subject to
comply with a 6-star Nationwide House Energy Rating System
(NatHERS) rating. This is a thermal assessment design-based tool to
assess potential thermal comfort, taking into account local weather
extremes. The NatHERS tool has a relatively long history (being
developed in 1993) and has had some form of mandatory inclusion
since 1998. Subsequent rating tools that have been developed at the
dwelling level include the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX),
which only applies as a mandatory requirement in New South
Wales and extends to include energy and water requirements;
whilst the recent addition, the National Australian Built Environ-
ment Rating System (NABERS), is a voluntary tool that examines the
current energy usage and assesses the performance of the dwelling.
Additional voluntary tools have been applied in new housing
estates at the development level, and consumers may be exposed to
these certifications when purchasing homes within those housing
estates. The development-based tools in the residential estate
sector are primarily Green Star (either multi-unit or communities),
Envirodevelopment and Built Environment Sustainability Score-
card (BESS, in Victoria only). The Green Star and Envirodevelop-
ment tools are voluntary tools with a series of categories that
developers can target, and as long as they fulfil enough criteria
within the categories, they will receive a rating. The categories in
the Green Star Communities tool comprise Governance, Liveability,
Economic Prosperity, Environment and Innovation (Green Building
Council of Australia, 2018), whilst the Green Star Multi-unit tool
(recently removed from the market) comprised traditional Green
Star categories of Management, Indoor Environment Quality, En-
ergy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land Use and Ecology, Emissions
and Innovation (Green Building Council of Australia, 2008).
The EnviroDevelopment tool is assessed using six categories
known as ‘leaves’. Unlike the Green Star system, certain ‘leaves’
can be targeted and not all have to be attempted; consequently,
the rating is issued with logos associated with the particular cate-
gories that have been achieved. The different categories include:
Ecosystems, Waste, Energy, Materials, Water and Community
(EnviroDevelopment, 2018). The BESS tool is a recent addition from
2015 and is being implemented through the Victorian planning
scheme. BESS has elements similar to the two voluntary tools and
will comprise a more mandatory approach for developers going
forward in the Victorian planning scheme, once passed into legis-
lation. Similar to the Green Star tool that includes criteria within
the categories in a scoring type system, the different categories
within the BESS tool comprise Management, Water, Energy,
Stormwater, Indoor Environment Quality, Transport, Waste, Urban
Ecology and Innovation (Municipal Association of Victoria, 2018).
Given the increasing diversity and varying degrees of visibility of
sustainability certifications in the building sector, it is important to
investigate whether these sustainability certifications play a role in
consumer decision-making regarding the purchasing of a dwelling.
In other purchase contexts, eco-labels and star rating systems that
inform consumers of the relative energy-efficiency of different
products have been found to increase willingness-to-pay (e.g. Ward
et al., 2011) and can even shape consumers’ experience of the
product (although these effects can be moderated by level of
environmental concern and the product involved; e.g, So €rqvist,
et al., 2015). There are potential opportunities for builders and
developers to market the sustainability certifications and attributes
of their developments as a way to add value, given the positive
connotations of these attributes for consumers. Yet at present, there
is a lack of sustainability information available to consumers
(Warren-Myers and McRae, 2017) and low rates of visibility of the
NatHERS rating (the mandatory rating) in standard inclusions
provided to new homebuyers (Warren-Myers et al., 2017). Pre-
liminary research has identified various other barriers to increasing
energy-efficiency in households for consumers, such as perceived
initial costs, a lack of knowledge and education, poor communi-
cation with building professionals, and their inferior position to
enforce or request more sustainable options (Bond, 2011; Crabtree,
2006; Crabtree and Hes, 2009; Warren-Myers et al., 2012; Williams
and Dair, 2007). A recent news article also highlighted areas of
inconsistency and potential confusion in meanings of star-rating
tools across different dwelling sustainability certifications (Fifth
Estate, 2017).
1.2. Theoretical framework
In the present study, we apply the theory of planned behaviour
(TPB), to investigate the subjective beliefs that predict intentions to
purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification. The TPB is a
theoretical framework for predicting behaviour, which has been
supported by a substantial amount of research across multiple
behavioural domains (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage and Conner, 2001). In
the model, intentions to perform the behaviour are conceptualised
as the closest antecedent of actual behaviour, and intentions are
predicted by an additive combination of attitudes towards the
behaviour, subjective norms (beliefs about how important others
view the behaviour, or whether others engage in the behaviour
themselves) and perceived behavioural control over performing the
behaviour. Perceived behavioural control is also sometimes
included in the model as a direct predictor of actual behaviour. The
 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
TPB has been successfully applied to many domains of pro-
environmental behaviour, including sustainable food consump-
tion (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008), fuel-efficient cars (Nayum and
Klo€ ckner, 2014), willingness to pay for an urban park (Lo
 pez-
Mosquera et al., 2014) and the pro-environmental behaviours of
high school students (De Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen & Schmidt, 2015).
The model has been used to assist with developing educational
interventions tailored to specific populations (De Leeuw et al.,
2015).
1.3. The role of green consumer identity
In the context of investigating pro-environmental behaviour,
the TPB has often been extended by the inclusion of relevant self-
identity measures; specifically, pro-environmental identity or
green consumer self-identity (e.g., Brick et al., 2017; Fielding et al.,
2008; Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010).
Self-identity has been defined as “the salient part of an actor's self
which relates to a particular behaviour” (Conner and Armitage,
1998, p. 1444). Although an individual may carry an identity
related to a specific pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. a ‘recycler’
identity), a green consumer identity can be conceptualised as a
global construct that impacts behaviour across multiple con-
sumption domains. A recent study examining the role of identity
across multiple pro-environmental behaviours found that pro-
environmental self-identity significantly moderated the relation-
ships between perceived behavioural control and intentions, and
past behaviour and intentions (Carfora et al., 2017). In addition,
identity was found to influence actual behaviour. In the current
study, we investigated whether green consumer identity moder-
ated the relationships between the three TPB predictors and in-
tentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification.
Although green consumer identity is usually applied to relatively
low-investment behaviours, such as reducing food waste or recy-
cling (Carfora et al., 2017), it is likely that green consumer identity is
also relevant to the context of purchasing property (especially
because housing purchases involve a high level public visibility).
We predicted that sustainability certifications for dwellings would
engage identity motivations and influence intentions to purchase a
certified dwelling, depending on the extent to which one self-
identifies as a green consumer.
In a related study, Tan (2013) applied an extended TPB model
including self-identity to the context of purchasing a sustainable
home in Malaysia. This study found that the strongest predictors of
purchase intentions were attitudes and self-identity, whereas
perceived behaviour control was a weaker predictor, and subjective
norms were not a significant predictor of purchase intentions (Tan,
2013). A potential limitation to this study was that they did not
target a sample of existing homebuyers, therefore some of their
participants potentially did not have the ability to make housing
purchases. In the current study, we restricted the sample to in-
dividuals who reported recently purchasing property, in order to
collect data from participants for whom the behaviour of interest
may be more possible and salient. We also extended previous
research (e.g. Tan, 2013) by examining intentions to purchase
sustainability-certified housing in an Australian context.
1.4. The role of past behaviour and familiarity with current
certifications
Extant research has found that past behaviour is one of the
strongest predictors of future behaviours (Ajzen, 2011). Past
behaviour is often conceptualised as habitual engagement in the
behaviour. In the context of purchasing property, past behaviour is
less likely to be an important factor, given that there are far fewer
261
opportunities to purchase a house (in comparison to the kinds of
behaviours that have been examined in past research, such as
purchasing food and beverages; e.g., Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008).
Although past behaviour is not expected to have a significant
relationship with future intentions, we controlled for this variable
in the current study. Additionally, because we were investigating
attitudes toward sustainability certifications in a general sense,
rather than attitudes towards specific certifications, we also
controlled for familiarity with existing sustainability certifications.
We expected that attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioural control would be more proximal indicators of purchase
intentions, compared to past behaviour or familiarity with specific
certifications.
1.5. Hypotheses
It is important to examine the psychological antecedents of
homebuyers’ decision-making, in order to identify potential exist-
ing barriers to sustainability uptake as well as opportunities for
educational interventions. An understanding of these variables is
critical to gauge how to best structure messaging appeals to con-
sumers to attract their attention and educate them of the role of
sustainable certifications. The TPB provides a useful framework for
examining the antecedents of intentions to purchase housing with
a sustainability certification. Based on prior research examining the
TPB in the context of sustainable consumer behaviours (e.g. Carfora
et al., 2017), we predicted that the three standard TPB variables
would predict intentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustain-
ability certification, and that green consumer identity would
moderate the relationships between the antecedents and in-
tentions. More specifically, we proposed the following hypotheses.
First, a positive attitude towards purchasing a sustainable
dwelling is likely to be a strong positive predictor of intentions
(H1); individuals are more likely to plan to make such a purchase if
they view this behaviour as having positive consequences (in this
context, positive consequences may include reducing one's impact
on the environment or lowering household energy costs).
Second, subjective norms (i.e. injunctive norms regarding the
perception that important others would support the purchase, or
descriptive norms regarding whether important others have
engaged in the behaviour themselves) is also likely to be a positive
predictor of intentions (H2). Housing purchases are often made
with consideration of the needs and desires of one's spouse or
family members; therefore, perceived social pressure may be a
highly salient factor in this context. However, it is also possible that
descriptive norms regarding the frequency of others' purchases of
sustainable housing will not be a strong predictor, given that a
certification is not a visible aspect of most houses.
Third, perceived behavioural control is likely to be a strong
positive predictor of intentions (H3), given that there are many
external factors that may be perceived to inhibit one's control over
such a purchase (e.g. the cost of purchasing a dwelling, or confi-
dence in evaluating sustainability ratings). Even though all new
buildings are now required to have a six-star energy rating by the
government, there are no requirements for builders to display this
information to homebuyers. Additionally, even when the six-star
rating is communicated to consumers, it is considered the basic
minimum standard and may be misinterpreted by consumers as a
relatively high achievement (Fifth Estate, 2017). Therefore, it is
possible that low perceived behavioural control may stem from a
perception that there are not many certified dwellings available, or
a perception that one has insufficient knowledge or confidence in
the sustainability certifications for housing in Australia, and this is
likely to lead to lower intentions to purchase.
Fourth, self-identification as a green consumer is predicted to
262 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
negatively moderate the relationships between the three TPB
predictors and intentions (H4). It is expected that the desire to
maintain consistency as a green consumer is likely to motivate
intentions to purchase sustainable housing (as a form of pro-
environmental behaviour), even when attitudes, subjective
norms, or perceived behavioural control are relatively low (e.g.
Carfora et al., 2017). Fig. 1 summarises the relationships under
examination.
As a secondary exploratory analysis, we explored the role of the
same variables in predicting willingness to pay. We did not make
any directional hypotheses for this analysis. We also included a free
association task in order to orient participants towards the topic
and to explore participant's unrestricted associations with the
concept of ‘sustainable housing’.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The initial sample comprised 500 Australian residents recruited
through an online panel recruitment agency (the screening criteria
restricted the sample to individuals who reported recently pur-
chasing property). After removing participants who failed an
attention check item, the sample size was reduced to 330. There
were 174 men and 156 women, who ranged in age from 19 to 83
(M ¼ 44.38, SD ¼ 13.90). The median income bracket was between
$78,000 and $103,999, and the median level of education was a
Bachelor's degree. Of the 330 participants, 67.6% had purchased a
dwelling (house, apartment, unit or townhouse) and 21.8% had
purchased a section of land for residential purposes (10.6% did not
answer this question). Of the participants who had recently pur-
chased a dwelling, 44% stated that their recent purchase was the
first home they had purchased. Additionally, when asked if they
were aware that the dwelling they had purchased had a sustain-
ability certification, 20.6% were aware of a sustainability certifica-
tion, 29.1% were not aware and 42.6% were unsure (7.2% responded
‘not applicable’).
2.2. Measures
Participants took part in the survey online, first completing a
Fig. 1. The Theory of Planned Behaviour including green consumer identity as a
moderator.
free association item, and then completing the TPB, green con-
sumer identity, and demographic measures.
2.2.1. Free association qualitative item
We included a single qualitative item to measure free associa-
tions with sustainable housing. The item read, “What first comes to
mind when you think of sustainable housing?“. Following this item,
participants were provided with enough space to write a few words
or a sentence.
2.2.2. Attitudes, norms, perceived behavioural control and
intentions
We adapted the TPB measures to the context of purchasing a
dwelling with a sustainability certification, following the sugges-
tions of Ajzen (1991). Firstly, we adapted the general attitudes
items to address the behaviour of purchasing a dwelling with a
sustainability certification. These four items were constructed as
semantic differentials, with seven points between each end-point.
Then we developed items to measure subjective injunctive norms
(4 items), subjective descriptive norms (3 items), perceived
behavioural control (four items) and intentions (3 items). These
items were measured on a scale from 1(Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree). A full list of items in these scales is provided in the
Supplementary Materials file.
2.2.3. Willingness to pay
We included a single item to measure the additional percentage
of the original cost that participants would be willing to pay for a
dwelling with a sustainability certification. The item was “I would
be willing to pay this much more for a dwelling that has been
certified as sustainable” and the scale ranged from 1 (0% more) to 8
(More than 30%), increasing in 5% points.
2.2.4. Familiarity with current sustainability certifications
Participants were presented with the logos for five sustainability
rating tools (Envirodevelopment, Greenstar, NABERS, NatHERs and
BESS), and asked to rate their agreement with the item, “I am
familiar with this logo” for each of the logos, on a scale from 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
2.2.5. Past behaviour
We measured past behaviour with a single item that asked
participants to indicate whether they had purchased a dwelling
with a sustainability certification. Participants who selected “I have
recently purchased a dwelling (house, unit, townhouse, apartment)
with a sustainability certification” were coded as 1, and all other
participants were coded as 0.
2.2.6. Green consumer identity
We included two items from Whitmarsh and O'Neill (2010) to
measure green consumer identity. A sample item is “I think of
myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer”. Items were rated
on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
3. Results
3.1. Free associations with “sustainable housing”
The first item in the questionnaire was a qualitative free asso-
ciation task. Each participant provided a word, sentence or short
paragraph describing the first thoughts that came to their mind
when asked to think about sustainable housing. The length of re-
sponses ranged from no response to 36 words, with participants
providing an average of three words. The first author performed
minor corrections of the qualitative data and then categorised
 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
Table 1
Frequencies of categories in participants’ free associations with “sustainable housing”.
Category
General associations
Environmentally friendly
Energy efficient
Affordability
Long lasting
Liveable
Other positive associations (e.g. good, nice, everything included, a dream in Australia, proper way to do things, no brainer
must do, in a growing area, relevant, needs of tomorrow, nice-looking)
Other negative associations (e.g. unattractive, expensive, cramped)
Specific features
Solar (e.g. solar panels)
Materials (e.g. renewable materials)
Water (e.g. rainwater tanks)
Spatial (e.g. compact home)
Other features (e.g. double-glazing, insulation, green spaces, compost bin, shade, orientation, ventilation, off grid, carbon neutral,
less waste, good neighbours, good location, public transport, modern features)
Uncategorised
Total
synonyms together in order to run a basic count analysis of the
features that participants most frequently associated with sus-
tainable housing (this included creating an ‘Uncategorised’ cate-
gory for content that was not relevant, such as “na”). Table 1
displays the counts and proportion of coverage for each category.
In general, participants' free associations with sustainable housing
focused on energy efficiency, the environment, financial consider-
ations and the social and liveable aspects of housing. However,
when examining more specific categories, it was clear that there
were specific housing features that were particularly salient to
participants, such as solar power and rainwater tanks, suggesting
that for many individuals, sustainable housing is closely associated
with tangible features that connote sustainability.
3.2. Descriptive statistics
Given that we had adapted the TPB scale items to a new
behavioural domain, we first conducted a preliminary Confirma-
tory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the TPB items (attitudes, injunctive
norms, descriptive norms, perceived behavioural control and in-
tentions) to check the reliability and validity of the items in the
measurement model. Model fit was examined following recom-
mendations regarding goodness-of-fit indices. According to Byrne
(2010), GFI and CFI indices higher than 0.95, and RMSEA values
between 0.05 and 0.08, are considered good. This model was an
adequate fit to the data, c2 ¼ 578.91, df ¼ 125, p < .001, c2/df ¼ 4.63,
CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.08 (the CFA also indicated that
removing a reverse-scored perceived behavioural control item
significantly improved the model fit, therefore this item was
removed before calculating the composite measure). All items
loaded >0.82 on their respective latent variables, with the excep-
tion of the first perceived behavioural control item (the loading for
this item was still in the acceptable range, at 0.64). The correlation
between injunctive and descriptive norms was 0.91; therefore,
these items were merged to form a single composite measure of
‘subjective norms’ for subsequent analyses.
Although several items exhibited high skewness and kurtosis
(>1), all values were between the recommended threshold of 2
and þ2; therefore, these items were retained in the analyses.
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations between
the variables can be found in Table 2. On average, participants
expressed high levels of positive attitudes, perceived behavioural
control, intentions and green consumer identity. Perceived sub-
jective norms were relatively lower, and participants also expressed
263
Count %
90 14.8
60 9.9
53 8.7
37 6.1
24 4.0
16 2.6
8 1.3
44 7.2
32 5.3
31 5.1
13 2.1
43 7.1
156 25.7
607 100
low familiarity with current certifications. On average, participants
were willing to pay between 10% and 15% more for a dwelling with
a sustainability certification. All correlations between variables
were significant and in the expected directions.
3.3. Predicting purchase intentions and willingness to pay
We ran two hierarchical multiple regressions to examine the
role of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control
and green consumer identity, in the prediction of future intentions
to purchase and willingness to pay for a dwelling with a sustain-
ability certification (see Table 3). All variables were mean-centred
prior to analysis. Past behaviour and familiarity with current sus-
tainability certifications were included in the first step of the
regression, in order to control for these variables. In the second
step, the three standard TPB predictors and green consumer iden-
tity were entered into the model, and were all highly significant
predictors of intentions. When these variables were included in the
model, past behaviour and familiarity were no longer significant
predictors of intentions. In total, the predictors explained a signif-
icant amount of the variance in both purchase intentions (65%) and
willingness to pay (45%). In the third step, we examined whether
green identity moderated the effects of the TPB predictors on
purchase intentions and willingness to pay. There was a significant
interaction between green identity and subjective norms in the
prediction of purchase intentions, suggesting moderation.1 How-
ever, there were no significant interactions found for willingness to
pay; the only significant predictors of this single-item measure
were familiarity with existing certifications, and subjective norms.
3.4. Moderation analyses
To further investigate the interaction between subjective norms
and green consumer identity, we ran a simple slopes analysis in
PROCESS (Hayes, 2017) controlling for the other variables in the
model (see Fig. 2). This analysis indicated that the effect of
1
We also ran a series of separate exploratory regression analyses including each
interaction term individually (Jose, 2013). The significant interaction between
perceived behavioural control and green consumer identity (see Table 3) became
non-significant when it was examined by itself. Therefore, for subsequent analyses
we focused on the interaction between subjective norms and green consumer
identity, which was the only interaction term that was significant in both the
omnibus analysis and when examined individually.
264 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations between variables.

Variable M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Attitudes 5.77 1.20 .93

2. Subjective norms 4.39 1.65 .94 .51**
3. Perceived behavioural control 5.09 1.35 .84 .38** .54**
4. Intentions 5.00 1.54 .93 .58** .74** .57**
5. Willingness to pay 3.40 2.27 e .38** .60** .42** .51**
6. Familiarity with certifications 2.91 1.73 .93 .32** .66** .52** .53** .56**
7. Past behaviour (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes) .28 .45 e .32** .38** .32** .36** .33** .42**
8. Green consumer identity 4.94 1.26 .84 .53** .36** .39** .48** .24** .29** .24**

*p < 01; **p < .001. a ¼ Cronbach's alpha.

Table 3
Hierarchical multiple regression predicting purchase intentions and willingness to pay.

Purchase Intentions Willingness to Pay

Step Predictor B SE B b R2 DR2 B SE B b R2 DR2

1. .31*** .31*** .34*** .34***
Past behaviour 0.57 0.19 0.17** 0.53 0.27 0.11*
Familiarity with certifications 0.40 0.05 0.46*** 0.68 0.07 0.53***
2. .65*** .34*** .42*** .08***
Past behaviour 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.31 0.26 0.06
Familiarity with certifications 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.36 0.09 0.28***
Attitudes 0.22 0.06 0.18*** 0.13 0.12 0.07
Subjective norm 0.49 0.05 0.53*** 0.52 0.10 0.38***
Perceived behavioural control 0.18 0.05 0.15** 0.09 0.10 0.05
Green consumer identity 0.16 0.06 0.13** 0.07 0.11 0.04
3. .67*** .02** .42*** .003
Past behaviour 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.31 0.27 0.07
Familiarity with certifications 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.35 0.09 0.28***
Attitudes 0.16 0.06 0.13* 0.14 0.12 0.07
Subjective norms 0.49 0.05 0.52*** 0.52 0.10 0.38***
Perceived behavioural control 0.20 0.05 0.17*** 0.10 0.10 0.06
Green consumer identity 0.15 0.05 0.12** 0.08 0.11 0.04
Attitude  Green identity 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.01
Subjective norm  Green identity 0.11 0.04 0.16** 0.06 0.07 0.06
Perceived behavioural control  Green identity 0.07 0.04 0.10* 0.07 0.07 0.06

Note. N ¼ 273. *p < 05; **p < 01; ***p < .001.

4. Discussion

In this study, we explored attitudes towards sustainable housing

Fig. 2. Simple slopes for the effect of subjective norms on purchase intentions by green
consumer identity, controlling for attitudes and perceived behavioural control.
subjective norms on intentions to purchase was stronger when
green consumer identification was low, b ¼ 0.61, 95% CI [0.48, 0.74 ],
t ¼ 9.04, p ¼ <.001, compared to when green consumer identifica-
tion was high, b ¼ 0.37, 95% CI [0.22, 0.52], t ¼ , p ¼ <.001. This
suggests that subjective norms are less important to purchase in-
tentions when green consumer identity is high.
and applied an established psychological model, the TPB, to
examine the antecedents of homebuyers' intentions to purchase
housing with a sustainability certification. Overall, the findings
suggest that most homebuyers in Australia have positive attitudes
towards the notion of sustainable housing, although they were
relatively unfamiliar with specific sustainability certifications. The
responses to the free association item demonstrated that sustain-
able housing has many positive associations beyond the perceived
benefits for the environment, such as being more affordable, better
quality, built to last, and liveable. These positive associations with
sustainable housing are consistent with previous literature (e.g.,
Crabtree and Hes, 2009; Noiseux and Hostetler, 2010; Warren-
Myers, 2017). Although there were also a few negative terms
associated with sustainable housing, such as ‘cramped’, ‘expensive’
and ‘unattractive’, negatively-valenced words comprised a very
small proportion of the total number of free associations. Further-
more, the specific housing features associated with sustainable
housing were consistent with the findings of previous studies; for
example, Fuerst and Warren-Myers (2018) identified value pre-
miums associated with solar based technologies, and Warren-
Myers et al. (2012) also identified a desire for solar features,
although these were perceived as cost prohibitive.
The extended TPB model including green consumer identity
explained 65% of the variance in intentions, with attitudes,
 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and green con-
sumer identity all significantly predicting intentions to purchase.
The strongest predictor of purchase intentions for sustainable
housing was subjective norms, which supports our hypothesis that
subjective norms would be a strong predictor because purchasing a
house often involves taking other people's views into consider-
ation, and housing carries a high degree of identity symbolism.
Attitudes, perceived behavioural control and green consumer
identity were also significant predictors of purchase intentions.
Subsequent analyses demonstrated that the effect of subjective
norms on intentions was moderated by green consumer identity.
When green consumer identity was high, subjective norms had a
weaker relationship with intentions. This suggests that, for in-
dividuals who considered themselves to be green consumers,
perceiving low subjective norms did not reduce their intentions to
purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification to the same
extent as for individuals who did not see themselves as green
consumers.
The current findings are consistent with the inferences of
Romanach et al. (2015); that, when provided with the option,
consumers would find energy-efficient homes more attractive, and
that self-identified green consumers were more likely to be inter-
ested in energy-efficient homes. This present study also extends
other recent research that has investigated the moderating role of
green consumer identity in the context of low-investment pro-
environmental behaviours (Carfora et al., 2017). However, it should
be noted that in the study by Carfora et al. (2017), green consumer
identity moderated the relationship between perceived behav-
ioural control and intentions, rather than between subjective
norms and intentions e as in the present study. Therefore, although
we have argued that purchasing a sustainable dwelling may be
viewed as another form of pro-environmental behaviour that
would be influenced by an overarching green consumer identity;
there may be some unique features of the current context that
differentiate it from relatively lower-investment pro-environ-
mental behaviours.
Unlike much previous research, past behaviour was not a strong
predictor of future intentions. We propose that because purchasing
a house is such a significant investment, most of the participants
had likely only purchased property once in their lifetime and may
not have had the opportunity to purchase a house with a sustain-
ability certification. Indeed, 44% of participants stated that their
recent purchase was their first home. Therefore, it is not surprising
that past behaviour did not play a large role in future intentions in
this context. Familiarity with current sustainability certifications
was also not a significant predictor of intentions when the TPB
predictors were included in the model, indicating that subjective
beliefs about sustainable housing outweighed the importance of
familiarity with specific sustainability certifications in predicting
purchase intentions.
In a secondary analysis, the variables included in the hierar-
chical regression also explained 45% of the variance in willingness
to pay for a sustainability certification. In comparison to broad
purchase intentions, familiarity with existing sustainability certi-
fications appeared to play a larger role in willingness to pay. This
could indicate that, although consumers are generally positive to-
wards sustainability certifications and may choose a certified
dwelling if all else was equal, willingness to pay more for a certi-
fication predominantly depends on one's familiarity with (and
perhaps trust in) current certifications. This finding would need to
be replicated in future research but has potentially important im-
plications regarding the need for educational interventions to in-
crease consumer awareness and confidence in their ability to
evaluate sustainability certifications. The only TPB predictor that
significantly predicted willingness to pay was subjective norms,
265
further emphasising the importance of subjective norms in this
context.
4.1. Limitations
One of the main limitations of this study is that the TPB was
designed to predict proximate and relatively low-investment be-
haviours that are expected to happen in the very near future (e.g.
smoking or exercising), whereas for the current participants who
had recently purchased property, their purchase intentions were
likely focused on the distant future and comprised a long-term
perspective. This means that it would be difficult to demonstrate
a causal association between intentions and actual behaviour, as
many other factors could intervene in the ensuing time-period. It is
also possible that the experience of recently purchasing a house
may have influenced participant responses. In future research, it
would be useful to recruit participants who are in the process of
searching for property, rather than those who had recently pur-
chased property, as it is likely there would be a closer relation
between intentions and action for this group and they may also
hold different attitudes and beliefs.
Additionally, there are many contextual constraints on per-
forming this particular behaviour and since we did not measure
actual behaviour in this study, it is not possible to test whether
intentions predicted actual behaviour. The TPB model has received
criticism in the past for omitting the crucial roles of actual behav-
ioural control and habit (Ajzen, 2011). Although habit is unlikely to
play a role in the purchase of a dwelling with a sustainability cer-
tification, actual behavioural control is likely to contribute signifi-
cantly to whether people can carry out their intentions; firstly,
because owning a house is increasingly out of reach for many
people in Australia, and secondly, because sustainability certifica-
tions are not necessarily included in the marketing communica-
tions for dwellings. An additional limitation is the recruitment
strategy for the current sample; panel members of online recruit-
ment agencies may not be representative of all demographics (for
example, it is possible that higher income homebuyers, or home-
buyers who are infrequent internet users, would be less likely to be
included). Future research may benefit from a different recruitment
strategy, such as mailouts to targeted areas.
4.2. Applications and future research
The current findings suggest that homebuyers have generally
positive attitudes toward sustainable housing and high intentions
to purchase a dwelling with a sustainability certification in the
future. However, as noted in the introduction, this has not yet
resulted in an increased demand for sustainable housing. A possible
inference, therefore, is that there are broader contextual factors
preventing these positive attitudes and intentions from translating
into higher demand for current rating tools. This could be explained
by the limited visibility and communication of the rating systems
by builders and developers, as noted by Warren-Myers and McRae
(2017) who identified a lack of disclosure across the Top 100
builders’ websites. Furthermore, Warren-Myers (2017) found that
homebuyers reported that there was limited discussion about
environmental certifications during the home-building process.
Additionally, another relevant factor might be confusion about
the meanings of the certifications. The growing number of rating
systems that use star-based ratings, be it in regard to food, health,
or environmentally-friendly consumer products, may be contrib-
uting to confusion for consumers in this context. This possibility
was highlighted recently in an article in the Fifth Estate (2017), in
which the author commented on the disparity between the current
building rating tools. The author also noted that the NatHERs star
266 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
rating could be misleading when compared to other 6-star ratings:
“6 Star Green Star? Brilliant. 6 Star NABERS? Industry-leading. 6
Star NatHERS? Bare minimum” (Fifth Estate, 2017). It would not be
surprising if there was a level of confusion about housing rating
systems among consumers, when across three different systems,
the meaning of a ‘6-star’ badge ranges from world-leading to a
minimum standard. The widespread lack of information and
confusing disparity in the meanings of the rating systems, means
that housing consumers may have difficulty justifying the benefits
associated with different systems, which would then affect their
willingness to pay (as also noted by Romanach et al., 2015).
Given the present findings, there are several potential in-
terventions that could be employed to increase consumers' interest
and awareness of sustainability certifications for dwellings. Firstly,
interventions could include educating consumers about the fea-
tures and benefits of sustainability certifications; for example, by
including more information about sustainability certifications in
the marketing materials for new dwellings in order to increase
levels of perceived behavioural control. Secondly, it could be useful
to consider designing ways of increasing the visibility of sustain-
ability certifications for houses, so that descriptive subjective
norms are more apparent to other people. Increasing the visibility
of certifications may also strengthen the association between green
consumer identity and intentions to purchase sustainable housing
(e.g., Brick et al., 2017). Along similar lines, other researchers have
also highlighted the need to increase the visibility of ‘green’
building features and the use of signage to draw attention to less-
visible sustainability initiatives (e.g., Cranz et al., 2014). Marketing
communications could also better convey social norms by high-
lighting the proportions of consumers in the relevant location who
have purchased sustainable housing (e.g. Goldstein et al., 2008).
Thirdly, green consumer identities could be made more salient in
contexts where consumers are considering purchasing a dwelling,
to strengthen the perceived consistency between purchasing
sustainability-certified housing and other pro-environmental con-
sumer behaviours. The findings of the current study further suggest
that although green consumers are likely to be relatively more
engaged with sustainability ratings, potential educational in-
terventions to increase perceived subjective norms may actually be
more effective for those who are low in self-identification as a green
consumer. Consequently, targeted effects to engage consumers
with sustainability ratings through better information provision,
drawing attention to social norms, and clear demonstration of the
costs and benefits, will potentially have a greater impact on this
group. Future research is required to test the effectiveness of these
type of interventions.
5. Conclusions
Our research expands on prior work by examining the TPB in the
underexplored context of purchasing a dwelling with a sustain-
ability certification. It also builds on previous work that has
examined the moderating role of green consumer identity in in-
tentions to engage pro-environmental consumer behaviours, by
examining this relationship for a relatively high-investment con-
sumer purchase. Accordingly, we provide two novel contributions
to the literature. Firstly, we demonstrate that an expanded TPB
model predicts intentions to purchase a dwelling with a sustain-
ability certification; a high investment purchase decision with a
substantial degree of financial risk. Secondly, we find that green
consumer identity moderates the effect of subjective norms on
intentions. Thus, it is in developers’ best interests to investigate if
they are appealing to environmentally-conscious consumers. Those
with a high green consumer identity will be less susceptible to
normative influences on purchase, so appeals targeting their values
and identity would be useful in this case; whereas references to
social norms and significant others should be leveraged when
green identity is low. The research makes a unique contribution to
the theoretical literature and provides promising avenues for
designing educational interventions to increase consumer demand
for sustainability certifications for dwellings.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.029.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
50 (2), 179e211.
Ajzen, I., 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol.
Health 26, 1113e1127.
Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a
meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40 (4), 471e499.
Bond, S., 2011. Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and New Zealand.
J. Property Invest. Finance 29 (4/5), 494e509.
Brick, C., Sherman, D.K., Kim, H.S., 2017. “Green to be seen” and “brown to keep
down”: visibility moderates the effect of identity on pro-environmental
behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 51, 226e238.
Brounen, D., Kok, N., 2011. On the economics of energy labels in the housing market.
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62, 166e179.
Bryant, L., Eves, C., 2012. Home sustainability policy and mandatory disclosure: a
survey of buyer and seller participation and awareness. Queensl. Prop. Manag.
30 (1), 29e51.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Ap-
plications, and Programming. Routledge.
Carfora, V., Caso, D., Sparks, P., Conner, M., 2017. Moderating effects of pro-
environmental self-identity on pro-environmental intentions and behaviour:
a multi-behaviour study. J. Environ. Psychol. 53, 92e99.
Conner, M., Armitage, C.J., 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review
and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 1429e1464.
Crabtree, L., 2006. Sustainability begins at home? An ecological exploration of sub/
urban Australian community-focused housing initiatives. Geoforum 37 (4),
519e535.
Crabtree, L., Hes, D., 2009. Sustainability uptake in housing in metropolitan
Australia: an institutional problem, not a technological one. Hous. Stud. 24 (2),
203e224.
Cranz, G., Lindsay, G., Morhayim, L., Lin, A., 2014. Communicating sustainability: a
postoccupancy evaluation of the david brower center. Environ. Behav. 46 (7),
826e847.
De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., 2015. Using the theory of planned
behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in
high-school students: implications for educational interventions. J. Environ.
Psychol. 42, 128e138.
Deng, Y., Li, Z., Quigley, J.M., 2012. Economic returns to energy-efficient investments
in the housing market: evidence from Singapore. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 42 (3),
506e515.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, 2016. Australian energy update
2016. Retrieved from: https://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-
Economist/Publications/Pages/Australian-energy-statistics.aspx#.
EnviroDevelopment, 2018. About EnviroDevelopment elements. Retrieved 23
November 2018, from. http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/01_cms/details.
asp?ID¼101.
Environmental Protection Authority, 2018. Global greenhouse gas emissions data.
Retrieved on April 3, 2018, from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.
Fielding, K.S., McDonald, R., Louis, W.R., 2008. Theory of planned behaviour, identity
and intentions to engage in environmental activism. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (4),
318e326.
Fifth Estate, 2017. On why too many stars are causing confusion and greenwash.
Retrieved from: https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/rating-tools/
issue-no-368-on-why-too-many-stars-are-causing-confusion-and-greenwash.
Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., Nanda, A., Wyatt, P., 2015. Does energy efficiency matter to
home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in En-
gland. Energy Econ. 48, 145e156.
Fuerst, F., Shimizu, C., 2016. Green luxury goods? The economics of eco-labels in the
Japanese housing market. J. Jpn. Int. Econ. 39 (C), 108e122.
Fuerst, F., Warren-Myers, G., 2018. Does voluntary disclosure create a green lemon
problem? Energy-efficiency ratings and house prices, Working paper: https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/319546286_Green_Lemons_Energy-
Efficiency_Disclosure_and_House_Prices.
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., Griskevicius, V., 2008. A room with a viewpoint: using
social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res.
35 (3), 472e482.
 M. Judge et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 259e267
Green Building Council of Australia, 2008. Rating tool fact sheet: green star e multi-
unit residential. Retrieved November, 23 2018 from: https://www..gbca.org.au.
Green Building Council of Australia, 2018. Communities: neighbourhoods and
communities. Retrieved November 23, 2018, from: https://new.gbca.org.au/
green-star/rating-system/communities/.
Hayes, A.F., 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Hurst, N., 2012. Energy efficiency rating systems for housing: an Australian
perspective. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 5 (4), 361e376.
Jose, P.E., 2013. Doing Statistical Mediation and Moderation. Guilford Press, New
York, NY.
Kahn, M.E., Kok, N., 2014. The capitalization of green labels in the California housing
market. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 47, 25e34.
pez-Mosquera, N., García, T., Barrena, R., 2014. An extension of the Theory of
Lo
Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban
park. J. Environ. Manag. 135, 91e99.
Municipal Association of Victoria, 2018. Bess; built environment sustainability
scorecard. Retrieved November 23, 2018 from: https://bess.net.au.
Nayum, A., Klo €ckner, C.A., 2014. A comprehensive socio-psychological approach to
car type choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 401e411.
Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., Uzzell, D., 2010. Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental
behaviour: using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict partici-
pation in a kerbside recycling programme. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 259e284.
Noiseux, K., Hostetler, M.E., 2010. Do homebuyers want green features in their
communities? Environ. Behav. 42 (5), 551e580.
Paladino, A., Ng, S., 2013. Examining the influences of intentions to purchase green
mobile phones among young consumers: an empirical analysis. Environ. Educ.
Res. 19 (1), 118e145.
Pitt & Sherry, 2014. National Energy Efficiency Building Project. Department of State
Development - Government of South Australia, Adelaide, 2014. Available online.
http://dpc.sa.gov.au/what-we-do/services-for-business-and-the-community/
energy-efficiency/national-energy-efficiency-building-project. (Accessed 14
April 2018).
Romanach, L., Jeanneret, T., Hall, N., 2015. The EnergyFit Homes Initiative: National
Consumer Survey Results. CSIRO, Brisbane. http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.
com.au/research/program-3-engaged-communities/rp3016-EnergyFit-Homes.
(Accessed 15 April 2018).
Smith, S., Paladino, A., 2010. Eating clean & green? Investigating consumer moti-
vations towards the purchase of organic food. Australas. J. Mark. 18 (2), 93e104.
€rqvist, P., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Holmgren, M., Wallinder, M., No
So € stl, A., et al.,
2015. The green halo: mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. Food Qual.
267
Prefer. 43, 1e9.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., 1992. Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior:
assessing the role of identification with" green consumerism. Soc. Psychol. Q.
388e399.
Tan, T.H., 2013. Use of structural equation modeling to predict the intention to
purchase green and sustainable homes in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 9 (10), 181.
Verma, V.K., Chandra, B., 2018. An application of theory of planned behavior to
predict young Indian consumers' green hotel visit intention. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
1152e1162.
Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults
in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values.
Ecol. Econ. 64 (3), 542e553.
Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., Russell, C.S., 2011. Factors influencing
willingness-to-pay for the ENERGY STAR® label. Energy Policy 39 (3),
1450e1458.
Warren-Myers, G., 2017. New homebuyers and the challenges of navigating sus-
tainability and energy efficiency with Australian volume builders. Energy Pro-
cedia 134, 214e223.
Warren-Myers, G., Carre, A., Vines, M., Wakefield, R., 2012. Existing Buildings
Research Project: Isolating Opportunities for the Improvement of the Envi-
ronmental Performance of Existing Housing Stock. Sustainability Victoria.
Victorian Government, Melbourne.
Warren-Myers, G., McRae, E., 2017. Volume home building: the provision of sus-
tainability information for new homebuyers. Construct. Econ. Build. 17 (2),
24e40. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v17i2.5245.
Warren-Myers, G., McRae, E., Heywood, C., 2017. Volume home building: sustain-
ability inclusions for new homes. In: 23rd Pacific Rim Real Estate Society
Conference, 15 e 18th January 2017, Sydney, Australia. www.prres.net.
Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S., 2010. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (3), 305e314.
Williams, K., Dair, C., 2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England?
Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments.
Sustain. Dev. 15 (3), 135e147. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.308.
Yadav, R., Pathak, G.S., 2016. Young consumers' intention towards buying green
products in a developing nation: extending the theory of planned behavior.
J. Clean. Prod. 135, 732e739.
Yazdanpanah, M., Forouzani, M., 2015. Application of the Theory of Planned
Behaviour to predict Iranian students' intention to purchase organic food.
J. Clean. Prod. 107, 342e352.