Environmental Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01828-7

It Takes Two to Tango: How Ability and Morality Shape Consumers’

Willingness to Refill and Reuse
1 1
Prerna Shah ●
Janet Z. Yang

Received: 3 February 2023 / Accepted: 30 April 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The waste problem in the U.S. has only intensified in recent years, first due to China’s National Sword Policy and then to the
COVID-19 pandemic. One solution to this problem is to encourage people to adopt pro-environmental behaviors such as
opting for reusables and products with plastic-free alternate packaging. In this study, we employ the value-belief-norm theory
to examine whether its proposed causal chain predicts consumers’ willingness to use reusables and products with plastic-free
alternate packaging. We also explore the moderating role of perceived behavior control, one of the strongest predictors of
environmental behaviors. Our research provides support to the value-belief-norm theory in predicting behavioral willingness.
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

The moderating role of perceived behavior control provides additional insight into the theoretical model and furnishes
practical implications for strategic communication designed to encourage the adoption of reusables and alternative packaging.
Keywords Reusables Environmental value Awareness of consequences Ascription of responsibility Personal norm
● ● ● ● ●

Perceived behavior control

Introduction While recycling is one approach to solving the waste

In 2018, China, the top importer of U.S. recyclables,
implemented the National Sword Policy that restricted the
import of certain types of solid waste and set strict con-
tamination limits on recyclable materials. This subsequently
led to a 23% increase in landfilled waste in the U.S.
(Vedantam et al. 2022). Later, the COVID-19 pandemic led
to a steep increase in both organic and inorganic waste
(Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020; Roe et al. 2021).
Looking at the food industry alone, deliveries in the U.S.
saw a collective revenue increase of $3 billion (Market
Watch 2020), while panic buying resulted in sub-optimal
storage of perishables (Roe et al. 2021), both of which
contributed to greater waste. Meanwhile, the recycling
industry took a substantial hit due to budget constraints
(Staub 2020) and a sudden shift in waste management
practices (Love and Rieland 2020).
* Prerna Shah
pshah23@buffalo.edu
1
Department of Communication, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 359 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
problem, it is regarded as an end-of-the-pipe solution that
falls lower down in the waste hierarchy (European Union
2008). The waste hierarchy is based on the 4-R’s framework
that ranks waste management measures according to their
importance in protecting the environment: Reduction,
Reuse, Recycling, and Recovery. Compared to recycling,
reusing materials and reducing the amount of waste sent to
the landfill have well-documented benefits such as avoiding
garbage collection and transportation costs (Cooper and
Gutowski 2017), as well as reducing the associated envir-
onmental pollution (Manfredi and Christensen 2009) and
conserving natural resources. Thus, shifting attention to the
comparatively less touted strategies for waste management
not only aligns well with the U.S Environment Protection
Agency’s recognition that “no single waste management
approach is suitable for managing all materials and waste
streams in all circumstances,” (US EPA 2015) but also fits
into its overarching goal of fostering a circular economy in
the country (Recycling Today 2021).
In this study, we examine the social cognitive factors that
influence people’s decision to opt for reusables and pro-
ducts with plastic-free alternate packaging (PAP) using the
value-belief-norm (VBN) theory. Even though the theory
has fairly strong predictive power in several environmental
domains, the linearity of the posited relationships is unclear

(Aguilar-Luzón et al. 2012). Meanwhile, the other major
theoretical perspective that has been widely recognized to
predict environmental behaviors is the theory of planned
behavior (TPB). While the TPB explains human behavior as
a rational choice based on deliberation across a wide range
of contexts (Armitage and Conner 2001), the VBN is spe-
cifically developed to predict environmental behavior (Stern
et al. 1999). Nevertheless, environmental scholars have
highlighted the need for an integrative approach (Steg and
Vlek 2009), and several studies have used these two models
in conjunction to explain environmental behavior (see, for
example, Han 2015; Kaiser et al. 2005). In this study, we
examine the influence of perceived behavior control, one of
the main constructs of the TPB, on the VBN variables, in
predicting behavioral willingness. This decision is driven by
the theoretical pursuit to examine the VBN in the context of
reusables and PAP, as well as evidence from past literature
demonstrating the importance of perceived behavior control
in shaping behavioral intention. For instance, studies show
that most people maintain a favorable attitude toward
recycling and believe it is socially desirable. However,
whether people actually engage in recycling often depends
on their perceived ability to recycle (Rosenthal 2018). Thus,
we expect that perceived behavior control could provide
key insights into the relationships proposed in the VBN.
Also, if found to be a meaningful predictor of behavioral
willingness, perceived behavioral control could serve as a
useful audience segmentation tool in designing commu-
nication strategies for campaigns seeking to encourage the
use of reusables and PAP among members of the public
who may or may not find it easy to adopt these materials.
Literature Review
Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory
Stern et al. (1999) proposed the VBN theory that extended
the norm activation model (Schwartz 1977) by integrating
the value theory (Schwartz 1992) and the new ecological
paradigm (Dunlap et al. 2000). The theory presents a causal
chain in which relatively stable factors, namely values and
environmental concern affect behavior-specific variables
(i.e., problem awareness, responsibility ascription, and
personal norm), which then influence specific behaviors.
Thus, people are likely to perform an environmental beha-
vior when they feel morally obliged to do so. Feelings of
moral obligation are stronger when people are aware of the
consequences of their environmentally detrimental behavior
and feel responsible to avert these undesirable con-
sequences. Further, people are likely to be more aware of
the environmentally damaging consequences when they
possess a strong level of environmental concern. Lastly,
Environmental Management
environmental concern is influenced by people’s values.
Although values are stable and strong determinants of
environmental behavior, they do not influence behavior in a
direct way, rather, this influence is mediated by beliefs and
norms. Thus, norms are the primary and direct determinant
of pro-environmental behavior.
Several studies have provided support for the VBN in
explaining specific environmental behaviors. For instance,
Fornara and colleagues (2016) found it to be a good fit for
predicting the use of renewable energy sources at the
household level. Likewise, Onel and Mukherjee (2017)
found that recycling behavior was better explained by VBN,
relative to other widely used theories such as the theory of
planned behavior and the theory on affect (Russell 1980).
Results from five European countries provided additional
evidence for the theory’s applicability in the sustainable
transport domain (de Groot and Steg 2008). Specifically,
VBN predicted an acceptable percentage of road pricing as
well as the intention to reduce car usage when such a policy
was implemented. Having been tested in different countries,
the theory also seems to have broad applicability to different
cultural contexts (Jakovcevic and Steg 2013).
Environmental Value
Individuals who hold pro-environmental value display a
heightened intention to engage in environmental behaviors
(van der Werff et al. 2013). Particularly, biospheric values
are strongly and consistently related to environmental pre-
ferences, intentions, and behaviors (Steg and de Groot
2012). People with biospheric values care for nature and
base their decisions about individual behaviors on the
consequences these actions would have on the environment
(van der Werff et al. 2013). For instance, past research has
shown biospheric value to be positively related to support
for climate change mitigation (Steg et al. 2011; Yang et al.
2015), sustainable consumption (Thøgersen and Ölander
2002), and a preference for restaurants serving organic food
(Steg et al. 2014). In a study by Schultz and Zelezny (1998),
for instance, the positive relationship between pro-
environmental value and behaviors was evident cross-
culturally in a variety of domains ranging from individual
actions (e.g., picking up litter, conserving gas by walking or
cycling) to policy support (e.g., voting for a candidate who
supports environmental issues). Thus, we first propose:
H1: Participants with strong pro-environmental value
will have strong beliefs regarding reusables and PAP
(H1a) and a strong behavioral willingness to use
them (H1b).
See Fig. 1 below for a depiction of the theoretical model
with hypotheses.
Environmental Management
Fig. 1 Theoretical relationships proposed in the study
Beliefs
The beliefs component of VBN includes two constructs,
namely awareness of consequences (AC) and ascription of
responsibility (AR). While some studies focus on AC and
AR beliefs on general environmental conditions (Gärling et
al. 2003), others include behavior specific beliefs (Nordlund
and Garvill 2003). Klandermans (1992) and Schwartz
(1977) argue that for people to be motivated to cooperate in
a social dilemma (in this case, the choice between acting to
protect the environment or not), they must believe that there
are problems that need to be collectively addressed, and
their decision to cooperate is relevant to the solution of
these problems. Thus, in order for people to opt for reu-
sables and PAP, they must harbor behavior specific beliefs
wherein awareness of specific consequences (e.g., waste
generated from single-use plastics) and specific perceived
responsibility for them (e.g., using a reusable cup for cof-
fee) can help deal with environmental problems. Nordlund
and Garvill (2003) tested this argument in the context of
reducing personal car usage by quantifying both general
awareness (e.g., threat of pollution and energy consumption
to the biosphere and humankind) and specific awareness
(e.g., degree of influence of car traffic on pollution and
energy consumption). Their results indicated that specific
awareness of car traffic directly influenced personal norm,
which in turn positively predicted willingness to reduce
personal car usage, although general awareness was argued
to be an important precursor of specific awareness. Thus,
behavior specific beliefs were strongly related to behavior
(Nordlund and Garvill 2003). Thus, the predictive power of
the VBN theory is enhanced when AC and AR are tuned
towards a specific behavior (Steg et al. 2005).
The influence of both AC and AR on pro-environmental
behaviors is well established. For instance, de Groot and
Steg (2009) found that personal norm was stronger when
participants were aware of the negative consequences of
energy use. Similarly, Harland et al. (2007) found that
awareness of consequences positively influences personal
norm and household pro-environmental behavior, specifi-
cally, public transportation use and water saving. Likewise,
in the case of ascription of responsibility, one study indi-
cated that AR significantly contributed to explanation of
personal norm and subsequently reduced car usage (de
Groot and Steg 2009). Klöckner and Ohms (2009) also
found a positive relationship between AR and personal
norm when examining purchase of organic milk. In terms of
the chain of influence, VBN predicts that AC influences
AR, which further impacts personal norm, but the empirical
evidence is mixed in this regard. For instance, examining
electricity saving behavior, Zhang et al. (2013) found that
AC and AR simultaneously and positively influenced per-
sonal norm, which in turn affected electricity saving beha-
vior. In another meta-analysis, the model assuming the
causal influence of AC on AR and thereafter personal norm
showed a poorer fit to the data as compared to an alternative
model that specified the simultaneous influence of both AC
and AR (Klöckner 2013). Building off these findings, we
combine AC and AR into a combined index of beliefs,
anticipating that:
H2: Participants with strong beliefs regarding reusa-
bles and PAP will feel more personally obligated to
use reusables and PAP (H2a) and a strong behavioral
willingness to use them (H2b).
Personal Norm
Personal norm or moral norm has been used inter-
changeably in past literature (Bamberg and Möser 2007).
Personal norm is formed by internalized values and refers to
an individual’s belief about what is right or wrong so they
can maintain a positive self-image (Thøgersen 2006). Sev-
eral studies have shown that personal or moral norm pre-
dicts pro-environmental behaviors such as energy

conservation (Black et al. 1985), recycling (Guagnano et al.
1995), and choice of travel mode (Hunecke et al. 2001).
According to Bamberg and Möser (2007), personal norm
develops as a result of social norm since the latter informs
standards of behavior that are considered suitable in a
particular situation. When such standards are internalized,
they are transformed into personal norm.
It may be important to examine personal norm in certain
private-sphere behaviors such as the use of reusables and
PAP. As Ajzen (1991) argues, when behavior is related to a
moral issue, people may experience a sense of moral obli-
gation, aside from social pressure. Since using reusables and
PAP is an altruistic, private behavior with no immediate
rewards or benefits to an individual (Hopper and Nielsen
1991), people may engage in this behavior because it is the
right thing to do, not because it is socially desirable. Hence,
we anticipate that:
H3: Participants who feel more personally obligated
to use reusables and PAP will be more likely to
use them.
Perceived Behavior Control
Perceived behavior control (PBC; i.e., self-efficacy) refers to
a person’s perceived ability to engage in a behavior. Its
influence on several pro-environmental behaviors has been
well-established, especially as part of the theory of planned
behavior (TPB). For instance, Mannetti et al. (2004) found
that TPB variables explained a substantial variance in recy-
cling intent, with PBC as one of the most important pre-
dictors. Thus, when people lack the requisite skills or
resources to perform a behavior, attitude and subjective norm
(the other two constructs of TPB) may not predict behavioral
intent as well (Yzer 2012). Similar independent effects of
PBC on behavioral intent has also been found when exam-
ining water conservation (Yazdanpanah et al. 2015) and
reduction in car use (Skarin et al. 2019). In another study,
researchers investigated behavior adoption (i.e., “currently
do”, “could do and planning to”, “could do but don’t”, and
“could not do”) related to four types of pro-environmental
behaviors – transportation, energy, food, and activism
(Lamm et al. 2022). They found that perceived behavioral
control was a consistent predictor across all levels and
domains. Perceived behavioral control has also been found to
be a significant mediator of spillover effect from easy to more
difficult pro-environmental behavior. Specifically, perceived
behavior control mediated the transition from easy water
conservation behaviors to more difficult actions such as
installing water efficient appliances (Lauren et al. 2016).
As part of the TPB, Ajzen (1985) argues that PBC may
interact with attitude and subjective norm to influence
Environmental Management
behavior. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that as an addi-
tion to the VBN framework, PBC might also function as a
moderator on the relationship between beliefs and personal
norm and behavioral willingness. Supporting this con-
jecture, Luszczynska et al. (2011) maintain that PBC is
likely to act as a moderator because people with better skills
or resources are likely to be more confident of their beha-
vior, thus being better able to engage in the actual behavior.
In a systematic review, Yzer (2012) found that PBC often
interacts with attitude and personal norm to influence
behavioral intent, although the interaction between per-
ceived behavioral control and attitude is stronger. Looking
at past literature, it seems like perceived behavioral control
is one of the key variables that influences environmental
behaviors both directly and indirectly. Thus, in addition to
examining its direct relationship with behavioral will-
ingness, we examine whether the influence of beliefs
(conceptualized as awareness of consequences and respon-
sibility attributed to them) on personal norm and behavioral
willingness is moderated by PBC. Thus, we propose:
H4: Perceived behavioral control will be positively
related to behavioral willingness to use reusables
and PAP.
H5: Perceived behavior control will moderate the
relationship between beliefs and personal norm (H5a),
beliefs and behavioral willingness (H5b), and personal
norm and behavioral willingness (H5c).
Material and Methods
Participants
We contracted Ipsos Public Affairs to recruit a representa-
tive sample of New York state adult residents (N = 1003).
Ipsos Knowledge Panel® is the largest online research panel
that is representative of the U.S. population. It uses
probability-based sampling to randomly recruit panel
members, with the capability to include hard-to-reach
populations by providing them Internet and hardware
access. The survey began on August 10 and ended on
August 29, 2022. The median survey completion time was
approximately 20 min.
We had slightly more females (52.3%) than males
(47.7%), and the average age was 49.28 (SD = 17.16). The
majority of our sample was White (58.4%). Among the
respondents, 37.4% (n = 375) received bachelor’s degree or
higher, followed by high school (n = 280, 27.9%), some
college (n = 267, 26.6%), and less than high school
Environmental Management
education (n = 81, 8.1%). The median household income
was in the bracket of $75,000–$99,999, and most of our
respondents (67.1%) were employed. In terms of political
ideology, respondents reported middle-of-the-road political
ideology (M = 3.93, SD = 1.53, 1 = extremely liberal,
7 = extremely conservative).1
Procedure
Selected panel members received an email invitation to
complete the survey and were asked to do so at their earliest
convenience. The survey was fielded in English. Ipsos
fielded 1752 surveys and 1067 were completed, resulting in
a completion rate of 60.9%. Among the 1060 surveys, 1003
were qualified, resulting in a qualification rate of 94.0%. As
standard with KnowledgePanel® surveys, email reminder
was sent to non-responders on Day 3, and an additional
reminder was sent to the remaining non-responders on Day
5 of the field period.
Measures
Table 1 shows individual items wording and descriptive
statistics of all variables. Table 2 shows the Heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) analysis, which
suggests good discriminant validity among the variables. All
items were measured on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree.
Environmental value
To measure environmental value, we used a seven-item
subset of the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale
(Dunlap et al. 2000), which has been widely in past litera-
ture (e.g., Feldman and Hart 2018). Sample items included
“The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by
human activities” and “We are approaching the limit of the
number of people the earth can support.”
Beliefs
Beliefs were measured by quantifying awareness of con-
sequences and ascription of responsibility, both adapted
from past literature (de Groot and Steg 2009). For AC,
responses to items such as “Reusables help to conserve
natural resources” and “Reusables prevent waste from going
to landfills” were measured. For AR, responses to items
such as “Using reusables is a personal choice and it has
nothing to do with responsibility to the environment
(reverse recoded)” were measured.
1
Our sample demographics are largely in line with the 2021 Amer-
ican Community Survey statistics.
Personal norm
Three items were adapted from Park and Ha (2014) to
measure personal norm. Participants indicated how
morally obligated they felt about using reusables and PAP
(e.g., “I feel a strong personal obligation to use reusables
when I can”).
Perceived behavior control
For PBC, we used three items adapted from Onel and
Mukherjee (2017). Sample items included, “Filling reusable
cups or travel mugs at coffee shops is unsanitary (reverse
coded)” and “Using reusables is inconvenient (reverse
coded).”
Behavioral willingness
Seven items were used to assess participants’ intention to
opt for reusables and PAP. Sample items included, “If it
were allowed, I would bring a travel mug to be refilled at a
coffee shop”, and “I will bring a reusable shopping bag
when I go grocery shopping”.
Analysis
Structural equation modeling was conducted in Mplus 8.8 to
examine the overall theoretical model. A maximum likelihood
estimator (MLR) with robust standard errors was employed to
account for potential issue with multivariate normality,
although the normality assumption was not violated for any
individual observed variable. Two-step modeling verified the
measurement model before adding proposed paths to test the
structural model (Kline, 2005). All standardized factor load-
ings in the measurement model were above 0.50. However,
the model fit improved significantly when we allowed the first
two items that measured environmental value to correlate.
Indicators of model fit included chi-square, comparative fit
index (CFI; values close to or greater than 0.92),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI; values close to or greater than
0.92), root mean square error approximation (RMSEA; values
lower than 0.05), and standardized root mean residual
(SRMR; values lower than 0.06) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We
did not include demographic variables in model testing due to
the lack of consensus on how to include control variables in a
theoretical model. To address the moderation hypothesis, we
used PROCESS macro model 59.
Results
Table 3 shows model fit indices for the measurement model
and the structural model, all of which suggest good fit to the
 Environmental Management

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for key variables

Variables Measures M SD Standardized factor
loadings

Environmental value We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 3.11 1.22 0.53
The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 3.44 1.31 0.54
When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous 3.90 1.09 0.65
consequences.
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human activities. 3.91 1.16 0.75
Humans are severely abusing the environment. 4.08 1.16 0.75
The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly 3.57 1.41 0.67
exaggerated (reverse coded).
If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major 3.78 1.28 0.84
ecological catastrophe.
Average index 3.68 1.23 0.67
Beliefs Reusables help to conserve natural resources. 4.15 0.88 0.71
Reusables prevent waste from going to landfills. 4.10 0.95 0.65
Reusables won’t make much difference in the quality of the environment 2.20 1.08 0.64
(reverse coded)
Reusables are better for the environment than single-use items (e.g., 4.15 0.90 0.70
disposable items that are either put in the garbage, composted, or recycled
after one use)
Using reusables is a personal choice and it has nothing to do with 2.32 1.17 0.59
responsibility to the environment (reverse coded)
Average index 3.38 0.99 0.65
Personal norm I feel a strong personal obligation to use reusables when I can. 3.93 1.07 0.85
I am willing to put extra effort in to carrying my own reusables. 3.95 1.02 0.79
If I had a choice between reusables and single-use items, I would feel guilty 3.58 1.18 0.66
choosing the single-use option.
Average index 3.82 1.09 0.76
Perceived behavior Filling reusable cups or travel mugs at coffee shops is unsanitary (reverse 3.03 1.20 0.60
control coded).
Finding room to store reusables is a problem (reverse coded). 2.82 1.11 0.55
Using reusables is inconvenient (reverse coded). 3.12 1.12 0.63
Average index 2.99 1.14 0.59
Behavioral willingness If it were allowed, I would bring a travel mug to be refilled at a coffee shop. 3.57 1.23 0.66
I will bring a reusable shopping bag when I go grocery shopping. 4.49 0.89 0.57
I will support laws that encourage the use of reusables. 3.78 1.17 0.80
If available, I would buy products that are shipped in recyclable or reusable 3.86 1.02 0.73
packing.
If available, I would use refillable containers to buy products in bulk (e.g., 3.43 1.18 0.68
coffee, pasta, rice).
If available, I would be willing to buy household staples such as toiletries 3.53 1.17 0.74
and cleaning products using refillable containers.
I am willing to pay a little extra for products with recyclable, compostable, 3.37 1.18 0.74
or reusable packaging (e.g., paper, fiber, compostable materials, and reusable
materials).
Average index 3.71 1.12 0.70

data. For the ease of interpretation, Fig. 2 shows the stan-
dardized regression coefficients for significant paths in the
structural equation model. Overall, the proposed theoretical
model accounts for about 46% of the variance in beliefs,
65% of the variance in personal norm, and 75% of the
variance in behavioral willingness.
The first hypothesis proposed a positive relationship
between pro-environmental value and beliefs (H1a), as well
as between pro-environmental value and behavioral will-
ingness (H1b). We found that people who had strong pro-
environmental value were likely to have stronger beliefs
pertaining to reusables and PAP (β = 0.67, p < 0.001). They
Environmental Management

Table 2 Heterotrait-monotrait
Environmental Beliefs Personal Perceived Behavioral
ratio of correlations (HTMT)
value norm behavior control willingness
analysis for discriminant validity
Environmental value –
Beliefs 0.62 –
Personal norm 0.64 0.82 –
Perceived behavior 0.40 0.48 0.53 –
control
Behavioral 0.60 0.79 0.80 0.71 –
willingness

Table 3 Summary of fit indices

χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA [90% CI] p-close SRMR CFI TLI

Baseline measurement model

976.365 265 3.684 0.052 [0.049, 0.056] 0.156 0.042 0.919 0.908
Final measurement modela
813.345 264 3.080 0.046 [0.042, 0.049] 0.970 0.039 0.937 0.929
Final structural model
891.211 267 3.337 0.049 [0.045, 0.052] 0.731 0.053 0.929 0.920
a
We allowed the first two items that measured environmental value to correlate

Fig. 2 Standardized coefficients based on Structural Equation Modeling. Moderation effects were evaluated using PROCESS Model 59. *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

were also more likely to use them (β = 0.14, p < 0.01).
Thus, H1 was supported.
Next, we proposed a positive relationship between
beliefs and personal norm (H2a), as well as beliefs and
behavioral willingness to use reusables and PAP (H2b). We
found that people who have strong beliefs were likely to
feel more personally obligated to use reusables and PAP
(β = 0.81, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to use
them (β = 0.24, p < 0.01). Thus, H2 was also supported.
In our next hypothesis, we proposed that people who felt
more personally obligated to use reusables and PAP would
be more likely to use them. We found that this was indeed
the case; people who reported stronger personal norm
showed higher behavioral willingness to use reusables and
PAP (β = 0.36, p < 0.001). Thus, H3 was supported.
Lastly, we found a significant relationship between per-
ceived behavioral control and behavioral willingness to use
reusables and PAP (β = 0.38, p < 0.001), supporting H4.
Regarding the moderation effect stated in the final
hypothesis, we only found a significant moderation effect of
perceived behavioral control on the relationship between
personal norm and behavioral willingness (β = −0.11,
p < 0.001). Specifically, high perceived behavior control
diminishes the importance of personal norms in forming
behavioral willingness, even though the overall relationship
between personal norms and behavioral willingness is
positive. However, the strength of the relationship between
beliefs and personal norms, as well as beliefs and behavioral
willingness is not affected by perceived behavior control.
Thus, H5 was partially supported.

Discussion
In this study, we employ the VBN model to determine
consumers’ willingness to adopt reusables and PAP. Spe-
cifically, we explore whether values, beliefs, and norms are
related to behavioral willingness, while also exploring the
moderating role of perceived behavior control on these
relationships. Results indicate support for most of the
hypothesized relationships.
First, environmental value was positively related to
beliefs conceptualized by awareness of consequences and
ascription of responsibility. In other words, when people are
concerned about the environment, they are more likely to be
aware of the ill-effects of environmentally detrimental
behaviors (such as not using reusables and PAP) and feel
responsible for avoiding these consequences. Strong
environmental concern is also positively associated with
behavioral willingness to adopt reusables and PAP. These
findings are unsurprising and in line with past literature
(Schultz and Zelezny 1998; Steg et al. 2014; Thøgersen and
Ölander 2002; Yang et al. 2015).
Furthermore, strong beliefs not only heighten people’s
sense of moral obligation to opt for reusables and PAP but
also encourage them to opt for them. These findings are
supported by previous work that shows that moral obligation
originates from a simultaneous influence of problem aware-
ness and an ascription of responsibility (de Groot and Steg
2009). In other words, beliefs induce a sense of moral obli-
gation among people (Klöckner 2013; Zhang et al. 2013). The
positive relationship of beliefs with environmental behavior
has also been evidenced before (Nordlund and Garvill 2003).
Next, personal norm is the immediate determinant of
behavioral willingness, supporting the VBN theory and past
empirical work (Bamberg and Möser 2007; Zhang et al.
2017). Research has shown that framing environmental
behaviors such as recycling as a moral issue can motivate
people to recycle (Chan and Bishop 2013). In our study, the
adoption for reusables and PAP could be seen as prosocial,
moral behaviors based on what is right or wrong for the
environment. Thus, the role of personal norm in activating
pro-environmental behavior is unsurprising. Having said that,
this behavior may not just be dependent on one’s internalized
moral obligation to do the right thing; other variables such as
subjective norm (Al-Swidi et al., 2014; Read et al. 2013) and
emotions (Rezvani et al. 2017; Wang & Wu, 2016) may also
influence the relationships proposed in the VBN. Thus, future
research should explore these variables to fine tune com-
munication pertaining to reusables and PAP.
Our study exemplifies a strong positive relationship
between perceived behavioral control and the willingness to
adopt reusables and PAP, which is consistent with existing
literature related to other pro-environmental behaviors
(Skarin et al. 2019; Yazdanpanah et al. 2015). Further,
Environmental Management
perceived behavior control moderates the relationship
between personal norm and behavioral willingness. When
people perceive higher levels of ability to adopt reusable
and PAP, personal norm has a relatively weaker impact on
behavioral willingness, although the relationship between
personal norm and behavioral willingness is consistently in
the positive direction. Thus, when people believe them-
selves as skilled or capable to adopt reusables and PAP,
moral obligation is not as crucial a factor in behavioral
formation. In contrast, when people feel less confident in
their ability to adopt reusables and PAP, moral obligation is
a stronger determinant of behavioral willingness. Interest-
ingly, perceived behavioral control did not moderate the
relationship between beliefs and personal norm, or the
relationship between beliefs and behavioral willingness.
Because beliefs, like environmental value, are relatively
stable and long-lasting, it makes sense that the impact of
beliefs on personal norm and behavioral willingness is not
contingent on perceived behavioral control. This result has
been evidenced in past research related to recycling (Liu
et al. 2022). Specifically, Liu et al. (2022) argue that people
with crystallized beliefs about recycling are likely to recycle
regardless of their perceived ability to do so. Likewise,
when people hold strong beliefs about reusables and PAP,
perceived behavioral control does not seem to influence the
extent to which these beliefs influence their behavioral
adoption.
Theoretically, our work provides evidence of the line-
arity of the relationships proposed in the VBN theory for a
relatively novel and unfamiliar behavior (i.e., using reu-
sables), which could later be extended to other similar pro-
environmental behaviors. Moreover, by including PBC in
our model, the predictive power of the model is enhanced,
which now explains a significant portion of beliefs
(R2 = 0.46), personal norm (R2 = 0.65), and behavioral
willingness (R2 = 0.75). This addition also demonstrates
that the relative impact of personal norm is contingent on
perceived behavioral control. In terms of practical impli-
cations, communication campaigns may benefit from
emphasizing the negative environmental consequences of
not using reusables and PAP and the responsibility people
have as consumers to be more mindful of their choices.
Highlighting the use of reusables and PAP as a moral issue
may work particularly well because there is limited infor-
mation in the public domain pertaining to these products.
Furthermore, the moderating influence of perceived beha-
vioral control suggests that people’s perceived ability to
adopt reusables and PAP may serve as an important audi-
ence segmentation strategy when implementing commu-
nication campaigns. Specifically, among people who may
perceive themselves as less capable to adopt these products,
it may be more important to highlight the fact that this is a
moral behavior/the right thing to do. Thereafter, when
Environmental Management
people’s abilities are enhanced and there are more oppor-
tunities to use reusables and PAP, the moral messaging may
not be as important. Previous research has shown support
for the efficacy of this audience segmentation strategy. For
instance, Kumar and Smith (2018) found that different
audiences experience different levels of social pressure due
to which their intent to purchase local food also vary. The
researchers argue that marketers need to utilize social
influence (among the group of people most sensitive to it) in
order to increase the purchase of local food. Thus,
announcing new farm locations/events or asking consumers
in this group to share their local food purchase on social
media channels could encourage local food buying beha-
vior. Likewise, in areas where there are limited opportu-
nities to use reusables and PAP, different stakeholders
(including state and local governments, policy makers,
businesses, non-profits, advocacy organizations, residents in
their own communities, institutions and schools) may be
able to encourage their use by emphasizing the ethical and
moral value of such behavior. Simultaneously, stakeholders
should continue to provide people with skills and resources
to use reusables and PAP and reduce waste from single-use
items with ease (e.g., strategically placing signs at food
service establishments reminding people to bring their own
travel mug, or allowing customers to opt out of auto-
matically being provided single-use items for takeout
orders)) so that moral messaging is not required in due
course.
While discussing our results, it is important to point out
limitations. First, this study relies on self-report survey data
that may suffer from social desirability bias that is known to
negatively impact survey results (Larson 2019). Future
research may benefit from incorporating macro-level con-
sumer data on the adoption of reusables and PAP to assess
actual behavior. Second, we measured perceived behavior
control, future research may also consider measuring actual
control or barriers for adoption such as opportunities to use
reusables and price of PAP, which may influence behaviors
differently. Lastly, we only focused on New York state
residents in this research due to a ban on specific plastic
items, such as plastic bags and foam containers in the state.
Future research should examine the adoption of reusables
and PAP across the nation.
Conclusion
We examine the Value-Belief-Norm theory to determine
people’s willingness to adopt reusables and products with
plastic-free alternate packaging. Our results indicate that
personal norm is the immediate predictor of behavioral
willingness, which is in turn shaped by environmental value
and beliefs. Thus, encouraging the use of reusables and
products with plastic-free alternate packaging by high-
lighting it as a moral issue may serve as a good campaign
strategy. We also found that the importance of personal
norm in shaping behavioral willingness is dependent on
people’s perceived capability to use such products. Thus, in
communication strategies and campaigns about reusables
and PAP, perceived behavior control should be used as an
audience segmentation strategy whereby using reusables
and products with plastic-free alternate packaging can be
highlighted as a morally right thing to do in the initial stage
of behavioral formation. Thereafter, when being morally
driven may become relatively less important, more
emphasis should be placed on enhancing people’s ability
and providing them with better opportunities to use reu-
sables and products with plastic-free alternate packaging.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the
current study are available from the corresponding author
on reasonable request.
Acknowledgements This study is part of the larger project undertaken
by the New York State Center for Plastics Recycling, Research, &
Innovation at the University at Buffalo, a New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) supported center. The
center seeks to enhance plastics recycling in New York State, reduce
contamination in the recycling stream, understand residents’ knowl-
edge and attitudes about recycling and reuse, study plastics in the
natural environment, and develop new recycling technologies. Fund-
ing for the New York State Center for Plastics Recycling, Research,
and Innovation is provided from the Environmental Protection Fund as
administered by the NYSDEC. The authors acknowledge useful dis-
cussions with Dr. Amit Goyal at the New York State Center for
Plastics Recycling, Research and Innovation, and Amy Bloomfield as
well as Kayla Montanye at NYSDEC.
Author Contributions PS: writing – original draft, conceptualization,
methodology. JZY: writing – reviewing and editing, methodology,
supervision.
Funding Funding for the New York State Center for Plastics Recy-
cling, Research, and Innovation, a New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) supported center, is provided
from the Environmental Protection Fund as administered by
NYSDEC.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval All protocols were approved by the IRB at the
University at Buffalo and all participants were treated in accordance
with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study. Participants also consented to
publishing their data.

References
Aguilar-Luzón MDC, García-Martínez JMÁ, Calvo-Salguero A, Sal-
inas JM (2012) Comparative study between the theory of planned
behavior and the value–belief–norm model regarding the envir-
onment, on Spanish housewives’ recycling behavior. J Appl Soc
Psychol 42(11):2797–2833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2012.00962.x
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned
behavior. In Kuhl J & Beckmann J (eds), Action Control: From
Cognition to Behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum
Decis Process 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
Al-Swidi A, Huque SMR, Hafeez MH, Shariff MNM (2014) The role
of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context
of organic food consumption. Br Food J 116(10):1561–1580.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2013-0105
Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned
behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol
40(4):471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford,
and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants
of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27(1):14–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
Black JS, Stern PC, Elworth JT (1985) Personal and contextual
influences on househould energy adaptations. J Appl Psychol
70:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.3
Chan L, Bishop B (2013) A moral basis for recycling: extending the
theory of planned behaviour. J Environ Psychol 36:96–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.010
Cooper DR, Gutowski TG (2017) The environmental impacts of reuse:
a review. J Ind Ecol 21(1):38–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.
12388
De Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related
to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic,
altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav
40(3):330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
De Groot JIM, Steg L (2009) Morality and prosocial behavior: the role
of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation
model. J Soc Psychol 149(4):425–449. https://doi.org/10.3200/
SOCP.149.4.425-449
Dunlap RE, Liere KDV, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the
New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues
56(3):425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC. Official Journal of the
European Union. http://eur.lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=celex%3A32008L0098
Feldman L, Hart PS (2018) Is there any hope? How climate change
news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support
for climate mitigation policies. Risk Anal 38(3):585–602. https://
doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868
Fornara F, Pattitoni P, Mura M, Strazzera E (2016) Predicting inten-
tion to improve household energy efficiency: the role of value-
belief-norm theory, normative and informational influence, and
specific attitude. J Environ Psychol 45:1–10. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.001
Gärling T, Fujii S, Gärling A, Jakobsson C (2003) Moderating effects
of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental
behavior intention. J Environ Psychol 23(1):1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00081-6
Guagnano GA, Stern PC, Dietz T (1995) Influences on attitude-
behavior relationships: a natural experiment with curbside
Environmental Management
recycling. Environ Behav 27(5):699–718. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013916595275005
Han H (2015) Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lod-
ging context: converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory
of planned behavior. Tour Manag 47:164–177. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014
Harland P, Staats H, Wilke HAM (2007) Situational and personality
factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-
environmental behavior: questions derived from norm-activation
theory. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 29(4):323–334. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01973530701665058
Hopper JR, Nielsen JM (1991) Recycling as altruistic behavior: nor-
mative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a
community recycling program. Environ Behav 23(2):195–220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591232004
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Struct Equ Modeling: Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705519909540118
Hunecke M, Blöbaum A, Matthies E, Höger R (2001) Responsibility
and environment: ecological norm orientation and external factors
in the domain of travel mode choice behavior. Environ Behav
33(6):830–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973269
Jakovcevic A, Steg L (2013) Sustainable transportation in Argentina:
values, beliefs, norms and car use reduction. Transp Res Part F
Traffic Psychol Behav 20:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.
2013.05.005
Kaiser FG, Hübner G, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of
planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining
conservation behavior1. J Appl Soc Psychol 35(10):2150–2170.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x
Klandermans B (1992) Persuasive communicatio: measures to over-
come real-life social dilemmas. In: Liebrand WBG, Messick DM,
Wilke HAM (Eds.) Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and
research findings. Pergamon, Oxford, p 307–318. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203769560-27
Kline RB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling, Second Edition. Guilford Publications
Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of
environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob Environ
Change 23(5):1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2013.05.014
Klöckner CA, Ohms S (2009) The importance of personal norms for
purchasing organic milk. Br Food J 111(11):1173–1187. https://
doi.org/10.1108/00070700911001013
Kumar A, Smith S (2018) Understanding local food consumers: theory
of planned behavior and segmentation approach. J Food Prod
Mark 24(2):196–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.
1266553
Lamm AE, McCann RGH, Howe PD (2022) I could but I don’t: What
does it take to adopt pro-environmental behaviors in the United
States? Energy Res Soc Sci 93:102845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2022.102845
Larson RB (2019) Controlling social desirability bias. Int J Mark Res
61(5):534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Lauren N, Fielding KS, Smith L, Louis WR (2016) You did, so you
can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from
easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ
Psychol 48:191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004
Liu Z, Yang JZ, Clark SS, Shelly MA (2022) Recycling as a planned
behavior: the moderating role of perceived behavioral control.
Environ Dev Sustain 24(9):11011–11026. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10668-021-01894-z
Love BJ & Rieland J (2020) COVID-19 is laying waste to many US
recycling programs. The Conversation. http://theconversation.
Environmental Management
com/covid-19-is-laying-waste-to-many-us-recycling-programs-
139733
Luszczynska A, Schwarzer R, Lippke S, Mazurkiewicz M (2011) Self-
efficacy as a moderator of the planning–behaviour relationship in
interventions designed to promote physical activity. Psychol
Health 26(2):151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.
531571
Manfredi S, Christensen TH (2009) Environmental assessment of
solid waste landfilling technologies by means of LCA-modeling.
Waste Manag 29(1):32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2008.02.021
Mannetti L, Pierro A, Livi S (2004) Recycling: Planned and self-
expressive behaviour. J Environ Psychol 24(2):227–236. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.01.002
Market Watch (2020) The pandemic has more than doubled food-
delivery apps’ business. Now what? Market Watch. https://www.
marketwatch.com/story/the-pandemic-has-more-than-doubled-a
mericans-use-of-food-delivery-apps-but-that-doesnt-mean-the-
companies-are-making-money-11606340169
Nordlund AM, Garvill J (2003) Effects of values, problem awareness,
and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J
Environ Psychol 23(4):339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
4944(03)00037-9
Onel N, Mukherjee A (2017) Why do consumers recycle? A holistic
perspective encompassing moral considerations, affective
responses, and self-interest motives. Psychol Mark
34(10):956–971. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21035
Park J, Ha S (2014) Understanding consumer recycling behavior:
combining the theory of planned behavior and the norm activa-
tion model. Fam Consum Sci Res J 42(3):278–291. https://doi.
org/10.1111/fcsr.12061
Read DL, Brown RF, Thorsteinsson EB, Morgan M, Price I (2013)
The theory of planned behaviour as a model for predicting
public opposition to wind farm developments. J Environ
Psychol 36:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.
001
Recycling Today (2021) EPA releases National Recycling Strategy.
Recycling Today. https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/epa-na
tional-recycling-strategy-circular-economy-environmental-
justice/
Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bengtsson M (2017) Cause I’ll feel good! An
investigation into the effects of anticipated emotions and personal
moral norms on consumer pro-environmental behavior. J Promot
Manag 23(1):163–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2016.
1267681
Roe BE, Bender K, Qi D (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on con-
sumer food waste. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 43(1):401–411.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13079
Rosenthal S (2018) Procedural information and behavioral control:
longitudinal analysis of the intention-behavior gap in the context
of recycling. Recycling 3(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/
recycling3010005
Russell JA (1980) A circumplex model of affect. J Personal Soc
Psychol 39:1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
Schultz PW, Zelezny LC (1998) Values and proenvironmental beha-
vior: a five-country survey. J Cross Cult Psychol 29(4):540–558.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294003
Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In Berkowitz L
(ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60358-5
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values:
theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 Countries. In Zanna
MP (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60281-6
Skarin F, Olsson LE, Friman M, Wästlund E (2019) Importance of
motives, self-efficacy, social support and satisfaction with travel
for behavior change during travel intervention programs. Transp
Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 62:451–458. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trf.2019.02.002
Staub C (2020) Budget shortfalls threaten local recycling programs—
Resource Recycling. Resource Recycling News. https://resource-
recycling.com/recycling/2020/05/27/budget-shortfalls-threaten-
local-recycling-programs/
Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factors influencing the
acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ
Psychol 25(4):415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.
003
Steg L, & de Groot JIM (2012) Environmental Values. https://doi.org/
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005
Steg L, Groot JIMD, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W, Siero F (2011)
General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and
intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental
concern. Soc Nat Resour 24(4):349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920903214116
Steg L, Perlaviciute G, van der Werff E, Lurvink J (2014) The sig-
nificance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant atti-
tudes, preferences, and actions. Environ Behav 46(2):163–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an
integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol
29(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-
belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of
environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):17
Thøgersen J (2006) Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour:
an extended taxonomy. J Environ Psychol 26(4):247–261. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
Thøgersen J, Ölander F (2002) Human values and the emergence of a
sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. J Econ Psychol
23(5):605–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00120-4
US EPA O (2015) Sustainable Materials Management: Non-
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy [Col-
lections and Lists]. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-ma
terials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-mana
gement-hierarchy
van der Werff E, Steg L, Keizer K (2013) The value of environmental
self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, envir-
onmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions
and behaviour. J Environ Psychol 34:55–63. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
Vedantam A, Suresh NC, Ajmal K, Shelly M (2022) Impact of China’s
national sword policy on the U.S. landfill and plastics recycling
industry. Sustainability 14(4):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14042456
Wang J, Wu L (2016) The impact of emotions on the intention of
sustainable consumption choices: evidence from a big city in an
emerging country. J Clean Prod 126:325–336. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.119
Yang ZJ, Seo M, Rickard LN, Harrison TM (2015) Information suf-
ficiency and attribution of responsibility: predicting support for
climate change policy and pro-environmental behavior. J Risk
Res 18(6):727–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.
910692
Yazdanpanah M, Feyzabad FR, Forouzani M, Mohammadzadeh S,
Burton RJF (2015) Predicting farmers’ water conservation goals and
behavior in Iran: a test of social cognitive theory. Land Use Policy
47:401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.022
Yzer M (2012) Perceived behavioral control in reasoned action theory:
a dual-aspect interpretation. ANN Am Acad Political Soc Sci
640(1):101–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211423500

Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Ruano MA, Sanchez-Alcalde L (2020)
Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Sci Total Environ
728:138813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138813
Zhang X, Geng G, Sun P (2017) Determinants and implications of
citizens’ environmental complaint in China: integrating theory of
planned behavior and norm activation model. J Clean Prod
166:148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.020
Zhang Y, Wang Z, Zhou G (2013) Antecedents of employee electricity
saving behavior in organizations: an empirical study based on
norm activation model. Energy Policy 62:1120–1127. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.036
Environmental Management
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.